5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, kallend said:

But it wasn't authorized until last night.  Are you a scofflaw?

I had Moderna shots originally and am getting the Pfizer/BioNTech booster.  My wife (MD) seems to think mixing is good.

Wasn't the Pfizer booster approved weeks ago (for over 65, or for 18+ with those with high risk of severe disease, or for those with job related exposure e.g. healthcare workers)?

I got my 3rd Moderna injection today (half dose this time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

Wasn't the Pfizer booster approved weeks ago (for over 65, or for 18+ with those with high risk of severe disease, or for those with job related exposure e.g. healthcare workers)?

I got my 3rd Moderna injection today (half dose this time).

I thought it was, but I've been wrong about what was and was not legal in the past.

In any event, I got the third shot the first day it was available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, winsor said:

I didn't.

I have been wearing an N-95 as a matter of course since well before it became fashionable.

My point is that the WHO, CDC and Dr, Fauci went back and forth as to whether or not or by whom or when or quite why should masks be worn.

As far as medical professionals being in perfect agreement, to some extent they are.  According to the old advert, "9 out of 19 Doctors recommend Chesterfield cigarettes..." (I think that was the brand).

As far as providing unsafe medical advice goes, I can't recall recommending anything more dangerous than to do everything possible to avoid exposure, to minimize the inoculum if exposed, to maximize immunity and resistance by any means possible and to get the best treatment available.  

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Hi winsor,

Re:  I didn't.

You responded to my post with this, among other things:  Over the course of the pandemic you've had a lot of back and forth about: 

At this time, I really have no idea who you are referring to.

But, keep it up; it is entertaining, to a certain extent.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

Wasn't the Pfizer booster approved weeks ago (for over 65, or for 18+ with those with high risk of severe disease, or for those with job related exposure e.g. healthcare workers)?

I got my 3rd Moderna injection today (half dose this time).

Hi heels,

Re:  Wasn't the Pfizer booster approved weeks ago (for over 65

Uh, count me in that group.  For you young-un's:  Get in line  ;P

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, headoverheels said:

Wasn't the Pfizer booster approved weeks ago (for over 65, or for 18+ with those with high risk of severe disease, or for those with job related exposure e.g. healthcare workers)?

I got my 3rd Moderna injection today (half dose this time).

I got the Pfizer booster on 10/5, when it was being offered to anyone who had the second Pfizer shot at least 6 months ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's evident that this is political, as are other things going on in DC. It's difficult to believe that elected officials with supposed intelligence can have opinions that fall strictly on political lines. Until that stops all of us are at the mercy of the political party in charge. Sad. 

 

Multiple studies have indicated that natural immunity among past COVID-19 patients is strong and similar or superior to the protection from COVID-19 vaccines. Some experts have pushed for federal health officials to take natural immunity into account when issuing recommendations and rules. But federal authorities currently recommend virtually everybody get a vaccine, including the recovered, arguing the strong protection gets even better when those people have a jab.

Harshbarger, though, says a number of Americans object to getting a vaccine while pointing out that natural immunity to other diseases is accepted as an alternative to vaccination.

She and 10 other members of the House of Representatives late last week introduced the “Natural Immunity Is Real Act,” a companion to a Senate bill from Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska).

It would require federal agencies to “acknowledge, accept, and agree to truthfully present, natural immunity pertaining to COVID-19 pursuant to promulgating certain regulations.”

The congressmembers are presenting the bill as President Joe Biden’s administration works to finalize a regulation that would force private companies with over 100 employees to mandate presenting proof of COVID-19 vaccination or have staff members be tested weekly for the disease.

There is no opt-out for natural immunity.

Other mandates are already in place on the federal, state, and local level that have led to some Americans losing their jobs.

“I’ve read some of the studies that show that natural immunity, in a lot of ways, can be more effective. And I know there’s one study that shows that the percentage of protection is even better than two doses of the vaccine, in some cases. There is ample scientific data out there that show that. Think about it. We have immunity against measles, and smallpox, and they accept that. Why won’t they do it for COVID?” said Harshbarger, a licensed pharmacist since 1987.

“Too many medical leaders are refusing to publicly recognize what overwhelming data has already shown—protection afforded to individuals with natural immunity is real, robust and durable,” Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) added in a written statement. “Denying science only contributes to existing confusion, misinformation, and mistrust among the American people. This bill helps restore trust and faith in the Public Health system, while maintaining our fight against COVID-19.”

The other co-sponsors are Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), Chris Stewart (R-Utah), Bill Posey (R-Fla.), Mary Miller (R-Ind.), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), and Chip Roy (R-Texas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, billeisele said:

One study.

And it has not yet been peer-reviewed.

Here's a better study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_

For a layperson-friendly article: No, your antibodies are not better than a vaccination: an explainer

When your source article repeatedly calls it the "CCP virus", complaining about this being political seems a bit silly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
42 minutes ago, billeisele said:

It's evident that this is political, as are other things going on in DC. It's difficult to believe that elected officials with supposed intelligence can have opinions that fall strictly on political lines. Until that stops all of us are at the mercy of the political party in charge. Sad. 

 

Natural immunity is currently being claimed by anyone who does not want to be vaccinated. Most of them are full of shit. There is no easy or reasonable way to prove that you have "natural immunity". Just get the freaking vaccine. Or stay away. Not wanting to do your part in a crisis. Sad.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, olofscience said:

When your source article repeatedly calls it the "CCP virus", complaining about this being political seems a bit silly...

The Epoch Times is a heavily biased propaganda publication, hardly a good source for scientific matter. Quoting it, is a pretty good indication "research" didn't take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

The Epoch Times is a heavily biased propaganda publication, hardly a good source for scientific matter. Quoting it, is a pretty good indication "research" didn't take place.

I thought that that was Bill's point, that these R's are making it political.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Epoch Times nonsense notwithstanding, I would be fine with replacing any existing vaccination requirement with a requirement for up-to-date vaccination OR a recent (past 60 days) antibody test.

Although I have a feeling that as soon as you did that, the right wing would call you a Nazi for requiring testing, just like Hitler did to the Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

Epoch Times nonsense notwithstanding, I would be fine with replacing any existing vaccination requirement with a requirement for up-to-date vaccination OR a recent (past 60 days) antibody test.

Could it also not simply be a question of cost, as well? I have no idea what an antibody test costs, but if the vaccine is cheaper then it makes more sense logistically to require it over the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billeisele said:

It's evident that this is political, as are other things going on in DC. It's difficult to believe that elected officials with supposed intelligence can have opinions that fall strictly on political lines. Until that stops all of us are at the mercy of the political party in charge. Sad. 

 

Multiple studies have indicated that natural immunity among past COVID-19 patients is strong and similar or superior to the protection from COVID-19 vaccines. Some experts have pushed for federal health officials to take natural immunity into account when issuing recommendations and rules. But federal authorities currently recommend virtually everybody get a vaccine, including the recovered, arguing the strong protection gets even better when those people have a jab.

Harshbarger, though, says a number of Americans object to getting a vaccine while pointing out that natural immunity to other diseases is accepted as an alternative to vaccination.

She and 10 other members of the House of Representatives late last week introduced the “Natural Immunity Is Real Act,” a companion to a Senate bill from Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska).

It would require federal agencies to “acknowledge, accept, and agree to truthfully present, natural immunity pertaining to COVID-19 pursuant to promulgating certain regulations.”

The congressmembers are presenting the bill as President Joe Biden’s administration works to finalize a regulation that would force private companies with over 100 employees to mandate presenting proof of COVID-19 vaccination or have staff members be tested weekly for the disease.

There is no opt-out for natural immunity.

Other mandates are already in place on the federal, state, and local level that have led to some Americans losing their jobs.

“I’ve read some of the studies that show that natural immunity, in a lot of ways, can be more effective. And I know there’s one study that shows that the percentage of protection is even better than two doses of the vaccine, in some cases. There is ample scientific data out there that show that. Think about it. We have immunity against measles, and smallpox, and they accept that. Why won’t they do it for COVID?” said Harshbarger, a licensed pharmacist since 1987.

“Too many medical leaders are refusing to publicly recognize what overwhelming data has already shown—protection afforded to individuals with natural immunity is real, robust and durable,” Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) added in a written statement. “Denying science only contributes to existing confusion, misinformation, and mistrust among the American people. This bill helps restore trust and faith in the Public Health system, while maintaining our fight against COVID-19.”

The other co-sponsors are Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), Chris Stewart (R-Utah), Bill Posey (R-Fla.), Mary Miller (R-Ind.), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), and Chip Roy (R-Texas).

This is horribly misleading and the sort of information that in the wrong place WILL ACTUALLY KILL PEOPLE.
 

Please stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

Could it also not simply be a question of cost, as well? I have no idea what an antibody test costs, but if the vaccine is cheaper then it makes more sense logistically to require it over the test.

Well, if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated, and wants to cover the cost of antibody testing themselves - I'd have no problem with that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the 14 day rolling average of US COVID deaths still has Texas and Florida in the #1 and #2 spots.  Between them, they beat all of western Europe.

I wonder if having governors who actively oppose healthcare recommendations is just a coincidence.

Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mistercwood said:

Could it also not simply be a question of cost, as well? I have no idea what an antibody test costs, but if the  vaccine is cheaper then it makes more sense logistically to require it over the test.

I don’t know of anyone who has had to pay for a vaccine. To calculate the cost of antibody tests over vaccination you’d  be dividing by zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billeisele said:

...Think about it. We have immunity against measles, and smallpox, and they accept that. Why won’t they do it for COVID?” said Harshbarger, a licensed pharmacist since 1987.

You would be very hard-pressed to find a single American with natural immunity to smallpox. 

The measles virus significantly depletes memory B-cells and T-cells, so people who are naturally infected end up with weakened immunity to all the diseases they were previously vaccinated against or had immunity to due to natural immunity.  Children (and adults as well) who get measles are significantly more likely to have severe infections from numerous other diseases, including diseases they had been vaccinated against or had had previously ("breakthrough infections"), compared to people who were vaccinated against measles.  In this case the measles vaccine stimulates immunity without killing immune cells, a much better outcome than the natural infection.

It seems rather bizarre that a licensed pharmacist would choose those two diseases as examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated, and wants to cover the cost of antibody testing themselves - I'd have no problem with that.

 

7 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

I don’t know of anyone who has had to pay for a vaccine. To calculate the cost of antibody tests over vaccination you’d  be dividing by zero.

I meant more in terms of, if the government is paying for it and the vax is cheaper than the test, then it's not "political" to be for them to preference the vax as the acceptable option. It's just practical logistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

 

I meant more in terms of, if the government is paying for it and the vax is cheaper than the test, then it's not "political" to be for them to preference the vax as the acceptable option. It's just practical logistically.

Okay I sort of agree with you there. I feel the true costs, in the end, will be measured in effectiveness rather than expenditure. But by the time that’s figured out the electorate will only remember the politics surrounding the expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5