Originally posted by artemis
View Post
X
-
- Likes 3
-
Originally posted by Hatton View Post
This makes so much sense. I think the non-medical public forgets that this is a totally new disease and medicine is working on this like the "Manhattan Project" but we need time to formalize reference ranges for antibody titers for example. Eventually data will exist to determine when to boost people and which vaccine to use.
No additional trillion dollars needed. When you say “we”, it is so nebulous. Who is “we”? No government officials or scientists seem to be a budget issue currently relating to needed refinements. Stay at home mandates, mask mandates, vaccine mandates are all front and center, BUT not one word other than “trust me”, “get vaccinated”.
I wish “we” would layout a plan for actual additional work and the cost benefits could be debated. From John Q Public’s point of view, there is zero additional goals. Medicine might understand it better, but what are the deliverables?
This project must be top secret. John Q Public and the government certainly are in the dark. Does not seem to have a top priority.
Quite honestly, even the desire for amusement and travel of those on this forum and in power, the emergency seems over. Business as usual.
That seems to be John Q Public’s opinion. Job well done. Not much more to see. Off to vacation.
No one expects understanding and improvements to cease. “Someone” is working on it, just as usual.
Hatton, I completely agree with how logical this is. Things will improve gradually, not at rate of Warp Speed or the Manhattan Project.
Comment
-
Originally posted by artemis View Post
And people like Colin Powell are the reason why. I wonder how our young, banned med student would feel about people talking about COVID infection as if it was no big deal if HE had a hematologist malignancy?
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by artemis View PostEventually we will figure out what level of antibody titer correlates with good protection, and we will be able to set titer levels as a screen for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. We may get a good test of T cell response to Covid as well, which would also be extremely helpful.
- Likes 6
Comment
-
Part of the problem as I understand it is that it attacks so many body tissues and preliminary studies I've read indicate that people with a mostly GI course of the disease for instance are not developing as long-lasting of an immune response. That makes it tough to sort out a global rule for natural immunity.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kamban View Post
I was hoping we would have that by now so that we can categorize people as immune vs non-immune rather than vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by artemis View Post
That is the difference between a pandemic/epidemic and an endemic disease. In a pandemic or epidemic the pathogen is so prevalent that there is really no way that immunocompromised people can protect themselves solely through their own actions. The entire community needs to respond in order to lower the circulating level of the pathogen. With an endemic disease, the circulating pathogen is never present at high levels.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by FIREshrink View Post
Doesn't cellular response matter more especially for serious disease/hospitalization/ventilation/death?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by FIREshrink View Post
I read that fully vaccinated 80 year olds have the same risks of serious disease as unvaccinated 50-64 year olds. If that's true, that's awfully sobering. Think about how many unvaccinated 50-64 year olds have died of Covid in the last 18 months.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Great discussion - and all still unknown cause all of our hands are on deck trying to deal with this and unable to really put together nice studies that take a bit of manpower to setup, deploy and data crunch.
-Should we have reference ranges for some general immunity status? perhaps--if this thing doesn't keep mutating and reset the target range. (eg Alpha vs Delta)
-Is there a cell mediated component - most likely. Just harder to measure that in general.
-Natural superior to Immunized? -- Maybe. Counterpoint -- one has to survive natural infection. Idaho and Montana citizens affected by this and rationing care and healthcare workers should give testimonials on this on the talk circuits. Even the natural + vaccinated shows benefit over natural alone. So paying the price of society burden for natural outperforming vaccinated makes little sense at the society level.
Yes, the pendulum has swung significantly toward the 'what have you done for me lately' side of things. That's why the only real counter left is 'show me the money (vaccination)' where the threat of dismissal on critical sector jobs forces choosing ones paycheck.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rando View Post
This is more of a philosophical/ethical argument, but at-risk patients have always been out there and generally the responsibility for protecting them has been mainly on the patients themselves. We all have patients that have severe disease sufficient that even a minor URI can be lethal. We haven't built health policy around protecting them, and we probably shouldn't. We tell them and their relatives to be careful about exposure to illness, and in the case of COVID, to get vaccinated.
I understand the argument that COVID is so prevalent and unique that everybody has to pitch in to control it, but building health policy around protecting a small subset of the population isn't practical for very long.
- Likes 5
Comment
-
"This Delta wave has been almost entirely made up of 20-50 year old unvaccinated folks who didn't regularly doctor,didn't think they could get deadly sick, and were wrong."
This thinking did not appear out of thin air, is was a learned response. All the work that went into the allocations was widely publicized. The public bought into the Phases and all of the good for society. December 20, 2020.
The whole country was educated about the phases and risk profiles. This is what they were taught about vaccinations. 16-64 were low risk and were not a priority.
Yes, things have changed and now it appears they are a number 1 priority. Less than one year later. Most of this occurred in the summer when school was out. Not only for students, but for the 20-50 year old unvaccinated folks. Blame the students or blame the new teachers? Makes no difference. The allocations ceased to be an issue in late spring and turning the priorities around were unsuccessful. They didn't learn that there was a second summer session.The world changed.
I didn't see the study where "unvaccinated" didn't regularly doctor. I do think some of the demographics show many are in underserved populations.
Comment
-
OK so i haven't been paying too much attention to all this booster discussion. I am a physician and i received my 2 doses of the pfizer vaccine earlier this year...
i'm now due for a 3rd (booster) shot....
what's the consensus for which shot i should get? pfizer or moderna? i don't have a horse in this race, whatever is more protective.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pitt1166 View PostOK so i haven't been paying too much attention to all this booster discussion. I am a physician and i received my 2 doses of the pfizer vaccine earlier this year...
i'm now due for a 3rd (booster) shot....
what's the consensus for which shot i should get? pfizer or moderna? i don't have a horse in this race, whatever is more protective.Last edited by MaxPower; 10-21-2021, 11:49 AM.
- Likes 1
Comment
Channels
Collapse
Comment