Medical Discussion of Coronavirus

[billy]

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to use a 100 year old precedent evaluating a mandated vaccine on something with a case fatality rate of 1/3 in a small, densely populated area as compared to something with a case fatality rate of ~1/200, probably closer to 1/1000-1/10,000 in certain populations across an entire massively geographically diverse country.

Case fatality is ~1.6/100, not 1/200. 673k deaths in 42 million cases. Why do people keep forgetting to turn it into a percentage if going per 100 cases? Granted certain populations its less.

[VentAlarm]

Case fatality is ~1.6/100, not 1/200. 673k deaths in 42 million cases. Why do people keep forgetting to turn it into a percentage if going per 100 cases? Granted certain populations its less.

That includes the beginning of the pandemic prior to dex and remdesivir. It is also upwardly biased as it depends on confirmed cases. The case fatality rate has since dropped.

[snowcanyon]

CFR in my state is rising due to overburdened hospitals. While MCAB have made a big difference, it's not enough, and our CFR is now higher than prior to vaccines and MCAB. The stress on the health system here is creating a huge problem.

[Shant]

A study just came out saying that the risk of only myocarditis is 4x the risk of hospitalization from Covid in healthy young males.

But the risk of myocarditis from COVID is still ~100x the risk of myocarditis from the COVID vaccine. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2780548

[VentAlarm]

But the risk of myocarditis from COVID is still ~100x the risk of myocarditis from the COVID vaccine. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2780548

I have a hard time synthesizing this data with the other study. Obviously different cohorts, but presumably an admission for myocarditis due to Covid would be categorized as an admission related to Covid.

[Shant]

Can you please link the other study but I suspect you are comparing apples to oranges (risk of myocarditis is not the same as risk of hospitalization due to myocarditis etc).

[StarTrekDoc]

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to use a 100 year old precedent evaluating a mandated vaccine on something with a case fatality rate of 1/3 in a small, densely populated area as compared to something with a case fatality rate of ~1/200, probably closer to 1/1000-1/10,000 in certain populations across an entire massively geographically diverse country.

What you cited is just one of many cases reaffirmed by courts all the way up to the SC. Mandatory isolations. Mandatory vaccinations. None overturned.

There is a benefit of getting to herd immunity and that's the purpose. Delta clearly showing we need a higher rate and immunization is way forward to protect. Kids and 40s yo in hospitals with no good reason being there.

[burritos]

Because we are a constitutional government.

So should reverse all routine vaccine mandates for school then?

[burritos]

As legislated, not dictated by the king….I mean, president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Does that include the Supreme Court?

[VentAlarm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Does that include the Supreme Court?

What in the world are you talking about? The above case is the SC deciding that a law was constitutional. They weren’t legislating. As above, my primary concern is an executive branch legislating with a simple utterance. You can debate whether or not a vaccine mandate in this setting is constitutional, and certainly we will hear about it in the SC; my concern is that it seems like a massive overreach of presidential authority. This is literally why congress exists.

[VentAlarm]

Can you please link the other study but I suspect you are comparing apples to oranges (risk of myocarditis is not the same as risk of hospitalization due to myocarditis etc).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....30.21262866v1

[burritos]

What in the world are you talking about? The above case is the SC deciding that a law was constitutional. They weren’t legislating. As above, my primary concern is an executive branch legislating with a simple utterance. You can debate whether or not a vaccine mandate in this setting is constitutional, and certainly we will hear about it in the SC; my concern is that it seems like a massive overreach of presidential authority. This is literally why congress exists.

Ok, that's reasonable.

[CalMD]

In California, the vaccine mandate is legal and enforceable based on Health and Safety Codes 120140, 120175, and 120195. I assume other States are similar, so there is no lack of legislation.

[artemis]

As to no mandate, you know what happens if there is no mandate in healthcare. One system will not mandate it because it will cause depletion of staff to the competing health system because they don't have the mandate. The other system will also not do it because the first one is not doing it. The patients and workers in both system will benefit in the end if all had mandate but no one wants to be the first

My state has had more than its fair share of COVID foolishness, but one thing I am really proud of is that the CEOs of every hospital system in Omaha plus the CEO of the hospital system in Lincoln all got together and agreed on a vaccine mandate that would be the same at every one of those healthcare systems. They recognized the need to avoid a vaccine Prisoner's Dilemma situation.

[FIREshrink]

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to use a 100 year old precedent evaluating a mandated vaccine on something with a case fatality rate of 1/3 in a small, densely populated area as compared to something with a case fatality rate of ~1/200, probably closer to 1/1000-1/10,000 in certain populations across an entire massively geographically diverse country.

1/500 of the entire population has already died of COVID and the pandemic is far from over. Even if every American has gotten covid (which is patently absurd) the death rate is 2-20x those figures. In the end the CFR today is still 1.5%, and the IFR (which is likely what you meant) is probably at least 0.5%. For huge swaths of the population this disease has an IFR of 1% or much more: the poor, the elderly, the obese, diabetics, etc. It’s been clear from the outset this disease was going to be very nasty to America because it picked on fat, sick, poor people, of which America has a plethora.

But anyway, I agree that the SCOTUS precedent is not reliable, at least as applies to a society wide mandate.