For any given individual, yes, a fraction of a percent is not a significant difference. Admittedly, that is arguable and based on individual perception (I dont fault anyone who feels that any risk is a bad risk, just dont expect to impose that threshold on everyone). But there is a much bigger difference between the overall mortality rate, and these sub-group’s actual mortality rate. So if my perception is supposedly flawed, it’s way more flawed to use total mortality averages as the basis for the risk I’m supposed to be afraid of.
I get confused about when we’re supposed to assume long term complications, and when we’re supposed to accept that this is all too new so we cant know anything about potential long term effects…
Fact is, there really hasnt been anything that indicates this has any more significant long term effect than any other viral infection - there are severe outliers, there are lingering effects, there are severe and drastic cases, etc, all of which are known potential complications of any infection including the flu.
I wonder if they’re keeping the second dose for later and only distributing half? It would be a dumb approach, but consistent with the FDA wanting everyone to get two in the tested 3-4 week timeframe (rather than giving out one shot for everyone they had and hoping in a month or two to have a second available, since there’s evidence of pretty good protection even after the first shot).
Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised, at all, that until further shipments are clearly going to be received in time for the booster-shots, that they need to hold back enough doses to cover the necessary 2nd shots to guarantee they can be supported.
Yes, I think that’s the plan. I think this is separate, states have (all?) said they’ve been informed their allotments for next week have been significantly reduced from previously promised numbers.
This was inevitable. When rationing, there will always be some who feel they deserve to be a higher priority. And it’s odd they don’t even mention the fact that there’s a valid argument that it’s better to protect those who can teach, over those who are still learning. That’s how priorities works.
This is one reason I still prefer a blanket approach over rationing. As-is, those who get vaccinated will see zero change in their daily activities and requirements. The goal is purely self-serving. But vaccinating entire areas in one broad wave would effectively erradicate the virus from that area, and leave the community safer for everyone.
Not clear that this was an error either. Sure the senior doctors have less exposure than a resident who deals with patients more, but the goal isn’t to prevent cases of covid, it’s to prevent deaths or serious health cases that burden the system and are worse for the patient. Residents are a lot younger than doctors, typically in their 20s, so if they get it, it’s very very likely they’ll be fine.
Also to prevent spread to patients who don’t have Covid and don’t need additional comorbidities. (In this first phase of limited supply). People who show up in hospitals usually aren’t in very good shape. The argument seems to be since the administrators are working remotely they have no need for it, which seems completely logical.
But yes, there’s still the cdc/ doctors/ scientists/ immunologists approach vs the radiologist or other unrelated but self-proclaimed “virus experts” (Atlas) and Tucker Carlsons who want everyone to get infected to spread the virus to vulnerable populations and to amass pre- existing conditions in younger populations.
"To boost public confidence in a shot, Vice President Pence, second lady Karen Pence and Surgeon General Jerome Adams all received the Pfizer shot on live television this week, and President-elect Joe Biden will do the same next week."4
That’s right, more of the elite getting preferencial treatment. But they’re rubbing it in everyone’s faces on live TV this time.
But there’s no evidence that this is accomplished by the vaccine. Those who do get vaccinated will not be able to change anything they’re doing, anyways. It’s purely to give themselves warm fuzzies because their own slight risk of death from covid has been reduced to virtually nil.
What the hell does that have to do with this? Just more of your baseless, hate-driven, rabblerousing scare propaganda. I know, why allow practical reasoning that you disagree with, when you can incite blind outrage that ensures you’ll get your own way?
There are certainly some woke “ethicists” trying to right the imagined micro aggressions of the past by proposing to kill whitey via vaccine allocation. Or at least allocate vaccines entirely on the basis of whether or not “too many” White people might be in a vulnerable group, and therefore that group definitely must not get it first. If more of them die, well good, they lived privileged lives anyway.
According to CDC data, people of color are about three times more likely to die from COVID-19 than their white counterparts. However, elderly Americans — those over the age of 85 — are 630 times more likely to die than those aged 18-29
those are probably racist facts from systemically racist power structure. Why don’t we all just admit we should go back to giving these barely safety-tested vaccines on expendable minorities first? Just offer it that way, and none of them will take it, just like barely any of said minorities showed up as volunteers in the vaccine trials, which were also too white.
To be fair, I can tell you first hand that micro aggressions are real, still exist, and little by little do harm to their intended victims. However, I don’t believe vaccine allocation or anything related to health care should be used to right these wrongs.
A little oozed out this morning on one of the Sunday shows. And let me hasten to add I’m neither a doctor nor any sort of medical pro.
However, apparently there is a negative link between vaccination and prior receipt of monoclonal antibodies of the sort Trump received back when he became ill with COVID-19. The mention, I think it was by Dr. Adams, was very brief, I really did not understand, and of course the “journalist” doing the interview did not pursue the matter since it does not fit the Democrat propaganda template.
Also in the same general region of discussion, monoclonal antibodies:
I thought this was rolled out only for Trump and other bigwigs and was unavailable to us mere mortals. This is wrong.
The CEO of Eli Lilly was interviewed. Many monoclonal antibody doses have been purchased by the US government and are available to the states. And some states have picked up on this and are using monoclonal antibody infusions (takes about two hours) to save lives, just as President Trump was helped. There is no short supply. Trouble is, too many other states are simply not taking advantage of current availability of this life saving therapy. Far too often people actually have to ask their doctors to pursue this course of treatment!!
Crazy stuff, if you ask me. But this is what the Lilly CEO stated. His company has this life saving therapy ready and available to ship to any state making a request . . . . and too many are simply not making the request!