Yeah, I saw that when it came out but I'm one of those nerds that reads some of the studies on which it's base... https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101 Frieden told The BMJ that the question of leveraging natural immunity is a “reasonable discussion,” one he had raised informally with the CDC at start of rollout. “I thought from a rational standpoint, with limited vaccine available, why don’t you have the option” for people with previous infection to defer until there was more supply, he says. “I think that would have been a rational policy. It would have also made rollout, which was already too complicated, even more complicated.” Most infections were never diagnosed, Frieden points out, and many people may have assumed they had been infected when they hadn’t. Add to that false positive results, he says. Had the CDC given different directives and vaccine schedules based on prior infection, it “wouldn’t have done much good and might have done some harm.” Klausner, who is also a medical director of a US testing and vaccine distribution company, says he initiated conversations about offering a fingerprick antibody screen for people with suspected exposure before vaccination, so that doses could be used more judiciously. But “everyone concluded it was just too complicated.” “It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.” In public health, “the primary objective is to protect as many people as you can,” he says. “It’s called collective insurance, and I think it’s irresponsible from a public health perspective to let people pick and choose what they want to do.” That last paragraph is the important one to me. Once you start saying people can pick and choose what they want to do the overall protection tends to go out the window because you're basing it on people's judgement as to what they think. It comes back to my point about something that's an interesting discussion on a scientific basis and the judgement authorities make who are charged with protecting people.
The technique is extremely simple to do so I can't buy it as a time constraint problem with regards to training. If the vaccine manufacturer has instructions to administer the vaccine with a certain technique to insure it's applied intramuscular, then it would seem like that procedure should be followed no matter if the chance is 1 in 1000 of hitting a blood vessel. Specially since there is a study or two out there done in mouses possibly linking it myocarditis side effect. Perhaps you're right that the FDA looked into it and didn't find it necessary for whatever reason ... just seems a bit strange since it's a very simple technique to ensure there is no mis-administered injections.
I understand that point. From an administrative point of view it's impossible to trust people saying they've already COVID and let people pick and choose. Essentially it's down to the honor system and we know that doesn't work.
It's been discussed ad nauseam, (although the numbers you quote are lower than the findings from the studies, I believe). The initial question was about the Pfizer jab rather than Moderna and they were part of the reason why the JCVI decided not to advise the government to give kids over here between 12-15 vaccinations because it was too fine a balance. In the end, however, we decided to go ahead with it because of wider societal advantages. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...zer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study There's nothing new in any of it, tbh.
So Joe Rogan was only and specifically talking to 12-17yr-old males when he said if you are young, eat right, exercise, and are healthy you don’t need the vaccine? And most of the places that paused back when this stuff first came out have now since decided that those extremely rare cases in this particular population are outweighed by the good it does everyone else by lowering transmission for the group to get jabbed anyway? Did I miss something?
No. That's a separate point. But it was pointed out that everything brought up in that podcast episode was misinformation and debunked.
Speaking of misquoting data ... Dr. on Today show says there have been 146k deaths among children. That number in the US is more like 400-500. It's not even close if he meant it as a worldwide stat. The NYT a month ago or so also had to correct an article written by their medical reporter expert who stated that 900k kids had been hospitalized due to COVID in the US which is 15x more than the actual real data. This is with editorial oversight ... I'd like to think these types of mistakes are just that ... mistakes. But still, bad mistakes.
Not quite. For me personally, the reason for vaccination of teens wasn't discussed enough relative to the minor risk. And Sanjay didn't effectively push back on this point. That was always the misinformation.
We had a bit of a mic drop moment in BC today (my humble opinion). We just about 3300 health care workers on unpaid leave here in BC. It's between 2% and 5% of our work force, depending on the region you live. In my region specifically, it's about 2%. Anywho, our government today confirmed it has resulted in some postponed surgeries. But, they still stand completely behind the mandate. This is the response from our top doctor when pressed by media. It was so blunt and top drawer.
Was this when he was not getting vaxxed, promoting ivermectin and saying vaxx mandates were dictatorship? Sometimes he feels anti-vaxx but then I remember he is actually America's greatest podcaster
This says more about American podcasters and, especially, those who listen to/watch American podcasts, than it says anything about Joe Rogan personally.
Unfortunately, there are alot more with pending exemption requests. Could you imagine being one of the poor people that have to review these exemption requests? The amount of BS they have to read over the next few days....
Imagine that! YIKES— NC LT. GOVERNOR @markrobinsonNC: “Tell our enemies on the other side of the aisle that want to drag 🇺🇸 down into a socialist hellhole you’ll have to run past me choking on my own blood — Christian patriots will own and rule this nation." 😳pic.twitter.com/uULfg40k7V— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) November 1, 2021
That is the scariest thing I have seen an actual elected official say in public in a long time. I just read a profile on him and it is frightening. His anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim rhetoric are off the chart. His "Christian values" (eliminating the separation of church and state, for example) are almost unbelievable. He is the guy who calls homosexuality "filth." And he has filed bankruptcy three times and has a bunch of IRS liens, because, of course he has. https://indyweek.com/news/northcaro...governor-mark-robinson-coronavirus-globalist/ https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article246284085.html Not to bring race into it (but I am), but imagine our collective reaction if he was a white guy saying exactly the same things?
It's closer to 800 deaths I believe, with around 150 in the 5-11 age bracket about to get vaccination.
To be fair, i see these guys as part of the Christian Identity politics rather than as actual christians - i.e they are just fascists
There's a difference between making fun of one guy for what one guy said, and making fun of an entire group. You posted about a black man. What happens in this forum if I make the exact same post, but highlight his race rather than his religion? I get a red card.
Well that guy does claim to be speaking for christians as an elected official - so there is that. But I agree, he's just a fascist.
I don't have to. When I was living in Memphis, what he was saying about being anti-non fundy Christian, was on TV every day, sometimes more. Hell, there was a guy who we called "Preacher" at work because he did that on the side, and had been doing so, for 30 or 40 years, and he was massively homophobic and transphobic. He was really the only serious outlier, but he openly expressed his views a few times in meetings. btw - the people I am talking about are Black.
Jitty is making fun of something he said, within his full control. A choice he made. Whether your black, white or purple is completely beyond your control.
Christians are not a group that, in the US, have been systematically discriminated against. Blacks are. The only way you could highlight his race in the context of the tweet is to make a racist point.