Promising New Coronavirus Vaccine

[TechTalk]

As has been said many times on these pages, how does an economy recover if large numbers of people are getting sick and attending funerals. I realize I'm being hyperbolic...

I don't think that you're being hyperbolic at all. In fact, you're hitting the nail on the head. The root cause, preventing the return of an economy and life in general to the way we knew it before COVID, isn't masks, restrictions, or mandates—it's the widening spread and evolution of COVID.

Masks, restrictions, or mandates are public health measures to address an ongoing pandemic. Yes, those measures have undesirable side effects, economic and otherwise. What the "give me liberty or give me death" proponents ignore or under estimate are the side effects of not doing those things—the economic and health tolls of a more rapidly expanding pandemic; the risk, or reality, of a crashing health care system; the long-term impacts and costs of reliance on short-term voluntary actions and behavior. Yes, personal freedom and liberty are sacred values; but when a serial killer pandemic virus can hitch a free ride and accompany you—that seems worthy of some serious consideration as well.

Voluntary measures, to reduce the spread and impact of a pandemic virus, rely on common sense. When that's a commodity in short supply, what are the alternatives they propose? Eating popcorn and enjoying the show?

[Robert Roaldi]

According to Worldometer, the number of daily US Covid deaths stayed stubbornly close to 2000 this past week (above 2000 on weekdays but less than that on weekends, as usual). I don't know if there is a source for an accurate overall number, but from the media stories I've seen the number of infections in unvaccinated people seems to be roughly 10 times that of vaccinated people. Even for people who are afraid of statistics, this trend must be worrying.

I don't read Twitter posts but a friend sent me this link, https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1441395300002848769, which points out a weird aspect of this. Anti-vaxxers claim to fear the vaccines for a variety of reasons but are perfectly willing to trust other quack or near-quack remedies. This is an odd combination of beliefs, why choose to trust one and not the other.

[LesPalenik]

The current numbers are pointing to 900K deaths by year end. Not counting other deaths caused by postponed surgeries, cancelled cancer treatments and other things due to increased ICU hospital usage due to covid.

[Robert Roaldi]

Here's an article about how infectious vaccinated people are or are not, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/.

[Alan Klein]

Here's an article about how infectious vaccinated people are or are not, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/.

Your article confirms my point about the confusing information we've received from the experts about the vaccines.  It's one of the reasons my wife, who;s been fully vaccinated, still feels it's unsafe to be with other vaccinated people.

Quote: Among this last group, a common refrain I’ve heard to justify their renewed vigilance is that “vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the coronavirus.”

This misunderstanding, born out of confusing statements from public-health authorities and misleading media headlines, is a shame. It is resulting in unnecessary fear among vaccinated people, all the while undermining the public’s understanding of the importance—and effectiveness—of getting vaccinated.

So let me make one thing clear: Vaccinated people are not as likely to spread the coronavirus as the unvaccinated. Even in the United States, where more than half of the population is fully vaccinated, the unvaccinated are responsible for the overwhelming majority of transmission.

[TechTalk]

Within the general population, you can find some people who are genuinely confused about a given topic and you can also find some that pretend to be confused for their own purposes. The former may lack enough comprehension of the subject, while the latter may simply be looking to create controversy.

Vaccines are not complicated to understand. They introduce the body to an altered form or aspect of a disease-causing microorganism. The agent used in the vaccine is unable to replicate. The purpose is to prepare and prime an individual's own immune system to recognize and attack the living natural microorganism if they are exposed to it. If the immune system can recognize and attack quickly enough, infection and disease can be avoided or reduced in severity, due to the enhanced ability of the immune system to limit replication by eradicating any exposure or infection more rapidly. The immune system of each individual will respond at its own capacity and speed and the degree of individual exposure will also vary. There may also be variants of the disease-causing microorganism to which an individual may be exposed.

A vaccine does not, in and of itself, provide protection from infection and disease. It works in concert with an individual's immune system to accomplish that goal.

If someone is able to comprehend these basic facts, then they will also understand why...

vaccines aren't 100% effective.

So despite claims to have read mysterious articles and studies—which are not linked nor any source cited—with various assertions like...

I was surprised to read that as many people who had the vaccine subsequently got the disease as people who didn't get vaccinated and that the vaccinated could spread it just as easily as the non vaccinated.  I read one article that said more vaccinated people had it from their study.

It should be readily apparent that...

Vaccinated people are not as likely to spread the coronavirus as the unvaccinated. Even in the United States, where more than half of the population is fully vaccinated, the unvaccinated are responsible for the overwhelming majority of transmission.

[Alan Klein]

Within the general population, you can find some people who are genuinely confused about a given topic and you can also find some that pretend to be confused for their own purposes. The former may lack enough comprehension of the subject, while the latter may simply be looking to create controversy.

Vaccines are not complicated to understand. They introduce the body to an altered form or aspect of a disease-causing microorganism. The agent used in the vaccine is unable to replicate. The purpose is to prepare and prime an individual's own immune system to recognize and attack the living natural microorganism if they are exposed to it. If the immune system can recognize and attack quickly enough, infection and disease can be avoided or reduced in severity, due to the enhanced ability of the immune system to limit replication by eradicating any exposure or infection more rapidly. The immune system of each individual will respond at its own capacity and speed and the degree of individual exposure will also vary. There may also be variants of the disease-causing microorganism to which an individual may be exposed.

A vaccine does not, in and of itself, provide protection from infection and disease. It works in concert with an individual's immune system to accomplish that goal.

If someone is able to comprehend these basic facts, then they will also understand why...

So despite claims to have read mysterious articles and studies—which are not linked nor any source cited—with various assertions like...

It should be readily apparent that...

First, I've argued for 1 1/2 years that the whole Covid issue has been politicized on both sides.  Vaccines, masks, economy vs. disease prevention, etc. Leaving that aside, there is no simple or easy way to comprehend what's "apparent" especially when the experts themselves have been inconsistent with advice about the dangers as well as at odds with each other.  So, you're expecting too much from the general public. 

[TechTalk]

So, you're expecting too much from the general public.

I don't expect anything from "the general public". I try to avoid sloppy language and broad generalizations. It's a sign of sloppy thinking. "The narrower the mind, the broader the statement." -Ted Cook

The general public consists of a vast array of individuals. They range from wise to foolish. There are those that possess some degree of common sense and those that appear to be lacking in it.

The best alternative to mandates is common sense. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough to go around.

When I use language like "If someone is able to comprehend these basic facts" and "It should be readily apparent", those specific words are chosen for a reason. Clearly, there is a segment of "the general public" unable (or unwilling) to comprehend basic facts regarding vaccination or other common sense public health measures. For those that are able and willing, it should be readily apparent that "vaccinated people are not as likely to spread the coronavirus as the unvaccinated" and that "the unvaccinated are responsible for the overwhelming majority of transmission."

To think that I expect anything from "the general public" is the product of sloppy reading.

[Robert Roaldi]

First, I've argued for 1 1/2 years that the whole Covid issue has been politicized on both sides.  ...

I don't see it this way at all, you're misrepresenting the past, as if it were fact, to suit your agenda. I don't get why you even have an agenda. Surely the only sensible response to a disease is to try and stop it. Why did politics ever enter into it at all?

[TechTalk]

there is no simple or easy way to comprehend what's "apparent" especially when the experts themselves have been inconsistent with advice

It isn't particularly difficult for those with common sense and who aren't blinded by some agenda. If you need advice regarding anything, listen to those who are qualified in their field. If you need current public health advice, listen to qualified public health officials and agencies. Public health agencies have consistently advised:

• Get vaccinated. It's your best protection from becoming infected or seriously ill and dramatically reduces transmission.
• Wear a mask in indoor public spaces or in settings where it's difficult to maintain distance. They help to reduce viral transmission thru airborne respiratory droplets.
• Distance yourself from others in public. The virus can be transmitted thru airborne particles. Distancing helps to reduce the chance of transmission and infection.
• Avoid large or crowded gatherings. The more people gathered in one space or in close contact, the greater the chance of transmission and infection.
• Get tested if you've been in close contact with someone who is infected. Quarantine if unvaccinated. Isolate if you have symptoms or test positive for infection.
• Stay up-to-date on advice from public health agencies. They have the most reliable and current information.

There are sources of information to avoid or where credibility is questionable.

• No evidence is cited
• No original source listed
• No information is provided regarding where the information was published
• No information is provided regarding the authors
• No information is provided regarding their credentials
• The information is anonymous

[LesPalenik]

So, you're expecting too much from the general public.

And from GOP.

[Alan Klein]

I don't see it this way at all, you're misrepresenting the past, as if it were fact, to suit your agenda. I don't get why you even have an agenda. Surely the only sensible response to a disease is to try and stop it. Why did politics ever enter into it at all?

I'm not misrepresenting anything.  I'm telling it as it happened.  It happened because we were in a presidential election year.  So the issue was politicized.  Do you think Afghanistan is politicized?  Politics happens all the time.  Why are you so surprised?  Also, to state the only sensible response is to try to stop the disease does not take economics into consideration.  Every state in the union is adjusting its rules to try to satisfy health and economic considerations. It's not one way or the other.

[Alan Klein]

It isn't particularly difficult for those with common sense and who aren't blinded by some agenda. If you need advice regarding anything, listen to those who are qualified in their field. If you need current public health advice, listen to qualified public health officials and agencies. Public health agencies have consistently advised:

• Get vaccinated. It's your best protection from becoming infected or seriously ill and dramatically reduces transmission.
• Wear a mask in indoor public spaces or in settings where it's difficult to maintain distance. They help to reduce viral transmission thru airborne respiratory droplets.
• Distance yourself from others in public. The virus can be transmitted thru airborne particles. Distancing helps to reduce the chance of transmission and infection.
• Avoid large or crowded gatherings. The more people gathered in one space or in close contact, the greater the chance of transmission and infection.
• Get tested if you've been in close contact with someone who is infected. Quarantine if unvaccinated. Isolate if you have symptoms or test positive for infection.
• Stay up-to-date on advice from public health agencies. They have the most reliable and current information.

There are sources of information to avoid or where credibility is questionable.

• No evidence is cited
• No original source listed
• No information is provided regarding where the information was published
• No information is provided regarding the authors
• No information is provided regarding their credentials
• The information is anonymous

I quoted the health official's direct statement acknowledging the "experts" were responsible for confusing the public.  You refuse to acknowledge it. 

[PeterAit]

Also, to state the only sensible response is to try to stop the disease does not take economics into consideration.

How does requiring masks and vaccination affect the economy except in a positive way?

[TechTalk]

I quoted the health official's direct statement acknowledging the "experts" were responsible for confusing the public.  You refuse to acknowledge it.

You quoted Dr. Jeff Duchin the public health officer for Seattle and King County. What he actually said was: “There was so much initial euphoria about how well these vaccines work, I think we — in the public health community, in the medical community — facilitated the impression that these vaccines are bulletproof.”

Facilitating an "impression" because "There was so much initial euphoria about how well these vaccines work" is NOT a "direct statement acknowledging the 'experts' were responsible for confusing the public". This is not another one of your distinctions without a difference. It is another careless reading of what was actually said, twisted into a creative interpretation in an attempt to undermine the credibility of "experts" which has been part of your agenda for months. Try looking up what the words facilitate and impression mean and compare his actual words as quoted to your direct statement, distorting what the health official, Dr. Duchin, said.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge what was actually said, I just don't find that recognizable in your twisted interpretation. The "direct statement" was yours, not the doctor's.

Facilitate [to make easier] Impression [an often indistinct or imprecise notion or remembrance] — Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Within the general population, you can find some people who are genuinely confused about a given topic and you can also find some that pretend to be confused for their own purposes. The former may lack enough comprehension of the subject, while the latter may simply be looking to create controversy.

[Robert Roaldi]

I quoted the health official's direct statement acknowledging the "experts" were responsible for confusing the public.  ...

No one was confused unless they deliberately chose to pretend to be confused.

[TechTalk]

Or, they lacked a basic understanding of vaccines and didn't pay enough attention to what was said to have more than a vague impression. There are also those who have given too much weight and attention to statements from people with an agenda to undermine public health officials.

[LesPalenik]

Right. It was not so much confusion on the part of experts, rather it was evolving understanding of all the facts and interpretation of latest stats. Nothing wrong with changing one's opinion if it leads to better results.

[Alan Klein]

How does requiring masks and vaccination affect the economy except in a positive way?

I was referring to the period when the economy was shut down including stores, restaurants, schools, ships and planes, travel, theatres, entertainment, sports, shipping, and other industries.  It forced the economy into a major recession when the Fed had to print trillions to bail out individuals and companies.  That kicked off the inflation we're now seeing and huge debt and deficits that we all will have to pay back.   Employment has not yet recovered.  There are still major bottlenecks to shipping and semiconductor manufacturers hurting the auto and many other industries.

Covid had major negative effects on both health and the economy.  Political administrators on both the Federal as well as the states had to address both issues.

[Alan Klein]

You quoted Dr. Jeff Duchin the public health officer for Seattle and King County. What he actually said was: “There was so much initial euphoria about how well these vaccines work, I think we — in the public health community, in the medical community — facilitated the impression that these vaccines are bulletproof.”

Facilitating an "impression" because "There was so much initial euphoria about how well these vaccines work" is NOT a "direct statement acknowledging the 'experts' were responsible for confusing the public". This is not another one of your distinctions without a difference. It is another careless reading of what was actually said, twisted into a creative interpretation in an attempt to undermine the credibility of "experts" which has been part of your agenda for months. Try looking up what the words facilitate and impression mean and compare his actual words as quoted to your direct statement, distorting what the health official, Dr. Duchin, said.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge what was actually said, I just don't find that recognizable in your twisted interpretation. The "direct statement" was yours, not the doctor's.

Facilitate [to make easier] Impression [an often indistinct or imprecise notion or remembrance] — Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You always pushed how we should be listening to the experts and not the politicians.  But now it's interesting how you only agree with experts whose point of view you agree with.  What's the poor layman supposed to do?