Unemployed due to SCOTUS

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Time to develop an entirely new class of vaccine to a new virus: 11 months.
Delta appears late 2020, 12 months later no adaptation of the original therapy to a variant of the original virus!
Why?
Nothing to see here lets keep on boosting for alpha.

Because the vaccine even without boosting did quite well at preventing severe illness from Delta, and with boosting does the same with omicron?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[vector2]

." I was using these studies as evidence that current efficacy against infection is negligible.

If the authors of these studies truly thought that their data were so fatally confounded that their results would literally be inverted and subsequently used by the "right wing misinformation" machine, they could have just... not published the study. Then they wouldn't have needed you and Drs. Dean and Morris to waste your valuable time on an apology tour.

Unfortunately scientists have underestimated the degree to which charlatans and fatally misinformed people will take non-peer reviewed, retrospective raw data on medrxiv and spin it into anti-vax propaganda on social media.

It's pretty clear at this point you're more interested in cherry picking false conclusions from studies whose own authors dispute what you're saying. If you were interested in veracity, you'd pay attention to the data coming from NHS which Topol has highlighted. But why look at the data from the second most boosted country on earth when you've got your echo chamber, right?

 

[Mad Jack]

With the recent SCOTUS ruling, 5-4, upholding the CMS mandate requiring full vaccination, more than a few healthcare providers will soon be fired from their job.

What about those who are denied a religious exemption? I know some of you aren't sympathetic to this cause but do these people truly deserved to be fired?

What about those whose values don't allow them to apply for a religious exemption? I know people who had Delta and Omicron who don't want any jabs. They claim that they have proof of antibodies against Covid. Should they be allowed to keep their jobs? Will they be filing a lawsuit or an appeal based on science?

I have received 3 shots of an mRNA vaccine but still believe the decision about the Covid vaccine is a personal one. Based on science, the spreading of Omicron, which represents 95%+ of all new cases, isn't prevented by vaccination. There is no scientific reason to mandate it any longer; the decision is up to the individual.

Comments? For those of you who believe as I do, that our fellow providers should not be fired, what is the plan for employment?

My opinion is that they ****ed around and found out

 

[Southpaw]

This is the most idiotic debate I have seen on this site

People are losing their minds if someone chooses not to get an ineffective vaccine with zero long term safety data that neither prevents infection nor spread to others and are happy to see such people lose their livelihoods and have their freedoms restricted

You should be ashamed of yourselves

Ineffective? With every surge 80-90% of hospitalized/icu/dead patients were unvaccinated. The vaccine is a massive win.

 

[STLINI]

Unfortunately scientists have underestimated the degree to which charlatans and fatally misinformed people will take non-peer reviewed, retrospective raw data on medrxiv and spin it into anti-vax propaganda on social media.

It's pretty clear at this point you're more interested in cherry picking false conclusions from studies whose own authors dispute what you're saying. If you were interested in veracity, you'd pay attention to the data coming from NHS which Topol has highlighted. But why look at the data from the second most boosted country on earth when you've got your echo chamber, right?

Spin it as in post a graph directly from the paper? And dare to not include the required editorial putting the proper spin on the data? My god the horror.

So we're looking at the booster experience in the UK? Earlier I believe you were minimizing Israel's booster experience even though their boosters administered per capita are exactly the same. Also the same result- record high cases recently. #1 Gibraltar? Also record high cases.

I do agree we should look to the UK for guidance however. They're scrapping all COVID related restrictions .

Or this vaccine efficacy data from the UK govt? Not all that impressive. Booster looks to be waning at the same rate as primary doses.

 

[vector2]

Spin it as in post a graph directly from the paper? And dare to not include the required editorial putting the proper spin on the data? My god the horror.

So we're looking at the booster experience in the UK? Earlier I believe you were minimizing Israel's booster experience even though their boosters administered per capita are exactly the same. Also the same result- record high cases recently. #1 Gibraltar? Also record high cases.

I do agree we should look to the UK for guidance however. They're scrapping all COVID related restrictions .

View attachment 348658

You agree we should look to the UK for guidance?

Great, so we can also finally agree that given the UK's booster sample size of millions of people and the number of people also in their Zoe symptom tracker, it's much more likely that in the short term a booster leads to 50-70% efficacy against infection and not some absurd zero or negative figure.

 

[STLINI]

You agree we should look to the UK for guidance?

View attachment 348661

Great, so we can also finally agree that given the UK's booster sample size of millions of people and the number of people also in their Zoe symptom tracker, it's much more likely that in the short term a booster leads to 50-70% efficacy against infection and not some absurd zero or negative figure.

Dude literally nobody said otherwise. The purported negative efficacy was only for the primary 2 doses and you know that.

 

[vector2]

Dude literally nobody said otherwise. The purported negative efficacy was only for the primary 2 doses and you know that.

Yes, so your hypothesis is:

Shot 1: Negative efficacy
Shot 2: Negative efficacy
Shot 3: Magically 50-70% effective

Despite the fact it's essentially established science that antibody levels post-vaccination correlate with degree of protection, and rise in a dose dependent fashion with each additional dose.

Sure, makes sense.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Are you disputing that the worst healthcare infrastructure, economic, and generalized societal effects wouldn't have been essentially done with if vaccination and seroprevalence were high enough back when delta and alpha were predominant? Maybe absolute containment of spread or preventing the development of variants (since much of the rest of the world lacks much of our vaccine access and has uncontrolled spread) was unrealistic, but even just preventing the overwhelming of hospitals by the unvaccinated would've made 2021 much less of a shtshow.

Again I'll ask though: "What were you saying about vaccines when delta was predominant and protection with vaccines against infection was 80+% and against severe disease and death was 94%? What will you say if Pfizer's omicron specific shot has those stats?"

I have said this before. I am pro vaccine. I am just realistic about what it can and cannot do. So, I recommend vaccinations. It is a harder sell to a group that is low risk and has a greater than 99% chance of doing A-OK with minimal symptoms. If Pfizer's omicron variant vaccine is made and has high success rate numbers, it would be far less compelling for people to take because the omicron variant is so mild. Plus, most people's bodies likely have some immunity from the first vaccine or having actually had the disease such that the disease will most likely be mild if they get it.

As to your first point, You assume that this would be over and done. But based on what? Because that is what you believe. I think it is very unlikely. As fast as the virus mutated and then spread again and again with multiple spikes, your baseline is that none of that would have happened, but you have given no proof or reason why you believe that. The virus would have just died off? Do you know how unlikely that would be? So, you say it is true, therefore, I must prove it is false? There is the flaw. I assume it is false because that is by far the most likely scenario. The burden to prove it is true rests with you. And, since all of your "blame the anti vax people" feelings are based solely on this premise, that is why I disagree. I contend that, once the virus was out, it was going to do what it was going to do. The best we can do is slow it down some with mitigation strategies and by protecting ourselves. The mitigation strategies that have all been implemented were completely made up. Cloth masks, gaiters, mask over the mouth but not the nose, social distancing (six feet is a made up number), locking grandma in the nursing home so she could die alone. Folly in my opinion. N-95s? Yes, likely very helpful. The rest? Most likely just a useless exercise against a virus so deadly. Once tha vaccine was here, definitely protective, but no hope of getting 100% compliance and no hope of shutting the virus down completely.

We were left with mitigation strategies that were useless or Kabuki theater. So, you had people wearing the same cloth mask for a month at a time. Snot filled, moist, filthy masks (I would not be surprised if these filthy reused cloth masks had the potential to harbor even higher amounts of the virus). The shutdown stole the lives of many business owners and had seemingly no beneficial effect. Depression, suicide, addiction numbers through the roof. Children who are scared of their own shadow (children have very little to worry about). Warriors out shouting down complete strangers in a hateful way, often leading to violence. Police knocking on the doors of citizens threatening to arrest them because their neighbors tattled on them for letting little Johnny play with their best friend. Politicians enacting rules that apply to their constituents but not to them (multiple examples). Teachers locking their kids in the trunk of the car out of hysteria and irrational fear. Media outlets demonizing anyone who speaks an alternative opinion on the wisdom of the response. Social media giants acting as pawns of political parties to determine what message is allowed to be heard. Teachers in liberal cities claiming they will die if they have to work, while teachers in the flyover states go to work every day, with no masks. The current elected leaders printing money as fast as they can to pass out to people and incentivize them to never go back to work. This has led to a workforce crisis that is unlike I have ever seen. The government and media are destroying the country from the inside by using propaganda to turn citizen against citizen. Biden is on TV bragging about Thanksgiving dinner costing pennies less, meanwhile gas prices have almost doubled and inflation is at 30-40 year highs. Meanwhile, war is imminent in the Ukraine and Taiwan, the Afghanistan pullout was a disaster, the supply chain is a shambles, we are dependent on foreign oil again, politicians are multi billionaires from insider trading, men are competing in women's sports and setting world records, our citizens are burning down their own cities and killing each other at alarming rates, and a war is waging between police and the black community. Any rational person is afraid to speak out for fear of being cancelled.

So, yeah, I think this entire response to the Covid pandemic (and the response to every aspect of life, for that matter) has been horribly mismanaged and based on falsehoods from the outset. All of the other stuff is opportunistic politicians pushing agendas to line their pockets and increase their power. Never let a good crisis go to waste, right?

And, to top it all off, now our doctors and nurses hate their patients (well, not in my facility or any others that I know of where I live) and revel in how their patients should suffer "for what they have done." All because the premise is, that the pandemic would be over if not for those uncaring people who are hesitant to get a vaccine. So, yeah, I am pro vaccine, pro liberty, and pro human. It is possible to believe in such a way. I suspect that, when the mid-term elections come around, their will be a correction that will be palpable. If either party can present a presidential candidate that has any common sense, they will win the presidential election easily in 2024. I will not hold my breath. The common folks are tired of the garbage that they are hearing from everyone and crave someone that makes sense (the problem is that the common sense candidates get shredded by the media). You and I are not the common folks who have been hit the hardest by this. Sure, you are in the trenches fighting COVID (BTW, you are not the only one) and it is a tough job. But, you have a job and financial security. Just like you said "the anti vaxxers are not the victims," I would argue that, neither are we. The more we act like victims, the more that "poor me" mentality sets in and the more bitter we become. Trust me, there are people who have suffered far more than healthcare workers. The fringes of our society (and much of the middle class for that matter) have no safety net and have lost everything. Those are the folks I feel bad for. Lots of self proclaimed victims here.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

The current elected leaders printing money as fast as they can to pass out to people and incentivize them to never go back to work

The fringes of our society (and much of the middle class for that matter) have no safety net and have lost everything.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said but these statements seem to be at odds with each other.

 

[nimbus]

Not sure how the variants currently break down but 2600+ Americans died of Covid today. Maybe omicron is not so mild.

 

[Gern Blansten]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said but these statements seem to be at odds with each other.

Understood. My feeling is that a couple of stimulus checks and free mailbox money cannot keep up with the bills. Plus many quit their jobs and the stimulus money has dried up. Thus the worker shortage. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Not sure how the variants currently break down but 2600+ Americans died of Covid today. Maybe omicron is not so mild.


View attachment 348671

Perhaps you are right but seemingly milder than other variants.

 

[STLINI]

Yes, so your hypothesis is:

Shot 1: Negative efficacy
Shot 2: Negative efficacy
Shot 3: Magically 50-70% effective

Despite the fact it's essentially established science that antibody levels post-vaccination correlate with degree of protection, and rise in a dose dependent fashion with each additional dose.

Sure, makes sense.

Wow. What a deliberately disingenuous, pathetic misrepresentation of anything I said. Shot 1/2 had significant efficacy at one point before waning to effectively zero. The booster has efficacy currently but is already well documented to be waning. Will it wane to zero or plateau somewhere relevant? We'll know soon. I don't even think anything I just said is remotely controversial at this point, except in your mind apparently.

 

[nimbus]

Perhaps you are right but seemingly much milder than other variants.

Yeah fewer deaths relative to the number of new cases compared to delta.

 

[vector2]

.

As to your first point, You assume that this would be over and done. But based on what? Because that is what you believe. I think it is very unlikely. As fast as the virus mutated and then spread again and again with multiple spikes, your baseline is that none of that would have happened, but you have given no proof or reason why you believe that. The virus would have just died off? Do you know how unlikely that would be? So, you say it is true,

You really, really need to start replying to words I actually wrote and not whatever imaginary strawman you wished I wrote.

I never said the virus would just have died off and the entire phenomenon known as covid-19 would've been over and done. I very specifically asked if you disputed whether the "worst healthcare infrastructure, economic, and generalized societal effects" from delta and alpha would've been prevented with high enough seroprevalence from vaccination early enough in 2021.

The worst of the worst came because during the summer to fall delta wave nearly every damn hospital in America was getting overwhelmed to the point that some of them had cooler trucks for bodybags in their parking lots. Did you forget when Idaho went to crisis conditions and started rationing care and turning administrative offices into resus bays?

When hospitalizations and deaths become that bad is when worst economic and societal effects happen. Society can't function when an airborne virus kills that many people that quickly. It was a fact then (and its a fact now) that a very high level of vaccination prevents that kind of pandemonium because the protection from severe disease and death remains so high.

Which is why I ask back when the shot was the bees knees for delta, before the efficacy at preventing cases and not just hospitalization had waned, what tune were you singing then?

no hope of getting 100% compliance

Politicization and outright misinformation turned this into a self-fulfilling prophecy. It didn't have to be this way.

 

[vector2]

Wow. What a deliberately disingenuous, pathetic misrepresentation of anything I said. Shot 1/2 had significant efficacy at one point before waning to effectively zero. The booster has efficacy currently but is already well documented to be waning. Will it wane to zero or plateau somewhere relevant? We'll know soon. I don't even think anything I just said is remotely controversial at this point, except in your mind apparently.

Lmao, you realize in a forum there's actually a written record of the nonsense you spewed, right?

Like when you initially joined this thread and wrote "There are papers out of Canada and Denmark suggesting negative efficacy against Omicron with regards to infection." and then subsequently strongly pushed back on the notion that this statement was misinformation.

But now you're claiming shots 1 and 2 do have efficacy? Which is it?

 

[STLINI]

Lmao, you realize in a forum there's actually a written record of the nonsense you spewed, right?

Like when you initially joined this thread and wrote "There are papers out of Canada and Denmark suggesting negative efficacy against Omicron with regards to infection." and then subsequently strongly pushed back on the notion that this statement was misinformation.

But now you're claiming shots 1 and 2 do have efficacy? Which is it?

This really isn't a very complicated concept. Shots 1/2 that most of us got in early 2021 had efficacy for some time. Now (in 2022) that efficacy is gone. I think I was pretty clear before, feel free to refer to that written record.

 

[vector2]

Not sure how the variants currently break down but 2600+ Americans died of Covid today. Maybe omicron is not so mild.


View attachment 348671

Omicron's not so bad. And yet two years after the pandemic started we are still running 4 fewer ORs than we were at the end of 2019. And we are perpetually short nurses, crnas, and scrub techs due to burnout and lack of hazard pay. And we're always on PACU hold cause the floor is always goddamn full of people sick with covid or those whom covid made their heart failure or copd act up. And my colleagues and I are still being forced to burn a couple V days here and there each month because our anesthesia billing isn't bringing in as much as it used to to the university. And of course a 9/11 worth of people are dying evey day. But sure, omicron's not that bad.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Yeah fewer deaths relative to the number of new cases compared to delta.

This exactly. Sure, maybe omicron is 1/3rd as likely to cause severe illness. Here in SC we're seeing 3X as many cases per day than we did during Delta. Our highest number of admitted cases was right at 300 during Delta. We hit 260 yesterday.

 

[vector2]

This really isn't a very complicated concept. Shots 1/2 that most of us got in early 2021 had efficacy for some time. Now (in 2022) that efficacy is gone. I think I was pretty clear before, feel free to refer to that written record.

No, you were the opposite of clear. Hence why I quoted you verbatim saying "There are papers out of Canada and Denmark suggesting negative efficacy against Omicron with regards to infection." in your initial post and pointed out that you subsequently defended your misinterpretation of these papers.

If you're now retracting your earlier offering of the idea that vaccines 1 and 2 have zero or negative efficacy, I'm all for it.

 

[Gern Blansten]

You really, really need to start replying to words I actually wrote and not whatever imaginary strawman you wished I wrote.

I never said the virus would just have died off and the entire phenomenon known as covid-19 would've been over and done. I very specifically asked if you disputed whether the "worst healthcare infrastructure, economic, and generalized societal effects" from delta and alpha would've been prevented with high enough seroprevalence from vaccination early enough in 2021.

The worst of the worst came because during the summer to fall delta wave nearly every damn hospital in America was getting overwhelmed to the point that some of them had cooler trucks for bodybags in their parking lots. Did you forget when Idaho went to crisis conditions and started rationing care and turning administrative offices into resus bays?

When hospitalizations and deaths become that bad is when worst economic and societal effects happen. Society can't function when an airborne virus kills that many people that quickly. It was a fact then (and its a fact now) that a very high level of vaccination prevents that kind of pandemonium because the protection from severe disease and death remains so high.

Which is why I ask back when the shot was the bees knees for delta, before the efficacy at preventing cases and not just hospitalization had waned, what tune were you singing then?




Politicization and outright misinformation turned this into a self-fulfilling prophecy. It didn't have to be this way.

Here is my response to the words you wrote. Your baseline premise is that the pandemic would be over if more people would have vaccinated. I disagree. I think fewer would have died but that the spikes in cases and hospitalizations would have still occurred.
You believe that we could have somehow achieved 100% vaccination rate. I think that is false. In a nation of ~330 million citizens, there is no way there could realistically be 100% (or even close to it) vaccination rate. You say it didn’t have to be that way. Lay out your plan for how you would have done it to achieve a >90%, or even 100%, success rate that you think is so achievable.

Try to do it without using the following terms:
-full stop
-false equivalency
-straw man
-echo chamber

Good luck!

 

[STLINI]

No, you were the opposite of clear. Hence why I quoted you verbatim saying "There are papers out of Canada and Denmark suggesting negative efficacy against Omicron with regards to infection." in your initial post and pointed out that you subsequently defended your misinterpretation of these papers.

If you're now retracting your earlier offering of the idea that vaccines 1 and 2 have zero or negative efficacy, I'm all for it.

I guess at this point we're just being purposefully obtuse. Doses 1 and 2 no longer have any relevant efficacy against infection assuming they were received >6 months ago as they were by the majority of the population. Maybe zero efficacy is really 8% efficacy? I guess we can be that pedantic if it makes you feel better. It seems strangely important to you to feel right.

 

[vector2]

Your baseline premise is that the pandemic would be over if more people would have vaccinated.

What is your malfunction? I just wrote that you need to start replying to what I actually wrote, not what you imagined I wrote....so what do you do? Prop up another strawman to knock down. Again, I never wrote "the pandemic would be over" if more were vaccinated.

I'll say it as clearly as I can: Vaccine efficacy at preventing delta hospitalization was 94% at one point. Efficacy at preventing even just infection was over 80%. If your premise is that hospitalizations would've been just as bad during the delta wave, even though 90% of the hospitalizations were unvaccinated folks, then you are not dealing in facts and reality.

Also, I'll stop calling out logical fallacies when you actually stop using logical fallacies.

 

[nimbus]

Perhaps you are right but seemingly much milder than other variants.

Yeah fewer deaths relative to the number of new cases compared to delta.

Omicron's not so bad. And yet two years after the pandemic started we are still running 4 fewer ORs than we were at the end of 2019. And we are perpetually short nurses, crnas, and scrub techs due to burnout and lack of hazard pay. And we're always on PACU hold cause the floor is always goddamn full of people sick with covid or those whom covid made their heart failure or copd act up. And my colleagues and I are still being forced to burn a couple V days here and there each month because our anesthesia billing isn't bringing in as much as it used to to the university. And of course a 9/11 worth of people are dying evey day. But sure, omicron's not that bad.

I guess much of America has decided this is the new normal and nothing else can be done. We’ve tried our best, it’s not very good, but it was our best. Covid is too strong an enemy and we will continue to get our a** beat.

 

[PTPoeny]

Children who are scared of their own shadow (children have very little to worry about).

While smaller proportions of kids get severely ill we also have a lot less pediatric hospital infrastructure. Pediatric ICUs are also full of kids with COVID/MISC and it is impacting everything. We are cancelling surgeries for kids and there aren't any pediatric ICU beds in any surrounding states either for the routine things like MVCs and DKA that are still happening.

 

[Gern Blansten]

What is your malfunction? I just wrote that you need to start replying to what I actually wrote, not what you imagined I wrote....so what do you do? Prop up another strawman to knock down. Again, I never wrote "the pandemic would be over" if more were vaccinated.

I'll say it as clearly as I can: Vaccine efficacy at preventing delta hospitalization was 94% at one point. Efficacy at preventing even just infection was over 80%. If your premise is that hospitalizations would've been just as bad during the delta wave, even though 90% of the hospitalizations were unvaccinated folks, then you are not dealing in facts and reality.

Also, I'll stop calling out logical fallacies when you actually stop using logical fallacies.

Oh no…the rules were pretty clear.

 

[Gern Blansten]

While smaller proportions of kids get severely ill we also have a lot less pediatric hospital infrastructure. Pediatric ICUs are also full of kids with COVID/MISC and it is impacting everything. We are cancelling surgeries for kids and there aren't any pediatric ICU beds in any surrounding states either for the routine things like MVCs and DKA that are still happening.

I hope things improve soon.

 

[vector2]

I guess at this point we're just being purposefully obtuse. Doses 1 and 2 no longer have any relevant efficacy against infection assuming they were received >6 months ago as they were by the majority of the population. Maybe zero efficacy is really 8% efficacy? I guess we can be that pedantic if it makes you feel better. It seems strangely important to you to fe

View attachment 348683

How many times you going to disingenuously post out of context graphs from preprint studies?

"
Potential bias in VE estimates means that “it is measuring something different from what we think it is,” Dr Hansen told Reuters. "The VE estimate may be biased if the infection rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are impacted by effects other than the vaccines.”

“The fact that the estimated VE is negative during the last period suggests that there is bias in the comparison between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated population. We also make this point in the discussion. Such biases are quite common in VE estimation from observational studies based on population data (unlike a phase 3 randomised trial which is the gold-standard),” Dr Hansen said.

The discussion section of the preprint detailed caveats of the report and indications as to why VE for Omicron 91 to 150 days following second dose were recorded as negative.

“The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals,” the authors wrote in the study.

"Denmark was very quick to conduct sequencing and to identify the first generations of Omicron cases in the country. Cases during this period occurred to an exaggerated extent in those who were travelling internationally, and those in the social and professional circles of travellers, and were largely vaccinated. We expect therefore that there was an overrepresentation of vaccinated people among the first generations of Omicron cases identified in Denmark, not because the vaccines weren’t protective, but because the variant hadn’t spread far enough into the general population, including into the unvaccinated population, to make for comparable infection rates.” Dr Hansen told Reuters."

I guess the authors own discussion section detailing the likely reasons why a scientifically implausible result is erroroneous is just an "editorial" to you. Just a hilariously biased take on your part, but hey, it fit your pre-existing narrative so you have to run with it, I guess.

 

[vector2]

Oh no…the rules were pretty clear.

It's too bad you missed the one that asks you to reply to what the person actually said.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Alright everybody, great job! Hit the showers!

 

[IMGASMD]

I hope things improve soon.

Please send prayers…..

 

[nimbus]

“Unforeseen circumstances” 😂

Which ostrich unforeseened it??

 

[RadOncDoc21]

“Unforeseen circumstances” 😂

Which ostrich unforeseened it??

At multiple times, we had entire departments close down due to their staff calling out sick. I have patients who are not able to get imaging or certain procedures done postponing their cancer care for weeks, even months for some. I keep thinking about the impact this will have on society.

All because a certain subset of individuals believe it’s their mission and God given right to “prove” that it’s not as serious as the world is making it out to be.

 

[STLINI]

How many times you going to disingenuously post out of context graphs from preprint studies?

"
Potential bias in VE estimates means that “it is measuring something different from what we think it is,” Dr Hansen told Reuters. "The VE estimate may be biased if the infection rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are impacted by effects other than the vaccines.”

“The fact that the estimated VE is negative during the last period suggests that there is bias in the comparison between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated population. We also make this point in the discussion. Such biases are quite common in VE estimation from observational studies based on population data (unlike a phase 3 randomised trial which is the gold-standard),” Dr Hansen said.

The discussion section of the preprint detailed caveats of the report and indications as to why VE for Omicron 91 to 150 days following second dose were recorded as negative.

“The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals,” the authors wrote in the study.

"Denmark was very quick to conduct sequencing and to identify the first generations of Omicron cases in the country. Cases during this period occurred to an exaggerated extent in those who were travelling internationally, and those in the social and professional circles of travellers, and were largely vaccinated. We expect therefore that there was an overrepresentation of vaccinated people among the first generations of Omicron cases identified in Denmark, not because the vaccines weren’t protective, but because the variant hadn’t spread far enough into the general population, including into the unvaccinated population, to make for comparable infection rates.” Dr Hansen told Reuters."

I guess the authors own discussion section detailing the likely reasons why a scientifically implausible result is erroroneous is just an "editorial" to you. Just a hilariously biased take on your part, but hey, it fit your pre-existing narrative so you have to run with it, I guess.

Both of those graphs come directly from a weekly technical briefing released by the government in the UK. I previously posted and sourced the second. Feel free to check the "written record" above. This is the same UK data you were literally just touting for showing booster efficacy. Nice consistency.

 

[Gern Blansten]

At multiple times, we had entire departments close down due to their staff calling out sick. I have patients who are not able to get imaging or certain procedures done postponing their cancer care for weeks, even months for some. I keep thinking about the impact this will have on society.

All because a certain subset of individuals believe it’s their mission and God given right to “prove” that it’s not as serious as the world is making it out to be.

Your anger is based on the idea that:
-100% vaccination of a population is achievable
—had 100% been achieved, the COVID issues would be done and subsequent spikes in cases would never have occurred.

I don’t agree that either of the above are true and I believe the virus would have done the exact same thing, albeit, with fewer deaths proportionally related to achieving a better vaccination rate. I think we would still see the spikes and full hospitals though, because you cannot just “shut down” a deadly virus. Same as people who think electric cars are going to save the planet while completely ignoring the fact that the electricity comes from coal burning plants.
Some have become the Greta Thunberg of COVID, just pissed off and shouting “How dare you!!!” all of the time as she sails across the Atlantic in her motorized sailboat. Meanwhile her “sailboat” captains and their crew are being flown back and forth from London to NYC so that they can escort the little kid and her family back and forth on her journey.
There are a lot of assumptions being made and a lot of ignoring glaring inconsistencies.
The virus is bad. It was always going to be bad. It still is bad. We can protect ourselves from serious illness with a vaccine. Expectation of 100% compliance with that idea is not realistic in the real world because there will be entire populations and even countries where the majority do not have access. Being a global society, that will ensure the virus does what it is going to do. Maybe we slow it down a little, but it is still going to spread and mutate. Viruses always do and always have, this one is just far more deadly.
I believe that the majority of what we will eventually know about this virus is currently unknown.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I get accused of being cynical and somewhat jaded but I have not achieved the same level that you are. I still see the good in the majority of people but I know that there are many bad people out there. I try to live in a balance of healthy cynicism about people, but not so much that it makes me unable to enjoy the company of people that I may disagree with on a base level. I see that with my patients all of the time. They start talking and I fundamentally disagree with everything they stand for, but I still try to engage them in a pleasant conversation. It just seems that this virus and the politicization of literally everything makes it tougher for so many to coexist with people that they disagree with. It feels like this type of thinking may be the downfall of civilized society. I would argue that we just accept that we will never all agree and find a way that we can move past that. I sense that many here have passed the rubicon on that particular issue and there is no path back.
I hope that all of us can enjoy our work again soon. Honestly, I have enjoyed my work since day one. There are stressors and COVID has been rough, but I still get a lot of satisfaction in my work and I hope that some of you may find that satisfaction again soon.
I think we agree on more than you think. I am just trying to get across the point that we do not need to hate people that disagree with us. If they spew hate at you, they are the ones that are miserable. You do not have to let it drag you down to their level. If the majority of patients you deal with spew hate at you, like our Rad onc colleague suggested, then maybe you are in the wrong location. There are lots of places where patients are respectful of their doctors (except a few outliers).
Then there is also the idea that you do not have the responsibility to "fix" everyone, so if someone is on the wrong side of an idea, in your opinion, why is it not okay to let them live on that wrong side and you live on your side. You sound very angry at your patients. That is a rough place to start from when establishing a physician patient relationship.

It's easy to see the good in people when it's all theoretical. It's less easy when the hospital employs an anti-vax PACU RN who wears her mask halfway off her face and gives COVID to your immunosuppressed 3yo grandchild who just had a port placed so they can start treatment for their ALL and they end up in the PICU on a vent +/- ECMO for 2 weeks. If that really happens to you, and you still come back here and say, "it's OK, that was her right, she's still a good person, I'm glad the hospital allowed her to keep her job" then you're either A) F'n delusional or B) a way better person than me.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Your anger is based on the idea that:
-100% vaccination of a population is achievable
—had 100% been achieved, the COVID issues would be done and subsequent spikes in cases would never have occurred.

I don’t agree that either of the above are true and I believe the virus would have done the exact same thing, albeit, with fewer deaths proportionally related to achieving a better vaccination rate. I think we would still see the spikes and full hospitals though, because you cannot just “shut down” a deadly virus. Same as people who think electric cars are going to save the planet while completely ignoring the fact that the electricity comes from coal burning plants.
Some have become the Greta Thunberg of COVID, just pissed off and shouting all of the time as she sails across the Atlantic. Meanwhile her “sailboat” captains and their crew are being flown back and forth from London to NYC so that they can escort the little kid and her family back and forth on her journey.
There are a lot of assumptions being made and a lot of ignoring glaring inconsistencies.
The virus is bad. It was always going to be bad. It still is bad. We can protect ourselves from serious illness with a vaccine. Expectation of 100% compliance with that idea is not realistic in the real world because there will be entire populations and even countries where the majority do not have access. Being a global society, that will ensure the virus does what it is going to do. Maybe we slow it down a little, but it is still going to spread and mutate. Viruses always do and always have this one is just far more deadly.
I believe that the majority of what we will eventually know about this virus is currently unknown.

You’re already convinced you have all the answers. Why do we do anything if it’s all or none? You’re a scientist, why don’t you believe in scientific data and throw out everything you’ve ever learned in science class? What is your goal in these threads… to justify doing nothing or the bare minimum to prove what point exactly?

 

[Gern Blansten]

You’re already convinced you have all the answers. Why do we do anything if it’s all or none? You’re a scientist, why don’t you believe in scientific data and throw out everything you’ve ever learned in science class? What is your goal in these threads… to justify doing nothing or the bare minimum to prove what point exactly?

You have misinterpreted me. I am the one who is saying that we do not know everything. Others claim that we do and lay blame for the virus on those who disagree with them. It is literally the last sentence of the post that you quoted.

 

[Gern Blansten]

It's easy to see the good in people when it's all theoretical. It's less easy when the hospital employs an anti-vax PACU RN who wears her mask halfway off her face and gives COVID to your immunosuppressed 3yo grandchild who just had a port placed so they can start treatment for their ALL and they end up in the PICU on a vent +/- ECMO for 2 weeks. If that really happens to you, and you still come back here and say, "it's OK, that was her right, she's still a good person, I'm glad the hospital allowed her to keep her job" then you're either A) F'n delusional or B) a way better person than me.

i don’t condone that behavior and would not. An N95 mask should have been required as a bare minimum for that procedure. My hospital requires full vaccination for employees. If that happened to you, that is terrible and I’m sorry.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

i don’t condone that behavior and would not. An N95 mask should have been required as a bare minimum for that procedure. My hospital requires full vaccination for employees. If that happened to you, that is terrible and I’m sorry.

It has not, but I work in that environment and that scenario is very real. It was more to illustrate a point, because you seem confused as to why people are showing such intolerance for other people's viewpoints. I'm merely stating that for some people, it's not a theoretical discussion that can be resolved with civility, but one with life and death consequences for their family members.

Maybe show some tolerance for other people's intolerances?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

If you peel the layers off of what the motivation is for it all, the majority is all political and not truly based on scientific merit. For the life of me, I never would have thought a vaccine would be political. Here is something that has changed the world. I have patients with panc cancer begging me to enroll them in a vaccine trial, we got HPV vaccines, flu vaccines, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. all which we had to take, Hep B… nobody cared.

A once in a lifetime pandemic comes and takes over our lives and how we function, but for some reason, now people want to question science and individual human rights!

 

[Southpaw]

i don’t condone that behavior and would not. An N95 mask should have been required as a bare minimum for that procedure. My hospital requires full vaccination for employees. If that happened to you, that is terrible and I’m sorry.

Wait why would you require an N95 for that procedure? On one hand you’re saying COVID isn’t stopped by vaccination and hospitals would still be full if everyone were vaccinated (which isn’t true by the way…) and now you’re saying an N95 should be required for a port placement? Why? You’re not being consistent.

Just yesterday you joked with @IMGASMD about why they wear a mask to a dining table just to take it off when they eat.

 

[Gern Blansten]

If you peel the layers off of what the motivation is for it all, the majority is all political and not truly based on scientific merit. For the life of me, I never would have thought a vaccine would be political. Here is something that has changed the world, I have patients with panc cancer begging me to enroll them in a vaccine trial, we got HPV vaccines, flu vaccines, measles, mumps, ruebella, etc. all which we had to take, Hep B… nobody cared.

A once in a lifetime pandemic comes and takes over our lives and how we function, but for some reason, now people want to question science and individual human rights!

Yes, we have all of those vaccines and compliance with them has never been 100%. I don't question the science, I am pointing out the reality and the misplaced anger. This is a bad virus so it has amplified the issue that has always been the case. Viruses almost never go away. They mutate and spread at different rates. This is not new. Vaccines help but have never really achieved even close to >90% adoption by members of society. As an example, here is WHO data from the field of pediatrics about vaccinations in small children in 2019.

 

[Gern Blansten]

Wait why would you require an N95 for that procedure? On one hand you’re saying COVID isn’t stopped by vaccination and hospitals would still be full if everyone were vaccinated (which isn’t true by the way…) and now you’re saying an N95 should be required for a port placement? Why? You’re not being consistent.

Just yesterday you joked with @IMGASMD about why they wear a mask to a dining table just to take it off when they eat.

Reread my posts. I have always been consistent. I have said multiple times that N-95s are one of the few things we have done that are likely very helpful. The restaurant issue is a totally separate issue that, I hope everyone can see, is pure theater.

One of several of my quotes:

Cloth masks, gaiters, mask over the mouth but not the nose, social distancing (six feet is a made up number), locking grandma in the nursing home so she could die alone. Folly in my opinion. N-95s? Yes, likely very helpful. The rest? Most likely just a useless exercise against a virus so deadly.

 

[Southpaw]

Yes, we have all of those vaccines and compliance with them has never been 100%. I don't question the science, I am pointing out the reality and the misplaced anger. This is a bad virus so it has amplified the issue that has always been the case. Viruses almost never go away. They mutate and spread at different rates. This is not new. Vaccines help but have never really achieved even close to >90% adoption by members of society. As an example, here is WHO data from the field of pediatrics about vaccinations in kids.
View attachment 348697

That’s global. Some parts of the world have no access to those vaccines. In America guess what happens if your kid doesn’t have some of those vaccines? No daycare. No school. No college. You may as well buy a van down by the river for your kid because that’s the best they’ll do.

 

[Southpaw]

Reread my posts. I have always been consistent. I have said multiple times that N-95s are one of the few things we have done that are likely very helpful. The restaurant issue is a totally separate issue that, I hope everyone can see, is pure theater.

One of several of my quotes:

Just like the rest of us you very likely interact with the unvaccinated. How are you going to make them wear N95s? They won’t even cover their nose half the time complaining ‘ugggghhhh I CANT BREATHE’ while mouth breathing heavily.

Look, they aren’t getting vaccinated. And they definitely won’t wear your stupid N95. But some of you are saying that’s their RIGHT. And they should still be allowed to work in hospitals? That’s what Blade and others here have said. The scenario of getting an immunocompromised kid or adult sick and killing them isn’t far fetched. I’m absolutely sure it’s happened.

But treat them with grace? Uhh, no.

 

[Gern Blansten]

That’s global. Some parts of the world have no access to those vaccines. In America guess what happens if your kid doesn’t have some of those vaccines? No daycare. No school. No college. You may as well buy a van down by the river for your kid because that’s the best they’ll do.

The pandemic is global, right?

 

[IMGASMD]

Just like the rest of us you very likely interact with the unvaccinated. How are you going to make them wear N95s? They won’t even cover their nose half the time complaining ‘ugggghhhh I CANT BREATHE’ while mouth breathing heavily.

Look, they aren’t getting vaccinated. And they definitely won’t wear your stupid N95. But some of you are saying that’s their RIGHT. And they should still be allowed to work in hospitals? That’s what Blade and others here have said. The scenario of getting an immunocompromised kid or adult sick and killing them isn’t far fetched. I’m absolutely sure it’s happened.

But treat them with grace? Uhh, no.

Just on NPR, they had a parent of a 5 months old, whose TOF correction surgery was urgent, but not emergent yet, that was canceled, because there were no beds. (For your usual reasons….staff called out, other icu beds are taking up by COVID patients.) he “luckily” had a tet spell right around when his surgery was suppose to go. They had to add him on for 5pm surgery, and the surgeon worked until close to midnight. Patient is doing well after surgery. There was a commentator who rightfully pointed out, we are forgetting that the surgeon and rest of the surgical team is being affected in the background, for the last 2 years and a year that we supposed have a very effective vaccine that would’ve/could’ve taking the burden off the “system”.

Sure I understand the “reality” is we will never achieve 100% or even 80% vaccination rate, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t “try”. I am all for debating the merits of all the studies and nuances…. But if you think your general Joe/Jane out there gives two ****s about any of that, you’re delusional.

 

[Southpaw]

The pandemic is global, right?

Yes. I’m simply saying vaccination rates among American children for things like DPT, MMR, etc is 95-98%. Very few qualify for exemptions. And those vaccines are mandatory for kids to attend school. They have been, without COVID-style public outcry, for decades. Mandating a COVID vaccine for the parts of the world that have access shouldn’t be some life-ending alien invasion that people are making it out to be. Mandatory vaccination has been around for a long time.