• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Have You Gotten Your Covid Vaccine? Thread.

Page 52 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,302
919
106
Yes, most people will. You strike me as a sociopath so it’s probably difficult for you to understand how normal human brains operate. Most people don’t want to get themselves, their friends, or their relatives sick.
That may be true, but a good number of people have been deluded into the mindset that Covid is a hoax, or at least not a serious threat.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
3,693
2,165
136
The new CDC guidelines for fully vaccinated people not required to wear masks outdoors and indoors is stupid. Like welcome to your next India sized wave. It's the selfish people like weblooker that will not be wearing masks and just lie about being vaccinated.
I would have preferred to wait a month so we could ensure everyone 16+ who wanted to be vaccinated would be fully vaccinated, since for the last few weeks anyone 16+ who wanted a vaccine could get one that same week and for free. By the time summer comes around I don't care about wearing a mask to protect the antivaxxers, they choose to get COVID. Everyone else 16+ in the US will have been fully vaccinated by June 20th.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
3,693
2,165
136
Mask mandate is done. Those that don't want to wear a mask, don't want to get vaccinated will not be forced to socially. There will not be any passport in US to confirm that people is vaccinated. Those that is still afraid, should wear their mask, maybe stay at home etc. The rest of us will enjoy our life the way we want to enjoy it and the way we been enjoying for long time except in such places as in stores until now.
Lots of antivaxxers can get to enjoy the loneliest death one can have too.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: weblooker2021

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,632
3,770
136
So i somehow do not pay taxes for police and fire through my property taxes?
You think you'd pay the full cost? It's everyone subsidizing everyone else.

Unless you are paying mega-millionaire mansion rates, you will never pay enough to cover the cost in addition to all the other services you consume.

But you are FU, got mine.

Selfish
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,632
3,770
136
No. You are bent on effing society when you say no to vaccination.
Nah, he's just screwing himself in the end.

He's got two choices, get a vaccine and get immunity the easy way, or roll the dice, watch while everyone else goes back to normal, but get covid from some asymptomatic vaccinated person and hope you don't end up in the hospital.

Basically getting antibodies the stupid way.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,632
3,770
136
I think the CDC is making a mistake. People who are too stubborn or selfish to take the vaccine are certainly now going to not wear a mask, and if asked, will just lie and say they are. Again, if it were just their health, let them take the risk. Unfortunately, if there is a surge in cases among the un-vaccinated it vastly increases the possibility of the generation of a new variant that could be vaccine resistant, and set us back basically to square one.
I don't think so. There won't be enough unvaccinated or not previously infected people to keep a widespread epidemic going. That threat will be from overseas, and a 3rd world country at that. Mexico, Brazil, India, S Am....


Even then, I think the threat of a breakout variant that resets is back to March 2020 is overstated. Many potential mutations weree been studied in 2020, and the worst ones were the ones that have already emerged. Eg E484K mutation
 

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
465
125
76
You think you'd pay the full cost? It's everyone subsidizing everyone else.

Unless you are paying mega-millionaire mansion rates, you will never pay enough to cover the cost in addition to all the other services you consume.

But you are FU, got mine.

Selfish
Not sure how your area works but in my if you get transported, you get billed.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
3,693
2,165
136
Nah, he's just screwing himself in the end.

He's got two choices, get a vaccine and get immunity the easy way, or roll the dice, watch while everyone else goes back to normal, but get covid from some asymptomatic vaccinated person and hope you don't end up in the hospital.

Basically getting antibodies the stupid way.
You're talking to a deplorable who thinks COVID deaths are funny.
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,302
919
106
I don't think so. There won't be enough unvaccinated or not previously infected people to keep a widespread epidemic going. That threat will be from overseas, and a 3rd world country at that. Mexico, Brazil, India, S Am....


Even then, I think the threat of a breakout variant that resets is back to March 2020 is overstated. Many potential mutations weree been studied in 2020, and the worst ones were the ones that have already emerged. Eg E484K mutation
The data says otherwise. Only 117 million have been vaccinated in the US. That is about 1/2 of the population over 16. Even adding in the 30 million or so who have been infected (and presumably have some immunity) only adds another percent or two. Estimates to achieve herd immunity are at least 70%, so we are far from safe. Furthermore, the % of the population with immunity required to achieve herd immunity increases in relation to the transmissibility of the virus. Even if you dont accept that a variant may elude the vaccine entirely (a very unscientific assumption), we already have several variants that seem to increase infectivity. I can see an economic case for opening up the economy and schools (in spite of the risks), but how fricking much of a sacrifice is it to wear a damn mask?

I also dont think removing the mask mandate for vaccinated people will increase the vaccination rate. Obviously, those who are unwilling to get a vaccine will simply lie and not wear a mask. Removing a mask mandate "for vaccinated people" is for all practical purposes entirely eliminating a mask mandate. Personally, I would be in favor of requiring proof of vaccination in order enter an establishment without a mask, but that will never happen.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,588
445
126
I think the CDC is making a mistake. People who are too stubborn or selfish to take the vaccine are certainly now going to not wear a mask, and if asked, will just lie and say they are. Again, if it were just their health, let them take the risk. Unfortunately, if there is a surge in cases among the un-vaccinated it vastly increases the possibility of the generation of a new variant that could be vaccine resistant, and set us back basically to square one.
Honestly, probably not much reason to worry about variants due to anti vaxers. People keep forgetting there's an entire planet of barely vaccinated people with covid which should provide all the variants we need without extra efforts to grow them on the home front. And thanks to the interlinked global economy, they'll all be here eventually.

That said I agree the mask mandate being removed is a mistake. But America is big on declaring victory for things we haven't finished doing so its no surprise.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,107
24,650
136
Honestly, probably not much reason to worry about variants due to anti vaxers. People keep forgetting there's an entire planet of barely vaccinated people with covid which should provide all the variants we need without extra efforts to grow them on the home front. And thanks to the interlinked global economy, they'll all be here eventually.

That said I agree the mask mandate being removed is a mistake. But America is big on declaring victory for things we haven't finished doing so its no surprise.
I agree that the risk of variants exists independent of the US.

The CDC updating guidance is the right thing though as their job is to tell us what the science says, not to feed us noble lies. The CDC inflicted terrible harm on the country early on by lying about how masks weren’t necessary when they could have helped so much, they don’t need to compound this by lying about how masks are needed for fully vaccinated people now.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,268
11,699
136
I'm skeptical the mask guidance will have a negative impact now that we're closing in on 50% first doses. Combined with somewhere north of 100M actual infections I doubt we'll see another wave. Shots are going at a decent pace now and we can start getting to the early teens. Things are looking good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek and fskimospy

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
5,687
725
126
The CDC inflicted terrible harm on the country early on by lying about how masks weren’t necessary when they could have helped so much, they don’t need to compound this by lying about how masks are needed for fully vaccinated people now.
Oh come on. The recommendation was only to avoid panic buying and preserve PPE for medical staff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,268
11,699
136
Oh come on. The recommendation was only to avoid panic buying and preserve PPE for medical staff.
Which failed spectacularly. Would have been better to put the whole country in cloth masks ASAP.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,107
24,650
136
Oh come on. The recommendation was only to avoid panic buying and preserve PPE for medical staff.
I know that but the CDC permanently undermined its credibility by doing it. It is not their job to lie to the public in the hopes of promoting more virtuous behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PingSpike

abj13

Senior member
Jan 27, 2005
986
697
136
The CDC inflicted terrible harm on the country early on by lying about how masks weren’t necessary when they could have helped so much,
Oh come on fski. We've had this discussion in the past. While the evidence for protection using N95 masks had significant support, the jury was very much out whether cloth/homemade masks offered any sort of protection. As we've talked about there were even research studies suggesting the potential for negative effects of cloth masks when used with other respiratory viruses. To suggest the CDC knew that non-N95 masks were effective when the evidence was so mixed, that's really revising the history there.
 

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
5,687
725
126
Which failed spectacularly. Would have been better to put the whole country in cloth masks ASAP.
What cloth masks? There was no market for it back last spring. People would have just used scarfs or neck gaters which have been shown to aersolize water particles even more and promote spread and made the initial wave even worse
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,107
24,650
136
Oh come on fski. We've had this discussion in the past. While the evidence for protection using N95 masks had significant support, the jury was very much out whether cloth/homemade masks offered any sort of protection. As we've talked about there were even research studies suggesting the potential for negative effects of cloth masks when used with other respiratory viruses. To suggest the CDC knew that non-N95 masks were effective when the evidence was so mixed, that's really revising the history there.
I don’t think so. While I agree the evidence wasn’t conclusive there’s a reason why health care workers wear masks at work and the reasonable default position would be that masks would be at least somewhat effective. Also, if masks weren’t effective then what’s the need to save them for health care workers? (Not talking about homemade masks, but surgical masks and such that were also discouraged)

Had the CDC said ‘we don’t know’ that would be one thing (although I think still bad) but they affirmatively came out and said people didn’t need to wear them. That was wrong.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,268
11,699
136
What cloth masks? There was no market for it back last spring. People would have just used scarfs or neck gaters which have been shown to aersolize water particles even more and promote spread and made the initial wave even worse
I'm not sure that us not bothering to try is really a strong case for it being impossible to do in a decent timeframe.
 

ArizonaSteve

Senior member
Dec 20, 2003
720
50
91
I got my second Pfizer shot yesterday. Today I feel like I have a cold. And I swear someone punched me in the arm.
 

abj13

Senior member
Jan 27, 2005
986
697
136
I don’t think so. While I agree the evidence wasn’t conclusive there’s a reason why health care workers wear masks at work and the reasonable default position would be that masks would be at least somewhat effective. Also, if masks weren’t effective then what’s the need to save them for health care workers? (Not talking about homemade masks, but surgical masks and such that were also discouraged)
I'll refer you back to my posts in January. It was never solely about "saving them for health care workers." All of the key players including Fauci, Azar, and Adams all articulated the concerns that mask may not offer the protection that people think they may be getting and contaminating themselves on top of the critical shortages of masks. Then you add to this how COVID-19 was presumed to be transmitted. As Fauci clearly articulated in March 2020, it was presumed to be primarily transmitted through symptomatic patients:


The extent of the asymptomatic pool of subjects with COVID-19 and their transmission risks was unknown. Turns out they were significant, but nobody had that data in March/April 2020.

So even despite the lack of efficacy of masking at that point in time, it made sense, given the shortages and risks, to take a risk-based approach and mask healthcare workers. They were clearly at the highest risk because of their continual exposure to potential patients with COVID-19 (and don't forget the major testing issues at the time, it was a royal pain in the butt to try to get results <24 hours). But to try to mask 300+ million Americans, for no clear benefit, no clear risk of daily exposure to a symptomatic COVID patients, with a healthcare system left unprepared by the administration (remember, in March 2020, the Strategic National Stockpile had only 30 million surgical masks)?

It was a multifactorial problem. It wasn't just about the shortages. It was also about the evidence of how effective masks were and who was at risk for exposure to COVID-19. They took a risk based approach given the science at the time. Unfortunately, the data was incomplete to make the decision and if they had the data we had now, the outcome would have been different.

Had the CDC said ‘we don’t know’ that would be one thing (although I think still bad) but they affirmatively came out and said people didn’t need to wear them. That was wrong.
I thought they lied? Exactly what did they lie about? Their recommendation at the time was wrong because the science was incomplete, no doubt. But how was that lying?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,107
24,650
136
I'll refer you back to my posts in January. It was never solely about "saving them for health care workers." All of the key players including Fauci, Azar, and Adams all articulated the concerns that mask may not offer the protection that people think they may be getting and contaminating themselves on top of the critical shortages of masks. Then you add to this how COVID-19 was presumed to be transmitted. As Fauci clearly articulated in March 2020, it was presumed to be primarily transmitted through symptomatic patients:


The extent of the asymptomatic pool of subjects with COVID-19 and their transmission risks was unknown. Turns out they were significant, but nobody had that data in March/April 2020.

So even despite the lack of efficacy of masking at that point in time, it made sense, given the shortages and risks, to take a risk-based approach and mask healthcare workers. They were clearly at the highest risk because of their continual exposure to potential patients with COVID-19 (and don't forget the major testing issues at the time, it was a royal pain in the butt to try to get results <24 hours). But to try to mask 300+ million Americans, for no clear benefit, no clear risk of daily exposure to a symptomatic COVID patients, with a healthcare system left unprepared by the administration (remember, in March 2020, the Strategic National Stockpile had only 30 million surgical masks)?

It was a multifactorial problem. It wasn't just about the shortages. It was also about the evidence of how effective masks were and who was at risk for exposure to COVID-19. They took a risk based approach given the science at the time. Unfortunately, the data was incomplete to make the decision and if they had the data we had now, the outcome would have been different.

I thought they lied? Exactly what did they lie about? Their recommendation at the time was wrong because the science was incomplete, no doubt. But how was that lying?
While I take your point that 'lie' is maybe too strong a word I think their statements that those who were not sick should not wear masks was not warranted by the information available at the time and I think they made that statement for the purpose of conserving medical supplies for health care workers. After all this isn't about certainty, it's basically if you had to bet in the spring of 2020 if wearing a mask would be better, the same, or worse than not wearing one, with what we knew at the time the bet would be on better or the same and guidance did not reflect that.

I believe had masks been plentiful at that time they would not have given that guidance and so they were misleading the public or at a minimum stressing uncertainty to an unwarranted extent for something they considered the greater good. This is doubly true considering how CDC recommendations almost always err on the side of additional caution and additional precautions. (for example the CDC says to always cook steak well done...wtf.) I think this damaged their credibility and was a terrible mistake.
 

abj13

Senior member
Jan 27, 2005
986
697
136
I think their statements that those who were not sick should not wear masks was not warranted by the information available at the time
Based on what information?

SARS-CoV-2 was thought to be only transmitted by symptomatic patients (this is true for many, but not all, viral infections)
The extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections was unknown (it wasn't known until serology studies started emerging in May)
The effectiveness of masking was mixed with some evidence of negative effects (as discussed)

So what evidence suggested universal masking at that point, taking in account how the virus was thought to be transmitted and who was at risk for infection?

After all this isn't about certainty, it's basically if you had to bet in the spring of 2020 if wearing a mask would be better, the same, or worse than not wearing one, with what we knew at the time the bet would be on better or the same and guidance did not reflect that.
That's really Monday Morning Quarterbacking it. The risk of masking making things worse was of serious concern back then, as I've already cited the important studies that suggested that outcome. Let's not forget the potential of "I'm wearing a mask, therefore it is safe and I can do stupid things again." Thankfully masking did offer protection for COVIDiots, but imagine what if it didn't?

I believe had masks been plentiful at that time they would not have given that guidance and so they were misleading the public or at a minimum stressing uncertainty to an unwarranted extent for something they considered the greater good. This is doubly true considering how CDC recommendations almost always err on the side of additional caution and additional precautions. (for example the CDC says to always cook steak well done...wtf.) I think this damaged their credibility and was a terrible mistake.
Misleading in what way? The key stakeholders in this discussion all spoke to 1) shortage of masks 2) risks of wearing masks 3) how the virus was presumed to be transmitted. What exactly was misleading about those statements that was made at that time with the science that was known at that time?

And no, the CDC doesn't always err on additional precautions without evidence. Take RSV for example, a common respiratory virus. One of the scourges of pediatric hospitals and one of the most common reasons why children are admitted to the hospital each year. No masks are recommended.

I'm not going to touch the influence of the previous administration over some of the statements regarding recommendations, but we both know they influenced important aspects of how the pandemic progressed. I'm sure you and I see eye to eye on the negative influence they had.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS