Covid Vaccine

[jrsforums]

I don't think you are following along closely enough.

Alan is against expanding the patient pool to include people, including young people, who have certain comorbidities, and releasing the second doses, both of which were Trump decisions. He has articulated that he is against expanding the patient pool because he thinks old people like him should get the vaccine first, and he is against releasing the second doses because, having gotten his first dose, he wants to make sure he gets his second dose. Alan's positions are basically me now, me later, which is okay if you can justify them.

I have asked Alan why he thinks old people should get the vaccine first, and he has responded because old people are more likely to die if they get COVID. My response is: "So what?" I'd at least like to hear an argument from him about why his life is more valuable than the life of a little girl, with or without a comorbidity. So far, crickets.

I haven't been involved in the argument about releasing second doses, except to the extent of noting that when Secretary Azar announced on January 12, 2021 they were releasing the second doses, there weren't any because someone somewhere in the Trump administration had already released the second doses at the end of December, so it was clear that Azar, the head of HHS, didn't have any idea what was going on with respect to the distribution of vaccines, which I deemed a shortcoming. It was also an admission that we were out of vaccine, which I deemed a shortcoming as well. Others have argued that it is better to have twice as many people with 80% immunity than half as many people with 95% immunity. I haven't weighed in on that discussion. Neither has Alan. As far as I can tell, he just wants his second dose because he wants his second dose.

My arguments are independent of whether they are Trump policies or Biden policies. The primary problem with Alan's positions is that they are frequently based on false facts and supported by arguments riddled with logical fallacies. They also happen to parrot Trump's positions, but that's not the primary reason I disagree with Alan. It's the false facts and logical fallacies. Oh, and maybe because Alan's positions start out as bald assertions, and we don't get the false facts and logical fallacies until we point out that his bald assertions are nonsense. Then we get the false facts and logical inconsistencies, and when we point out that they are false facts and logical fallacies, Alan tries to change the subject, usually with the logical fallacy of whataboutism.

I think Biden's positions were to release the second doses and not expand the patient pool, but I couldn't swear to it. Maybe it is the other way around. It being a Trump position or a Biden position is irrelevant in my discussions with Alan on these topics. Of course I did note that it was out of character for Alan to be anti-Trump, but I don't think he knew which positions we Biden's and which were Trump's to begin with, probably because Trump's positions changed and Alan didn't keep up.

Unfortunately, current data does not support 80% after only one dose.  It is thought to be around 30%.  This is data from early phase 1/2 testing for dosage and has not been subject to thorough testing or peer review.  This is the reason the US CDC continues to recommend 21/28 day intervals for 2nd dose.

[faberryman]

Do you have your beloved science to support such a bold statement?

If you had read my post carefully, you would have noted that I said I didn't weigh in on that aspect of the issue of releasing second doses, but that other people had made that argument. You need to ask the other people to disclose the science upon which their argument is based.

[faberryman]

Unfortunately, current data does not support 80% after only one dose.  It is thought to be around 30%.  This is data from early phase 1/2 testing for dosage and has not been subject to thorough testing or peer review.  This is the reason the US CDC continues to recommend 21/28 day intervals for 2nd dose.

Like I said, I didn't weigh in on that aspect of the issue of releasing second doses. I was providing a summary of the discussion to Slobodan, and explicitly said that while I hadn't, others had advanced that argument. I think Alan wants second doses withheld so he can get his second dose whether first dose immunity is 30% or 80%, or anywhere in between. Certainly, he has made no argument to support why he thinks it is better that he get his second dose than another person get a first dose.

[Alan Klein]

It is quite amusing to observe the dynamic in this group. All those who ganged up on Alan for his complaint about the second dose did so thinking they are defending Bided administration's decision. Now when it turns out it was actually Trump administration's decision, the gang will have to realize they were defending the enemy and that they should have to then side with Alan (gasp!) in criticism of the decision   

You mean Trump made this decision. Oh then.  It must be right and I'm wrong!   

[faberryman]

You mean Trump made this decision. Oh then.  It must be right and I'm wrong!   

I am not sure why you added a smiley face emoticon.

[Alan Klein]

I had the impression that there are 2 decisions :
1. Enlarge the target group to include 16 year old smokers  (Trump)
2. Give all the available doses as first vaccinations (Biden)
Is that wrong?  As usual, Alan was screwed by both these decisions - he really is the world's unluckiest man!!

I'll be 76 in a couple of days.  So, I think I'm pretty lucky.  I'm still here, thank God. Plus I had two appts for my first shot (canceled one) and will have my second shot Feb 19th.  How many did you have?    PS Although I quit smoking 26 years ago, I did smoke 35 years.  So that just adds to the danger of the virus for me as I have a touch of emphysema.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

When you quoted his post, you left out the intro to his sentence "Others have argued..."

It's just another attempt to get the thread closed.

[faberryman]

I'll be 76 in a couple of days.  So, I think I'm pretty lucky.  I'm still here, thank God. Plus I had two appts for my first shot (canceled one) and will have my second shot Feb 19th.  How many did you have?    PS Although I quit smoking 26 years ago, I did smoke 35 years.  So that just adds to the danger of the virus for me as I have a touch of emphysema.

How is that relevant to why you should get a first dose, much less a second dose? Statistically speaking, as a 76 year old white male in the United States with heart disease and diabetes, and, as you say, perhaps a touch of emphysema, you are either already dead or will be shortly. Why are we wasting vaccine on you? I know a little girl with a comorbidity who has her whole life ahead of her.

[Alan Klein]

If you make the giant leap that people are equal, then you just need simple arithmetic. If you want to make the assumption that it's better to save all, say, middle aged white men, then you'd have an argument for giving the 2 doses to the favoured demographic.

I pose that flippantly but you could run the numbers in Excel with some simple assumptions - efficacy of one dose, efficacy of 2 doses, age profile of population, risk for different ages. I'm sure that this informs the decision to concentrate on first doses.

The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally.  There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority.  His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else.  So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump.  Making uninformed layman decisions.  Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump.  It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting. 

[Alan Klein]

Unfortunately, current data does not support 80% after only one dose.  It is thought to be around 30%.  This is data from early phase 1/2 testing for dosage and has not been subject to thorough testing or peer review.  This is the reason the US CDC continues to recommend 21/28 day intervals for 2nd dose.

Well, it's nice to have your support, John. Thank you.

[Alan Klein]

I wonder if anyone who insulted me calling me an old fart who only cares about himself and not little girls has the guts to apologize for their meanness and insensitivity as well as being just wrong about the facts?

[jeremyrh]

The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally.  There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority.  His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else.  So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump.  Making uninformed layman decisions.  Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump.  It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.

You didn’t see the basis for Biden’s decision therefore there was none. Alanlogic.

[jeremyrh]

I wonder if anyone who insulted me calling me an old fart who only cares about himself and not little girls has the guts to apologize for their meanness and insensitivity as well as being just wrong about the facts?

Which facts?

[jrsforums]

Like I said, I didn't weigh in on that aspect of the issue of releasing second doses. I was providing a summary of the discussion to Slobodan, and explicitly said that while I hadn't, others had advanced that argument. I think Alan wants second doses withheld so he can get his second dose whether first dose immunity is 30% or 80%, or anywhere in between. Certainly, he has made no argument to support why he thinks it is better that he get his second dose than another person get a first dose.

In the US, the CDC has made the determination that the 2nd dose WILL be given 21/28 days after the first.  Only in exceptional circumstances (supply problems, patient unable to be there, etc.), they allow clinicians to extend to 6 weeks. 

Neither Alan, nor any of us, have the ability to change this, one way or the other.  (BTW, I believe it is the correct decision, even though there are those in my family who I would wish could gain 1st shot 30% benefit)

[jrsforums]

The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally.  There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority.  His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else.  So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump.  Making uninformed layman decisions.  Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump.  It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.

As I stated earlier, you have no idea who Biden consulted before making the statement.  That he appeared by himself, does not make it a “unilateral” decision.  Biden has a history of “doing his homework” before coming to a decision, vs his predecessor who was know for ‘hip shooting’.

[Alan Klein]

You didn’t see the basis for Biden’s decision therefore there was none. Alanlogic.

You didn't know the basis of many of Trump's decisions either.  After all, there were economic experts who advised him as well as his medical experts.  After all, a healthy economy is his responsibility as well as a healthy populace.  Yet you spared no time to insult him complaining about his lack of expert advice.  In addition, Biden wasn't even president yet when he gave his speech in early January before the inauguration.  So he had no official inside advice from any of the government experts who directly advised Trump. And if he did get them, he never mentioned it during his speech and recommendations.  Hs recommendation just came out of the blue.

Double standard.

[faberryman]

The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally.  There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority.  His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else.  So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump.  Making uninformed layman decisions.  Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump.  It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.

You certainly do make a lot of unwarranted assumptions.

Setting aside for the moment the issue of applause and castigation, which of Biden's COVID related decisions do you disagree with, and how do they differ from those of Trump?

Now, taking up the issue of applause and castigation, just looking at the 2020 election results, it seems to me that slightly less than half the country applauds Trump and slightly more than half the country castigates Trump. Correspondingly, slightly more than half the country applauds Biden and slightly less than half the country castigates Biden. So what's the problem? Seems like both Trump and Biden are getting their fair share of applause and castigation. If you want to hear more praise of Trump and more castigation of Biden, you need to watch and read conservative news sources. You are suffering from a self-inflicted wound if you watch and read commie/lib news sources. What's that old advice about if you have a headache, stop banging your head against the wall? I think maybe that applies here.

[LesPalenik]

The issue was that Biden made the decision unilaterally.  There was no one from the medical community standing next to him to give his statement authority.  His speech did not refer to any studies by experts in the HHC or CDC or anywhere else.  So it seems to me he was doing the very thing you complained about Trump.  Making uninformed layman decisions.  Yet you applaude Biden and castigate Trump.  It's the double standard of the left I'm highlighting.

Both, Biden and Trump had advisors and experts who made their recommendations to them. The difference is that Biden listened and acted wisely and responsibly whereas the other didn't listen and acted irresponsibly. Or didn't act at all. 

[Alan Klein]

In the US, the CDC has made the determination that the 2nd dose WILL be given 21/28 days after the first.  Only in exceptional circumstances (supply problems, patient unable to be there, etc.), they allow clinicians to extend to 6 weeks. 

Neither Alan, nor any of us, have the ability to change this, one way or the other.  (BTW, I believe it is the correct decision, even though there are those in my family who I would wish could gain 1st shot 30% benefit)

As I said previously, I was ready to give up my first shot so my wife could get it. At the time, we weren't sure both of us had an appointment.  But frankly, I'm not willing to give up my second shot for an unknown stranger.

I think if the people here complaining that if they were 75 with four or five of the comorbidities like I have that makes Covid even riskier for old people, they might think differently as well. Regardless, like you said there's nothing anyone of us could do about it.  I had an extra appointment for my first shot that I tried to get transferred to my 80 year-old friend with Parkinson's.  But they wouldn't;t allow it.  So I had to cancel the appointment.  It went back into the general pool. 

If people here are so unselfish about these things, let them not ask for an appointment until everyone else got their shot.  That's the only way they could prove to me their heart is bigger than their mouth.

[jeremyrh]

You didn't know the basis of many of Trump's decisions either.  After all, there were economic experts who advised him as well as his medical experts.  After all, a healthy economy is his responsibility as well as a healthy populace.  Yet you spared no time to insult him complaining about his lack of expert advice.  In addition, Biden wasn't even president yet when he gave his speech in early January before the inauguration.  So he had no official inside advice from any of the government experts who directly advised Trump. And if he did get them, he never mentioned it during his speech and recommendations.  Hs recommendation just came out of the blue.

Double standard.

True enough - I can't be sure that experts didn't suggest to him that injecting bleach was a good idea. My bad.