Medical Discussion of Coronavirus

[Tim]

“Everyone Ages 18 and Older Should Get a Booster Shot” CDC

Might depend on the success of the Winter Plan. I don’t think new data was presented to the FDA and CDC committees. Talking points are important.

[HikingDO]

This makes no sense why it would happen

I’m curious why you feel that way? Does it make more sense that it would cause more severe disease over time?

[StarTrekDoc]

If anything; unboosted will fall into category of remote natural covid infection >6m category.

Just like Omicron predictors, it continues to be too soon to make this summation of unboosted+remote infection hx.

[AR]

viewed and treated as the same

Still need more detail. My view of what kind of people they are is quite different.

[jacoavlu]

Still need more detail. My view of what kind of people they are is quite different.

yeah i mean in a broad general sense.

but personally, you and I may feel one way now. six months, a year from now? the two groups trend toward one, “quite different” makes less sense as time passes

[AR]

yeah i mean in a broad general sense.

but personally, you and I may feel one way now. six months, a year from now? the two groups trend toward one, “quite different” makes less sense as time passes

Right now, my perception is that people who don't get the vaccine are afraid it will harm them. Most people who haven't boosted just haven't had the opportunity or are lazy (but there are other reasons as well). I suppose that if given a long enough time those perceptions may converge, but it's going to be a while.

[Zaphod]

I’m curious why you feel that way? Does it make more sense that it would cause more severe disease over time?

This is just something people have been parroting from media types pushing hopiumj for two years. Lets first off ignore the fact that it indeed has become worse over time.

It does make sense the more you let it run wild the more it optimizes itself, good or bad, who knows its somewhat random, and everyone talks as if the virus cares...which ofc it doesnt. It either is a better transmitter/replicator or not.

Just think of this evolutionarily. First, the virus isnt in any way shape or form virulent or morbid enough to be limiting its spread. Lets say it kills 3% of hosts, well then 97% of them are transmitting and doing just fine. This isnt selective. Next, lets dip back into reality and think what else is a selective pressure, yes killing host before it can spread the disease efficiently. Currently, much of the spread is before people have a clue theyve got it, they get sick much later (still contagious) and dont get seriously ill/die for a couple more weeks. Not a selective pressure. There are more but I'll leave it at that. I

Most obviously when over our lifetimes have we witnessed a disease just absolutely change its nature randomly on its own? Malaria, TB, rabies, etc...these are stable over long long periods. Yes there will be co-evolution, but at the rate we're going it is the humans who are getting selected for resilience (or not being dumb) and not the virus. Sometimes in some small areas or populations weird things have happened, but not on a global scale like this. Frankly its just wishful/magical thinking. There are zero pressures in its pathogenicity/transmission that would cause this to occur.

It ofc could have some magical mutations that make it simultaneously more competitive at transmitting and less virulent, however from what I've read it makes no sense for Covs in general. You're better off simply assuming it will be similar to its most recent version of self, updating as it changes.

[Zaphod]

Right now, my perception is that people who don't get the vaccine are afraid it will harm them. Most people who haven't boosted just haven't had the opportunity or are lazy (but there are other reasons as well). I suppose that if given a long enough time those perceptions may converge, but it's going to be a while.

That was the initial idea, which is dumb and no question of that. Its now tribal and signaling, and swallowing that lie for tribal reasons. Some people dont want to be boosted for a myriad of reasons, some of which is the constant chatter of the unvaxxed about these so called harms, it adds up in a propaganda like way. Even in the last months on this thread antivax talking points have bled into 'legitimate concerns' and questions by Drs on this very site. Its detrimental and never ends muddying the discourse.

While there is def some laziness, that has to end, delta wave for this winter looks big and now the threat of omi is behind it. I hope its just a threat but the way we've been handling things suggests its unlikely.

[jacoavlu]

i haven’t followed the thread that close but at least personally my concern is around the fact that anti mandate now to many equates to anti vax


ive put off my booster bc i felt pretty rough after second dose and not looking forward to that again, don’t have much time off and don’t want to try to work feeling like s nor do i want to miss work and dump on partners

but don’t want to feel like s over holiday time off either

[StarTrekDoc]

The correlation of anti-mandate : anti-vax is quite high at the ground level. Yes, there's a lot of 'leaders' who speak who suddenly are full throated believers in an individual's choice and personal freedoms as it fits their current narrative. Ironically I don't see those same folk filing amica briefs to the SC or standing in front of cameras touting protection of individual freedoms -- or take a balanced understanding that government has a role in deciding what 'public good' is.

[xraygoggles]

Right now, my perception is that people who don't get the vaccine are afraid it will harm them.

No, I don't think that's the reason why. It's more political/tribal at this point. My team is anti-vax/mandate vs pro.

If we step back and objectively look at it: there have literally been billions of people in the world who have received at least one vax dose, and if there really were severe adverse side effects, we would be seeing it constantly, daily, in every corner of the earth.

Also, this vax has been vetted by a conglomeration of the best minds on earth: there's a lot on the line if it failed.

[Lordosis]

Maybe somebody with a better understanding of virology and immunology can help me with this. Right now my belief is getting the initial series basically protects you for 3 to 6 months from pretty much catching it and after that if you do catch the illness you will have a lighter course. This is what I've seen in real life and what I've read about and it seems to make sense to me. The booster seems to give you another for you to several months of relative immunity but I imagine that after that you would be just as likely to catch it and have a mild course. What my question is is that someone who gets the initial shot and does not get boostered will they continue to have a reasonable chance of having a mild course or will that wean down to zero as well? It seems as if you really want to prevent even catching the disease you would have to get boosters every 3 to 6 months and I find that will be a hard sell in the public in general. Possibly in high-risk Fields where you're being exposed all the time. I would not be opposed to it if it would almost guarantee me not getting sick and having to quarantine and deal with that nonsense. but I think the average person would not want to get a vaccine that often if they could avoid it.

But really what I'm rattling around in my brain is the person who gets the initial series and then decides that's enough with that confer enough immunity to basically make this no longer novel to them and their risk is similar to that of other viral illnesses that we have been exposed to for decades?

For example when does this just become another virus that is out there that we do not care about? I'm really trying to think about endgame. Does everybody have to either have the vaccine or catch the disease? Would somebody who had the vaccine years ago actually have a different outcome than somebody who's never had either?

Sorry for the long rambling post but if anybody has any ideas and can follow my logic I would appreciate it thank you!

[FIREshrink]

Data from Israel suggests over time protection against severe disease does fade especially for those who are immunocompromised including the elderly. Protection against severe disease seems more durable overall as I guess it is cell mediated rather than protein/antibody mediated. Eventually we'll all be exposed, probably repeatedly, and between repeated infection and a couple boosters this becomes "just another virus" barring significant mutation. But if you have a weak immune response to vaccination or infection then you may get pretty sick when you do get infected.

Or virus just evolved to become less and less virulent.

Take that with a grain of salt, since I'm no immunologist.

[jacoavlu]

be great to get the most broadly liked and respected apolitical person as vaccine spokesperson. to deliver an honest message separated from government. not filled with hopium. no negativity. put past behind us. facts delivered honestly

who would that person be?

my brain initially went to the Rock

[AR]

That was the initial idea, which is dumb and no question of that. Its now tribal and signaling, and swallowing that lie for tribal reasons.

No, I don't think that's the reason why. It's more political/tribal at this point. My team is anti-vax/mandate vs pro.

I guess I should have said that fear that it will harm them is the stated reason. Most don't really think it through that much. But if you ask an anti-vaxxer, "So, why don't you get vaxxed?", the vast majority of the time I get some drivel about how "it was rushed" and "we don't know the long-term effects". That's nearly 100% of the time in my personal experience (I have never really encountered those 5G nutters one hears about in the wild). Now if you try to probe into those reasons further, they will just stick their fingers in their ears and ignore you, because those arguments are easily overcome and they would have no response. And the reason why they react that way is the tribalism. So, on that part we agree.