1 hour ago, DBW said:

There are not enough Chins in the picture on the left so this is unfortunately inaccurate 

😄

Fortunately I never got fat. 

52 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Yeah. You'd know. 😄

Its a start

We all know. You've made it readily apparent for years.

5 hours ago, lynched1 said:

PM you? 

State game land. Schoolhouse road Middletown Pa.

I'm free tomorrow. After which one of us likely won't be.

Lets be the people we see on the news.

Thanks. I’ll look for the idiot driving a 2002 Silverado.

35 minutes ago, Bill said:

Thanks. I’ll look for the idiot driving a 2002 Silverado.

Pffft a Chevy? 

Good luck with that. 😉

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

We all know. You've made it readily apparent for years.

No accounting for your perception or the lack there of. 😊

19 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

I posted the formal numbers.  He posted the ESTIMATES. Which are based on things like excess deaths. So again if you want to do that you should do that for COVID numbers. Which he didn't. This isn't that hard?

And I mentioned like 5 different issues and other measures that are wrong with the article. What are you talking about? Are you day drinking?

Thanks for a good discussion.  I'll summarize my thinking with this last post on the topic.

 

I agree he isn’t clear in the flu vs COVID numbers but he did use the best numbers available for the flu as the formal CDC estimates are no doubt closer to the truth for flu deaths then the recorded deaths. At least that is what CDC themselves believe.  Regarding COVID, does the CDC have any other published numbers of estimates for COVID deaths for the 0-17 age group?  It would be interesting to see those if they exist.  I did look this guy up a bit and he answers this critique by saying the COVID numbers are more accurate because of the focus and level of testing done vs. the recorded flu numbers.  Maybe he is incorrect.

Overall, I think you are and I quite close.  My thinking is that masking in schools be left to a local decision just as it is but that the govt should be proactively looking into the level of effect (positive and negative ; I don't think this topic goes away for a while). Also, I think the CDC should be more nuanced in explaining their position and be up front with the actual science.  I think that is pretty close to where you are with this one if I've understood.

Generally, I'm on the Vikas line of incentivizing people to get vaccinated and beyond that I'd like as few restrictions as possible except as a measure to contain outbreaks.  All the basic measures like distancing, work/school from home, masking, etc. are tools to be used when and where appropriate and should only be mandated when truly necessary.  Otherwise, good solid recommendation and common sense applies. That’s how I see it.

 

 

btw - I hadn't had a drop of alcohol.  How about you?

 

If you are still not sure vaccines are effective, you are a hopeless fool

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-in-virginia/covid-19-cases-by-vaccination-status/

4 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

If you are still not sure vaccines are effective, you are a hopeless fool

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-in-virginia/covid-19-cases-by-vaccination-status/

The evidence is overwhelming.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/medical-concerns-biden-new-vaccine-mandates-dr-marty-makary

Dr. Marty Makary: I have medical concerns around Biden's new vaccine mandates

The rigidity of the new vaccine mandates is worrisome to me as a physician

There are debates around vaccine mandates that focus on individual liberties, federalism, and the political backlash around vaccination. I will leave those topics for others to debate. As a physician, I have medical concerns around the rigidity of the new vaccine mandates. Here is a list.

Mandates Ignore Natural Immunity

If you recovered from a COVID infection, you have natural immunity which is 27-times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic COVID, according to a large Israeli study. 

Public health officials have been hesitant to talk about this study for fear that people will choose to get the infection over vaccination. 

I do not recommend actively or passively getting the infection over vaccination because getting the infection can result in a regrettable severe illness (many critically ill patients are asking for the vaccine in the hospital but by then it’s tragically too late).  But for those who were truly sick from COVID, you can feel good about your immune protection. 

For those who want to further increase that level of protection, I recommend one dose of an mRNA vaccine which can slightly augment one’s immunity, as demonstrated in the same Israeli study.

The new vaccine mandates inexplicably ignore the overwhelming science on natural immunity, resulting in damaged credibility by public health officials and possibly subjecting those already immune to the side effects the second vaccine dose that they may not need. 

Employers and schools requiring vaccination should recognize natural immunity if they want to be science-based. Unfortunately our public health officials have been dismissive of natural immunity after digging into their position on this issue early. Recognizing natural immunity would go a long way in restoring the public trust in the public health officials.

Mandates make it hard to space out doses to 3 months

In general with any vaccine in medicine, the longer the interval between doses, the stronger and more durable the immune protection.  The original 3 and 4 week interval between doses for Pfizer and Moderna was an atypical regimen that was designed to finish the clinical trials quickly last year given the urgent need for a vaccine to come to market.  It was a noble goal, but now it’s time to evolve our recommendation based on the new science. 

New studies show that spacing out the 1st and 2nd Pfizer or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines by 3 months result in better immunity. 

In one of those studies, researchers at the University of Birmingham found that delaying the second Pfizer dose to 12 weeks after the first resulted in a 3.5-times greater antibody response in older people. 

Hematologist Dr. Paul Moss, a co-author of the study, concluded that it’s a good idea to extend the time between the first and second doses of the vaccine. "An extended interval may help to sustain immunity against COVID-19 over the longer term and further improve the clinical efficacy of this powerful vaccine platform," Moss wrote. 

I personally waited 3 months between my 1st and 2nd mRNA vaccine and recommend the same to others who have only received their 1st mRNA dose so far. Doing so may obviate the need for a booster given the growing recognition by researchers that the first 2 doses 3 or 4 weeks apart may functionally as a single primer dose. But unfortunately the new vaccine mandates will hinder your ability to use this data-driven approach because mandates will have short deadlines for meeting the 2-dose requirement with an mRNA vaccine.

Mandates are not flexible with children

The current adult dose and short interval between doses may be too high for children. It’s always concerned me that we give are giving the same vaccine dose and short interval between doses to a thin 12-year old girl that we give to an overweight 50-year old man. 

In addition, If a child had COVID illness and recovered, I do not recommend vaccinating the child because of natural immunity. The exception is children who are immunosuppressed or have a special circumstance.

Vaccines do reduce hospitalizations among children by approximately 90 percent.  That’s why I recommend vaccination of children without natural immunity. But not with the current regimen. 

The complication of heart inflammation after vaccination has been associated with the second dose in particular. These complications have not been adequately studied in my opinion. 

For adolescents, I recommend they get a single mRNA vaccine dose for now until the heart complications are better understood.  They may be avoidable. 

One dose was 100 percent effective in an Israeli study of children 12-15 years of age, suggesting a strategy that can protect children from both COVID and the heart complications associated with the second dose.

Let’s come together

Vaccinate requirements that are flexible and consider natural immunity are reasonable for essential workers, such as health care workers and teachers. But we should allow people to tailor these recommendations with their physicians.

President Biden has rallied around the term ‘a pandemic of the unvaccinated’ but the more precise term is ‘a pandemic of the non-immune.’ 

It’s those without any immunity who are the ones dying in U.S. hospitals right now and it’s that group where we should all come together to strongly encourage vaccination.

4 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Regarding COVID, does the CDC have any other published numbers of estimates for COVID deaths for the 0-17 age group? 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/

"Masks in School Reduce Coronavirus Spread, Studies Show : Back To School: Live Updates : NPR" https://www.npr.org/sections/back-to-school-live-updates/2021/09/10/1035954587/yes-gov-desantis-studies-do-show-masks-curb-covid-19-in-schools

... the research is conclusive

Several studies over the past year have shown that widespread masking can significantly curb transmission from student to student.

 

For example, one study in Wood County, Wisconsin, last fall found that schools that required masking had a whopping 37 percent lower incidence of COVID-19 than the surrounding community. Another study, conducted in Salt Lake County, Utah, last winter, found that high levels of mask wearing among students helped keep the rate of in-school spread of the coronavirus to under 1% — even as COVID-19 cases were surging in the wider community.

...

Even with the delta variant, within-school spread is low

Now, most of those studies were conducted before the highly contagious delta variant began its current sweep across the U.S. But unpublished data, gathered during this past summer school session in North Carolina, shows that transmission was indeed a bit higher as delta spread in the surrounding communities. But even then, thanks to universal masking and other mitigation strategies, the rate of within-school spread was under 3%, says Dr. Ibukun Kalu, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Duke and also a member of the ABC Science Collaborative research team.

Not masking could be disastrous for schools, says Julie Swann, a department head and professor at North Carolina State University who leads a COVID-19 forecasting team funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

...

According to a recent modeling study from Swann's lab, without masking policies or other interventions in place, within the first three months of school, the delta variant could infect more than 75 percent of susceptible kids – those who aren't vaccinated and haven't previously had a bout of COVID-19.

 

 

4 hours ago, Talkingbirds said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/

Those are the numbers we’ve been looking at for COVID deaths  

For the flu the CDC has one number of reported deaths from the flu and another higher estimate that includes a number of estimated but non reported flu deaths. 

 

 

 

The key paragraph from this CDC webpage https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html   is below

 

Quote

During the 2018–2019 season, 136 deaths in children with laboratory–confirmed influenza virus infection were reported in the United States⁸. However, influenza-associated pediatric deaths are likely under-reported as not all children whose death was related to an influenza virus infection may have been tested for influenza^9,10. By combining data on hospitalization rates, influenza testing practices, and the frequency of death in and out of the hospital from death certificates, we estimate that there were approximately 480  deaths associated with influenza in children during 2018–2019

 

So my question for the medical professionals out there is how accurate are those pcr tests with regard to differentiating between the flu and Covid?  Put in other words, does a positive result mean one has Covid, or can somebody also test positive if they have the flu?

44 minutes ago, Procus said:

So my question for the medical professionals out there is how accurate are those pcr tests with regard to differentiating between the flu and Covid?  Put in other words, does a positive result mean one has Covid, or can somebody also test positive if they have the flu?

The PCR tests specific to covid are designed to test for only covid.  There are separate flu PCR tests.  Likewise there are now tests that can detect both simultaneously. So, they are pretty darn accurate.  

Exhibit A

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/pcr-test-recall-can-the-test-tell-the-difference-between-covid-19-and-the-flu

9 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Thanks for a good discussion.  I'll summarize my thinking with this last post on the topic.

 

I agree he isn’t clear in the flu vs COVID numbers but he did use the best numbers available for the flu as the formal CDC estimates are no doubt closer to the truth for flu deaths then the recorded deaths. At least that is what CDC themselves believe.  Regarding COVID, does the CDC have any other published numbers of estimates for COVID deaths for the 0-17 age group?  It would be interesting to see those if they exist.  I did look this guy up a bit and he answers this critique by saying the COVID numbers are more accurate because of the focus and level of testing done vs. the recorded flu numbers.  Maybe he is incorrect.

So there are a few places that list estimates by age but they're a bit all over the place. Sticking with the CDC unfortunately the best I can find is excess deaths January-October 2020 and broken down only to <25 not <18.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

They list 841excess deaths in that <25 group.  Now how many of those are likely directly connected to COVID is another question. Estimates range but again sticking with the CDC the number always to be in the mid 70s-high 80s range. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7015a4.htm

So far from a perfect comparison. But does seem to suggest significantly higher numbers in a shorter window, albeit with a slightly higher upper age limit. 

But end of the day I think if we want to compare numbers directly the easiest thing to do would be apples to apples comparison of the confirmed dead from both cases, which is what I listed initially. Doing confirmed cases of COVID and estimated excess flu deaths seems disingenuous. 

58 minutes ago, Procus said:

So my question for the medical professionals out there is how accurate are those pcr tests with regard to differentiating between the flu and Covid?  Put in other words, does a positive result mean one has Covid, or can somebody also test positive if they have the flu?

It's directly detecting specific viral genetic material unique to COVID. So there shouldn't be any cross reaction with other viruses. 

13 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

So there are a few places that list estimates by age but they're a bit all over the place. Sticking with the CDC unfortunately the best I can find is excess deaths January-October 2020 and broken down only to <25 not <18.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm

They list 841excess deaths in that <25 group.  Now how many of those are likely directly connected to COVID is another question. Estimates range but again sticking with the CDC the number always to be in the mid 70s-high 80s range. 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7015a4.htm

So far from a perfect comparison. But does seem to suggest significantly higher numbers in a shorter window, albeit with a slightly higher upper age limit. 

But end of the day I think if we want to compare numbers directly the easiest thing to do would be apples to apples comparison of the confirmed dead from both cases, which is what I listed initially. Doing confirmed cases of COVID and estimated excess flu deaths seems disingenuous. 

Thanks.  I don't agree it is strictly disingenuous but I agree it isn't a simple direct comparison though one I find worth reviewing.  In any case, this specific topic is only a piece of the overall article and actually not even a central point.

Good convo.  More data will no doubt appear over time and we can reassess.

11 hours ago, lynched1 said:

Pffft a Chevy? 

Good luck with that. 😉

Did you actually make it into the House Chamber or did you stop at the Rotunda?

2 hours ago, Bill said:

Did you actually make it into the House Chamber or did you stop at the Rotunda?

Why bother with public temper tantrums. Too much effort for no results. 

 

 

1 hour ago, lynched1 said:

Why bother with public temper tantrums. Too much effort for no results. 

 

 

Yeah I bet the last time you threw a temper tantrum in public was when Turkey Hill couldn’t process WIC cards. 

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Yeah I bet the last time you threw a temper tantrum in public was when Turkey Hill couldn’t process WIC cards. 

Look at you go! Crawled right under your skin didn't I?

3 or 4 post and you're broken down to posting like a 12 year old. Come on man if you're going to put effort into it make it worth your time. 

Lets start over. You come up with something better and I'll delete this quote. Everyone deserves a second chance. 😉

 

 

 

Awesome game.  By the end it was all Eagles fans.  

45 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Look at you go! Crawled right under your skin didn't I?

3 or 4 post and you're broken down to posting like a 12 year old. Come on man if you're going to put effort into it make it worth your time. 

Lets start over. You come up with something better and I'll delete this quote. Everyone deserves a second chance. 😉

 

 

 

Yeah we all know you canceled your planned trip to the Capitol on 1-6 because your wife said so.

9 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Awesome game.  By the end it was all Eagles fans.  

We could hear the chants all game long after scores and big plays.