CDC Weighs in on vaccines vs immunity from infection

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You’re still conflating two different things and not making the point you think you are. 

I just agreed that the vaccines help some in reducing the symptoms from Omicron, but they're still less effective at reducing symptoms for Omicron than for the other variants.

[homersapien 11,498]

On 1/29/2022 at 1:56 AM, Auburnfan91 said:

I just agreed that the vaccines help some in reducing the symptoms from Omicron, but they're still less effective at reducing symptoms for Omicron than for the other variants.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Edited February 1, 2022 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Your opinion is duly noted.

The data he quoted indicating that the vaccines are less effective is noted. As the anecdotal evidence of people I know that are coming down with it like crazy and have the boosters. Which is his point. 

[TitanTiger 20,538]

[homersapien 11,498]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

The data he quoted indicating that the vaccines are less effective is noted. As the anecdotal evidence of people I know that are coming down with it like crazy and have the boosters. Which is his point. 

Not in your post it wasn't.  

[Grumps 3,705]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Your opinion is duly noted.

Are you saying that the vaccines are NOT less effective at reducing symptoms of Omicron vs. reducing symptoms caused by other variants of COVID?

[homersapien 11,498]

17 hours ago, Grumps said:

Are you saying that the vaccines are NOT less effective at reducing symptoms of Omicron vs. reducing symptoms caused by other variants of COVID?

Personally, I don't know. I haven't seen the data that would suggest that.  

From what little I have seen (which is not much because - believe it or not - I haven't been closely following the reports), the vaccines are certainly less effective in preventing infections from the Omicron variant, but we already knew that the Omicron mutation was far more infectious.

Personally, my position is that if I am going to get infected by the Omicron variant, I would most assuredly want to be vaccinated.  Even if the vaccines I received are less effective against Omicron infection than the earlier versions. 

Furthermore, common sense - as well as my experience with the annual flu vaccines - tells me that having your body develop antibodies for closely related viruses helps with symptoms of infection from a slightly different version in the same viral family.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by homersapien

[Cardin Drake 1,886]

I wish data on hospitalizations regarding vaccination status was readily available and transparent in the U.S.  It is not inspiring trust in the CDC that we have to get our data from Great Britain and Israel.

[McLoofus 35,182]

14 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

I wish data on hospitalizations regarding vaccination status was readily available and transparent in the U.S.  It is not inspiring trust in the CDC that we have to get our data from Great Britain and Israel.

Does this link to the CDC website not have the information you're asking for?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7105e1.htm?s_cid=mm7105e1_x#F1_down

[alexava 6,973]

The cdc is too busy trying to figure out which animal this virus used to skip from bats to humans. 

[Cardin Drake 1,886]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Does this link to the CDC website not have the information you're asking for?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7105e1.htm?s_cid=mm7105e1_x#F1_down

Yes, for Los Angeles county and it's a month old.  Here's something else I ran across, also a month old, that shows that 70% of the cases, 46% of the hospitalizations, and 42% of the deaths in the last week of December in Minnesota were among the vaccinated for those over 65 where the real risk is.  I can easily look up how many hospitalizations there were yesterday in my city and state. It's odd that vaccination status is not included.  While even the Minnesota data shows the vaccine is still offering some protection from hospitalization and death, it's pretty modest protection.  This data should be available on a real time basis for the entire country.  It's hard not to conclude the CDC would prefer for us not to see this data, for whatever reason.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Yes, for Los Angeles county and it's a month old.  Here's something else I ran across, also a month old, that shows that 70% of the cases, 46% of the hospitalizations, and 42% of the deaths in the last week of December in Minnesota were among the vaccinated for those over 65 where the real risk is.  I can easily look up how many hospitalizations there were yesterday in my city and state. It's odd that vaccination status is not included.  While even the Minnesota data shows the vaccine is still offering some protection from hospitalization and death, it's pretty modest protection.  This data should be available on a real time basis for the entire country.  It's hard not to conclude the CDC would prefer for us not to see this data, for whatever reason.

Ahh. Well here are some other links covering a significant percentage of the US population and, from my cursory reading, all saying pretty much the same thing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hospitalizations+vaccination+status&oq=&aqs=chrome.1.69i177j35i39i362l2j46i39i362j35i39i362l3j46i39i362j35i39i362l6j46i39i175i199i362.-1j0j7&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[homersapien 11,498]

18 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Yes, for Los Angeles county and it's a month old.  Here's something else I ran across, also a month old, that shows that 70% of the cases, 46% of the hospitalizations, and 42% of the deaths in the last week of December in Minnesota were among the vaccinated for those over 65 where the real risk is.  I can easily look up how many hospitalizations there were yesterday in my city and state. It's odd that vaccination status is not included.  While even the Minnesota data shows the vaccine is still offering some protection from hospitalization and death, it's pretty modest protection.  This data should be available on a real time basis for the entire country.  It's hard not to conclude the CDC would prefer for us not to see this data, for whatever reason.

Interesting data, but one has to be careful using it to draw conclusions concerning the efficacy of vaccines. 

For example, it doesn't account for the (presumably increasing) proportion of the population who are getting vaccinated.  As that goes up, you might expect the numbers of breakthrough cases - as  a proportion - to also increase. 

Another factor unaccounted for is the length of time since the last vaccination.

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by homersapien

[Cardin Drake 1,886]

Yes, all true.  Drawing conclusions is complicated. I'd still like to see the raw data easily accessible.

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

I'd still like to see the raw data easily accessible.

That's very fair to ask. 

I personally won't let it be an obstacle when all domestic data available at a minimum leans in favor of getting vaccinated. 

[alexava 6,973]

https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/natural-immunity-gets-another-boost-from-two-new-u-s-studies/

[I_M4_AU 8,049]

My, my my:

Lockdowns had “little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,” according to economists in a new meta-analysis of dozens of studies.

A group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths.

Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”

“Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument,” the authors said of the “ill-founded” measures.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/covid-lockdowns-had-very-little-effect-on-mortality-rate-study/

 

[pensacolatiger 313]

Interesting to see the table turn on this:-)

I have no problem with people seeking the jab to feel better, it’s just the ones that criticize those who don't as irresponsible and naive.

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/18/health-department-warning-over-vaccine-mandate-for-nhs-england-staff

Edited February 3, 2022 by TitanTiger

[alexava 6,973]

They are dying on all these hills.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/johns-hopkins-university-study-lockdowns-media-blackout

[I_M4_AU 8,049]

Biden is possibly pivoting on Covid:

Biden and his top health officials have already begun hinting at an impending “new normal,” in a conscious messaging shift meant to get people comfortable with a scenario where the virus remains widespread yet at more manageable levels.

But it’s a delicate operation. The White House is wary of declaring victory too early, only to get hit with another catastrophic variant, a half-dozen administration officials and others close to the Covid response said. Officials are also anxious that voters will be disappointed by the idea of living with an endemic virus under a president who once pledged to shut it down completely. And they realize that it will take vigilance — and billions more dollars from Congress — to prevent the nation from backsliding into crisis once again.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/03/white-house-omicron-next-phase-pandemic-00005033

Biden has boxed himself in on this with his approach to shutting down the virus.  He has Fauci (the man who would be king) directing his moves on the virus and, by now, more people believe what Fauci tells them than Biden.  This statement from unnamed administration sources is a trail ballon that will be hard for many to take.

It would also mean that Ron DeSantis has had it correct since the vaccine was widely available. 

[pensacolatiger 313]

Potato in chief lost all credibility in the fight against covid when he criticized trump for travel bans w/ China.  He was either incredibly stupid or in on the Chinese plan to mass spread.

Edited February 4, 2022 by pensacolatiger

[homersapien 11,498]

On 2/4/2022 at 5:17 PM, pensacolatiger said:

Potato in chief lost all credibility in the fight against covid when he criticized trump for travel bans w/ China.  He was either incredibly stupid or in on the Chinese plan to mass spread.

Oh, obviously he was "in on" the Chinese plan to mass spread. 

[SLAG-91 1,488]

👍

 

[DKW 86 7,479]

On 2/3/2022 at 10:47 AM, homersapien said:

Interesting data, but one has to be careful using it to draw conclusions concerning the efficacy of vaccines. 

For example, it doesn't account for the (presumably increasing) proportion of the population who are getting vaccinated.  As that goes up, you might expect the numbers of breakthrough cases - as  a proportion - to also increase. 

Another factor unaccounted for is the length of time since the last vaccination.

People I know, people I follow in the media are all starting to point to this effect. There just arent that many "virgin" infections anymore. We have entered the mature part of the pandemic and the overall story is going to change just based on the the population changing. IE: We didnt use to have almost ANYONE getting COVID for the 2nd or 3rd time before. Now, it's almost commonplace. Time does march on and things do change just due to maturing situation. My nephew, works at St Vincents, he is triple jabbed and he got COVID for a second time, The second time was almost not noticeable however but he did get it twice. The vaccines are not 100%, as was falsely said before. We now know better.

[DKW 86 7,479]

On 2/3/2022 at 2:07 PM, I_M4_AU said:

My, my my:

Lockdowns had “little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and “should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,” according to economists in a new meta-analysis of dozens of studies.

A group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths.

Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only “reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.”

“Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument,” the authors said of the “ill-founded” measures.

https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/covid-lockdowns-had-very-little-effect-on-mortality-rate-study/

So, now that the Science is settling and it doesnt support some views, we are supposed to reject the science by those that were yelling about we must be subject to the science. KARMA/KIZMET. The public is going to eventually see more and more studies like this AND they will likely take out their frustrations at the polls. There are businesses permanently damaged and many people in bankruptcy due to the lockdowns. Kids are certainly damaged from being home schooled by parents that are not teachers nor, effective leaders of their homes. 

BTW< Maher quoted this study in one of his latest videos.