COVID-19 - READ THE RULES BEFORE REPLYING

[Andreas Lilja]

1 hour ago, WkdPaul said:

 

 

The QR code is scanned here in QC, was at the hospital yesterday and they scanned my QR code (for an appointment, not sure why they scan since I have health issues that aren't COVID related, so having a COVID pass for appointments shouldn't be necessary IMO, but that's a totally different subject)

 

You still have human error to account for, my boss had mistakenly loaded his wife's COVID pass on his phone and didn't realized until he had it scanned a few times, the people that scanned the QR code got a positive mark from the scanning app and didn't double check the name, so it's possible to load someone else's QR code and if the person scanning doesn't check, or doesn't care, you can still have unvaxxed people going around with someone else's QR code.

I work in imaging and we have Covid+ patients. Phone is scanned only if you're accompanying or visiting. 

[Andreas Lilja]

Québec lifts the curfew this Monday. 

 

Also vaccine passport requirement for big stores like Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire. 

[Andreas Lilja]

Mandatory N95 at work, RIP. 

[Donut417]

On 1/13/2022 at 3:48 PM, Andreas Lilja said:

Québec lifts the curfew this Monday. 

 

Also vaccine passport requirement for big stores like Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire. 

 

8 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Mandatory N95 at work, RIP. 

Waiting till the riots start. No offense to governments and health officials but they kept telling us one thing just to find out it was wrong. Got the vaccine? No masks required. The vaccine is good against the new strains. Find out thats not correct either. I think most governments have depleted all of their citizens good will. 

 

Does the job at least provide the masks? If not they can go to hell. 

[Andreas Lilja]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Does the job at least provide the masks? If not they can go to hell. 

Yup I work in a hospital, lol. 

 

Also read in the e-mail that they want us to wear protective eyeglasses / visors.

 

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Yup I work in a hospital, lol. 

Good luck and god speed. I really feel sorry for healthcare workers. They have been over worked and under paid the last two years. 

[Quackers101]

33 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Yup I work in a hospital, lol. 

 

Also read in the e-mail that they want us to wear protective eyeglasses / visors.

which all will slow down the healthcare and increase load on the system

but yeah, I guess they want to protect the "tear canal"? oh well. Not much one can do with omicron, although one can try to stay safe at least.
heard more hospitals are getting worse, not sure how this will end up. Just hope there isn't a new mutation.

[WkdPaul]

55 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Good luck and god speed. I really feel sorry for healthcare workers. They have been over worked and under paid the last two years. 

My brother, sister, 2 of my aunts and one uncle all work in various roles in the Quebec healthcare system (orderly, office workers, nurse and doctor), they've been over worked and underpaid for much longer, but the pandemic has exacerbated this and caused systemic issues to be put in the spotlight.

[tkitch]

5 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Waiting till the riots start. No offense to governments and health officials but they kept telling us one thing just to find out it was wrong. Got the vaccine? No masks required. The vaccine is good against the new strains. Find out thats not correct either. I think most governments have depleted all of their citizens good will. 

 

Does the job at least provide the masks? If not they can go to hell. 

Science changes, when the data changes.

 

The vaccine was effective against the original virus, the UK Variant, the South Africa Variant, the Delta Variant, and a number of others.  So, at the time most people were getting / being told to get vaccinated:  It worked stupid well.  

But remember:  The vaccine wasn't intended to stop people from getting sick, it was intended to make the illness not a concern. 
65%+ less likely to get sick?  Awesome benefit.  But not the goal.
90%+ less likely to end up in the hospital?  AWESOME!  This was the goal.
90%+ less likely to die if you do end up in the hospital?  AWESOME.  This is even better!

Until Omicron evolved, and we found out that it was really well adapted to avoid our bodies defenses?  The vaccine was a fuckin' golden child.

Now, the resistance to illness dropped dramatically, but the other two stats:  Did NOT drop a huge amount, especially with a booster.  This was still the goal.  

 

If you wanna look at raw numbers:

1/3 of the population is accounting for 80% (or more) of the hospitalizations of covid.  These are the anti-vaxxers.

The remaining 2/3 of the population is generally under 20% of the load, for people with 2 full shots, and/or booster shot.

And again, deaths from omicron are also super heavily weighted against those who are unvaccinated.  And there it's not 80/20, it's past 90/10. 

The vaccines in the states fucking work, full stop.  Anyone who peddles otherwise is selling something.

[PhantomJaguarr]

Take home covid tests are scarcer than toilet paper in 2020.

[Donut417]

8 hours ago, tkitch said:

Science changes, when the data changes.

To the average person they don't care. The government came out and said with absolute certainty this is how it is. Then they changed their tune multiple times. When that happens people have a tendency to loose faith in the people at the top. When faith is lost people have a tendency to not listen to those people. 

 

8 hours ago, tkitch said:

The vaccines in the states fucking work, full stop.  Anyone who peddles otherwise is selling something.

Im not saying they don't work. What I am saying is the CDC specifically said, get vaccinated and pretty much things go relatively back to normal for you. That was a Fucking lie. From a government that already lies about everything. Are you going to trust a bunch of liars? I already didnt trust my government, now its even worse. 

[tkitch]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

To the average person they don't care. The government came out and said with absolute certainty this is how it is. Then they changed their tune multiple times. When that happens people have a tendency to loose faith in the people at the top. When faith is lost people have a tendency to not listen to those people. 

The people at the top aren't omniscient beings?  /gasp/ /shock/ /horror/ !!!!

No shit, they're human.  They're doing what they can with what they've got.  And one thing they have is a general public that doesn't want to listen to more than a headline blurb.

 

"They said not to wear masks!"

No, what they said was they don't want people running out and buying out any/all available PPE, causing hospitals to run out of gear they NEED to operate daily.  They then added the discussion of cloth masks and related things, since those would not be a cause of hospital problems.

 

"It's now only 5 days quarantine, that's fucking stupid!!!!"

....  yeah, it's 5 days quarantine, with a whole list of caveats after that statement.  Including that you're symptom free.  Nobody ever seems to mention that part.

 

They're working with what they can actually know, and knowledge changes.  Unfortunately they're working with a few different camps that makes this hard:

1) A press pool that will only use (potentially) misleading headlines.

2) A portion of the press pool (newsmaxx, OAN, etc.) who will actively twist things to be as evil as possible.

 

3) a public that wants their information in 10 words or less.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Quote

Im not saying they don't work. What I am saying is the CDC specifically said, get vaccinated and pretty much things go relatively back to normal for you. That was a Fucking lie. From a government that already lies about everything. Are you going to trust a bunch of liars? I already didnt trust my government, now its even worse. 

And at the time?  Fully vaxx'd people basically could, as long as they weren't stupid about things.

 

Omicron changed the game.

 

New things, new data, rules change.  

 

A simple analogy?

Imagine walking up to your boss at work and saying that "The way we do things, can never change.  Doesn't matter if the markets change or demand changes, or anything else.  We're going to do things the exact same way for the rest of time!"

 

You're going to either get laughed out of your boss' office, or fired.  One of the two.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, tkitch said:

They said not to wear masks!"

The CDC said once you have your second shot masks were not needed. Stores even had signs that read “Fully vaccinated people are not required masks.” So yeah it was implied that masks were not needed for vaccinated people. 
 

1 hour ago, tkitch said:

The people at the top aren't omniscient beings? 

Then you don’t state things as facts when they are not 100% true! People didn’t trust the government before and now they will not trust any government official period. I take anything that comes from a government official/agency with a grain of salt. The government has handled this so puss poorly that if any major pandemic happens again we are all screwed. 

[tkitch]

3 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The CDC said once you have your second shot masks were not needed. Stores even had signs that read “Fully vaccinated people are not required masks.” So yeah it was implied that masks were not needed for vaccinated people. 
 

Then you don’t state things as facts when they are not 100% true! People didn’t trust the government before and now they will not trust any government official period. I take anything that comes from a government official/agency with a grain of salt. The government has handled this so puss poorly that if any major pandemic happens again we are all screwed. 

And at the time last fall?  If you were fully vaxx'd, masks were not required.  It was accurate and true.

 

Then things changed.

 

A fact at one point in time, doesn't mean that fact is eternally true.  Jesus christ, are you intentionally missing the point of everything I'm typing?

 

Facts /CAN/ change.  Facts DO change.  

 

At one point in time it was a fact that rechargable batteries were shit, and couldn't hold a charge worth a damn.  (NiCads were utter crap batteries.)

 

Now, it's a fact that rechargable batteries can be fucking /awesome/.  

 

Shit changes.  Facts change when the world changes.  Get over yourself.  

[tikker]

7 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The CDC said once you have your second shot masks were not needed. Stores even had signs that read “Fully vaccinated people are not required masks.” So yeah it was implied that masks were not needed for vaccinated people. 
 

Then you don’t state things as facts when they are not 100% true! People didn’t trust the government before and now they will not trust any government official period. I take anything that comes from a government official/agency with a grain of salt. The government has handled this so puss poorly that if any major pandemic happens again we are all screwed. 

People are to blame as well. The "get vaccinated and normality may return" was said on the basis of the known variants and people getting vaccinated. In response you get a huge amount of resistance to this supposed "new" and "experimental" vaccine. That threw a wrench in things from the start and then the mutants came which made the whole situation became many times more complicated. Omicron is now the most infectious virus in the world. With the variants being much more infectious and the protection against infection of current vaccines waning, it made sense to (re)instate the mask mandate also for vaccinated people. Over here they're only now finally discouraging cloth face masks.

 

My government also didn't take the best decisions, assumed some rather pessimistic scenarios which reflected in the measures and made a few blunders in vaccine promotion. I don't agree with all of their decisions, but at the same time, as scientists we have the luxury of predicting scenario X with a confidence interval of +/- Y% and being done with it. Unfortunately, the COVID scenarios had large uncertainties in them. As a government you then have a choice: assume the prediction is accurate and handle on that, assume the optimistic lower errorbar and plan according to that or assume the pessimistic upper errorbar and act on that. Those choices also have to be weighed in the context of a population, mental health, the economy etc.

 

I don't think there is a scenario where you will "succeed":

• Assume the prediction itself is accurate: you'll get blamed for not doing your job if it gets worse, or for being too restrictive if it turns out better.
• Assume the optimistic scenario: get big shit if things turn out worse
• Assume the pessimistic scenario: get shit for being too restrictive anyway and even more if it doesn't turn out as bad
• Say you are unsure what will happen, people don't trust or believe your decision making
• Say you think this is what will happen and it doesn't happen, people don't trust or believe your decision making
• What you think will happen happens, measures are effective making nothing happen or at a reduced scale, people will still think you overreacted

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, tkitch said:

Then things changed.

Then you don't imply that they don't. The government has been playing fast and loose with covid. We have had two government agencies not agree (The CDC and FDA) when they are suppose to be on the same team. In regards to restrictions we have them until the numbers get good, then they loosen them. Then get shocked as numbers climb. Any idiot could see the numbers will climb once you loosen restrictions. 

 

The fact is this. I got grocery shopping weekly. 50% of customers dont wear masks. 50% of employees who wear masks because company policy wear them wrong, either the nose is exposed or they are chin warmers. So Im going to guess most people are done with restrictions, they are done with covid and done with the governments inability to solve the issue at hand. Its not just the CDCs fault, fault also falls on state governments as well, because covid response has been a shit show. Either the state or local government doest have any restrictions in place or they turn in to a tyrannical government and people start leaving. 

 

At the end of the day it doesn't matter the data changes. You dont imply one thing and take it back. If you dont know the answer right then and then you say we need to review more data. We need more time to look things over. Going from restrictions to no restrictions, back to restrictions just makes people think they are dumb asses that dont know their job. 

[Andreas Lilja]

Had a medical appointment via teams, why isn't this non-Covid standard. Only need to put on a shirt. 

[Quackers101]

17 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Had a medical appointment via teams, why isn't this non-Covid standard. Only need to put on a shirt. 

depends on the medical issue, else its too unsafe to be used for personal data, some that can be very sensitive information. Something like teams are not good about, unless it was less critical appointment? Also depends who you are going to meet and what this can be used for, also knowing you are speaking with the correct people both on the medical or patient side.

[Rocketdog2112]

On 1/17/2022 at 6:54 PM, WkdPaul said:

My brother, sister, 2 of my aunts and one uncle all work in various roles in the Quebec healthcare system (orderly, office workers, nurse and doctor), they've been over worked and underpaid for much longer, but the pandemic has exacerbated this and caused systemic issues to be put in the spotlight.

Welcome to Universal Health Care...

[Rocketdog2112]

On 1/17/2022 at 10:17 PM, tkitch said:

Science changes, when the data changes.

 

The vaccine was effective against the original virus, the UK Variant, the South Africa Variant, the Delta Variant, and a number of others.  So, at the time most people were getting / being told to get vaccinated:  It worked stupid well.  

But remember:  The vaccine wasn't intended to stop people from getting sick, it was intended to make the illness not a concern. 
65%+ less likely to get sick?  Awesome benefit.  But not the goal.
90%+ less likely to end up in the hospital?  AWESOME!  This was the goal.
90%+ less likely to die if you do end up in the hospital?  AWESOME.  This is even better!

Until Omicron evolved, and we found out that it was really well adapted to avoid our bodies defenses?  The vaccine was a fuckin' golden child.

Now, the resistance to illness dropped dramatically, but the other two stats:  Did NOT drop a huge amount, especially with a booster.  This was still the goal.  

 

If you wanna look at raw numbers:

1/3 of the population is accounting for 80% (or more) of the hospitalizations of covid.  These are the anti-vaxxers.

The remaining 2/3 of the population is generally under 20% of the load, for people with 2 full shots, and/or booster shot.

And again, deaths from omicron are also super heavily weighted against those who are unvaccinated.  And there it's not 80/20, it's past 90/10. 

The vaccines in the states fucking work, full stop.  Anyone who peddles otherwise is selling something.

"The vaccine wasn't intended to stop people from getting sick, it was intended to make the illness not a concern. "

 

Such as bullshit statement.

If a vaccine works, then it totally eliminates the risk of catching something. Think the vaccines for polio, chickenpox, shingles, measles, tetanus, etc.

These are actual vaccines that WORK, unlike the crap they are currently pedaling and now recommending a fourth round.

These are not boosters, but a fourth attempt at a failed vaccine, regardless of so called mutations (which should have been stopped at the original Covid 19 level IF the vaccine worked).

 

Even then, these so called boosters have not chemically changed to keep up with any mutations. Just the same old first round of a failed vaccine.

 

That being said, I an not an anti-vaccer. I got the first shot and three days later I tested positive and was layed out for over three weeks.

A month later after I recovered, I received the second shot and was bed ridden for another week with even worse symptoms than the first round. This time it got down in my lungs.

They can take the boosters and shove them.

 

[WkdPaul]

2 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Welcome to Universal Health Care...

That is completely disingenuous.

 

2 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

"The vaccine wasn't intended to stop people from getting sick, it was intended to make the illness not a concern. "

 

Such as bullshit statement.

If a vaccine works, then it totally eliminates the risk of catching something. Think the vaccines for polio, chickenpox, shingles, measles, tetanus, etc.

These are actual vaccines that WORK, unlike the crap they are currently pedaling and now recommending a fourth round.

These are not boosters, but a fourth attempt at a failed vaccine, regardless of so called mutations (which should have been stopped at the original Covid 19 level IF the vaccine worked).

 

Even then, these so called boosters have not chemically changed to keep up with any mutations. Just the same old first round of a failed vaccine.

All false statements ;

 

• the polio vaccine has only a 90% efficacy, you need 3 shots to get to 99%,
• Similar with chickenpox ; efficacy is only 90%,
• Shingles efficacy is only at 90% after 2 doses,
• Single dose for measles is 85%-95%, again, you need a second dose to get close to 100%,
• etc...

 

Sources ;

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html

https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/diseases/chickenpox/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/index.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/canadian-immunization-guide-part-4-active-vaccines/page-12-measles-vaccine.html

 

 

2 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

That being said, I an not an anti-vaccer. I got the first shot and three days later I tested positive and was layed out for over three weeks.

A month later after I recovered, I received the second shot and was bed ridden for another week with even worse symptoms than the first round. This time it got down in my lungs.

They can take the boosters and shove them.

That's normal, it can take up to 2 weeks for the vaccine to be effective, getting COVID a few days after getting the shot only means you're unlucky, not that the vaccine is ineffective.

 

 

If you're going to present things as facts, I strongly suggest you look it up before spreading misinformation.

[tikker]

3 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

"The vaccine wasn't intended to stop people from getting sick, it was intended to make the illness not a concern. "

 

Such as bullshit statement.

If a vaccine works, then it totally eliminates the risk of catching something. Think the vaccines for polio, chickenpox, shingles, measles, tetanus, etc.

No. This last sentence is a bullshit statement. Vaccines are made to make your body develop immunity to a disease. That immunity can develop to varying degrees and can be very effective or less so. If a vaccine prevents severe consequences in 90+% (or hell even 70%), then it works. If that protection against sever consequences remains high over a long period of time, then it works. If you literally see in the numbers that the fraction of ICU and hospital admissions for vaccinated people declines and that they are dominated by unvaccinated people, then the vaccine fucking works. Vaccines aren't black and white in terms of working. People need to shed the misunderstanding that anything less than 100% means it doesn't work.

 

(In)conveniently your examples list a few that do not totally elinimate the risk of catching it, and thus according to you "don't work" and are "failed vaccines".

 

Measles

Vaccine efficacy is estimated around 93-97% [CDC ].

Quote

One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella.

Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps.

About 3 out of 100 people who get two doses of MMR vaccine will get measles if exposed to the virus. However, they are more likely to have a milder illness, and are also less likely to spread the disease to other people.

It doesn't totally eliminate the risk of catching it, yet it very obviously works.

 

It even made a comeback recently because people are not getting vaccinated against it. Lo and behold, after investigating, the CDC found that in 2019:

Quote

This is the greatest number of cases reported in the U.S. since 1992. The majority of cases were among people who were not vaccinated against measles. Measles is more likely to spread and cause outbreaks in U.S. communities where groups of people are unvaccinated.

Herd immunity for measles needs to be very high at around 95% and people were refusing to get vaccinated.

 

Polio

Vaccine efficacy seems to be around 99% after the full suite of shots.

 

https://www.who.int/ihr/polio1993en.pdf

Quote

6.2.1 Persistence of serum antibodies

Serum  obtained from these children 5 years later showed the proportion with neutralizing antibodies at a titer 2 or higher was 98% for type 1 poliovirus, 98% for type 2, and
84%  for  type  3.  A  second  group  of  58  children received 4 doses of trivalent OPV in 1968 and all had antibody at a titer of 10 or higher for all three types. Five years later the proportion with neutralizing antibodies at a titer of 2 or higher was 98%, 98%, and 87% for types 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

7.5 Protective efficacy of IPV

Before licensure, IPV (with approximately 20, 2, and 4 D antigen units of poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3,  respectively)  was  assessed  in  a  randomized,  placebo-controlled  field trial in 1954 which enrolled 1.6 million  children  in  Canada,  Finland,  and  the  USA (Francis et al. 1957). In this study, IPV was judged to be 60% to 70% effective in  preventing paralysis due to  type  1  poliovirus  and  90%  or  more  effective against paralysis due to types 2 and 3.
 

In 1986 to 1987 an outbreak due to type 1 wild virus in Senegal provided an opportunity to assess the clinical protective efficacy of eIPV in a region where it had been used since 1980 (Robertson et al. 1988). A  case-control  study  demonstrated  that  the  efficacy of two doses of eIPV in the prevention of paralysis was  89%;  the  efficacy  of  one  dose  was  only  39% (Table 5). Coverage with two doses of eIPV in the region  was  only  26%  to  28%,  indicating  that  the main cause of the outbreak was failure to vaccinate, rather than vaccine failure.

Even 40-50 years ago we already realised that 89% or even 39% protection is better than 0% protection. The polio vaccine seems to be very effective, but also no guarantees are made how long its protection actually lasts.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html

Quote

Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective.

It is not known how long people who received IPV will be immune to poliovirus, but they are most likely protected for many years after a complete series of IPV.

 

Chickenpox

Vaccine efficacy estimates vary from ~80% to >90% depending on the vaccine [HHS, CDC]

Quote

Vaccine Effectiveness

One dose

• 1 dose of single-antigen varicella vaccine is:
  • 82% effective at preventing any form of varicella
  • Almost 100% effective against severe varicella

Two doses

• In a pre-licensure clinical trial, 2 doses of vaccine were:
  • 98% effective at preventing any form of varicella
  • 100% effective against severe varicella
• In post-licensure studies, two doses of vaccine were:
  • 92% (range 88% to 98%) effective at preventing all varicella

In Children with HIV-infection

• 1 dose of single-antigen varicella vaccine is:
  • 82% effective at preventing any form of varicella

Duration is again not guaranteed and estimates seem to hover at around 10 years or so at least:

Quote

Duration of Protection

It is not known how long a vaccinated person is protected against varicella. But, live vaccines in general provide long-lasting immunity.

• Several studies have shown that people vaccinated against varicella had antibodies for at least 10 to 20 years after vaccination. But, these studies were done before the vaccine was widely used and when infection with wild-type varicella was still very common.
• A case-control study conducted from 1997 to 2003 showed that 1 dose of varicella vaccine was 97% effective in the first year after vaccination and 86% effective in the second year. From the second to eighth year after vaccination, the vaccine effectiveness remained stable at 81 to 86%. Most vaccinated children who developed varicella during the 8 years after vaccination had mild disease.¹
• A clinical trial showed that children with 2 doses of varicella vaccine were protected 10 years after being vaccinated. Fewer people had breakthrough varicella after 2 doses compared with 1 dose. The risk of breakthrough varicella did not increase over time.²
• A meta-analysis that included 1-dose vaccine effectiveness reported through 2015 found a pooled estimate of 82% within the first decade. Considering the age of participants in the studies and vaccine recommendations in each country, the median time since vaccination is likely lower than 10 years. Four studies reported decline in VE with time since vaccination; however, the differences did not reach statistical significance.³
• Two doses of varicella vaccine add improved protection, with a pooled estimate of 92% (assessed ~5 years after vaccination).

 

Tetanus

Vaccine seems pretty effective, but no hard numbers it appears [CDC].

Quote

Immunogenicity and Vaccine Efficacy

Today, diphtheria and tetanus are at historic low rates in the United States. No one has ever studied the efficacy of tetanus toxoid and diphtheria toxoid in a vaccine trial. However experts infer efficacy from protective antitoxin levels. A complete vaccine series has a clinical efficacy of virtually 100% for tetanus and 97% for diphtheria. A complete series is 3 doses for people 7 years or older and 4 doses for children younger than 7.

Duration also isn't permanent. There's a reason why if your vaccination has been longer than 10 years ago they want you to quickly get a tetanus shot if you are wounded with risk of it [RIVM].

 

3 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

These are actual vaccines that WORK, unlike the crap they are currently pedaling and now recommending a fourth round.

These are not boosters, but a fourth attempt at a failed vaccine, regardless of so called mutations (which should have been stopped at the original Covid 19 level IF the vaccine worked).

There are plenty of vaccines that come in multiple shots, including boosters. Your immune system needs to be trained. Additionally, unless you have a magical idea to instantly vaccinate all 8 billion people and additional animals in the world to update and boost their immune system to fight SARS-CoV2, you need time to vaccinate people and have immune systems build up resources to fight it. That is why mutations don't instantly stop if the vaccine works. Some viruses also mutate quicker than others, and in this case we're dealing with a rapidly mutating one. The reason we have boosters and updated vaccines coming for COVID-19 is the same reason why there's a new flu shot every year.

 

So yeah, can people stop this nonsense about the vaccine not working? Yes, the immunity doesn't last as long as we like, but it clearly works otherwise there would be a lot more dead people and collapsed health care systems.

 

3 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Even then, these so called boosters have not chemically changed to keep up with any mutations. Just the same old first round of a failed vaccine.

The current round of boosters is similar to e.g. the 3rd polio shot. It's to remind your immune system "hey this thing is still here" such that the response mechanism gets really ingrained. Pfizer's research suggests the booster is effective for omicron:

Quote

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-provide-update-omicron-variant
 

• Preliminary laboratory studies demonstrate that three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine neutralize the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 lineage) while two doses show significantly reduced neutralization titers
• Data indicate that a third dose of BNT162b2 increases the neutralizing antibody titers by 25-fold compared to two doses against the Omicron variant; titers after the booster dose are comparable to titers observed after two doses against the wild-type virus which are associated with high levels of protection
• As 80% of epitopes in the spike protein recognized by CD8+ T cells are not affected by the mutations in the Omicron variant, two doses may still induce protection against severe disease

 

So while work goes on for an updated Omicron or more general vaccine, the boosters are a good way to go.

 

3 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

That being said, I an not an anti-vaccer. I got the first shot and three days later I tested positive and was layed out for over three weeks.

A month later after I recovered, I received the second shot and was bed ridden for another week with even worse symptoms than the first round. This time it got down in my lungs.

They can take the boosters and shove them.

What kind of vaccine did you get? Some people can react adversely to it. You also may have been unlucky and just caught COVID, as the vaccine needs time to work. It could've been possible to test positive on an antibody test, which is a good thing as producing antibodies is point of the vaccination, but it doesn't seem like the vaccines should trigger a positive test:

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/can-you-test-positive-covid-19-test-after-getting-vaccine

Quote

The vaccine causes your immune system to produce antibodies, which could in theory show up as positive on an antibody test.

Getting vaccinated won’t make you show up as positive on PCR tests. That’s because these tests look for copies of the genetic material of the virus as an indication that you have been infected. But vaccines only show a part of the coronavirus to our immune systems to trigger a reaction, and at most may only contain a very small part of the complete genetic material of the virus, and so won’t get detected by these tests.

The only ways you could test positive on a PCR test after being vaccinated would be if you were one of the rare cases where the vaccine didn’t protect you from infection, or if you got a false positive test result.

 

[Edit] dang @WkdPaulbeat me with the other vaccines

[WkdPaul]

7 minutes ago, tikker said:

[Edit] dang @WkdPaulbeat me with the other vaccines

My bad !

 

To be honest, your reply is a lot more detailed and precise!

[dalekphalm]

3 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

"The vaccine wasn't intended to stop people from getting sick, it was intended to make the illness not a concern. "

 

Such as bullshit statement.

If a vaccine works, then it totally eliminates the risk of catching something. Think the vaccines for polio, chickenpox, shingles, measles, tetanus, etc.

Just so you're aware, this is a false and incorrect statement.

 

Let's take the MMR Vaccine (vaccinates against Measles, Mumps, and Rubella).

 

It's only 78% effective against the Mumps after one dose. Two doses bring that up to 88%. For Measles, it's 93% effective after one dose, and 97% effective after two.

 

Now, this is one of our most kickass vaccines.

 

No vaccine is 100% effective. No vaccine will prevent 100% of all infections from occurring. Breakthrough infections do happen.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html#:~:text=One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles,(weakened) live virus vaccine.

 

If you expose 100 people who have had the MMR to the measles, 3 of them will likely get it. The vaccine still worked though.

[WkdPaul]

17 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

depends on the medical issue, else its too unsafe to be used for personal data, some that can be very sensitive information. Something like teams are not good about, unless it was less critical appointment? Also depends who you are going to meet and what this can be used for, also knowing you are speaking with the correct people both on the medical or patient side.

 

Your reply is confusing, how is Teams unsafe ?

 

Also, "knowing who you're speaking to" ... what ? How is that different from getting a call from your doctor or from a nurse for a follow up ? If you have a scheduled appointment, does it matter if it's over the phone or on Teams ?

 

Even in person, they'll ask you a few questions to make sure you're the correct patient.