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?

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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.

Yeah, this is the one I really want right now.

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

How do you think it works, captain Hanson?

literally the first result of the google search, captain napoleon:

Quote

Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community (the herd) becomes immune to a disease, making the spread of disease from person to person unlikely. As a result, the whole community becomes protected — not just those who are immune.

 

9 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Yeah, this is the one I really want right now.

You and me both, dude. Every morning I wake up and check the latest articles hoping for some tidbits of info on how the trials are going and whether the FDA is poised let someone like Cody Meissner dominate the conversation with misguided notions at best, or deliberate and obstinate dissention at worst.

Just now, Kz! said:

literally the first result of the google search, captain napoleon:

 

Yeah exactly, and with delta the threshold is much higher now. Is it literally 100%? No. That's not what Toast was saying either. But it's close to 90% for an R0 of 5, or 95% for an R0 of 7, and possibly even higher if breakthroughs are as undercounted as you of all people are constantly implying, meaning you're basically either choosing to get vaccinated, or choosing to get covid.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah exactly, and with delta the threshold is much higher now. Is it literally 100%? 

Great, awesome way of saying I was right again, little dude.