Covid vaccination status for CF members

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My sadness is that CF is becoming increasingly more vicious/violent in its responses instead of accepting of individuals opinion..
Over the last few months I have seen people wishing death on others, burying hammers in heads etc..
Seems to be buried in "I am right and if you don't accept my view I'll blow you away"..
The humour that once made this a different place seems to have been replaced with bile and the site has been invaded by Redneck Psuedo Intellectuals determined to impose their will and opinions at any cost.
Makes the old Gun and Anchor threads of yesteryear seem like Play Away at Kindergarten.

I dunno Boatie, IN MY OPINION this lament of "Oh... the good old days were so much better..." is a constant theme here, and indeed on other forums. It seems the old timers always pine for "the good old days." Well, I've been around here since 2011, apparently only one year shorter than you, and I don't see much change in the level of vitriol. It seems to ebb and flow, depending on the topics at hand.

What definitely is on the rise is the spread of "fake news" and false information. I suspect this is just part of the bigger problems we're seeing with all social media.

I've no issue with opinion where the answers are grey. Indeed, most cruising answers aren't binary. So opine away... But what we see here is a change in attitude towards expertise and verifiable knowledge. It's fine to opine on open questions, but it's not fine to ignore or simply lie about established knowledge.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The current state of the research does not support this conclusion. It may make sense, or it may not. That's the thing about following the science ... sometimes it takes time to really know something. What seems sensible might turn out not to be. We have to, wait for it... Follow The Science .

Personally I prefer to Await the Results from what Science has thrown at us..
At the risk of being labeled an Anti Vaxer (again) and Conspiracy Theorist I am somewhat skeptical of these MRNA vaccines and prefer to bide my time and wait till the traditionally constructed Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine is available in Portugal (if ever considering Brussels political muscle flexing) or making my way to the UK to receive one there should Politics make it Mandatory to be vaccinated.

The Oxford Vaccine..
It is made from a weakened version of a common cold virus (known as an adenovirus) from chimpanzees. It has been modified to look more like coronavirus - although it can't cause illness.

When the vaccine is injected into a patient, it prompts the immune system to start making antibodies and primes it to attack any coronavirus infection.

Research has shown it is highly effective.

Oxford University researchers had already done a lot of work before 2020 on developing a vaccine which could be adapted to tackle different diseases.

That meant a lot of the building blocks were already in place, and scientists weren't starting from scratch.

The vaccine has been through all the usual research stages, although for speed these have overlapped when they would usually happen one after another.

And the UK's medicines regulator - the MHRA - carried out a "rolling review" of data all last year.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I dunno Boatie, IN MY OPINION this lament of "Oh... the good old days were so much better..." is a constant theme here, and indeed on other forums. It seems the old timers always pine for "the good old days." Well, I've been around here since 2011, apparently only one year shorter than you, and I don't see much change in the level of vitriol. It seems to ebb and flow, depending on the topics at hand.

What definitely is on the rise is the spread of "fake news" and false information. I suspect this is just part of the bigger problems we're seeing with all social media.

I've no issue with opinion where the answers are grey. Indeed, most cruising answers aren't binary. So opine away... But what we see here is a change in attitude towards expertise and verifiable knowledge. It's fine to opine on open questions, but it's not fine to ignore or simply lie about established knowledge.

You mean like my refusal to accept ROCNA anchors were better than my old Bruce anchor and scientific tests had proved it..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The "rules" do not consider prior exposure because it's not clear how effective this is at producing a lasting immune response.

As I read the science (and I read it every day. I can give you good links to current science news if you like), this is a hot topic being studied. So far, research is in that inconclusive stage. It's not clear how effective prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2 is at producing a lasting immune response. Nor is it clear how long the vaccine-inspired immune response lasts for that matter.



The current state of the research does not support this conclusion. It may make sense, or it may not. That's the thing about following the science ... sometimes it takes time to really know something. What seems sensible might turn out not to be. We have to, wait for it... Follow The Science .

It's not clear? So far there has only been a handful of confirmed re-infections our of 100 million confirmed infections over 10 months...but we can't confirm that population has some level of immunity?

Sorry but at best you are playing word games to support your position. (You aren't the only one following the subject.) Yes, there may be the extraordinarily rare exceptions but the science clearly supports that prior infection provides significant immunity in the vast majority of cases. Certainly when considering high level prioritizations there is no doubt that this population has a drastically lower risk than a similar population that has not been infected. You can argue over the exact level and duration but there is zero doubt it provides immunity.

The goal in this early phase of vaccination is to stop the spread and cut the deaths/hospitalizations. The science is clear cut that vaccinating individuals who have been documented to have already recovered is not consistent with that goal when there are other groups with no immunity.

Following the science doesn't mean sitting in a holding pattern when the science is already clear cut and the alternative goes strongly against what the science is showing so far.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Personally I prefer to Await the Results from what Science has thrown at us..
At the risk of being labeled an Anti Vaxer (again) and Conspiracy Theorist I am somewhat skeptical of these MRNA vaccines and prefer to bide my time and wait till the traditionally constructed Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine is available in Portugal (if ever considering Brussels political muscle flexing) or making my way to the UK to receive one there should Politics make it Mandatory to be vaccinated.

At this point, I can respect a little skepticism and waiting a few months.

At this point, demand exceeds supply, so a percentage of the population waiting doesn't really impact the larger roll out.

So if you want to wait for the vaccine option you prefer later when supply is catching up with demand, I see no harm.

[AquatiCat]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Having several family members and several friends in the medical professions I can assure that this rumor is complete and total nonsense. If anything the number of Covid deaths are underreported, at least in some states.

FL for example the governor removed all Covid deaths from state data if the person was not a full time, legal resident of FL. With tens of thousands of people, many older and retires that use Florida as a winter home this is a pretty significant number.

Absolutely right, Skipmac. FL resident. I believe I have already had it, but I couldn't get any kind of test while it was going on (early spring 2020; probably picked it up from a mainland Chinese family I met in Kauai). Persistent cough, trouble breathing (fortunately I have intermittent asthma so I already had an inhaler, which helped a little), extremely tired and slept 12 hours a day, whistling lungs, lost sense of smell completely for a couple of weeks (I'm a perfumer as a hobby, so that was alarming), and once three months had gone by, my toes developed very itchy blisters along the inner edges for a week or so...! (that was easy to deal with, just inserted cotton pads between toes and kept everything really clean, sleep in socks - but the itching was evil) Looked it up, and "covid toes" are a thing. Sheesh, who knew. Eventually in late summer a doc ordered an antibody test... by then six months after initial infection, and it came up negative, so all those weeks of being sick and not being able to breathe are "something-not-covid." Bronchitis toes... yeah, that's a "thing," right? I'm sure I am not the only one. The other issue for me is I can't assume any immunity, and I am under 65 anyway, asthma notwithstanding, so despite working with the public daily, we're testing the "mask up and wash frequently" theory of infection avoidance. I'd take the shots if they were offered, even though they are only approved on an emergency basis. There's no percentage for any drug company in killing off a bunch of people with a "bad" vaccine. The reputation damage would cling for years.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sorry but at best you are playing word games to support your position. (You aren't the only one following the subject.) Yes, there may be the extraordinarily rare exceptions but the science clearly supports that prior infection provides significant immunity in the vast majority of cases. Certainly when considering high level prioritizations there is no doubt that this population has a drastically lower risk than a similar population that has not been infected. You can argue over the exact level and duration but there is zero doubt it provides immunity.

Show me your research which supports this absolute conclusion. I haven't seen it.

I'm not playing anything. I'm following the science. And the science is inconclusive -- unless I've somehow missed the big Eureka! moment you claim has happened. Show me.

It may turn out to be exactly as you say, but the science does not support this conclusion right now. And beyond that, to apply this to a population level vaccination program is to introduce a logistical nightmare. Much easier to vaccinate everyone within risk categories (as Florida seems to be doing).

And here again is a prime example of ignoring expertise and pretending we know more than those running the vaccine programs. I think I'll take a public health professional's approach over someone internet sleuth, thanks.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

You mean like my refusal to accept ROCNA anchors were better than my old Bruce anchor and scientific tests had proved it..

Now here's a fight worth having!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

At this point, I can respect a little skepticism and waiting a few months.

At this point, demand exceeds supply, so a percentage of the population waiting doesn't really impact the larger roll out.

So if you want to wait for the vaccine option you prefer later when supply is catching up with demand, I see no harm.

Agreed... in fact I said so (to Boatie) many pages ago. Or was that in a different Covid thread. They all blend together .

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My sadness is that CF is becoming increasingly more vicious/violent in its responses instead of accepting of individuals opinion..
Over the last few months I have seen people wishing death on others, burying hammers in heads etc..
Seems to be buried in "I am right and if you don't accept my view I'll blow you away"..
The humour that once made this a different place seems to have been replaced with bile and the site has been invaded by Redneck Psuedo Intellectuals determined to impose their will and opinions at any cost.
Makes the old Gun and Anchor threads of yesteryear seem like Play Away at Kindergarten.

It's not even just the extremes on either side of issues.

Often even the most extreme view has a kernel of truth. If you acknowledge the true part, extremists with the opposite view have started accusing you of both-side-ism.

It makes it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when anything short of complete unmitigated agreement is considered wrong.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

You mean like my refusal to accept ROCNA anchors were better than my old Bruce anchor and scientific tests had proved it..

Boatman, oh now you have truly broken open the dam for conspiracies to flood simply, by bringing up a debate over which anchor provides the best protection against Covid.

Well IMHO, its less about the type and more about the size, the bigger the better, yet all anchors require the use of a proper scope, contrary to some persons' opinions, length and size do matter. The bigger ones swing in a crowded anchorage, the more likely others will keep further social distancing away from you. 100+ meters between boats likely will suffice in a shallow protected bay. And if the deployment of a long rode doesn't keep others far away, well then that is why one keeps an arsenal of guns onboard, a few stray rounds shot a short distance from someones bow and stern tends to motivate them to relocate, at least a tad further away; like out of gunshot range away.

There be nothing quite like bringing a gun to a virus fight to even the odds towards one's favor! Or two, or three, hee, hee, hee.

Stay well away, stay healthy.

All the best.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Show me your research which supports this absolute conclusion. I haven't seen it.

I'm not playing anything. I'm following the science. And the science is inconclusive -- unless I've somehow missed the big Eureka! moment you claim has happened. Show me.

It may turn out to be exactly as you say, but the science does not support this conclusion right now. And beyond that, to apply this to a population level vaccination program is to introduce a logistical nightmare. Much easier to vaccinate everyone within risk categories (as Florida seems to be doing).

And here again is a prime example of ignoring expertise and pretending we know more than those running the vaccine programs. I think I'll take a public health professional's approach over someone internet sleuth, thanks.

Unless you can come up with millions of re-infections, the science is self evident (heck, I'll settle for thousands...though even if 100,000 out of the 100,000,000 confirmed cases worldwide have reinfections, that's still far better than the vaccines we are administering).

This is like saying gravity isn't proven to exist until you can provide a full scientific explanation of how it works. We've gone from the Wright Brothers to half million pound jets that can fly half way around the world...all without a full understanding of the quantum mechanics of gravity.

No need for sleuthing. This is very much clear cut and the public health professionals, arguably did botch the prioritization out of the gate and cost us a few weeks early on. Of course, they were able to adjust when the system feedback made it obvious they made a big mistake. If we don't correct the mistake of vaccinating those with existing natural immunity, there isn't the immediate system feedback to force public health professionals respond more appropriately, so waiting "for the science" isn't a good option. By the time all the forms have been reviewed in triplicate, it's too late.

As far as implementing...it doesn't have to be a rigidly structured program. Again that was the biggest problem with the initial roll out. They were so rigid, no one wanted to risk vaccinating someone who didn't qualify and it bogged the process down.
- It can be as simple as PSA announcements that if you have a confirmed positive test, you should wait...then don't ask if they sign up. That by itself would screen out a large percentage with immunity. We don't need 100% to have a big impact. If we got 75-90% to voluntarily wait, that would be a huge impact. Even at a much lower 25-50%, it would provide benefit prioritizing those most likely to benefit.
- The primary limitation right now is supply. If we had an unlimited supply, we could probably vaccinate everyone willing to get it by May/June. Can we use those resources to ramp up free antibody testing for those who think they may have had the virus and then request those with antibodies to wait for a later stage? Current estimates are we are only catching 1 in 3 infections with testing and earlier far more were not caught, so could we screen out millions from these early stages?

[boatman61]

French man suffers severe Covid vaccine reaction..

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boatman61

French man suffers severe Covid vaccine reaction..

I thought this was just normal...haven't you ever heard of the French being called "frogs".

I am wondering why a guy is wearing a bikini top though.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Unless you can come up with millions of re-infections, the science is self evident (heck, I'll settle for thousands...though even if 100,000 out of the 100,000,000 confirmed cases worldwide have reinfections, that's still far better than the vaccines we are administering).

See, right here is the difference. Using science, NOTHING is "self-evident." As I said, the actual evidence is inconclusive regarding how long the immune response is effective. It's a hot research topic, with lots of early findings being published. As I said, I'm happy to point you to the research.

It may well be that your perspective comes out to be the correct one, but not because it is self-evident. But because the actual evidence supports the conclusion.