AP: The super spreaders behind top COVID-19 conspiracy theories

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
This, from Idaho a couple of months ago:

COVID-19 vaccine misinformation is killing people


People are dying unnecessarily, and it’s a crime, with a list of suspects that shouldn’t surprise anyone: Fox News talking heads attacking medical experts, Republican lawmakers stirring doubt about vaccines and social media companies allowing vaccine disinformation to overwhelm sound medical advice.

U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy released an unusual advisory Thursday labeling health misinformation an “urgent public health threat,” calling it “one of the biggest obstacles that’s preventing us from ending this pandemic.”

“Today, we live in a world where misinformation poses an imminent and insidious threat to our nation’s health,” Murthy said from the White House. “Simply put, health misinformation has cost us lives.”



Like @PJ Diaz , they didn't listen:

Idaho expands Crisis Standards of Care statewide due to surge in COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) has activated Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) in accordance with IDAPA 16.02.09 – Crisis Standards of Care For Healthcare Entities. CSC is activated statewide because the massive increase of COVID-19 patients requiring hospitalization in all areas of the state has exhausted existing resources. CSC was activated on Sept. 6 in North Idaho. This activation, declared today, expands the declaration to the rest of the state.

This action was taken after St. Luke’s Health System requested that CSC be activated. DHW Director Dave Jeppesen convened the CSC Activation Advisory Committee virtually on Sept. 15. The committee recommended that CSC be activated statewide.

“Our hospitals and healthcare systems need our help. The best way to end crisis standards of care is for more people to get vaccinated. It dramatically reduces your chances of having to go to the hospital if you do get sick from COVID-19. In addition, please wear a mask indoors in public and outdoors when it’s crowded to help slow the spread” said DHW Director Jeppesen. “The situation is dire – we don’t have enough resources to adequately treat the patients in our hospitals, whether you are there for COVID-19 or a heart attack or because of a car accident.”


It really doesn't matter any more. We have about four more months of this horror. Meanwhile, a round of booster shots will be given according to need. Age 65 and older are first. Anti-vaxxers, on the other hand will face another round of covid infections. Why not? If they didn't get it the first time, why expect them to get the second?

It is time to consider a two tier insurance system where antivaxxers pay for the extra cost of treating them. That and banning them from being out in public.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
There are a lot of things I come across which I do not post, because they can not be substantiated. I don't view information as "positive" or "negative", as those are both subjective matters.
Like I said...it's just a coincidence.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Like I said...it's just a coincidence.
Here you go, here's some info about the upcoming Flu vaccines for you (which I also don't get), to hopefully balance the info I present for you:

Flu Vaccine Information Links:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/flu.pdf

2021-2022, Flu vaccines contain the following four strains:

1. an A/Guangdong-Maonan/SWL1536/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus;

2. an A/HongKong/2671/2019 (H3N2)-like virus;

3. a B/Washington/02/2019- like virus (B/Victoria lineage);

4. a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage).

Vaccine Information Statement

---------------------------------------

EDIT: Crazy what comes into "my feed", eh @hanimmal
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Oh, and here's some more fun news about how one individual overruled a panel of scientists:

Screenshot - 2021-09-24T142205.844.png
 
Last edited:

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Oh, and here's some more fun news about how one individual overruled a panel of scientists:

View attachment 4994661
Thank goodness they did. The last thing we need is our medical system to collapse because unvaccinated fools keep coming in infecting them when their vaccine is in need of a booster going into the winter.

I know I will feel much more comfortable when my wife gets her booster. There is no question that the vaccine is safe and effective. And if the vaccine does diminish over time, and boosters are recommended for people, being in a hospital setting with so many sick unvaccinated people (IMO) its worth giving the trolls ammunition to try to scare people into being unsafe during this pandemic to keep our hospitals functioning.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Thank goodness they did. The last thing we need is our medical system to collapse because unvaccinated fools keep coming in infecting them when their vaccine is in need of a booster going into the winter.

I know I will feel much more comfortable when my wife gets her booster.
They? You mean Rochelle Walensky, right? She's the one person who decided to over rule the advice from these folks:

I guess she somehow knows better. Curious.

Why do we need boosters anyway if the vaccine is still so effective?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
They? You mean Rochelle Walensky, right? She's the one person who decided to over rule the advice from these folks:

I guess she somehow knows better. Curious.

Why do we need boosters anyway is the vaccine is still so effective?
I would question who the 9 and why they voted against the booster.

According to what you linked it wasn't 'it is not safe' as much as 'it is confusing people' reasoning. Worrying about unvaccinated people who are essentially anti-science being tricked by death cult trolls is not a good enough reason to not allow our front line workers and medical workers the ability to get a booster shot going into winter.

Your booster troll is stupid as shit btw. Science is not going to be bullied into being stupid just because of trolls trying to keep their death cult snowballed thankfully.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
I would question who the 9 and why they voted against the booster.

According to what you linked it wasn't 'it is not safe' as much as 'it is confusing people' reasoning. Worrying about unvaccinated people who are essentially anti-science being tricked by death cult trolls is not a good enough reason to not allow our front line workers and medical workers the ability to get a booster shot going into winter.

Your booster troll is stupid as shit btw. Science is not going to be bullied into being stupid just because of trolls trying to keep their death cult snowballed thankfully.
Easy answer, lack of adequate studies and data. Peter Doshi gets it:
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
I would question who the 9 and why they voted against the booster.
The minutes of the meeting aren't out yet, so I'm not really sure who exactly voted no and yes. I didn't watch the meeting myself, and so far it's not up on CSPAN yet either, but should be soon. After the initial vote on boosters for all failed, the committee did come back and vote on boosters for folks with underlying health conditions and those over 65. The outcome of the vote is shown in a video on this page, and even 6 of the committee voted against even that:

These are the folks on the ACIP committee:
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
The minutes of the meeting aren't out yet, so I'm not really sure who exactly voted no and yes. I didn't watch the meeting myself, and so far it's not up on CSPAN yet either, but should be soon. After the initial vote on boosters for all failed, the committee did come back and vote on boosters for folks with underlying health conditions and those over 65. The outcome of the vote is shown in a video on this page, and even 6 of the committee voted against even that:

These are the folks on the ACIP committee:
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/17/1038374005/experts-advising-fda-vote-against-pfizer-covid-boosterScreen Shot 2021-09-24 at 7.21.01 PM.png
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
That isn't in question here, so not sure what your screenshot is supposed to implicate.

Anyway, here's a good article which tells who a few of the "no" votes to the question of boosters for all were from, along with some of their reasoning:
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
The minutes of the meeting aren't out yet, so I'm not really sure who exactly voted no and yes. I didn't watch the meeting myself, and so far it's not up on CSPAN yet either, but should be soon. After the initial vote on boosters for all failed, the committee did come back and vote on boosters for folks with underlying health conditions and those over 65. The outcome of the vote is shown in a video on this page, and even 6 of the committee voted against even that:

These are the folks on the ACIP committee:
No Boosters for Healthcare, Frontline Workers
In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the FDA's authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. . Schaffner sits on the ACIP work group that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as a healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They're using PPE as they should and they're following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There's lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.
“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.

How Much Will the U.S. Benefit from Boosters?
Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family practice doctor in Ithaca, NY. Loehr said he felt like the goal of giving boosters in the U.S. should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalization a day now, it’s probably not that much.”
Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don't think it's going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it's just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it's going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
That isn't in question here, so not sure what your screenshot is supposed to implicate.

Anyway, here's a good article which tells who a few of the "no" votes to the question of boosters for all were from, along with some of their reasoning:
Screen Shot 2021-09-24 at 7.26.46 PM.png
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I get that you're trying real hard to prove my wrong, however there were 4 separate votes taken among ACIP members. What you are quoting is completely separate what what I am stating. You are also talking about a FDA panel, and I am talking about a CDC panel, which only has 15-members, not 18. Please try to keep up:

View attachment 4994762
Well that still calls your claim that 6 people voted against 65 and older as being bullshit.

The vaccine is very safe and very effective and no amount of trolling nonsensical death cult spam that you think makes your case is going to change that.

Someone already called you out on this earlier though.

I know, I know, it's not your "intent" to seek out and post 99% of anything negative you can find.....it's just a coincidence that it works out that way.
It looks like though that you are not even posting negative information but are just pretending like it is now.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Well that still calls your claim that 6 people voted against 65 and older as being bullshit.
You're right I did make a mistake there, and I'm happy to own up to my errors. I should have said that 6 voted against boosters for those ages 18 to 49 with underlying medical conditions or workers with occupational risks. It was a mistake on my part.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
It looks like though that you are not even posting negative information but are just pretending like it is now.
Well in this case, it is my opinion that a single individual over-riding a vote of a committee is negative, it's true. You apparently think it's positive however. See how subjectivity works in relation to objective information?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Well in this case, it is my opinion that a single individual over-riding a vote of a committee is negative, it's true. You apparently think it's positive however. See how subjectivity works in relation to objective information?
Are you saying that there is a valid negative health reasoning that the people voting against the boosters?

Because what I read of your posting links did not say that, so I am not sure how you are coming up with that conclusion if that is what you are trying to imply. The vaccines are very safe and very effective. And denying health care workers the ability to get the booster going into the winter is ridiculous. Even some of the people that voted no said that if it was just the healthcare worker they would have, but they took issue with the 'front line workers' part of it.

So yeah I am A-ok with the director of the CDC overriding them leaving our health care workers in a dangerous spot if the benefits of the vaccine are reduced going into winter (a year out from their getting fully vaccinated). And will sleep a lot better knowing that my wife is as protected as possible from this very dangerous virus when she gets her booster.
 

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that there is a valid negative health reasoning that the people voting against the boosters?

Because what I read of your posting links did not say that, so I am not sure how you are coming up with that conclusion if that is what you are trying to imply. The vaccines are very safe and very effective. And denying health care workers the ability to get the booster going into the winter is ridiculous. Even some of the people that voted no said that if it was just the healthcare worker they would have, but they took issue with the 'front line workers' part of it.

So yeah I am A-ok with the director of the CDC overriding them leaving our health care workers in a dangerous spot if the benefits of the vaccine are reduced going into winter (a year out from their getting fully vaccinated). And will sleep a lot better knowing that my wife is as protected as possible from this very dangerous virus when she gets her booster.
"valid negative health reasoning".. erm, I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean.

I'm not on the CDC ACIP panel, did not watch the meeting, and have not seen the data yet, so can't really comment there knowledgably. I would assume that the highly educated folks on the panel had good reasons for the way they voted, and yes I find it in conflict with the basic foundations of democracy to have a single individual override a committee vote.

I hope the best for your wife, but I'm surprised to hear that you feel that she is not protected from the two jabs which she's already gotten. So, are these vaccines waning in protection or aren't they? You can't have it both ways. If efficacy is waning, then just admit it, and then you may have some valid reasoning for a booster. However I've seen you say how effective they still are, yet you think your wife needs a boost for some reason. Curious.
 
Top