Did the CDC jump the gun?

It's also the nature of respiratory viruses. A vaccinated person is going to have the virus in their nasal passages if they've been exposed. Before their immune system attacks it they can test positive. This is why the NFL is retesting their vaccinated players who test positive. Many of them are negative a couple of days later. 

drummerboy said:

terp said:

ml1 said:

if everyone who is eligible was vaccinated, there's a good chance we'd be at a point where we could all live with the risks associated with the coronavirus.  Vaccinated and boosted people are rarely the ones who end up in the ICU.  So if we face another round of restrictions it will almost certainly be to keep unvaccinated people from overwhelming our hospitals.

I believe the saying at the time was that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.  It was untrue then and its proven to be untrue now.  I saw the numbers in Minnesota the other day.  44% of their covid deaths are breakthrough cases.  Again, that isn't to say they have no effect.  It is to say that they are not the cure all and we should not scapegoat part of the population.

number of cases is not the proper metric. It's hospitalizations and deaths, which are overwhelmingly the unvaccinated.

Also, again, you're having a math problem. You can't compare denominators without looking at the numerators. MN has something like a 66% vaccination rate. You can't compare total deaths without allowing for the difference in the affected populations.
No wonder you're all confused.

I don't understand this response at all.  Again, I am not claiming zero efficacy.

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

ml1 said:

if everyone who is eligible was vaccinated, there's a good chance we'd be at a point where we could all live with the risks associated with the coronavirus.  Vaccinated and boosted people are rarely the ones who end up in the ICU.  So if we face another round of restrictions it will almost certainly be to keep unvaccinated people from overwhelming our hospitals.

I believe the saying at the time was that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.  It was untrue then and its proven to be untrue now.  I saw the numbers in Minnesota the other day.  44% of their covid deaths are breakthrough cases.  Again, that isn't to say they have no effect.  It is to say that they are not the cure all and we should not scapegoat part of the population.

number of cases is not the proper metric. It's hospitalizations and deaths, which are overwhelmingly the unvaccinated.

Also, again, you're having a math problem. You can't compare denominators without looking at the numerators. MN has something like a 66% vaccination rate. You can't compare total deaths without allowing for the difference in the affected populations.
No wonder you're all confused.

I don't understand this response at all.  Again, I am not claiming zero efficacy.

population of 100 people

70 vaccinated

30 unvaccinated

20 people in both die.

Does it makes sense to say that the number of vaccinated deaths equals the number of unvaccinated deaths?

Only if your intent is to mislead.

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

ml1 said:

if everyone who is eligible was vaccinated, there's a good chance we'd be at a point where we could all live with the risks associated with the coronavirus.  Vaccinated and boosted people are rarely the ones who end up in the ICU.  So if we face another round of restrictions it will almost certainly be to keep unvaccinated people from overwhelming our hospitals.

I believe the saying at the time was that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.  It was untrue then and its proven to be untrue now.  I saw the numbers in Minnesota the other day.  44% of their covid deaths are breakthrough cases.  Again, that isn't to say they have no effect.  It is to say that they are not the cure all and we should not scapegoat part of the population.

number of cases is not the proper metric. It's hospitalizations and deaths, which are overwhelmingly the unvaccinated.

Also, again, you're having a math problem. You can't compare denominators without looking at the numerators. MN has something like a 66% vaccination rate. You can't compare total deaths without allowing for the difference in the affected populations.
No wonder you're all confused.

I don't understand this response at all.  Again, I am not claiming zero efficacy.

you're not claiming zero efficacy but yet you seem to have a standing skepticism about the vaccine that you don't apply to something like monoclonal antibodies, which you cite with a "it's all good nothing to look at here" approach.  MAs are very good but far from perfect and not a substitute for the vaccine.  This from a University of Alabama article:

How effective is it?

Overton says monoclonal antibody infusion reduces risk of hospitalization by 70 percent in high-risk unvaccinated persons.

“It is incredibly effective if given early enough,” he said.

Is it better than getting the vaccine? Should I still get vaccinated?

The vaccine is the best preventive infusion we have for COVID, according to Overton. Antibody therapy involves molecules that bind and neutralize the virus. Although it works almost immediately, the protection will last only for a few weeks to a few months.

The National Infusion Center Association has provided a resource where people can identify sites in their area offering monoclonal antibody treatment.

“The monoclonal antibodies are not as durable as the vaccine,” he said. “The vaccine trains a healthy immune system to protect from a future infection, and the protection can last much longer.”

terp said:

Come on. That just is not true.

Did you read that Independent article, which is from February, or just the tweet?

terp said:

bub said:

The vaccines worked amazingly well before Delta and even then no one said it was a "cure all."  It was understood even back then that vaccinated people would get infected.  We were also warned that subsequent variants could undermine the vaccines.  Even now, the most recent studies are confirming that a booster offers substantial increased protection against Omicron.   You haven't caught anyone in a lie.  The winter thing doesn't explain what as happening in the south in hot weather.

As far as the northeast leading the Omicron surge, the south will catch up.  Florida had almost 9000 cases yesterday, the worst since September.  The experience of our region, in the early days and now, doesn't surprise me notwithstanding the relatively high vaccination rate here.  We live in a extraordinarily densely populated metropolitan area with multiple international airports bringing in a large volume of international travelers on a daily basis.  

Come on.  That just is not true.

This article does not refute what I said.  Fauci, and all, always admitted that no vaccine was 100% effective at preventing infections or symptoms.  The trial data from day one showed that.  Deaths and hospitalizations are a different matter.  This was in the early day of the vaccine program.  Do you have any evidence that at the time, the statement was untrue - that any one who had both doses nonetheless got covid and died from it? (strictly speaking he did no say it was 100% effective against hospitalization, but close).

terp - can you explain in simple terms what your recommendations are for us?  You seem to know more about this than anyone.  Should we open everything up - mask or no mask - vax or no vax?  

DaveSchmidt said:

terp said:

Come on. That just is not true.

Did you read that Independent article, which is from February, or just the tweet?

Do you have a link to that article? Was looking for it but no luck.

drummerboy said:

Do you have a link to that article? Was looking for it but no luck.

You have to register to read it, which I didn’t. The headline is: ‘No hospitalisations and no deaths’: All three US vaccines ‘highly efficacious’, Fauci says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/vaccine-covid-fauci-deaths-b1808878.html

It was February. Fauci was referring to vaccine trial results, in which no one died. I can’t vouch for the rest of the Independent article, but other reports on Fauci’s comments at the time made the context clear.

drummerboy said:

Seasonality has two broad components - people spending time indoors to get out of the heat, and spending time indoors to get out of the cold. So different areas could peak during different seasons.

while this it true, the chart from Alabama indicates there were 2 spikes -- one in winter, the second in th summer.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Do you have a link to that article? Was looking for it but no luck.

You have to register to read it, which I didn’t. The headline is: ‘No hospitalisations and no deaths’: All three US vaccines ‘highly efficacious’, Fauci says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/vaccine-covid-fauci-deaths-b1808878.html

It was February. Fauci was referring to vaccine trial results, in which no one died. I can’t vouch for the rest of the Independent article, but other reports on Fauci’s comments at the time made the context clear.

Yeah, that's what I figured, given the date.

data for terp

jamie said:

terp - can you explain in simple terms what your recommendations are for us?  You seem to know more about this than anyone.  Should we open everything up - mask or no mask - vax or no vax?  

I mean, you really only have a few ways to respond, right?

- Look at the data that shows vaccinations are very effective at reducing the risk of serious illness or death and say that everyone needs to get vaccinated, and as a libertarian add something constructive by suggesting ways to make that happen while avoiding coercive government mandates.

- Or insist that what someone puts in their body in a personal choice, leaving us with erecting physical barriers to the spread of a respiratory virus -- so masking and physical distancing. And again, being constructive and explain how to make that happen while avoiding mandates.

- Or say that 1 in 500 Americans dying of covid is just the price we pay and accepting the fact that most people will find that a cold, cruel, and unacceptable response when cheap and effective measures to prevent those deaths exist.

- Or perhaps saying that one in 500 is ok, but 1 in 150 over 65 is too high and saying we need targeted measures to protect them (which he's argued) and laying out what, exactly, those measures would be (which he has not done). Hint -- it's vaccines and/or masking and social distancing.

That's really all the options I can see?

Personally, I'd love to see some suggestions on how to change behavior without mandates. Contra the cartoon version of my views, I don't actually love them, but the vaccine mandates do look super effective in actually driving up vaccination rates (I think the data on mandates driving mask usage is murkier).