FSU Team Vaccination Rate

[Dhersh]

But you have indeed rejected outright any scientists that do not align with your own perceived biases. Science is not decided by consensus. Just because a majority agrees doesn’t make it correct. The next day a new discovery could prove that consensus wrong. At one time the consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. We’re those scientists right just because most agreed?

How we interpret science and turn it into real world application is based on what what is generally agree upon, or the scientific consensus. But the line between that and "nothing else can be right" is getting blurred here I think. I am a proponent of more science, more data regardless of the outcome and regardless of my current "bias" (your word). But just because a study has different results does not mean that we should consider the results valid. A significant number of scientific studies are unreliable - what biases were introduced? what were the variables used? can it be replicated? has it been peer reviewed? etc, etc. Once people who are much smarter than you and I are able to validate studies by other people who are much smarter than you and I, consensus can be formed, but unanimity shouldn't be implied.

 

[fsufool]

agreed with most of this. my main caveat being continued dosing of mRNA drugs, this is where clinical trials of all mRNA drugs has previously stalled and never made it to phase 3.

both pfizer and moderna are preparing booster shots so they clearly feel confident in a third dose (beyond, for example, moderna's original confidence in one to two doses) but i guess it remains to be seen the level of confidence beyond that?

I would say that is about $$$$ more than science.............vaccinations aren't as effective in folks who have impaired immune systems whether for health or old age no matter how many times they give them.

 

[fsufool]

That interview with the scientist is from a podcast owned by a far-right leaning group. The fact that you are posting things without knowing where the info comes from or the interest that they represent is just as dangerous as someone posting with bad intentions.

The Epoch Times is literally known for posting vaccine misinformation.

Its an interview with a Harvard College MD/epidemiologist. What are you scared about? You think they kidnapped him and forced him to say things? The question you should be asking is why aren't other media interviewing him? The guy is literally one of the leading epidemiologist in the world. Why isn't NBC/CNN/ABC/CBS/PBS etc. talking to him? Those are the real questions you should be asking. I am a lefty and want to know why so many of the world's leading epidemiologist are not being interviewed/quoted instead of low level careerist MDs? Real science is not about orthodoxy but a clash of ideas.

 

[ChiefWB]

the UK puts out fairly regular reports for the risk assessments on the variants. worth looking through.

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: variant risk assessments

Risk assessments for SARS-CoV-2 variants.

www.gov.uk

Thanks for the info. What measure is the UK currently taking with masks, crowds etc. I saw the Premier League started back today and Brentford was close to capacity. Is it business as usual?

 

[fsufool]

Thanks for the info. What measure is the UK currently taking with masks, crowds etc. I saw the Premier League started back today and Brentford was close to capacity. Is it business as usual?

I think it is............

 

[Dhersh]

Its an interview with a Harvard College MD/epidemiologist. What are you scared about? You think they kidnapped him and forced him to say things? The question you should be asking is why aren't other media interviewing him? The guy is literally one of the leading epidemiologist in the world. Why isn't NBC/CNN/ABC/CBS/PBS etc. talking to him? Those are the real questions you should be asking. I am a lefty and want to know why so many of the world's leading epidemiologist are not being interviewed/quoted instead of low level careerist MDs? Real science is not about orthodoxy but a clash of ideas.

I don't understand. I said I've seen his interviews regarding COVID. He has an opinion and it disagrees with the consensus in certain areas. Am I scared to hear him say it again? The answer is no. I honestly don't care about those low level "experts" that networks are interviewing. That is not where I get my info from. And again, as I said before, I am a proponent of more science, more data even though it may go against what is currently understood.

 

[fsufool]

I don't understand. I said I've seen his interviews regarding COVID. He has an opinion and it disagrees with the consensus in certain areas. Am I scared to hear him say it again? The answer is no. I honestly don't care about those low level "experts" that networks are interviewing. That is not where I get my info from. And again, as I said before, I am a proponent of more science, more data even though it may go against what is currently understood.

Can you understand my confusion since you created a straw man argument over EPOCH interviewing him somehow being more important than what he actually says?

 

[GbrNole]

Thanks for the info. What measure is the UK currently taking with masks, crowds etc. I saw the Premier League started back today and Brentford was close to capacity. Is it business as usual?

business as usual.

 

[Dhersh]

Can you understand my confusion since you created a straw man argument over EPOCH interviewing him somehow being more important than what he actually says?

Not quite. Like, the guy has an opinion on vaccine during the pandemic that may or may not be good to apply in the situation of COVID and it differs from what a lot of scientists think. It's not like he is a COVID expert. In fact he got his degree in mathematical statistics and PhD in operational research. Most of his career achievements are software related. Does that make him a good person to listen to regarding all things epidemiology and specifically COVID? Probably not. I would rather listen to Harvard's actual professor of epidemiology who was very critical of Kulldorff. Now, after all that, would anyone believe I want to give my email address to this organization that I dislike and distrust so that I can watch this one specific video when there are others like it out there?

 

[fsufool]

Not quite. Like, the guy has an opinion on vaccine during the pandemic that may or may not be good to apply in the situation of COVID and it differs from what a lot of scientists think. It's not like he is a COVID expert. In fact he got his degree in mathematical statistics and PhD in operational research. Most of his career achievements are software related. Does that make him a good person to listen to regarding all things epidemiology and specifically COVID? Probably not. I would rather listen to Harvard's actual professor of epidemiology who was very critical of Kulldorff. Now, after all that, would anyone believe I want to give my email address to this organization that I dislike and distrust so that I can watch this one specific video when there are others like it out there?

Then you should have said that................FYI I didn't give my e-mail address, just read the transcript.

 

[Dhersh]

Then you should have said that................FYI I didn't give my e-mail address, just read the transcript.

Ummm perhaps the other guy shouldn't have accused me of mixing politics into it my pandemic arguments and it would have turned out differently.

 

[fsufool]

Not quite. Like, the guy has an opinion on vaccine during the pandemic that may or may not be good to apply in the situation of COVID and it differs from what a lot of scientists think. It's not like he is a COVID expert. In fact he got his degree in mathematical statistics and PhD in operational research. Most of his career achievements are software related. Does that make him a good person to listen to regarding all things epidemiology and specifically COVID? Probably not. I would rather listen to Harvard's actual professor of epidemiology who was very critical of Kulldorff. Now, after all that, would anyone believe I want to give my email address to this organization that I dislike and distrust so that I can watch this one specific video when there are others like it out there?

So, we can move the discussion forward if you name the Harvard Epidemiologist and tell us where the disagreement is. Then we have something to discuss. Since the interview was mostly about vaccinations, and he is an expert in vaccine safety, I think we can at least take his thoughts seriously enough to discuss.

 

[fsufool]

Ummm perhaps the other guy shouldn't have accused me of mixing politics into it my pandemic arguments and it would have turned out differently.

Hard to do, but sometimes you gotta not take the bait.

 

[Dhersh]

So, we can move the discussion forward if you name the Harvard Epidemiologist and tell us where the disagreement is. Then we have something to discuss. Since the interview was mostly about vaccinations, and he is an expert in vaccine safety, I think we can at least take his thoughts seriously enough to discuss.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in the praise and criticism he has received, he actually co-authored a declaration which is the basis for what he said in that video, and the wiki has more details.

Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SteveT1]

Where can you not currently assemble?

Regardless, I assume you are also against occupancy standards limiting how many people can congregate in a building? That's a limitation on the freedom to assemble. How about when someone protests and they assemble and block roads and sidewalks. That's a violation of their right to assemble. How about requiring permits for assembly. You against those as well? How about curfew restrictions during an emergency. Also, a restriction on the ability to assemble.

See the point is every single "freedom" listed in the constitution is not absolute. You do not have the right to do whatever you want when you want. The government has and always will limit people's "freedoms" and those abilities are increased when public health and safety is at issue.

There are limitations on freedoms. But they aren’t secondary to the federal government’s authority over public health. It was for a couple months. Should never be again

 

[JEHseminole]

Hard to do, but sometimes you gotta not take the bait.

I did not bring up the politics lol.

 

[fsufool]

Anyway, if anyone is interested in the praise and criticism he has received, he actually co-authored a declaration which is the basis for what he said in that video, and the wiki has more details.

Great Barrington Declaration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, the critique on the Great Barrington Declaration seems to be based on 3 erroneous assumptions.

1. That immunity from infection fades quickly. Current science demonstrates this as false as immunity from native infection lasts at least 12 months (the longest time span the data goes back)

2. That mitigation efforts (shelter at home, social distancing, masks, banning of groups, etc.) will stop the spread of the virus. Fact: Before the vaccination was introduced to the population the CDC estimated that 1 of every 3 in the USA had been infected. Fact: Nursing homes continued to be places of major outbreaks even after mitigation efforts were in place (if you can't stop it in controlled institutions, what are your chances in society in general?). Current estimates in some states are that 1 of every 2 people were infected.

3. "....... a significant number of patients who recover from COVID-19, including people who experience no symptoms, have been shown to suffer heart and lung damage." A very small group of people suffer from long term issues called "long haulers." No research has shown "a significant number of patients" have long term issues beyond a couple of months. In fact, symptoms a couple on months after viral infection in a small amount of patients is normal.

One of the issues with any slowing of the spread is the ability of the virus to mutate in more contagious or more deadly strains. Which is exactly what happened.

Finally, the attack on herd immunity because it was immunity based on actual infection instead of vaccination is laughable.

 

[JEHseminole]

You are conflating CDC declarations and politicial viewpoints with scientific consensus. There isn't scientific consensus on Covid or the response in the least bit.

COVID isn't political. I'm not the one linking to far-right or left propaganda and calling it science. You are.

You have stated there is clear scientific consensus. I said you are confusing political viewpoints (ie politicians imposing restrictions, mandates, lockdowns, etc) and cdc declarations with a consensus. Didn’t say you were making it political, said you were confusing it.

You said I only linked far right propaganda pieces. Which is demonstrably not true when you go back through this thread. Then you focused on the epoch times which is one of the few things I posted that wasn't an article or a direct study but simply just an interview. And your justification for it being far right is that it supported the Republicans candidate for president.

Let's be clear here.

 

[PopsNole]

There are limitations on freedoms. But they aren’t secondary to the federal government’s authority over public health. It was for a couple months. Should never be again

Hypothetically if there was a virus killing 10% of all infected the government shouldn’t be allowed to issue quarantine orders?

 

[flmom777]

I commend you on your research. That is only with regards to the delta variant. Now you know why variants are such a problem.

I have been researching throughout this situation. I have read so many studies I should get college credit. I get rather insulted when people say that people not getting vaccinated are ignorant. I have done due diligence in making my decision. I have read studies from many different sources, including other countries. My family has all been vaccinated and most of them respect my decision. I didn’t try to deter any of them, including my husband. I expect to be given the same respect.

 

[SteveT1]

Hypothetically if there was a virus killing 10% of all infected the government shouldn’t be allowed to issue quarantine orders?

The federal government? No. Under what authority?

 

[BraveSeminole10]

Did you ever test positive for antibodies? Or just test positive for covid?

Natural Immunity After COVID-19 Found Durable and Robust

Most recovered COVID-19 patients mount broad, durable immunity after coronavirus infection

www.precisionvaccinations.com

Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.

www.nih.gov

There are always exceptions to rules. I hate anecdotes because it is not evidence. But in the last month 2 fully vaccinated (pfizer) guys at work and my own little brother (Pfizer as well) all got sick with Covid and all were symptomatic.

Both my parents had Covid back in August and up til February still had their antibodies. They still got vaccinated as they are quite afraid of the virus and they do fall in the high risk category.

I tested positive for covid in feb and for antibodies in April. Just my experience, part of what is so concerning is everyone is different with this virus.

 

[Dhersh]

You have stated there is clear scientific consensus. I said you are confusing political viewpoints (ie politicians imposing restrictions, mandates, lockdowns, etc) and cdc declarations with a consensus. Didn’t say you were making it political, said you were confusing it.

You said I only linked far right propaganda pieces. Which is demonstrably not true when you go back through this thread. Then you focused on the epoch times which is one of the few things I posted that wasn't an article or a direct study but simply just an interview. And your justification for it being far right is that it supported the Republicans candidate for president.

Let's be clear here.

Yes, to be clear, I didn't say you only linked to right wing pieces. I said that one was right wing. And I said it is right wing because it is. If Epoch Times didn't show heavy right wing bias outside of the presidential candidate then it probably wouldn't be a big deal but they pay to spread misinformation globally, including about vaccines, specifically, to support their own agenda and that is a well known issue, among others. Anyway, I'm moving on it's not worth time discussing that link.

 

[Dhersh]

The federal government? No. Under what authority?

Certain parts of government are granted broad authority under a number of statutes, including the ability to impose rules that wouldn't normally be imposed, or limit freedoms and piss people off, particularly during a Public Health Emergency. They are also granted immunity from liability.

 

[SteveT1]

Certain parts of government are granted broad authority under a number of statutes, including the ability to impose rules that wouldn't normally be imposed, or limit freedoms and piss people off, particularly during a Public Health Emergency. They are also granted immunity from liability.

Constitutional, not statutory. Federal only. Do tell.

 

[JRDNole86]

Yes. And many get Covid after vaccination as well. The common cold is a coronavirus. Why haven’t we been able to eradicate it over the past hundred or more years? Because viruses mutate. Can’t live life risk free. Some will try.

There are a number of viruses that can cause the common cold (coronaviruses cause about 20% of them), but that is not relevant to this discussion. SARS-CoV-2 causes Covid-19, which is much more serious than the common cold.

 

[JRDNole86]

Certain parts of government are granted broad authority under a number of statutes, including the ability to impose rules that wouldn't normally be imposed, or limit freedoms and piss people off, particularly during a Public Health Emergency. They are also granted immunity from liability.

This is most definitely true.

 

[JRDNole86]

The federal government? No. Under what authority?

The Public Health Service Act

Who has the authority to enforce isolation and quarantine because of a communicable disease?

www.hhs.gov

 

[JRDNole86]

I would encourage you to looking into antibody dependent enhancement and the history of vaccines with coronaviruses.

There is zero reason we should be forcing the vaccine on players or on any kids/young people. We should be focused on targeted vaccination of at risk populations and treatments. This is virus is of very little threat statistically to people under the age of 55 especially those that are healthy. And even if you are sick, there are treatments available that make it plenty manageable and recoverable.

This mass vaccination rollout has been a disaster.

You must not be following the latest news:

Young People Are Biggest Group of Newly Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

The most recent CDC data shows COVID-19-related hospitalizations are again increasing, with the age group most affected being ages 18 to 49.

www.healthline.com

 

[SteveT1]

The Public Health Service Act

Who has the authority to enforce isolation and quarantine because of a communicable disease?

www.hhs.gov

They do not have authority to enforce widespread lockdowns. Statutory or not.

 

[GbrNole]

You must not be following the latest news:

Young People Are Biggest Group of Newly Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

The most recent CDC data shows COVID-19-related hospitalizations are again increasing, with the age group most affected being ages 18 to 49.

www.healthline.com

an interesting article. i'm curious as to why they focus on the 18-49 age group right now as being dominant for hospitalizations but do not mention that it has been that way since the beginning of april?

the 18-49 age group was also leading demographic in summer 2020 as well but they appear to have failed to mention that too.

it's great to see that hospitalizations are dropping for the 65+ age group. the 50-64 age group has remained pretty steady accounting for about 27% of hospitalizations week over week but the unfortunate truth is that the 50-64 and 65+ age groups still combine for ~90% of all COVID deaths.

 

[flmom777]

an interesting article. i'm curious as to why they focus on the 18-49 age group right now as being dominant for hospitalizations but do not mention that it has been that way since the beginning of april?

the 18-49 age group was also leading demographic in summer 2020 as well but they appear to have failed to mention that too.

it's great to see that hospitalizations are dropping for the 65+ age group. the 50-64 age group has remained pretty steady accounting for about 27% of hospitalizations week over week but the unfortunate truth is that the 50-64 and 65+ age groups still combine for ~90% of all COVID deaths.

I’m curious as to why they grouped several demographics into one group. 18-49 is not a group used by the cdc in their data collection. That range covers several groups.

 

[GbrNole]

I’m curious as to why they grouped several demographics into one group. 18-49 is not a group used by the cdc in their data collection. That range covers several groups.

it has generally been grouped that way since the beginning when tracking hospitalizations. relatively speaking i would hazard to guess that it was covering the entire adult population below the age (50+) where COVID becomes more statistically significant with respect to mortality.

it's not particularly easy to find granular hospitalization data. frustratingly so actually compared to europe and other locations.

separately but interestingly in florida the percentage of cases for delta in the 20-49 age group is virtually identical to the percentage of cases seen before delta, basically making up right at 50%.

the majority of the movement in case count in florida for delta is the 65+ age group has reduced a couple of percentage points (13% of cases overall down to 11% for delta) and the under 12 population has increased a couple of percentage points.

 

[JRDNole86]

They do not have authority to enforce widespread lockdowns. Statutory or not.

Sure they do. It's just that the Act hasn't been enforced at that scale since the 1918 Flu pandemic.

Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC

Isolation and quarantine help protect the public by preventing exposure to people who have or may have a contagious disease. Page content includes the regulatory authority and definitions of isolation and quarantine.

www.cdc.gov

 

[SteveT1]

Sure they do. It's just that the Act hasn't been enforced at that scale since the 1918 Flu pandemic.

Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine | Quarantine | CDC

Isolation and quarantine help protect the public by preventing exposure to people who have or may have a contagious disease. Page content includes the regulatory authority and definitions of isolation and quarantine.

www.cdc.gov

widespread lockdowns do not equate to isolating a person or plane full of people. Imposing a nationwide lockdown is not something the CDC (or any federal agency) can do. CDC may claim they have that authority, but they do not.

 

[Dhersh]

Constitutional, not statutory. Federal only. Do tell.

I was referring to federal only. Like I said, broad authority. You can start here:

https://www.phe.gov/emergency/news/healthactions/Pages/default.aspx

 

[SteveT1]

I was referring to federal only. Like I said, broad authority. You can start here:

https://www.phe.gov/emergency/news/healthactions/Pages/default.aspx

It’s not broad authority, and it can’t be. No fed agency has unilateral authority to “lockdown” states and their populations based on a virus. The authority given is for isolated incidents, not mass population lockdowns.

 

[Dhersh]

It’s not broad authority, and it can’t be. No fed agency has unilateral authority to “lockdown” states and their populations based on a virus. The authority given is for isolated incidents, not mass population lockdowns.

You didn't read it. If you did you would understand they can just about do what they want (within reason).

 

[PopsNole]

It’s not broad authority, and it can’t be. No fed agency has unilateral authority to “lockdown” states and their populations based on a virus. The authority given is for isolated incidents, not mass population lockdowns.

Commerce Clause. The federal government's I'm not really allowed to do this but we really need to argument.

 

[SteveT1]

Commerce Clause. The federal government's I'm not really allowed to do this but we really need to argument.

Of course they'll say the commerce clause, but that's not sufficient for a widespread lockdown. Argument is basically - allowing people, regardless of their health, to leave their homes, and potentially infect others or be infected by others, will have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Even if that somehow is found to be within Congress's authority (I have serious doubts it is), then they must have carveouts for private gatherings (freedom of association), religious meetings of any type (free exercise), public gatherings, etc. States doing so is a slightly different problem than the fed, but still a problem that made quite a few judges squeamish over the last year.