Have You Gotten Your Covid Vaccine? Thread.

[fleshconsumed]

Well, got my first Phizer shot about three weeks ago, felt absolutely nothing except the tiniest discomfort in the art, about 1 on a 10 scale. Had my second Phizer shot yesterday at 5pm, was good until about 11am today, I'm not feeling horrible right now, but I did take the rest of the day off work. Injection point is definitely sore, about 4 on a 10 scale, a bit lightheaded, got a bit of a headache, feeling chills and generally a bit off. Yay for being fully vaccinated in two weeks.

 

[abj13]

I was saying that was not my argument, which it wasn’t.

As for your study, it also supports my position? I never advocated for cloth masks.

It supports your claim the CDC lied or misled? Huh?

No, I’m saying that the CDC should not discourage an intervention without the preponderance of the evidence suggesting they should discourage it.

Is it your claim that the medical literature in spring of 2020 indicated that wearing masks, real masks, not bandanas or whatever, increased the spread of respiratory disease like SARS? I find that extremely unlikely

Interesting. First it was the CDC lied. Then it was the CDC misled. Now its the CDC shouldn't recommend against something unless it has evidence. And now its they should have gone with their *best guess.* You've flipped-flopped around on this issue so much.

I've already posted the literature at large at the time, including the sentiments of the WHO during the H1N1 pandemic. There was major concerns that universal masking had no benefit, including several studies demonstrating lack of efficacy or adherence, and there was the potential risk of worsening the infectivity rate. I'm still waiting for this study showing the effectiveness of universal masking that the CDC ignored. Where is it?

Again, that’s a good case for taking measure to improve compliance, not to discourage effective interventions.

Also, your study says less effective, not that it makes things worse, which also supports my point!

Hahaha. So a study that shows masking at home resulted in less than 50% compliance supports your point?

You linked to it yourself! This relates back to my previous point about the blind spot medical professionals have when it comes to public health. The evidence you linked about the effectiveness of masking in health care settings indicates efficacy in a general sense where it is more probable than not that they are effective. It’s an emergency so you go with your best guess and if you’re wrong you adjust It’s also an emergency so you don’t bother with the distinction between risk based and universal because of asymmetric risks.

Yeah, its quite interesting how people expect a scientific-based group, like the CDC, to make a decision about a recommendation not based on existing science, but to make guesses. As much as the policy makers all would have liked to know what is known now and transfer the knowledge based to 2020, they have to deal with reality. The literature at large suggested there was no proven benefit to universal masking with concerns it could worsening the infectivity rate. The WHO had this concern about universal masking going back to 2009. So this isn't new. It has been a major concern for over a decade.

Likewise, your logic extends to other important aspects of the pandemic. Using your "best guess" means we should have implemented the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines back in September and not wait for data and evidence. Sure in retrospect that would have probably saved thousands of lives (in theory), but what if the decision was wrong? What if the vaccine offered no protection and made things worse?

So I'm not surprised you think best guesses and ignoring evidence is the best way because you're biased by the outcome. This is classic Monday Morning Quaterbacking. It is only after knowing the outcome you want to place labels on the CDC and say they lied or misled.

Don't get me wrong, the initial mask recommendation turned out to be a wrong recommendation, but this only crystalized after weeks of experiences during the pandemic demonstrating the underlying assumptions about the virus was not what was previously presumed. But you really are failing to squeeze your square peg into a round hole. Unfortunately this is how science operates. You apparently don't want scientists to practice science, but to rely on simple guesses.

 

[ondma]

You can agrue about the semantics all day to try to discredit another poster. Bottom line, it would simply be common sense to me that masks would help decrease the spread. That is just my opinion. However, even if one accepts the fact that the evidence was not clear, Fauci should have said something to the effect of "we dont have sufficient evidence at this time to recommend masks, but studies are in progress" instead of specifically saying we should not be wearing masks. He was even given the chance to qualify this recommendation when the interviewer said "are you sure". Instead of giving some discretion for future changes, like saying "that is what we are recommending, based on current evidence", he doubled down by repeating the statement without qualification.

 

[fskimospy]

It supports your claim the CDC lied or misled? Huh?

Interesting. First it was the CDC lied. Then it was the CDC misled. Now its the CDC shouldn't recommend against something unless it has evidence. You've flipped-flopped around on this issue so much.

I already said that saying they lied was too strong. Other than that I've been entirely consistent. Your studies do support my position though, yes.

I've already posted the literature at large at the time, including the sentiments of the WHO during the H1N1 pandemic. There was major concerns that universal masking had no benefit, including several studies demonstrating lack of efficacy or adherence, and there was the potential risk of worsening the infectivity rate. I'm still waiting for this study showing the effectiveness of universal masking that the CDC ignored. Where is it?

So to be clear you are claiming that the state of the science as of Spring 2020 was that the most probable answer was that universal masking with medical grade masks would increase transmission of SARS type viruses?

Just want to nail you down on an exact claim here because that seems quite unlikely to me.

Hahaha. So a study that shows masking at home resulted in less than 50% compliance supports your point?

Uhm...yes? I'm genuinely confused as to why you're saying otherwise.

Yeah, its quite interesting how people expect a scientific-based group, like the CDC, to make a decision about a recommendation not based on science, but on assumptions and guesses. As much as the policy makers all would have liked to know what is known now and transfer the knowledge based to 2020, they have to deal with reality.

Exactly! This is the blind spot I'm discussing. You don't have the luxury of waiting for the science because waiting that long gets people killed so you act based on your best guess given the lack of knowledge at the time.

We have to deal with reality and not with ideals where we know everything. That means using assumptions and guesses because doing otherwise gets people killed.

The literature at large suggested there was no proven benefit to universal masking with concerns it could worsening the infectivity rate. What happens in research studies and masking with medical providers and should be "theoretically" the same with non-medical providers is a huge leap of faith, which was already demonstrated with my link. The WHO had this concern about universal masking going back to 2009. So this isn't new. It has been a major concern for over a decade.

Right, but proven benefits are meaningless because there's no time to prove it - the question is what is most likely. Your studies showed no issue with real masks and simply said compliance was a problem. It makes no sense to discourage them if the issue is compliance as that would make things even worse! You improve compliance, not ditch effective intervention!

Likewise, your logic extends to other important aspects of the pandemic. Using your "best guess" means we should have implemented the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines back in September and not wait for data and evidence. Sure in retrospect that would have probably saved thousands of lives (in theory), but what if the decision was wrong? What if the vaccine offered no protection and made things worse?

Yes, I think there's a very good argument that our vaccine approval process moves much too slowly. Decisions can be wrong, but delaying is also a decision.

So I'm not surprised you think best guesses and ignoring evidence is the best way because you're biased by the outcome. This is classic Monday Morning Quaterbacking. It is only after knowing the outcome you want to place labels on the CDC and say they lied or misled.

Don't get me wrong, the initial mask recommendation turned out to be a wrong recommendation, but this only crystalized after weeks of experiences during the pandemic demonstrating the underlying assumptions about the virus was not what was previously presumed. But you really are failing to squeeze your square peg into a round hole.

No, I do not believe in ignoring evidence. I think that public health measures are biased by excessive desire for certainty and we should stop doing that.

 

[VashHT]

Agreed. I would honestly be more upset if I didn't have any reaction to the second shot.

From the vaccine studies for moderna and pfizer only 50% of people had a reaction to the second shot but the efficacy was still the same, so people shouldn't be thinking it didn't work if you don't have a reaction.

 

[esquared]

From the vaccine studies for moderna and pfizer only 50% of people had a reaction to the second shot but the efficacy was still the same, so people shouldn't be thinking it didn't work if you don't have a reaction.

Exactly. I was one who had a few hours of arm soreness at the injection site for both Pfizer shots. That's it. No other side effects. I never once thought I wasn't generating antibodies.
I've had the hepatitis B, 3 shot series twice, flu vaccines every year, Shingrix 2 shot series and both the prenvar 13 and pneumovax 23 with only slight soreness at the injection site.
Additional side effects aren't a requirement for having successful protection.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

IMO one or two days of pain is a tiny price to pay for near immunity.
Maybe three days if booster shot is required and does the same thing.
Still totally worth it.

 

[cytg111]

Well, got my first Phizer shot about three weeks ago, felt absolutely nothing except the tiniest discomfort in the art, about 1 on a 10 scale. Had my second Phizer shot yesterday at 5pm, was good until about 11am today, I'm not feeling horrible right now, but I did take the rest of the day off work. Injection point is definitely sore, about 4 on a 10 scale, a bit lightheaded, got a bit of a headache, feeling chills and generally a bit off. Yay for being fully vaccinated in two weeks.

Wonder if that is normal? Thinking the antibodies created from the first shot gets to work immediately when the second shot begins pumping out spikes.. /not a scientist.

 

[ivwshane]

At this point if you haven’t gotten the vaccine (not directed at kids or people who weren’t eligible until recently), you get what you deserve at this point, I have no spare fucks to give.

If you get sick and die it’s on you and I hope it was worth whatever imagined bogeyman you were trying to fight.

 

[abj13]

I already said that saying they lied was too strong. Other than that I've been entirely consistent. Your studies do support my position though, yes.

Uhm...yes? I'm genuinely confused as to why you're saying otherwise.

Your studies showed no issue with real masks and simply said compliance was a problem. It makes no sense to discourage them if the issue is compliance as that would make things even worse! You improve compliance, not ditch effective intervention!

I respect you tons fksi, but you are literally pulling a PCGeek. We're all still waiting for this study the CDC overlooked regarding the efficacy of universal masking. Everything I've posted demonstrates how major medical organization have been concerned about the efficacy of universal masking outside of medical providers and how meaningless small benefits can be because of non-compliance. These studies reinforce the risk based approach the CDC took as mentioned several posts ago. Medical providers who were in close contact with subjects at risk for COVID-19 have a real benefit of masking. That has been the point iterated by Fauci and others as I have posted, and all of the studies support. This is the group who is going to be compliant and have benefit.

The question you have consistently failed to meet is to demonstrate the benefit of masking to those at much lower risk of exposure. This is exactly the concern the WHO had. This is exactly the concern Fauci had. This is exactly why you can't say from those studies that clearly non medical people will have a benefit. The risk calculation is entirely different. And even when it has been studied to inform decision about universal masking, there wasn't a clear benefit. Then you add the potential demonstrated in the one trial showing an increased risk with certain types of masks with medical providers, the concern is real.

And yet you want the CDC to ignore the studies showing no benefit, ignore the fact there was no evidence in support of universal masking, ignore the concerns of improper masking leading to potentiation of infection, and make a decision with nothing but a best guess? As below, they didn't wait for excessive certainty!

Yes, I think there's a very good argument that our vaccine approval process moves much too slowly. Decisions can be wrong, but delaying is also a decision.

No, I do not believe in ignoring evidence. I think that public health measures are biased by excessive desire for certainty and we should stop doing that.

Ha! If this pandemic showed you anything, public health measures have not been made on the basis of certainty. Remember hydroxychloroquine? Most hospitals were using it in March/April despite a pitiful amount of data behind it. Steroids were poopooed for the longest time and are now a key part of treatment. Remember how obsessed people were about transmitting the virus through surfaces and other inanimate objects? Turns out people matter, dirty tables not so much.

So your critique about certainty holds no water. And look at all of those decisions. They were also wrong, but they were made with the evidence on hand (now some of them were very wrong decisions in the first place, don't get me started with Hydroxychloroquine).

But the vaccines were a different ball of wax. And using a vaccine, assuming it is safe when reality is isn't safe, is also a decision with consequences. Its an incredibly bad decision to use a vaccine before testing if the vaccine fails and causes harm. Unfortunately, nobody in medicine is Nostradamus and can predict the future. Just imagine the situation in which Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were implemented before appropriate testing, had 0% efficacy and came with the risk of a major side effect.

So there's no evidence of excessive desire for certainty. If your concern is about making decisions with an excessive desire for certainty, then you should be applauding the CDC for taking a stand on masks with the evidence in hand they had in March/April. They made it far from any confidence of certainty at that point. So that's quite a contradiction in your logic.

 

[ondma]

You are contradicting yourself again. In your last sentence, you admit there was no certainty about the efficacy of masks. But Fauci made a statement with absolute certainty that we should not be wearing masks. And he doubled down on that absolute statement when the interviewer asked him if he was sure.

 

[abj13]

You are contradicting yourself again. In your last sentence, you admit there was no certainty about the efficacy of masks. But Fauci made a statement with absolute certainty that we should not be wearing masks. And he doubled down on that absolute statement when the interviewer asked him if he was sure.

Fauci and I are both saying universal masking (as in everyone in any setting outside their home) was not recommended at the time because the data didn't support it. That is different from saying healthcare providers should wear them because the data supported that and they would actually be around COVID-19 patients. He specifically says "But when you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them..."

This was on the basis of who was thought to be transmitting the virus and who was at risk of exposure. The presumption was that asymptomatic people were either a small percentage of people or were unlikely to transmit the virus. This has been based on modeling through other viruses including influenza. "Based on the available literature, we found that there is scant, if any, evidence that asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals play an important role in influenza transmission."

That's where the risk stratification comes into play. Its the same idea why older persons with risk factors of heart disease or stroke should be on a daily aspirin. It is directed at those at risk, not everyone takes it. It was the same concept with masking. Again, it was wrong, but that was what the science said at the time.

 

[fskimospy]

I respect you tons fksi, but you are literally pulling a PCGeek. We're all still waiting for this study the CDC overlooked regarding the efficacy of universal masking. Everything I've posted demonstrates how major medical organization have been concerned about the efficacy of universal masking outside of medical providers and how meaningless small benefits can be because of non-compliance. These studies reinforce the risk based approach the CDC took as mentioned several posts ago. Medical providers who were in close contact with subjects at risk for COVID-19 have a real benefit of masking. That has been the point iterated by Fauci and others as I have posted, and all of the studies support. This is the group who is going to be compliant and have benefit.

I respect you a great deal as well but I’m sorry, you are still trying to reverse the burden of proof and on this. In addition while your knowledge of medicine is clearly vastly better than mine this isn’t about medicine, at least not primarily. This is about public health policy and I think in many cases great doctors are terrible at public health policy.

It meant nothing that we didn’t have a study in hand and it would be wrong to have waited for one. I for one am glad the CDC recognized their error and took that anti-masking guidance back, but it should never have been issued to begin with.

The question you have consistently failed to meet is to demonstrate the benefit of masking to those at much lower risk of exposure. This is exactly the concern the WHO had. This is exactly the concern Fauci had. This is exactly why you can't say from those studies that clearly non medical people will have a benefit.

Right but what I keep saying is not being able to show benefit doesn’t matter. It is a near zero cost intervention that has demonstrated efficacy in a health care setting and so it was bad to tell people not to do it. It was an emergency and in emergencies you take risks, especially when the cost/benefit was so skewed in favor of it.

The risk calculation is entirely different. And even when it has been studied to inform decision about universal masking, there wasn't a clear benefit. Then you add the potential demonstrated in the one trial showing an increased risk with certain types of masks with medical providers, the concern is real.

But the masks showing that risk were not the ones under discussion.

And yet you want the CDC to ignore the studies showing no benefit, ignore the fact there was no evidence in support of universal masking, ignore the concerns of improper masking leading to potentiation of infection, and make a decision with nothing but a best guess? As below, they didn't wait for excessive certainty!

No, I wanted them to do a better job of risk analysis. The study that said they weren’t effective due to noncompliance came right out and said a more dire illness could render their findings obsolete. Considering that’s exactly the situation we were in that’s a pretty huge caveat! Also, if that’s the case it is downright negligent to not even attempt to improve compliance! The study thst showed potential harm was about masks not under discussion.

None of this is Monday morning quarterbacking, these were criticisms made by medical professionals at the time!

Ha! If this pandemic showed you anything, public health measures have not been made on the basis of certainty. Remember hydroxychloroquine? Most hospitals were using it in March/April despite a pitiful amount of data behind it. Steroids were poopooed for the longest time and are now a key part of treatment. Remember how obsessed people were about transmitting the virus through surfaces and other inanimate objects? Turns out people matter, dirty tables not so much.

So your critique about certainty holds no water. And look at all of those decisions. They were also wrong, but they were made with the evidence on hand (now some of them were very wrong decisions in the first place, don't get me started with Hydroxychloroquine).

But the vaccines were a different ball of wax. And using a vaccine, assuming it is safe when reality is isn't safe, is also a decision with consequences. Its an incredibly bad decision to use a vaccine before testing if the vaccine fails and causes harm. Unfortunately, nobody in medicine is Nostradamus and can predict the future. Just imagine the situation in which Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were implemented before appropriate testing, had 0% efficacy and came with the risk of a major side effect.

So there's no evidence of excessive desire for certainty. If your concern is about making decisions with an excessive desire for certainty, then you should be applauding the CDC for taking a stand on masks with the evidence in hand they had in March/April. They made it far from any confidence of certainty at that point. So that's quite a contradiction in your logic.

I agree that as the pandemic became more dire the CDC and the medical community took greater risks, but this was only when things were already out of control.

As for the vaccines, I never said don’t test them at all, I said our testing regimen takes too much time. Basic safety of the vaccines was (to the best of my knowledge) established by the end of summer 2020. At this time there was also very promising data on efficacy. Start manufacturing and distributing then, don’t wait for months of additional data! Honestly they should have started manufacture in April before any safety was established. Sure it might end up ineffective and you wasted money, but who cares. Don’t wait to mandate things until full approval, do it now. Use human challenge trials, etc. Instead, we patted ourself on the back for how it only took us nine months to test a vaccine while hundreds of thousands of Americans died. This was a monumental policy failure. Same with the J&J ‘pause’ -What an irresponsible cluster fuck by the FDA that should have never happened.

I greatly appreciate the knowledge and expertise you bring here and I’m very aware of your superiority over me in that regard, but these are public policy questions and I think our institutions punish risk taking and it killed a lot of people.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just asking,
What is the harm with wearing a mask inside or outside if it doesn't do anything?

Before someone says lung infections and such please point me to a real person who had one from wearing a mask. My State has been mask on for a year and I have not heard of any such thing.

 

[abj13]

I respect you a great deal as well but I’m sorry, you are still trying to reverse the burden of proof and on this. In addition while your knowledge of medicine is clearly vastly better than mine this isn’t about medicine, at least not primarily. This is about public health policy and I think in many cases great doctors are terrible at public health policy.

It meant nothing that we didn’t have a study in hand and it would be wrong to have waited for one. I for one am glad the CDC recognized their error and took that anti-masking guidance back, but it should never have been issued to begin with.

Right but what I keep saying is not being able to show benefit doesn’t matter. It is a near zero cost intervention that has demonstrated efficacy in a health care setting and so it was bad to tell people not to do it. It was an emergency and in emergencies you take risks, especially when the cost/benefit was so skewed in favor of it.

But the masks showing that risk were not the ones under discussion.

No, I wanted them to do a better job of risk analysis. The study that said they weren’t effective due to noncompliance came right out and said a more dire illness could render their findings obsolete. Considering that’s exactly the situation we were in that’s a pretty huge caveat! Also, if that’s the case it is downright negligent to not even attempt to improve compliance! The study thst showed potential harm was about masks not under discussion.

None of this is Monday morning quarterbacking, these were criticisms made by medical professionals at the time!

Don't assume too much about me But this isn't about public health policy, its about making a decision. I've iterated several times the reasons why the decision against masking was made, for multiple reasons. All that you have provided is a theoretical benefit that even contradicted the data at large. Its like investing in GME right now. There's a multitude of data suggesting GME is not going to make you any money, but you want to grasp onto the possibility the big squeeze will happen and you'll make millions. Of course, if the squeeze happens and you make millions, the Monday Morning quarterback would say see, you should have bet on GME! But that's ignoring all the data out there and the massive hole of data supporting your position when the decision had to be made.

And you can't call it a near zero cost measure. As mentioned, the national stockpile only had 30 million surgical masks at the time. Hospitals were struggling simply to meet their demand. Hospital employees were going so far to steal N95 masks from hospital stockpiles. Where are these surgical masks coming from for everyone in healthcare and 300 million Americans?

If you really want to call this a public health policy and not a scientific decision, then making a recommendation for universal masking would have collapsed the mask situation in March/April, and is the public policy rationale behind the risk-based approach. And that's why cloth masks matter because they became the stopgap once masking was recommended. You really are arguing against yourself now by invoking claims about public policy.

And the one thing I haven't spoken to, but should be mentioned at this point, is the real risk of viruses on the surface of the mask and risk of self-contamination. This is exactly what Fauci was talking about in the 60 Minutes interview. This is the reason behind the big discussion about reusing masks and how to decontaminate them in the beginning of the pandemic. This is another reason why the concerns of differences in outcomes between mask usage in healthcare providers and non-healthcare providers. As it turned out, this matters less for SARS-CoV-2, but that was not known at the time.

I agree that as the pandemic became more dire the CDC and the medical community took greater risks, but this was only when things were already out of control.

As for the vaccines, I never said don’t test them at all, I said our testing regimen takes too much time. Basic safety of the vaccines was (to the best of my knowledge) established by the end of summer 2020. At this time there was also very promising data on efficacy.

Not really. For example, the Pfizer vaccine only had 60 participants in the phase I trial (assuming I'm interpreting the FDA document correctly and its not 90- they were randomizing 4 to 1 vaccine to placebo). If a major side effect only occurs in 1% participants, the sample would have been far too small to make any conclusion.

Start manufacturing and distributing then, don’t wait for months of additional data! Honestly they should have started manufacture in April before any safety was established. Sure it might end up ineffective and you wasted money, but who cares. Don’t wait to mandate things until full approval, do it now. Use human challenge trials, etc. Instead, we patted ourself on the back for how it only took us nine months to test a vaccine while hundreds of thousands of Americans died. This was a monumental policy failure. Same with the J&J ‘pause’ -What an irresponsible cluster fuck by the FDA that should have never happened.

This gets into the vaccine development I think you should do more research on if interested. Because Moderna and Pfizer (and J&Js is also newer but different!) are newer technologies, scaling up production of the key components were a severe bottleneck. Unfortunately, they couldn't just turn on the switch and start making vaccines in the spring or summer. If interested, you should check these stories out: here and here.

I didn't like the J&J pause, but I think they were playing the long-game. Show you care about safety by showing your willingness to pause even if its for a risk that borders the risk of being hit by lightning.

I greatly appreciate the knowledge and expertise you bring here and I’m very aware of your superiority over me in that regard, but these are public policy questions and I think our institutions punish risk taking and it killed a lot of people.

I appreciate you too and I think we totally agree if there was a different administration during 2020, things would have been significantly different.

 

[abj13]

Just asking,
What is the harm with wearing a mask inside or outside if it doesn't do anything?

Before someone says lung infections and such please point me to a real person who had one from wearing a mask. My State has been mask on for a year and I have not heard of any such thing.

These were the major concerns in the spring 2020. These were legitimate concerns at the time, but the science has shown otherwise (I'm not going to post lame conspiracy theories about oxygenation and all that crap):
1) Universal masking of non-healthcare workers led to no significant benefit of masking and major problems with compliance. It would have offered no benefit and put diverted masks away from hospitals See (1) and (2)
2) Some masks would lead to a 13-fold increase risk of an influenza-like illness
3) Viruses can be detected on mask surfaces, and could lead to contaminating yourself with the virus.

But in 2021? The pandemic has taught everyone masks are safe and effective. That's why Fauci has been recently advocating masks will be worn seasonally. I think its really cool that masking has lead to viruses like influenza and RSV to be relatively non-existent (until recently).

 

[Moonbeam]

Republicans are at a tremendous political disadvantage. There only interest is in wielding power even though they have no moral compulsion to use it for the benefit of humanity. Nobody with an ounce of objective self interest would vote for them.

They exist because they serve the will of the 1%. Thus they have no way to maintain that power except by the use of propaganda that creates division and fear. In this way an American flag on the lapel, the color of the suit you wear, whether you practice virus protection by getting vaccinated or wear a mask are turned into trigger mechanisms.

Do what the other sheep do if you want Daddy to protect you. And owing to the fact that Americans are deeply neurotic owing to the stress of capitalistic competition with it's concomitant fear of failure, this kind of psychological manipulation becomes simplicity itself. Follow the herd or those humanitarian thinking liberal wolves will eat you.

And as a reward for your dedication, your thumbing you nose at those evil liberals will be all the emotional satisfactions that go with small-minded bigotry and hate.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't assume too much about me But this isn't about public health policy, its about making a decision. I've iterated several times the reasons why the decision against masking was made, for multiple reasons. All that you have provided is a theoretical benefit that even contradicted the data at large. Its like investing in GME right now. There's a multitude of data suggesting GME is not going to make you any money, but you want to grasp onto the possibility the big squeeze will happen and you'll make millions. Of course, if the squeeze happens and you make millions, the Monday Morning quarterback would say see, you should have bet on GME! But that's ignoring all the data out there and the massive hole of data supporting your position when the decision had to be made.

I don’t agree it was contradicted by the data - the data clearly shows medical masks are an effective intervention against infection, the question was essentially if the public could use them properly enough to gain that benefit. If improper use is the issue then work on that, don’t say they aren’t effective because that’s not true!

And you can't call it a near zero cost measure. As mentioned, the national stockpile only had 30 million surgical masks at the time. Hospitals were struggling simply to meet their demand. Hospital employees were going so far to steal N95 masks from hospital stockpiles. Where are these surgical masks coming from for everyone in healthcare and 300 million Americans?

This comes back to my original point though, which is that prioritizing them for health workers made sense but I think if that’s the goal you just say that’s the goal. In terms of actual cost to an individual and society wearing a mask costs essentially zero.

Also, this messaging severely undermined the CDC’s credibility because they were essentially telling the public ‘masks don’t work but also we need to ration them to protect health care workers because they work’. This is again the public health vs. medicine thing - people took that as ‘masks work but we are lying to you’. Again, I agree that saying they were lying was too much, but it really hurt their credibility.

If you really want to call this a public health policy and not a scientific decision, then making a recommendation for universal masking would have collapsed the mask situation in March/April, and is the public policy rationale behind the risk-based approach. And that's why cloth masks matter because they became the stopgap once masking was recommended. You really are arguing against yourself now by invoking claims about public policy.

And the one thing I haven't spoken to, but should be mentioned at this point, is the real risk of viruses on the surface of the mask and risk of self-contamination. This is exactly what Fauci was talking about in the 60 Minutes interview. This is the reason behind the big discussion about reusing masks and how to decontaminate them in the beginning of the pandemic. This is another reason why the concerns of differences in outcomes between mask usage in healthcare providers and non-healthcare providers. As it turned out, this matters less for SARS-CoV-2, but that was not known at the time.

I don’t agree. Making cloth masks a stopgap solution is a public policy choice, it is not some requirement.

You’re absolutely right to bring up potential risks and uncertainties but none of these justify saying masks were ineffective when we had good reason to believe that’s not true! I believe this is why the CDC reversed itself on this guidance so quickly, and why the CDC’s counterparts in Southeast Asia that had prior experience with similar viruses never said that to begin with.

Not really. For example, the Pfizer vaccine only had 60 participants in the phase I trial (assuming I'm interpreting the FDA document correctly and its not 90- they were randomizing 4 to 1 vaccine to placebo). If a major side effect only occurs in 1% participants, the sample would have been far too small to make any conclusion.

Right but by the end of summer far more than phase I had been done and from my understanding many thousands of people had gotten the two shot regimen by then.

This gets into the vaccine development I think you should do more research on if interested. Because Moderna and Pfizer (and J&Js is also newer but different!) are newer technologies, scaling up production of the key components were a severe bottleneck. Unfortunately, they couldn't just turn on the switch and start making vaccines in the spring or summer. If interested, you should check these stories out: here and here.

I’ve have read about the difficulty in scaling manufacturing for these technologies but I think when people discuss the manufacturing difficulties they are still suffering from a failure of imagination. What if in March of 2020 we offered companies manufacturing these vaccines and their various components $1 trillion to do it much faster. Hell, make it $10 trillion. Enlist the army to construct facilities, etc. Could they have done so? I suspect the answer is absolutely yes. The economic damage from this virus was so significant that money was essentially no object but we still pretended it was - we should have literally spent unlimited sums to make the pandemic end sooner.

I didn't like the J&J pause, but I think they were playing the long-game. Show you care about safety by showing your willingness to pause even if its for a risk that borders the risk of being hit by lightning.

This is what I mean about doctors not understanding public health policy and us having a system that makes institutions risk averse. They thought they were showing a commitment to safety by pausing distribution. From a medical perspective this makes sense! From a public health/public opinion perspective though what the people heard was ‘this vaccine is unsafe, don’t take it’. Usage cratered after their announcement. Similar things happened in Europe with the AZ vaccine when they stopped it but not in the UK, who shrugged their shoulders and continued on.

From the FDA’s point of view I get it - if you don’t pause distribution when 50 people die of blood clots the FDA is blamed for being unsafe. If you do pause distraction and 5,000 more people die of COVID that fades into the background and nobody is blamed. That’s bad for public health though!

I appreciate you too and I think we totally agree if there was a different administration during 2020, things would have been significantly different.

Well that we do agree on, haha.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Well, had a pretty crappy second half of Friday and didn't sleep very well after getting 2nd shot on Thursday, but I'm feeling 80-90% back to normal on Saturday morning. Hoping I can get back to working out on Monday.

 

[abj13]

I don’t agree it was contradicted by the data - the data clearly shows medical masks are an effective intervention against infection, the question was essentially if the public could use them properly enough to gain that benefit. If improper use is the issue then work on that, don’t say they aren’t effective because that’s not true!

This comes back to my original point though, which is that prioritizing them for health workers made sense but I think if that’s the goal you just say that’s the goal. In terms of actual cost to an individual and society wearing a mask costs essentially zero.

Also, this messaging severely undermined the CDC’s credibility because they were essentially telling the public ‘masks don’t work but also we need to ration them to protect health care workers because they work’. This is again the public health vs. medicine thing - people took that as ‘masks work but we are lying to you’. Again, I agree that saying they were lying was too much, but it really hurt their credibility.

Oh fski, its quite unfortunate to see your arguments fall absolutely flat. I guess it was pretty telling that you decided to post that the CDC lied. Normally you are so careful to be accurate in your written words. But it was clear from that moment you lost any objectivity and perspective on this, and now have spent several posts failing to actually support your assertions.

To claim that Fauci, Azar, and Adams never said to prioritize the masks for healthcare workers, when they actually did further reinforces your lack of objectivity. I have previously documented how all three said that masks should be prioritized for healthcare workers.

In fact, the CDC website said this very thing. Here is the link to the archive from March 31st, 2020:

"If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers."

On top of that, it is up to you, to explain to all of us, why the CDC should have chosen to abandon their scientific based policy regarding respiratory infectious agents, why they should abandon the science behind universal masking that was on hand, and since you invoke public policy, why the CDC should ignore the reality of only having 30 million surgical masks? For the past 20+ years, the CDC's response to concerns of respiratory viruses has been a risk-based approach. In 2003, medical workers prepared and wore masks for patients suspected of SARS. There was no recommendation that the general public should consider masking. When H1N1 came around in 2009, medical workers were advised to continue masking, not the general public. In 2012 with MERS, the same approach. Whether it was concerns of small pockets of Avian Flu, or even when enterovirus D68 raced across the country in 2014, the approach has been the same, a risked-based approach to get the masks to those who have a clear benefit.

And the science didn't support a change in the risk-based strategy. The CDC and others in science didn't rely on assuming what is true for medical workers and safety of masking would also be true for the general public. And when studied, masks failed as an intervention against the primary outcome in this one or this one or this one or this one. But it is also telling your willingness to ignore the primary outcome and rely on post-hoc analysis trying to address issues with the primary randomization variable in the trials. Further evidence of your lack of objectivity. There was no clear evidence that universal masking did anything at that point in time, and the fact you want the CDC to abandon a risk-based strategy on the basis of weak scientific post-hoc what ifs, is not rooted in any real justification. There were the very real concerns of masks including increasing the risk and the real possibility of infectious virus being present on the mask putting the user at risk for self-contamination. These concerns we're all echoed by the key players and you just want to discount in order to somehow justify your initial posts on this topic.

And then the final failure is your invocation of public policy and avoidance of issue of the national stockpile of only having 30 million masks. There's a clear reason why you refuse to even address this problem after I've mentioned it several times. It really shoots your idea in the foot.

Its an unfortunate collapsed pile of cards. I'm sorry fski, you really need to revisit this event from a more objective position.

I don’t agree. Making cloth masks a stopgap solution is a public policy choice, it is not some requirement.

You’re absolutely right to bring up potential risks and uncertainties but none of these justify saying masks were ineffective when we had good reason to believe that’s not true! I believe this is why the CDC reversed itself on this guidance so quickly, and why the CDC’s counterparts in Southeast Asia that had prior experience with similar viruses never said that to begin with.

Nothing you have posted has suggested that the CDC should change its initial risk-based masking response to the pandemic. Can you show me the evidence that the CDC should have changed their policy? I think I've asked this multiple times and you refuse to offer anything.

And the reason the CDC changed their policy was because the science changed, not because of some magical study Asian countries were following before the pandemic. Cases studies like the Washington Choir superspreader event demonstrated how important close person to person contact with respiratory droplets was. The science was coming in at real time and the response changed accordingly.

Right but by the end of summer far more than phase I had been done and from my understanding many thousands of people had gotten the two shot regimen by then.

When they got the shot is irrelevant. The study was regarding efficacy and safety. You have to follow those patients for a period of time. So not only did Pfizer and Moderna need 3-4 weeks simply to get the doses in people, you actually have to follow them to see who gets infected. Out of the ~36,000 subjects in the Pfizer study (vaccine and placebo), there were a total of 170 cases of COVID-19. That's why they needed so many people and the study duration is to get a sufficient number of exposures to understand the efficacy. Unfortunately the summer/fall was not during a major surge. It would have been faster if more cases occurred.

If they simply only followed the 60-90 people from the Phase I, the odds would have been zero infections in vaccine and placebo arms. So your timeline for requesting data still doesn't jive with what needed to be studied in the trials. So your concern that the trials should have been faster still isn't justified by anything.

I’ve have read about the difficulty in scaling manufacturing for these technologies but I think when people discuss the manufacturing difficulties they are still suffering from a failure of imagination. What if in March of 2020 we offered companies manufacturing these vaccines and their various components $1 trillion to do it much faster. Hell, make it $10 trillion. Enlist the army to construct facilities, etc. Could they have done so? I suspect the answer is absolutely yes. The economic damage from this virus was so significant that money was essentially no object but we still pretended it was - we should have literally spent unlimited sums to make the pandemic end sooner.

Yeah, so your concern is at the policy level, not the science level.

This is what I mean about doctors not understanding public health policy and us having a system that makes institutions risk averse. They thought they were showing a commitment to safety by pausing distribution. From a medical perspective this makes sense! From a public health/public opinion perspective though what the people heard was ‘this vaccine is unsafe, don’t take it’. Usage cratered after their announcement. Similar things happened in Europe with the AZ vaccine when they stopped it but not in the UK, who shrugged their shoulders and continued on.

From the FDA’s point of view I get it - if you don’t pause distribution when 50 people die of blood clots the FDA is blamed for being unsafe. If you do pause distraction and 5,000 more people die of COVID that fades into the background and nobody is blamed. That’s bad for public health though!

Its really surprising to see how much Monday Morning Quaterbacking you're willing to do. When the vaccine was paused, the goal was to get more data. Once it became clear the risk was exceptionally low, of course using the benefit of that knowledge after the fact, why did the stop the vaccine?

I suggest you read about the Cutter Incident. Just imagine if the J&J vaccine was causing thousands of blood clots and there were hundreds dying because of the vaccine? You're so confident in your beliefs because you have the benefit of knowledge of the outcome. But what if the J&J vaccine had an issue analogous the Cutter Incident? There is a very real problem that has occurred in the past regarding vaccine manufacturing.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh fski, its quite unfortunate to see your arguments fall absolutely flat. I guess it was pretty telling that you decided to post that the CDC lied. Normally you are so careful to be accurate in your written words. But it was clear from that moment you lost any objectivity and perspective on this, and now have spent several posts failing to actually support your assertions.

It's an unfortunate tendency on here that when people become frustrated that they are unable to convince others they decide that it's not the weakness of their arguments but some sort of personal failing of the other party. I think you're a smart guy who has a lot of knowledge in this field - I don't think you're incorrect because you're unable to think objectively or are some sort of CDC homer, I think you are just incorrect on the right balance between certainty and action in an emergency.

Maybe you should take a step back and consider that the reason I don't accept your arguments is that I'm right, and your attempts to disprove them have further shown that I'm right.

To claim that Fauci, Azar, and Adams never said to prioritize the masks for healthcare workers, when they actually did further reinforces your lack of objectivity. I have previously documented how all three said that masks should be prioritized for healthcare workers.

In fact, the CDC website said this very thing. Here is the link to the archive from March 31st, 2020:

"If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask unless you are caring for someone who is sick (and they are not able to wear a facemask). Facemasks may be in short supply and they should be saved for caregivers."

I never claimed Fauci didn't say to prioritize masks for health care workers... ever. My point was that correct guidance should not have discouraged mask use for the general public and if the purpose was to prioritize health care workers they should just have said that instead of saying both that AND erroneously claiming masks were ineffective.

On top of that, it is up to you, to explain to all of us, why the CDC should have chosen to abandon their scientific based policy regarding respiratory infectious agents, why they should abandon the science behind universal masking that was on hand, and since you invoke public policy, why the CDC should ignore the reality of only having 30 million surgical masks? For the past 20+ years, the CDC's response to concerns of respiratory viruses has been a risk-based approach. In 2003, medical workers prepared and wore masks for patients suspected of SARS. There was no recommendation that the general public should consider masking. When H1N1 came around in 2009, medical workers were advised to continue masking, not the general public. In 2012 with MERS, the same approach. Whether it was concerns of small pockets of Avian Flu, or even when enterovirus D68 raced across the country in 2014, the approach has been the same, a risked-based approach to get the masks to those who have a clear benefit.

I've already explained this several times. Is there some part of my point you were unclear on? After all, the studies you cited explicitly said they may not apply to the emergency that was at hand at the time. So basically, we knew masks were effective in a health care context and had no idea if they were effective in a general sense.

And the science didn't support a change in the risk-based strategy. The CDC and others in science didn't rely on assuming what is true for medical workers and safety of masking would also be true for the general public. And when studied, masks failed as an intervention against the primary outcome in this one or this one or this one or this one. But it is also telling your willingness to ignore the primary outcome and rely on post-hoc analysis trying to address issues with the primary randomization variable in the trials. Further evidence of your lack of objectivity. There was no clear evidence that universal masking did anything at that point in time, and the fact you want the CDC to abandon a risk-based strategy on the basis of weak scientific post-hoc what ifs, is not rooted in any real justification. There were the very real concerns of masks including increasing the risk and the real possibility of infectious virus being present on the mask putting the user at risk for self-contamination. These concerns we're all echoed by the key players and you just want to discount in order to somehow justify your initial posts on this topic.

And then the final failure is your invocation of public policy and avoidance of issue of the national stockpile of only having 30 million masks. There's a clear reason why you refuse to even address this problem after I've mentioned it several times. It really shoots your idea in the foot.

Its an unfortunate collapsed pile of cards. I'm sorry fski, you really need to revisit this event from a more objective position.

See above. As for the studies you linked:

1) study said its results lacked sufficient statistical power to draw conclusions.
2) study said face masks were effective, just that people often didn't use them correctly. Notably it says in the case of a severe pandemic that concern might be obviated. (hint hint)
3) this one basically supports you.
4) study said face masks were effective, although not to a statistically significant level (but results consistently in favor of mask wearing).

Of your four studies only one really supports your conclusion and two support mine! Regardless, for all of these the study was about transmission within a household where people are confined together for days, weeks, months at a time. That was not the public policy question being debated, so their applicability would be dubious even if they didn't support my point instead of yours.

Again, you don't need clear evidence, this is an emergency! This is the difference between good science and good public policy. We had a failure of public policy.

Nothing you have posted has suggested that the CDC should change its initial risk-based masking response to the pandemic. Can you show me the evidence that the CDC should have changed their policy? I think I've asked this multiple times and you refuse to offer anything.

We have already discussed this - in the face of a lack of evidence but an extreme threat good public policy demands that you take such risks. We had a known effective intervention in a health care setting so the basics behind its efficacy were known. We didn't know if it would work in a more general sense, but you don't have time to establish that. Prudent public policy would have been to take a shot at it. If you think my argument for this is wrong that's fine but you've repeatedly failed to even acknowledge it's being made.

And the reason the CDC changed their policy was because the science changed, not because of some magical study Asian countries were following before the pandemic. Cases studies like the Washington Choir superspreader event demonstrated how important close person to person contact with respiratory droplets was. The science was coming in at real time and the response changed accordingly.

Uhmm, that study was published AFTER the CDC made its change.

When they got the shot is irrelevant. The study was regarding efficacy and safety. You have to follow those patients for a period of time. So not only did Pfizer and Moderna need 3-4 weeks simply to get the doses in people, you actually have to follow them to see who gets infected. Out of the ~36,000 subjects in the Pfizer study (vaccine and placebo), there were a total of 170 cases of COVID-19. That's why they needed so many people and the study duration is to get a sufficient number of exposures to understand the efficacy. Unfortunately the summer/fall was not during a major surge. It would have been faster if more cases occurred.

If they simply only followed the 60-90 people from the Phase I, the odds would have been zero infections in vaccine and placebo arms. So your timeline for requesting data still doesn't jive with what needed to be studied in the trials. So your concern that the trials should have been faster still isn't justified by anything.

Again this is a failure of imagination and a blind spot on good public health policy. With risks so asymmetric the right answer is to blow a bunch of money on producing and distributing it EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT IT WORKS. This might be bad science, but it's good public policy.

Yeah, so your concern is at the policy level, not the science level.

Right, because this is a debate on public policy.

Its really surprising to see how much Monday Morning Quaterbacking you're willing to do. When the vaccine was paused, the goal was to get more data. Once it became clear the risk was exceptionally low, of course using the benefit of that knowledge after the fact, why did the stop the vaccine?

I suggest you read about the Cutter Incident. Just imagine if the J&J vaccine was causing thousands of blood clots and there were hundreds dying because of the vaccine? You're so confident in your beliefs because you have the benefit of knowledge of the outcome. But what if the J&J vaccine had an issue analogous the Cutter Incident?

Nonsense. I believed the J&J pause was a catastrophic mistake at the moment it happened. Sure enough, the results were exactly what I predicted.

Page 2 - Adverse reactions with Covid vaccine cause site shutdowns. No, not AstraZeneca. It's Johnson and Johnson

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

So no, I was Sunday afternoon quarterbacking and I got it 100% right. The fact that this would happen was entirely obvious ahead of time, the issue is that the FDA has organizational incentives to make bad calls like this.

 

[Bitek]

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.

Actual infections are over 100M, ie 30% of the population.

Vaccination rate over adults is over 50%.

As we've even seen here, antivaxxers, antimaskers and getting covid tend to go together, so the actual immunity rate is higher than 50%.

70% is estimated, it's not firmly known.

When in doubt, look at the data, especially from places like AL, MS. Terrible vaccination rates, poor mask adherence, have had low rates for many weeks.

No reason places like the NE and CA, who have had good vax rollouts and low rates, shouldn't also follow suit and allow masks off for the vaccinated.

If they are not following the data and the science, what are we following?

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm so glad Fox is helping out in the regard about mask wearing.

I'm sure they'll help out with the confusion on mask wearing.

Fox News, after clamoring for weeks to end mask rules, calls new CDC guidance a "distraction" | Salon.com

 

[abj13]

It's an unfortunate tendency on here that when people become frustrated that they are unable to convince others they decide that it's not the weakness of their arguments but some sort of personal failing of the other party. I think you're a smart guy who has a lot of knowledge in this field - I don't think you're incorrect because you're unable to think objectively or are some sort of CDC homer, I think you are just incorrect on the right balance between certainty and action in an emergency.

Maybe you should take a step back and consider that the reason I don't accept your arguments is that I'm right, and your attempts to disprove them have further shown that I'm right.

Hahaha. Thanks for a great laugh. I really do respect you. But you've really gone off your rocker. I'm not the one who claimed the CDC lied. Oh wait, you changed it to the CDC misled. Oh wait, it was the CDC should have gone with their "best guess." Oh wait, your original point was that "prioritizing them for health workers made sense but I think if that’s the goal you just say that’s the goal."

My point has been consistent since January on this topic. I've said it repeatedly that the CDC did get it wrong, but I understood the circumstance and data that backed their position. Your attempt to project the weaknesses of your posts on me is readily obvious. As mentioned, you've completely lost any objectivity on this, got called out on it, and you cannot find a justifiable position and have been flopping around to new positions trying to see what can stick.

I never claimed Fauci didn't say to prioritize masks for health care workers... ever. My point was that correct guidance should not have discouraged mask use for the general public and if the purpose was to prioritize health care workers they should just have said that instead of saying both that AND erroneously claiming masks were ineffective.

You said: "This comes back to my original point though, which is that prioritizing them for health workers made sense but I think if that’s the goal you just say that’s the goal."

They did say it. So if that's your original point, then you agree with what the CDC and others did, as I have posted. Even the CDC website said exactly what you wanted! Can you explain why if that's your original point, and the fact it was followed, you aren't' applauding everyone for doing exactly what you wanted?

I've already explained this several times. Is there some part of my point you were unclear on? After all, the studies you cited explicitly said they may not apply to the emergency that was at hand at the time. So basically, we knew masks were effective in a health care context and had no idea if they were effective in a general sense.

It is quite clear now that you have no justification for the CDC disregarding their risk-based policy for masking. They recommended masks for those in healthcare because the science justified their use. The science did not justify the CDC abandoning that approach and moving to universal masking.

Even you agree that there was no conclusive evidence of using masks in a "general sense." So how does that justify the CDC changing their policy that was used for all previous respiratory viral threats to the nation?

See above. As for the studies you linked:

1) study said its results lacked sufficient statistical power to draw conclusions.
2) study said face masks were effective, just that people often didn't use them correctly. Notably it says in the case of a severe pandemic that concern might be obviated. (hint hint)
3) this one basically supports you.
4) study said face masks were effective, although not to a statistically significant level (but results consistently in favor of mask wearing).

Of your four studies only one really supports your conclusion and two support mine! Regardless, for all of these the study was about transmission within a household where people are confined together for days, weeks, months at a time. That was not the public policy question being debated, so their applicability would be dubious even if they didn't support my point instead of yours.

Again, you don't need clear evidence, this is an emergency! This is the difference between good science and good public policy. We had a failure of public policy.

We have already discussed this - in the face of a lack of evidence but an extreme threat good public policy demands that you take such risks. We had a known effective intervention in a health care setting so the basics behind its efficacy were known. We didn't know if it would work in a more general sense, but you don't have time to establish that. Prudent public policy would have been to take a shot at it. If you think my argument for this is wrong that's fine but you've repeatedly failed to even acknowledge it's being made.

Perfect. This is exactly why I posted those multiple studies. It only further confirms the extent of your lack of objectivity. Look how you discount the primary outcome of studies 2 and 4. I'm not surprised.

But its very clear why your arguments have completely changed. For awhile it was: "that masks are a well known, longstanding intervention that's known to generally limit the spread of infectious disease and discouraging their use was a bad idea."

Now its who needs clear evidence, you take your "best guess!" That's why we got hydroxychloroquine through that attitude.

But interesting enough, when the issue of the national stockpile only having 30 million masks, you still dodge the issue. If we're going to discard years of policy regarding respiratory infections, ignore the lack of evidence in the science, how are you going to support the system where you have only 30 million masks and 300+ million citizens?

Taking such a risk would have collapsed the medical system as masks would have absolutely disappeared from those who needed them the most.

Uhmm, that study was published AFTER the CDC made its change.

Wow. I really can't believe you wrote that. The study was conducted in March 2020. Do you really think the CDC ignored its own internal data, waited for peer review to occur, and then only considered the results in May?

Again this is a failure of imagination and a blind spot on good public health policy. With risks so asymmetric the right answer is to blow a bunch of money on producing and distributing it EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT IT WORKS. This might be bad science, but it's good public policy.

How is throwing more money going to address a total of 170 infections amongst 36,000 subjects?

Nonsense. I believed the J&J pause was a catastrophic mistake at the moment it happened. Sure enough, the results were exactly what I predicted.

Page 2 - Adverse reactions with Covid vaccine cause site shutdowns. No, not AstraZeneca. It's Johnson and Johnson

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

So no, I was Sunday afternoon quarterbacking and I got it 100% right. The fact that this would happen was entirely obvious ahead of time, the issue is that the FDA has organizational incentives to make bad calls like this.

That's good! But that doesn't mean you can discount the potential for negative outcomes. While that one was a easier one to predict not all situations are equal. That was the point, which was not addressed.

 

[fskimospy]

Hahaha. Thanks for a great laugh. I really do respect you. But you've really gone off your rocker. I'm not the one who claimed the CDC lied. Oh wait, you changed it to the CDC misled. Oh wait, it was the CDC should have gone with their "best guess." Oh wait, your original point was that "prioritizing them for health workers made sense but I think if that’s the goal you just say that’s the goal."[

My point has been consistent since January on this topic. I've said it repeatedly that the CDC did get it wrong, but I understood the circumstance and data that backed their position. Your attempt to project the weaknesses of your posts on me is readily obvious. As mentioned, you've completely lost any objectivity on this, got called out on it, and you cannot find a justifiable position and have been flopping around to new positions trying to see what can stick.

It's usually considered bad form to continue to attack someone on a point once they've conceded an error. This generally makes people not want to concede errors, and that's already a big enough problem. All of my other statements are entirely consistent with one another and yes, the CDC should have gone with their best guess.

I think you're annoyed that I won't agree with you and you're trying to find some reason other than that I'm right so you're searching for inconsistencies where none exist.

You said: "This comes back to my original point though, which is that prioritizing them for health workers made sense but I think if that’s the goal you just say that’s the goal."

They did say it. So if that's your original point, then you agree with what the CDC and others did, as I have posted. Even the CDC website said exactly what you wanted! Can you explain why if that's your original point, and the fact it was followed, you aren't' applauding everyone for doing exactly what you wanted?

No, they said that AND they said masks were ineffective. They should have just stuck to saying the right thing and not the wrong thing.

It is quite clear now that you have no justification for the CDC disregarding their risk-based policy for masking. They recommended masks for those in healthcare because the science justified their use. The science did not justify the CDC abandoning that approach and moving to universal masking.

Even you agree that there was no conclusive evidence of using masks in a "general sense." So how does that justify the CDC changing their policy that was used for all previous respiratory viral threats to the nation?

Because their policy was to DISCOURAGE their use, not to not-encourage it. Those are two very different things.

Perfect. This is exactly why I posted those multiple studies. It only further confirms the extent of your lack of objectivity. Look how you discount the primary outcome of studies 2 and 4. I'm not surprised.

This is a puzzling way to characterize the findings of those studies but again it seems to reinforce the difference between medical science and public policy. Like, if science shows that condoms effectively prevent the spread of STIs but people don't use them right so they aren't being effective the public health policy intervention would be to educate people on proper condom use, not to say they don't work. It should be easy to see how that would apply here.

But its very clear why your arguments have completely changed. For awhile it was: "that masks are a well known, longstanding intervention that's known to generally limit the spread of infectious disease and discouraging their use was a bad idea."

No, this is entirely consistent and entirely correct.

Now its who needs clear evidence, you take your "best guess!" That's why we got hydroxychloroquine through that attitude.

Right! It's okay to take chances and sometimes those chances are wrong. The issue with hydroxychloroquine was that people kept pushing it long after we knew with high confidence that it didn't work. Pretty stark contrast with masks there.

But interesting enough, when the issue of the national stockpile only having 30 million masks, you still dodge the issue. If we're going to discard years of policy regarding respiratory infections, ignore the lack of evidence in the science, how are you going to support the system where you have only 30 million masks and 300+ million citizens?

Taking such a risk would have collapsed the medical system as masks would have absolutely disappeared from those who needed them the most.

We have already discussed this repeatedly, I'm confused as to why you keep asking the same questions. Rationing the masks was fine (and it's what we did!). There was no need to say masks were ineffective when they didn't know that. Then again, I think most people didn't believe them anyway because as I mentioned their messaging was essentially 'these masks are critically needed to protect health care workers but they won't protect you'. I strongly suspect the average person's reaction to that was 'you're full of shit'.

Wow. I really can't believe you wrote that. The study was conducted in March 2020. Do you really think the CDC ignored its own internal data, waited for peer review to occur, and then only considered the results in May?

I have no idea what the CDC did.

How is throwing more money going to address a total of 170 infections amongst 36,000 subjects?

I'm not sure what the confusion is here - I'm saying that efficacy data was irrelevant as to the appropriate next steps of manufacture and distribution. There was good reason to believe the science would eventually show they would be effective so the right answer was to spend essentially unlimited sums of money on them even before that evidence was available. The risk/reward balance was so asymmetric as to justify basically any amount of money.

So, throwing money wouldn't have addressed the infection count at all but who gives a shit? Again, public health policy vs. science. Good science to wait to see if they work but catastrophically bad public policy that probably lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. And just like with the J&J pause this was 100% predictable ahead of time.

That's good! But that doesn't mean you can discount the potential for negative outcomes. While that one was a easier one to predict not all situations are equal.

No one has ever argued for discounting the potential for negative outcomes, ever. Why would you say that? What the FDA failed to do is the same thing the CDC failed to do, which was appropriately account for the risk/reward ratio of their guidance. They went minimum risk from medical intervention when good public health policy was screaming to do the opposite. See how my point about making your best guess applies here? We didn't know for sure but I made a guess based on the available evidence and I was right while the FDA waited for more certainty and probably indirectly led to the deaths of large numbers of people.

While you made a clear error here in accusing me of something that even a cursory search would have shown was inaccurate I'm not going to keep rubbing your face in it. I respect you and so I've made a point of being civil and it would be nice if you would return the favor. There's no need to talk shit to me here and it's okay if we just don't agree on the proper risk/reward profile. I think you're clearly wrong, but you're not crazy.