Quote:

---

weight loss would make no difference to mortality outcomes

---

Despite what you read in Cosmopolitan, obese is not healthy.

It would be helpful for any kind of discussion to put some definition to what "needing" the vaccine means.

at any rate, I agree that for people who already got covid, the value of the vaccine goes way, way down.

you're drifting back into the realm of "political things i don't like" and i don't really understand why. i wrote above, and have repeatedly said in the past, that even though there was precedent for mandatory vaccination in the US, i find it questionable in ethical terms, and didn't agree with it.

HOWEVER... i disagree with you that mandatory vaccination wasn't health related. if you stop taking for granted that the vaccines are dangerous (you and i completely disagree here, and that's fine) this becomes an entirely different question.

it is incredibly easier to vaccinate everyone than to add a step of first sorting out who has and hasnt had covid. you either go by people saying they have or havent (many of whom will be wrong) or you do an antibody test which adds time and money and complexity to the whole exercise.

imagine you're in charge of public health policy and you have to try to the best coverage for the best outcomes for the whole country. you can't think that in that scenario, with that responsibility, you wouldn't opt for a simpler, faster, more effective program?

i don't think the CDC has a general health mandate. they're focused on communicable diseases. obesity isn't catching. so... i don't know... blame congress for not making the CDC in charge of obesity or general health i guess? seems kind of weird. i'd rather them stay in their lane.

anyway i kinda think this is a false premise. pretty sure everyone understands that being obese isn't healthy. even if perfectly motivated nobody who needed to was going to be able lose 50 lbs in time to avoid covid.

Quote:

---

Covid vaccine was NOT beneficial and likely harmful for healthy young adults and children.

---

*citation needed

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

weight loss would make no difference to mortality outcomes

---

Despite what you read in Cosmopolitan, obese is not healthy.

---

Reading comprehension is your friend. You seem to be missing your friend.

Zobel said:

---

i'd rather them stay in their lane.

---

well they didn't. and you don't think they could've added weight loss to their "to limit risk" PSA campaigns?

Many other countries did. The only reason I know is because the American left ostracized them for "fat shaming."

they didn't? novel respiratory virus pandemic IS their lane. and i think we both agree that they did a crappy job executing their own plans.

im not sure that the CDC not saying "hey being fat is unhealthy including for covid" means that the decisions were not health related

Zobel said:

---

It would be helpful for any kind of discussion to put some definition to what "needing" the vaccine means.

at any rate, I agree that for people who already got covid, the value of the vaccine goes way, way down.

you're drifting back into the realm of "political things i don't like" and i don't really understand why. i wrote above, and have repeatedly said in the past, that even though there was precedent for mandatory vaccination in the US, i find it questionable in ethical terms, and didn't agree with it.

HOWEVER... i disagree with you that mandatory vaccination wasn't health related. if you stop taking for granted that the vaccines are dangerous (you and i completely disagree here, and that's fine) this becomes an entirely different question.

it is incredibly easier to vaccinate everyone than to add a step of first sorting out who has and hasnt had covid. you either go by people saying they have or havent (many of whom will be wrong) or you do an antibody test which adds time and money and complexity to the whole exercise.

imagine you're in charge of public health policy and you have to try to the best coverage for the best outcomes for the whole country. you can't think that in that scenario, with that responsibility, you wouldn't opt for a simpler, faster, more effective program?

---

Holy *****! You are for the vaccine mandate!! Is that what you're saying?

Here's your last paragraph...

"Imagine you're in charge of public health policy and you have to try to the best coverage for the best outcomes for the whole country. you can't think that in that scenario, with that responsibility, you wouldn't opt for a simpler, faster, more effective program?"

This sounds like, if you were in charge, and of course for good of the "whole country", you would force people to take a very new vaccine that may harm or kill them, EVEN IF THEY DON'T NEED IT!!

The people that got covid before the vaccine and survived DID NOT NEED THE VACCINE!! Yet, many of them were forced to get a vaccine they didn't need or lose their job.

Many of those who chose the vaccine were injured or killed by the vaccine. They should have never been forced to take a vaccine they didn't need!!

If the vaccines were truly HEALTH related, the HEALTH of those that didn't need the vaccine should have been taken into account. Thousands, maybe millions of people forced to take a risky new medicine when they got no benefit from it.

I would NEVER force someone to take any medicine they did not want.

I hate the covid vaccines. I think they were horrible... BUT, I wouldn't care nearly as much about them if they hadn't been forced on the general public. 2 of my sons were forced to vaccinate or not go to college. Thank God, neither of them suffered injury (I personally know 5 vaccine-injured people), but they both still got covid, one of them got it twice.

Quote:

---

No citation needed. Its common knowledge that young adults and children did not face serious threat from Covid. We were told we need to vaccinate them to achieve herd immunity. Another lie.

---

always citation needed. in God we trust, all others must bring data.

broad statements like the covid vaccine was not beneficial AND likely harmful needs to be examined. i dont think it's actually true.

"common knowledge" doesn't mean anything in an age when most of what many people think they know comes from social media or joe rogan. and what is common knowledge now wasn't in 2020. what is true today about covid wasn't then, either.

i think there are a lot of things people would do differently today. i think herd immunity expectations and the messaging around it is one of them. that for me falls into the "CDC bungled it" and "public messaging sucked".

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

No citation needed. Its common knowledge that young adults and children did not face serious threat from Covid. We were told we need to vaccinate them to achieve herd immunity. Another lie.

---

always citation needed. in God we trust, all others must bring data.

broad statements like the covid vaccine was not beneficial AND likely harmful needs to be examined. i dont think it's actually true.

"common knowledge" doesn't mean anything in an age when most of what many people think they know comes from social media or joe rogan. and what is common knowledge now wasn't in 2020. what is true today about covid wasn't then, either.

i think there are a lot of things people would do differently today. i think herd immunity expectations and the messaging around it is one of them. that for me falls into the "CDC bungled it" and "public messaging sucked".

---

One of the biggest problems is comparing 2020-21 Covid and vaccines and post 2021.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

they didn't? novel respiratory virus pandemic IS their lane. and i think we both agree that they did a crappy job executing their own plans.

im not sure that the CDC not saying "hey being fat is unhealthy including for covid" means that the decisions were not health related

---

not saying the obvious health related statement in the room doesn't mean that the decisions were not health related?

Obesity is a huge problem in our country. They were given the opportunity to get Americans to lose weight on a silver platter. They decided mask mandates were better.

---

Don't even get me started on mask mandates. We were told to "follow the science" and science says masks do not work.

And we never mandated people could not wear masks OR not get the vaccine. It was always the other side telling us what we were mandated to do.

Completely unethical in my opinion.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

No citation needed. Its common knowledge that young adults and children did not face serious threat from Covid. We were told we need to vaccinate them to achieve herd immunity. Another lie.

---

always citation needed. in God we trust, all others must bring data.

broad statements like the covid vaccine was not beneficial AND likely harmful needs to be examined. i dont think it's actually true.

"common knowledge" doesn't mean anything in an age when most of what many people think they know comes from social media or joe rogan. and what is common knowledge now wasn't in 2020. what is true today about covid wasn't then, either.

i think there are a lot of things people would do differently today. i think herd immunity expectations and the messaging around it is one of them. that for me falls into the "CDC bungled it" and "public messaging sucked".

---

Sigh, I know you know this stuff. But here's one source for you:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254488/us-share-of-total-covid-deaths-by-age-group/

The bolded is BS. For example, the NIH being unaware or unable to communicate the difference between a vaccine providing immunity vs a "vaccine" that only reduces death is very problematic. You think Fauci just "bungled it" when he was out touting the vaccine as a tool to get to herd immunity and stop covid spread? Do you find it suspicious at all that the definition of "vaccine" was changed to cover for this oopsie? Should we trust NIH, FDA, CDC, etc when they couldn't understand or communicate the basic efficacy of an experimental medicine that they pushed to every living American?

And maybe the even stupider thing than mask mandates was long term closure of schools. My gooodness that shows zero critical thinking or common sense.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

No citation needed. Its common knowledge that young adults and children did not face serious threat from Covid. We were told we need to vaccinate them to achieve herd immunity. Another lie.

---

always citation needed. in God we trust, all others must bring data.

broad statements like the covid vaccine was not beneficial AND likely harmful needs to be examined. i dont think it's actually true.

"common knowledge" doesn't mean anything in an age when most of what many people think they know comes from social media or joe rogan. and what is common knowledge now wasn't in 2020. what is true today about covid wasn't then, either.

i think there are a lot of things people would do differently today. i think herd immunity expectations and the messaging around it is one of them. that for me falls into the "CDC bungled it" and "public messaging sucked".

---

Do you agree with the covid vaccine mandates in 2021?

I did not.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/12/13/three-years-after-covid-19-vaccine-rollout-cdc-still-gets-messaging-wrong/

It did not reduce transmission so why have a mandate? And why does the CDC have an agenda it seems?

In retrospect it was more of a treatment rather than a vaccine.

And on a personal note, when I said what Forbes said a year or 2 earlier I was blasted on the corona forum.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

they didn't? novel respiratory virus pandemic IS their lane. and i think we both agree that they did a crappy job executing their own plans.

im not sure that the CDC not saying "hey being fat is unhealthy including for covid" means that the decisions were not health related

---

not saying the obvious health related statement in the room doesn't mean that the decisions were not health related?

Obesity is a huge problem in our country. They were given the opportunity to get Americans to lose weight on a silver platter. They decided mask mandates were better.

Is hypertension in their lane? Diabetes? The host of other "diseases" related to being fat?

---

How long does it take to make a statistically meaningful difference in BMI, assuming an individual is capable of making that difference? And how long does it take to catch Covid?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

they didn't? novel respiratory virus pandemic IS their lane. and i think we both agree that they did a crappy job executing their own plans.

im not sure that the CDC not saying "hey being fat is unhealthy including for covid" means that the decisions were not health related

---

not saying the obvious health related statement in the room doesn't mean that the decisions were not health related?

Obesity is a huge problem in our country. They were given the opportunity to get Americans to lose weight on a silver platter. They decided mask mandates were better.

Is hypertension in their lane? Diabetes? The host of other "diseases" related to being fat?

---

How long does it take to make a statistically meaningful difference in BMI, assuming an individual is capable of making that difference? And how long does it take to catch Covid?

---

Are we assuming lockdowns didn't happen?

dermdoc said:

---

I did not.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/12/13/three-years-after-covid-19-vaccine-rollout-cdc-still-gets-messaging-wrong/

It did not reduce transmission so why have a mandate? And why does the CDC have an agenda it seems?

In retrospect it was more of a treatment rather than a vaccine.

And on a personal note, when I said what Forbes said a year or 2 earlier I was blasted on the corona forum.

---

I agree with you, of course. Zobel, though, made a statement that looks like he agreed with the covid vaccine mandates. I would love to get his answer.

Honestly, I'm beginning to realize that it's not so much the vaccines I hated, it's the mandates.

I believe the vaccines were terrible, but if everyone had the choice to take them or not, I'd be okay with that.

I chose not to get the vaccine. I got covid. If I had died, that's on me.

But people like Ellis Wyatt, a Texags poster, were forced to take the vaccine or lose their jobs. He got the vaccine and had an immediate, violent reaction. I believe he was in a coma for several days, almost died, and now has a heart condition. He will never be the same. He was forced to take the vaccine when he didn't want it.

In my mind, that's criminal, and it's only one of countless horrible results from taking the vaccine.

Did you agree with the vaccine and mask mandates?

And if so, please link anything outside of the CDC and NIH that shows any reason for either.

Thanks.

youre hindsighting though. there was open discussion about how robust immunity was going to be to covid. we didnt know what it was going to be. it seems like we should have an idea based on other corona viruses, but when i read up on that back then i found out - surprise! - the durability of immunity to corona viruses wasn't very well understood. in other words, the common cold is a corona virus but we didn't really know whether you get it over and over because the virus changes enough to bypass your immunity, or because immunity wanes. i'm actually not even sure if we still know the answer to that in any kind of definitive way.

as for vaccines providing immunity vs reducing death. that DEFINITELY falls into the category i bolded.

for one thing, no matter how many times people say otherwise, there are a LOT of papers and studies out there that shows that yes, the vaccine actually DID reduce your chance of infection by a pretty large amount.

part of the issue is how we were defining covid. using a nose swab to detect virus was a bad idea. there were people saying it was a bad idea from the start. there were people criticizing the PCR method. they were right, i think (with hindsight).

most (probably all) vaccines do not provide what is called sterilizing immunity. they keep you from getting sick, but not necessarily infected. the PCR test was a test for infection, not sickness. so when we're counting people by if they have virus in their nose, the vaccine reduced that. but when you count by chance you actually get sick, or get sick enough to go to the hospital, or die the vaccine reduced those by huge amounts (each one more than the last).

the definition of vaccine wasn't changed. that comes back into one of those silly social media things. if we're going by etymology the only thing that is a true vaccine is something made from cow pus, which is where the name comes from.

as for what we should trust - i mean, yeah. there was a joke about bayesian priors but, pretty much your prior for "is the CDC a scientifically credible organization" should be pretty high on the yes side. was it politicized? yeah. if you divide that statement into "should i pay attention to what the director of the CDC says in a press conference?" vs "should i pay attention to the CDC scientific publications" you've got something.

the efficacy of the vaccines in the trials was never, never, never based only infection. it just wasn't, it's demonstrable, i can show you the evidence - here is a quote of the primary end point of the pfizer vaccine trial:

Quote:

---

The first primary end point was the efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed Covid-19...Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification

---

in other words, this study didn't even consider if you tested positive but had no symptoms. only the combination of symptoms PLUS positive test. but that was not the regime most people lived in, everyone was counting cases ONLY the test. is that dumb? yes. again - CDC messaging sucked, media coverage sucked.

if you're thinking now, well that is pretty confusing - i agree. because... CDC messaging sucked, media coverage sucked. if you're thinking - i don't care what their study said, that's not what matters to me or what i was told.. yeah. see the refrain.

so, scientifically yes the vaccines helped prevent you from getting the disease called covid. there is a LOT of evidence that strongly supports that. and, they very very much helped you from getting a severe case of that disease. they also helped reduce the odds that you'll get a positive nose swab, but not nearly as much as the previous two things.

lastly - your definition of a vaccine - if what you mean is "it's only a vaccine if it provides sterilizing immunity" then there is probably no vaccine out there that does that. even polio doesn't prevent localized infection in the gut. vaccines have always been characterized by their prevention of disease, not infection. and, as far as the actual publications go, covid vaccines were the same. it was the communication of this to the public, and the way the CDC and everyone else was counting cases, that made all of this so dang messy.

no, and i never did. i've said that about 3 times in this thread..??

i agree - the absolute worst part about all of this was the COMPLETE punt to weaponize the OSHA general duty clause as way to force vaccines.

what i mean is forcing people to take vaccines is problematic enough.

using OSHA to force employers to do it is much worse.

it is a complete sissy move by lawmakers and elected officials, and the perfect example of everything wrong with regulatory creep and bureaucratic oversight and legislative failure in this country!

Sapper Redux said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Zobel said:

---

they didn't? novel respiratory virus pandemic IS their lane. and i think we both agree that they did a crappy job executing their own plans.

im not sure that the CDC not saying "hey being fat is unhealthy including for covid" means that the decisions were not health related

---

not saying the obvious health related statement in the room doesn't mean that the decisions were not health related?

Obesity is a huge problem in our country. They were given the opportunity to get Americans to lose weight on a silver platter. They decided mask mandates were better.

Is hypertension in their lane? Diabetes? The host of other "diseases" related to being fat?

---

How long does it take to make a statistically meaningful difference in BMI, assuming an individual is capable of making that difference? And how long does it take to catch Covid?

---

Statistically meaningful difference. Using the CDC's mentality? Every pound counts.

Zobel said:

---

no, and i never did. i've said that about 3 times in this thread..??

---

If you were not for mandates then I have no problems. As I have stated before, I want the patients to make their own personal health care decision after coming to an informed decision.

Mandates for medical care is incredibly demeaning. And wrong.

I'm not hind sighting. It was obvious within a couple months that healthy children and young adults were super resilient against covid. Yet we have the Travis County health director saying over 1000 kids would die if they went back to school. I distinctly remember showing this to my wife who is a 2nd grade teacher and both of us just shaking our heads at the clown show.

The public shouldn't have to research medical papers to know what is real. That's why we have these government health agencies. You say they bungled the situation. Especially wrt the CDC this is their only mission. Covid was their super bowl and they didn't even know how to suit up for the game. The public HAD to turn to social media and their own research because it was clear that the experts were either straight up lying to the public or were incompetent. Fauci repeatedly said lockdowns and masks were necessary until the vaccine could provide herd IMMUNITY. Get the vaccine and you don't have to worry about passing the virus to your granny in the nursing home. Then suddenly the vaccine does not provide immunity but you have to take it anyway because you won't get as sick, oh and if you don't you are likely to get fired from your job. Then later he admits that masks were useless. I won't argue whether Fauci is a liar or an incompetent fraud (or both). But this is more than a case of unfortunate miscommunication.

cmon doc. two seconds of google search.

I think Nature is a high enough impact factor / reputable journal, right?

The indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare workers' unvaccinated household members
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28825-4

Quote:

---

Here, we show that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections not only among vaccinated individuals but also among unvaccinated adult household members in a real-world setting.

---

Indirect Protection by Reducing Transmission: Ending the Pandemic With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccination
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/9/2/ofab259/6278371

This one has a really nice table for total infection risk. Table 1.

In RCTs it shows 61%, 55.7%, 65.5% reduction in all infections (as opposed to symptomatic infections)
In Observational studies it shows 62% to 91% reduction in infections. Sample sizes as high as 373,403.

Their conclusion begins:

Quote:

---

In sum, the data we have reviewed provide compelling evidence that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination results in a substantial reduction in transmission risk, although the exact magnitude of overall transmission reduction is yet to be fully characterized. As a result, the vaccines have much greater potential to decrease population morbidity and mortality than they would in a situation where they only prevented symptomatic disease.

---

again i'm not sure where you think we disagree.

healthy children and young adults have a much lower risk for poor outcomes. I agree.

however, even considering that, the vaccines lower that risk further. the risk ratio for the vaccine or number needed to treat or whatever you want to is in favor of vaccinating kids. just like it is for the flu shot (another disease which has a low risk to young people). covid vaccines have a lower risk of serious side effects than the flu shot.

I am not defending fauci or any public official. public messaging sucked. but that doesn't mean social media was good.

if we're talking about learning lessons, based on what you're saying then one lesson is that the general public sucks at medical research and has some really confused opinions about vaccines.

i suspect that a lot of this was driven by the idea of a "noble lie" which is the wrong response to the statement above.

what happened
people may not understand -> let's infantilize them and lie if necessary to get the outcome we want

vs what should have happened
people may not understand -> let's improve our communication and have frank, open discource

maybe its a pipe dream, maybe the latter isn't possible. i really don't know, to be honest. social media disinformation is a really powerful obstacle.

Zobel said:

---

cmon doc. two seconds of google search.

I think Nature is a high enough impact factor / reputable journal, right?

The indirect effect of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination on healthcare workers' unvaccinated household members
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28825-4

Quote:

---

Here, we show that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections not only among vaccinated individuals but also among unvaccinated adult household members in a real-world setting.

---

Indirect Protection by Reducing Transmission: Ending the Pandemic With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccination
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/9/2/ofab259/6278371

This one has a really nice table for total infection risk. Table 1.

In RCTs it shows 61%, 55.7%, 65.5% reduction in all infections (as opposed to symptomatic infections)
In Observational studies it shows 62% to 91% reduction in infections. Sample sizes as high as 373,403.

Their conclusion begins:

Quote:

---

In sum, the data we have reviewed provide compelling evidence that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination results in a substantial reduction in transmission risk, although the exact magnitude of overall transmission reduction is yet to be fully characterized. As a result, the vaccines have much greater potential to decrease population morbidity and mortality than they would in a situation where they only prevented symptomatic disease.

---

---

My point is there are articles saying both sides. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. And we make a decision.

Even if you are correct, I still do not think there should have been mandates. Personal health choices are complex and the government should not be telling people what to do. Especially young healthy people and children.

Just curious, were you in favor of mask mandates?

HumpitPuryear said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Covid vaccine was NOT beneficial and likely harmful for healthy young adults and children.

---

*citation needed

---

No citation needed. Its common knowledge that young adults and children did not face serious threat from Covid. We were told we need to vaccinate them to achieve herd immunity. Another lie.

---

It wasn't the threat of health to them it was the threat of spreading it. And 'no citation needed' is weak. Sure there were mistakes, and we expect better but in that first year they weren't sure about everyones risk. Young adults and children with chronic health problems were absolutely at high risk.