Necessary but not sufficient, then.
Or perhaps "Necessary but not sufficient or possible."
Sounds good as a lawsuit.
Sounds great as a cage match.
We don’t.
I don’t think I have the answers.
I do know that what we are doing now doesn’t work very well in informing the masses about stuff like this pandemic. There all all kind of people exploiting fear uncertainty and doubt. If the press will not inform the public adequately, we need to insert some actual facts into peoples newsfeed. I don’t know who should be the arbiter of those facts but anything (anyone) we come up with is bound to be better than letting Mark and Jack decide what is true or false.
Or Pulitzer and Hearst? All along in the age of mass media we have depended on there being a kind of market consensus of what information was credible, that was heavily influenced by the social standing of those who published it and those who acted like they believed it.
To a huge degree, what helped with the “consensus of truth” back in the day was that not every rando could get a million views for their blather with negligible effort. It took both material and social capital to set up a large-circulation newspaper, mass market publisher, or a major media market radio or TV franchise, and crackpots had to get past the line editor, chief editor, and publisher/producer first – and mind you, quite a few times they would.
Alas, it’s too late for that in re: COVID. We live in an era where a fairly large swath of the population makes up their minds early and based on politicized misinformation and then view all efforts to get them to budge as proof there’s a conspiracy against The Truth.
Even when once-trusted and long-admired media figures admit the truth, they’re excoriated as traitors and dismissed. Remember the loyal Trumpists (including Trump, himself) who angrily turned against Fox News when it called Arizona for Biden? That’s but one example.
I feel we should find a way (probably not mandated government press releases:) ) to make “mainstream” scientific consensus more prominent in public discussion. Right now there is zero impetuous on media to report that and a whole cottage industry around reporting FUD. There must be a way to change that just a little in favor of fact based reality. Let’s go back to the press passes, maybe don’t give them out to entertainment channels? Try to enforce a separation of news and opinion? Define a useful minimum % of fact-based reporting of actual news?
I don’t think this is true (although “so many” could mean different things to different people, I suppose). I thought the only medical reasons to not be vaccinated were if you had an allergy to any of the vaccine ingredients. That isn’t that many people, ISTM.
You are correct, but most transplant survivors along with many other people are taking daily immuno-suppresent drugs that prevent their immune system from reacting to the vaccine. I think a lot of people are a little confused about the difference and lump folks for whom the vaccine won’t work with those who are allergic.
This situation is still very fluid and there are so many nuances involved.
I’m having a hard time coming up with any medical reason whatsoever, other than allergies. As for allergies, if you’re allergic to Pfizer, it probably doesn’t share ingredients with AZ or J&J or some other options. Until I see evidence to the contrary, the few people who can’t get this for medical reasons are the types of people that are so allergic to everything around them that they live in a bubble.
I’m wearing a mask for you.
Thank you, I’ll be wearing mine too!
Was trying to post that my immuno-suppresent drug prescriber didn’t tell me not to bother getting vaccinated 'cause it wouldn’t work anyway so I’m not sure if it’s correct that immuno-suppresent drugs prevent the immune system from reacting to the vaccine.
But I’m just the patient!
I don’t know much about this at all. I have a friend who is a transplant survivor and she’s scared to death of COVID. She has had five jabs and her blood work doesn’t show any response. I’ve asked doctor google and got a bunch of conflicting information, so I don’t share any of it except to remember that there are folks who can’t be successfully vaccinated.
Different immuno-suppressant drugs administered at different times in different people to treat different ailments will, unsurprisingly, lead to different outcomes.
I am (was?) being treated with an immune-suppressing drug but I got the two Moderna shots, with the first dose being 3 months after my last infusion treatment.
I asked my caregivers then if maybe I should wait for the shots because my B-Cell depleted system was not likely to react much to the shot until my body had regained some B-Cells (around 6 -12 months).
They said I should get it then because “maybe you won’t need all those B-Cells for COVID–it’s possible the T-Cells etc. will protect you.”
Sure… it’s possible but no one knows and who wants to have no B-Cells during a deadly pandemic? I was pretty set on waiting 6 or more months but because the vax supply was unpredictable at that time (late April) I decided I better get it while I could–BUT with every intention of getting re-vaccinated 6 or more months after my last infusion treatment.
Now it’s been more than 6 months so I asked my neurologist about getting re-vaxxed and he was very dismissive of the idea saying there was no reason to because I was already vaxxed.
ETA - I would consider it to be a re-vaccination instead of a booster (as if the first time was only a “just-in-case” but not meant to be a best-effort vaccination). But now it seems boosters are being recommended right now for immuno-compromised and other vulnerable populations. I say, call it whatever but I’d like to get another shot, please.
I’m not not taking immune suppressant drugs, but I am living with an idiot. I’m going to be talking to my doctor on Monday and asking for a shot of J&J. I’m old enough that I care about my remaining years instead of being young and immortal , so yes, may I have another one, please.
ITA you should get another shot, but I’m puzzled as to why your neurosurgeon didn’t test for antibodies before being dismissive. I don’t know much about getting such tests. Do you need a doc’s orders? It seems like it’d be helpful info for you because you’d have a better idea of whether the vaccine has had any effect and, later, an antibody test could show you whether another jab has benefitted you. No?
Freedumb
There is mixed info about this. The general info is that testing for antibodies will only confuse the issue because it is not known how much antibody titer (?) is needed to protect from COVID. So if people are tested and find they have the antibodies they may think they are protected but might not be (and the reverse).
OTOH I have read that it is useful for immuno-compromised because just knowing whether or not you have any antibody can tell you something. BUT, I can’t find that information anymore (to present to my neurologist) and, I will add that there are (at least) two different antibody tests and one shows if you’ve had the disease, and the other shows whether you have protection from vaccine (spike protein antibody?). I get them confused.
My main issue is my lack of organization. I researched about a million published papers about this and took copious notes but I can’t find the pertinent info when I need it.
My understanding is that the tests you get at urgent care show if you have COVID now. Because I had a severe gastro issue for a week that included fever a few months after Arizona went hot, my doctor drew blood to test if I had COVID anti-bodies.
My above mentioned friend says that the test I got was different than the test her doctor orders for her. When she explained it, she talked about spike proteins, so you are probably right about that. I wonder if you asked again, if your doctor would write the lab order while shrugging about patients nowadays.
Story of my life, so I totally get it.
My thought was if you could have some idea, however vague, of whether or not you have any antibodies at all, it’d be helpful, but of course, you’re already on that job.
I have lupus but am in remission. I haven’t been on meds (methotrexate, in my case) for over two years. I don’t like how immunosuppressants make mountains out of molehills, infection-wise, but I also don’t like the prospects of lupus damaging my body more than it has. I’m assuming I have antibodies because after the second Moderna jab, I got a fever, body aches, a cough, and generally felt like shite for two days. But maybe those symptoms don’t mean I have antibodies? It’s very confusing.
Shame on my sister.
For most of my life I sort of looked up to my big sister. She was a child of the hippie revolution, very cool, studied to become an art teacher and generally succeeded at life.
Except she’s turned into a conspiracy nutter, supports nut job Aus politicians (Trump wannabees) and whilst she’s always been anti-vax, it’s gone a step further with Covid 19.
Because now, not only is the vax a poison, but the likely consequences of not being vaxxed are an infringement of her inalienable human rights or some shit. She objects to a ‘two tier’ classification of vaxxed v unvaxxed people. She truly believes that her right to be unvaxxed should override any consequences of her choice.
Well sis, good luck with that!! Let’s see if you can get on a plane from Aus to Guangzhou as you do 5 or 6 times a year, without being immunized. You don’t want to be jabbed, you scream HUMAN BODILY AUTONOMY, and bemoan not being able to travel?
Yeah, fuck off. Any respect I once had for you is gone.