What’s safe to do during summer’s Covid surge? STAT asked public health experts about their own plans

 

Of the questions, only one earned a unanimous response: "Would you send your unvaccinated child to school without a mask?”

"Lord, no,” Paul Offit, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, replied. "NO!!! As a parent and a pediatrician, that is a terrible idea,” wrote Andrew Pavia, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah.

None of 27 people who answered this question expressed a willingness to send an unvaccinated child to school without a mask. Carlos del Rio, a professor of epidemiology and global health at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, said he’d withdraw an unvaccinated child from a school if it didn’t have a mask mandate.

Children under the age of 12 cannot yet be vaccinated as none of the vaccines has been authorized for use in this age group.

The other school-related question — "Would you send your vaccinated teen to school without a mask?” — drew almost as fervent a response, with 24 of 26 saying no.

 

https://www.statnews.com/2021/08/17/whats-safe-to-do-during-summers-covid-surge-stat-asked-public-health-experts-about-their-own-plans/

It's an interesting article, but I also agree with the one guy quoted below that guidance born from over-generalization is not ideal right now when the regional disparities for vaccine compliance and levels of community spread are larger than they've ever been.

But in other ways, responses diverged. And at least one expert suggested that geography really does matter when it comes to his own comfort level. Naor Bar-Zeev, a statistical epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, declined to respond to all but one of the questions, saying answers are highly dependent on the circumstances of a place.

"In a place where most people are unvaccinated, or otherwise at high risk, and where there is active transmission, I should act more conservatively and with greater caution, even though I am protected from disease,” he said. "In a place where most people are vaccinated, and there is low transmission, one can be more permissive.”

5 minutes ago, BirdsFanBill said:

Kz is a weirdo loser for sure, but I cannot get behind bashing him for going to a Hanson concert with his wife if she loves Hanson. If anything I think it is one of the likely few redeeming qualities I've found in Kz. The willingness to sit through that to support your wife, that is admirable.

Or she's going for him. Don't make assumptions about the man's taste in music.

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

Yeah it's crazy to think trumpbots would be so vaccine hesitant. I'm not sure we'll ever figure out why.

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

 

You know what, I don't completely disagree with him. Nothing wrong with questioning needing three doses within 8 months (or if they're really needed that soon).

2 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

You know what, I don't completely disagree with him. Nothing wrong with questioning needing three doses within 8 months (or if they're really needed that soon).

...

 

On 8/16/2021 at 11:56 PM, we_gotta_believe said:

The term "need" is going to be a bit more subjective this time around, assuming you don't meet the 6-60 rule of thumb. Those first two doses made sure you'll likely dodge a hospital bed. A third dose as a booster will be more about keeping you from getting symptomatic disease and potentially avoid spreading it to others. Whether you "need" a booster is entirely dependent on whether you're okay with getting sick enough to feel like crap, but still not sick enough to require medical care.

 

Well yeah, that's kind of my point. If it's just from getting sick then the focus should have remained on getting the unvaccinated done.

Just now, Paul852 said:

Well yeah, that's kind of my point. If it's just from getting sick then the focus should have remained on getting the unvaccinated done.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying the FDA shouldn't authorize a third booster even if the submitted data proves it can significantly curb levels of community spread? The FDA can't really do much to focus on getting the unvaccinated to stop being stupid. That's not exactly in their wheelhouse or administrative powers.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying the FDA shouldn't authorize a third booster even if the submitted data proves it can significantly curb levels of community spread? The FDA can't really do much to focus on getting the unvaccinated to stop being stupid. That's not exactly in their wheelhouse or administrative powers.

They're approving boosters for EVERYONE after 8 months. You can make the "curb levels of community spread" as long as the numbers drop under 95% it seems. If Pfizer/Moderna efficacy drops in the 70s after 8 months that is still incredibly good. I feel like the bar is being set way too high for this. 

6 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

They're approving boosters for EVERYONE after 8 months. You can make the "curb levels of community spread" as long as the numbers drop under 95% it seems. If Pfizer/Moderna efficacy drops in the 70s after 8 months that is still incredibly good. I feel like the bar is being set way too high for this. 

I guess I'm failing to understand why you think a drug that's proven to be beneficial should not be authorized by the FDA when it's their primary purpose as a governmental entity. If the data shows marginal or no benefit, then I agree with you. But if it shows that it helps to boost vaccine effectiveness and limit breakthrough infections, are you really implying they should reject the application?

I mean, if they authorize it, that doesn't mean you still can't make your own decision on whether to get a booster dose based on the reasons I mentioned above. You can still forgo it even after you hit your 8-month window, if your primary concern is to avoid severe disease. Just because they authorize a booster, doesn't mean it'll be automatically mandated by your employer, restaurants, gyms, etc. 

32 minutes ago, SPIDER-MAN said:

I didn't see proof, but I am sure there is at least some truth to this.

I guess an aide was talking to an assistant to a prominent GOP member and they said DeSantis, Abbott and others are destroying their states so they don't have to give a win to Biden and his vaccine efforts.

Fascinating! I want to hear all about the subsequent clapping and how exactly Albert Einstein fits into the story. Please share.

5 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

They're approving boosters for EVERYONE after 8 months. You can make the "curb levels of community spread" as long as the numbers drop under 95% it seems. If Pfizer/Moderna efficacy drops in the 70s after 8 months that is still incredibly good. I feel like the bar is being set way too high for this. 

Looking at it another way, with a large group of imbeciles who won't get vaccinated, we need the efficacy of the vaccine among the responsible to be as high as possible.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

I guess I'm failing to understand why you think a drug that's proven to be beneficial should not be authorized by the FDA when it's their primary purpose. If the data should marginal or no benefit, then I agree with you. But if it shows that it helps to boost vaccine effectiveness and limit breakthrough infections, are you really implying they should reject the application?

I mean, if they authorize it, that doesn't mean you still can't make your own decision on whether to get a booster dose. You can still forgo even after you hit your 8-month window, if your primary concern is to avoid severe disease. Just because they authorize a booster, doesn't mean it'll be automatically mandated by your employer, restaurants, gyms, etc. 

So this doesn't change the definition of "fully vaccinated"? Maybe I'm making an assumption here.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Looking at it another way, with a large group of imbeciles who won't get vaccinated, we need the efficacy of the vaccine among the responsible to be as high as possible.

That's actually pretty fair. I guess I still can't wrap my head around these people not eventually getting vaccinated.

7 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

They're approving boosters for EVERYONE after 8 months. You can make the "curb levels of community spread" as long as the numbers drop under 95% it seems. If Pfizer/Moderna efficacy drops in the 70s after 8 months that is still incredibly good. I feel like the bar is being set way too high for this. 

Yeah getting a booster jab every 8 months for the rest of your life is definitely a huge win for the vaccines. Very impressive results so far. 

3 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

That's actually pretty fair. I guess I still can't wrap my head around these people not eventually getting vaccinated.

Vikas is right. If everyone got the vaccine we wouldn’t need boosters.

Just now, Paul852 said:

So this doesn't change the definition of "fully vaccinated"? Maybe I'm making an assumption here.

I think you'll see a mix, some employers or businesses may require you to show proof of a booster, but others (most likely most?) will not. If the data shows boosters can limit breakthroughs and limit spread, then the FDA absolutely should approve it. They make decisions based on science, not public perception or government policy. But even from ACIP or the CDC at large, I don't think you'll see the definition of "fully vaccinated" shift to be treated the same as the unvaccinated.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I think you'll see a mix, some employers or businesses may require you to show proof of a booster, but others (most likely most?) will not. If the data shows boosters can limit breakthroughs and limit spread, then the FDA absolutely should approve it. They make decisions based on science, not public perception or government policy. But even from ACIP or the CDC at large, I don't think you'll see the definition of "fully vaccinated" shift to be treated the same as the unvaccinated.

Well then I get that. I just wonder about boosters being necessary which I think at this point is overkill.

5 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Yeah getting a booster jab every 8 months for the rest of your life is definitely a huge win for the vaccines. Very impressive results so far. 

Stop acting like a mental patient and go get vaccinated, Kz

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Looking at it another way, with a large group of imbeciles who won't get vaccinated, we need the efficacy of the vaccine among the responsible to be as high as possible.

Exactly. Especially while there's still no EUA for U12 and if breakthroughs are more common in the elderly.

 

I don't think the herd immunity crowd understands that to get there, they either have to get vaccinated or catch COVID.

2 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Stop acting like a mental patient and go get vaccinated, Kz

No. 

2 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

I don't think the herd immunity crowd understands that to get there, they either have to get vaccinated or catch COVID.

That's not really how herd immunity works, captain dementia.

5 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Well then I get that. I just wonder about boosters being necessary which I think at this point is overkill.

Well, like I said, it's going to be more subjective this time around. The FDA isn't in the business of determining need for anything that's deemed subjective. Whether one person is willing to take a drug to ward off a cold, or someone else is only willing to take drugs that prevent more severe systemic disease is not something they take into consideration. They can only say a drug is proven to be effective and safe, and that's as far as they go. It's up to the rest of the chain (federal agencies like the ACIP/CDC, state and local departments of health, and even your primary doctor) to inform you of your personal risk and provide guidance on whether you should sign up for a booster.

Now if you were to be arguing that the FDA should prioritize a U12 EUA before approving boosters, or that ACIP should provide more age stratified guidance, then that's absolutely fair. But in case of the former, the FDA can only review data once it's been submitted by Pfizer or Moderna, and they can't file applications on their behalf. And in case of the latter, ACIP can't provide guidance for something that's not yet approved by the FDA. Cart before the horse.

2 minutes ago, Kz! said:

That's not really how herd immunity works, captain dementia.

How do you think it works, captain Hanson?