Covid-19

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,182
7,858
1,743
4. What you might want is an antibody test that allows you to avoid getting a booster when operating under a mandate. We'll probably get there eventually and that's exactly what happens already when working in many medical facilities for other diseases with established vaccines. I've done it multiple times to not just prove that natural immunity was holding (varicella) but that prior vaccines were still offering protection (Hep B, which I had to get two boosters of because I tested negative for antibodies the last time that happened). Just be patient. We know getting vaccinated still improves protection even if you have antibodies. It's harder to determine a minimum level of antibodies with standardization across tests, how long antibodies from each will last, and whether antibodies are even the primary key since immune responses are far more complicated than just antibodies.
This is exactly what I was implying with my questions. THANKS!

I would have thought this technology would actually be pretty easy to develop (or actually already be available), in comparison to developing the initial vaccine anyways. So I'm a bit surprised that we don't have and/or utilize this yet. Especially for determining booster needs. There's just no sense in wasting good vaccine (and substantial costs) when it may not be needed.
 
May 4, 2011
2,724
1,336
1,743
Charleston, SC
This is exactly what I was implying with my questions. THANKS!

I would have thought this technology would actually be pretty easy to develop (or actually already be available), in comparison to developing the initial vaccine anyways. So I'm a bit surprised that we don't have and/or utilize this yet. Especially for determining booster needs. There's just no sense in wasting good vaccine (and substantial costs) when it may not be needed.
Getting the threshold right for those kinds of tests is VERY hard. We might be close but it takes time. Knowing that more is better is relatively easy. Knowing how high to set the bar to prevent infections and how regularly you need to measure people against that bar are not.
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,849
2,099
1,743
Oklahoma City
Getting the threshold right for those kinds of tests is VERY hard. We might be close but it takes time. Knowing that more is better is relatively easy. Knowing how high to set the bar to prevent infections and how regularly you need to measure people against that bar are not.
How this virus is tranmittted and how it kills people is extremely complex and difficult to understand by the very best minds who have spent their lives in this arena. It is unlikely that argument here will solve key issues regarding this virus.
 
Sep 23, 2010
1,795
1,183
1,743
We are almost but not quite two years into the pandemic, so how does your family med doc know that the antibodies will last at least two years? He doesn't. That is something that simply cannot yet be known.

And it doesn't matter how long you have circulating antibodies, what matters is how well protected you are against severe disease, hospitalization and death. The best data we have says that the best protection is past infection plus two doses of vaccine. And what your employer is most interested in is reducing health care costs and lost productivity, which means they want you vaccinated even if you have been previously infected.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
I am assuming doctors and scientists are using previous knowledge about antibodies. Just like they are claiming the vaccine won't have long term side effects. With that logic, we shouldn't be doing the vaccines yet until we have experimented on people for 2-5 years to avoid long term side effects from the vaccine. Doctors and scientists, throughout this whole thing, are making educated decisions. That's why it drives me crazy when people tell others they are science deniers. The scientific method is making opinions based of observation, data and experimentation. And Covid-19 is so new, nothing any of these scientists say is surefire fact. They are all using previous experiences to base their opinions (not facts) on.

I am the employer, so not all you say about the employer is true. Fortunately, we don't quite meet the 100 employees so we don't have to deal with Biden telling us how to run our business in terms of Covid. We can make those decisions with our local insurance and medical providers.
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,849
2,099
1,743
Oklahoma City
I am assuming doctors and scientists are using previous knowledge about antibodies. Just like they are claiming the vaccine won't have long term side effects. With that logic, we shouldn't be doing the vaccines yet until we have experimented on people for 2-5 years to avoid long term side effects from the vaccine. Doctors and scientists, throughout this whole thing, are making educated decisions. That's why it drives me crazy when people tell others they are science deniers. The scientific method is making opinions based of observation, data and experimentation. And Covid-19 is so new, nothing any of these scientists say is surefire fact. They are all using previous experiences to base their opinions (not facts) on.

I am the employer, so not all you say about the employer is true. Fortunately, we don't quite meet the 100 employees so we don't have to deal with Biden telling us how to run our business in terms of Covid. We can make those decisions with our local insurance and medical providers.
Its a lot like this....our best and most experienced minds...are driving a car forward and makeing key Covid-19 decisions...at the same time looking in their rear view mirror accessing the strength of past well done scientific studies. Its hard to drive a car forward all the while looking backward at the same time.
 
Sep 23, 2010
1,795
1,183
1,743
Its a lot like this....our best and most experienced minds...are driving a car forward and makeing key Covid-19 decisions...at the same time looking in their rear view mirror accessing the strength of past well done scientific studies. Its hard to drive a car forward all the while looking backward at the same time.
No doubt. It's why I have a ton of respect for what they are doing and saying, but I don't treat their word like the word of God either.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,648
41,642
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
We are almost but not quite two years into the pandemic, so how does your family med doc know that the antibodies will last at least two years? He doesn't. That is something that simply cannot yet be known.

And it doesn't matter how long you have circulating antibodies, what matters is how well protected you are against severe disease, hospitalization and death. The best data we have says that the best protection is past infection plus two doses of vaccine. And what your employer is most interested in is reducing health care costs and lost productivity, which means they want you vaccinated even if you have been previously infected.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
I am assuming doctors and scientists are using previous knowledge about antibodies. Just like they are claiming the vaccine won't have long term side effects. With that logic, we shouldn't be doing the vaccines yet until we have experimented on people for 2-5 years to avoid long term side effects from the vaccine. Doctors and scientists, throughout this whole thing, are making educated decisions. That's why it drives me crazy when people tell others they are science deniers. The scientific method is making opinions based of observation, data and experimentation. And Covid-19 is so new, nothing any of these scientists say is surefire fact. They are all using previous experiences to base their opinions (not facts) on.

I am the employer, so not all you say about the employer is true. Fortunately, we don't quite meet the 100 employees so we don't have to deal with Biden telling us how to run our business in terms of Covid. We can make those decisions with our local insurance and medical providers.
No, that isn't the scientific method. The scientific method draws conclusions based on the data, and the conclusions drawn have to be directly supported by the data. As such, they aren't opinions. The proper scientific method is:

1. Hypothesis formation
2. Systematic Hypothesis testing
3. Drawing conclusions based on data
4. Forming new Hypotheses.

Is your company self insured? If so, how many million dollar hospital bills can your company afford and why on earth aren't you concerned about how the pandemic affects your health care costs?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,105
2,306
1,743
Just like they are claiming the vaccine won't have long term side effects. With that logic, we shouldn't be doing the vaccines yet until we have experimented on people for 2-5 years to avoid long term side effects from the vaccine. Doctors and scientists, throughout this whole thing, are making educated decisions. That's why it drives me crazy when people tell others they are science deniers. .
Data about COVID vaccines are pretty clear. The vaccines appear to be EXTREMELY successful drastically lowering hospitalization and death rates.

I suppose you are correct stating that we would even know more about long-term side effects in 2-5 years -- but what data are you seeing that gives you enough concerns to wait 2-5 years versus taking the risk of the virus in its current and future form?
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,201
595
1,743
If the vaccine itself has degraded and been flushed from your system in basically a few days, what is the mechanism of long term effects that would be different from long term effects from getting Covid? As I understand it, most of the worst short term side effects of the vaccine are significantly more common and worse with Covid. Why wouldn't that be true of long term effects, if there are any?
 
Sep 23, 2010
1,795
1,183
1,743
Data about COVID vaccines are pretty clear. The vaccines appear to be EXTREMELY successful drastically lowering hospitalization and death rates.

I suppose you are correct stating that we would even know more about long-term side effects in 2-5 years -- but what data are you seeing that gives you enough concerns to wait 2-5 years versus taking the risk of the virus in its current and future form?
I have already stated that. I agree with you.

I don't have concerns about long term effects. I got my vaccine very early. This was in response to family physicians believing natural antibodies will be good for at least two years. And I was told they don't know that because it hasn't been around long enough. I thought the same could be said about vaccine side effects. We just don't know for sure.
 
Sep 23, 2010
1,795
1,183
1,743
No, that isn't the scientific method. The scientific method draws conclusions based on the data, and the conclusions drawn have to be directly supported by the data. As such, they aren't opinions. The proper scientific method is:

1. Hypothesis formation
2. Systematic Hypothesis testing
3. Drawing conclusions based on data
4. Forming new Hypotheses.

Is your company self insured? If so, how many million dollar hospital bills can your company afford and why on earth aren't you concerned about how the pandemic affects your health care costs?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
Hypothesis and conclusions are different words for opinions. And they are only as good as the testing and data they possess.
 
Sep 23, 2010
1,795
1,183
1,743
Is your company self insured? If so, how many million dollar hospital bills can your company afford and why on earth aren't you concerned about how the pandemic affects your health care costs?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
We are not self-insured. We have discussed that possibility in the next decade but we have not grown to that size. We don't need a pandemic for health care costs to be completely unreasonable.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,648
41,642
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
No, that isn't the scientific method. The scientific method draws conclusions based on the data, and the conclusions drawn have to be directly supported by the data. As such, they aren't opinions. The proper scientific method is:

1. Hypothesis formation
2. Systematic Hypothesis testing
3. Drawing conclusions based on data
4. Forming new Hypotheses.

Is your company self insured? If so, how many million dollar hospital bills can your company afford and why on earth aren't you concerned about how the pandemic affects your health care costs?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
Hypothesis and conclusions are different words for opinions. And they are only as good as the testing and data they possess.
No, they aren't. An opinion is "blue looks better on sports cars than red." It can be argued, but it isn't built on data and can't be objectively tested. A hypothesis is based on known data and can objectively be tested. A conclusion, likewise, must be directly supported by the data the conclusion is drawn from. If it isn't, then it is opinion. They are very different things.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,648
41,642
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
Is your company self insured? If so, how many million dollar hospital bills can your company afford and why on earth aren't you concerned about how the pandemic affects your health care costs?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
We are not self-insured. We have discussed that possibility in the next decade but we have not grown to that size. We don't need a pandemic for health care costs to be completely unreasonable.
If you aren't self-insured,

1. You cannot use your company as a counter to what I was talking about, which are self-insured... apples and oranges.
2. Why would you be worried about your company's health care costs, because you aren't paying them?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 
Sep 23, 2010
1,795
1,183
1,743
No, they aren't. An opinion is "blue looks better on sports cars than red." It can be argued, but it isn't built on data and can't be objectively tested. A hypothesis is based on known data and can objectively be tested. A conclusion, likewise, must be directly supported by the data the conclusion is drawn from. If it isn't, then it is opinion. They are very different things.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
I guess we can mince words. But I base my opinions on data all the time. Like when Spencer Sanders turns the ball over 3 times in a game, my opinion of his decision making changes. Maybe I need to change that to my hypothesis of Spencer changes.
 
Sep 23, 2010
1,795
1,183
1,743
If you aren't self-insured,

1. You cannot use your company as a counter to what I was talking about, which are self-insured... apples and oranges.
2. Why would you be worried about your company's health care costs, because you aren't paying them?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
We aren't paying for our company's health care costs? I wish the health insurance we pay for was completely free. I would have a suite at Boone Pickens.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,648
41,642
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
No, they aren't. An opinion is "blue looks better on sports cars than red." It can be argued, but it isn't built on data and can't be objectively tested. A hypothesis is based on known data and can objectively be tested. A conclusion, likewise, must be directly supported by the data the conclusion is drawn from. If it isn't, then it is opinion. They are very different things.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
I guess we can mince words. But I base my opinions on data all the time. Like when Spencer Sanders turns the ball over 3 times in a game, my opinion of his decision making changes. Maybe I need to change that to my hypothesis of Spencer changes.
Kruger-Dunning were right.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,648
41,642
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
If you aren't self-insured,

1. You cannot use your company as a counter to what I was talking about, which are self-insured... apples and oranges.
2. Why would you be worried about your company's health care costs, because you aren't paying them?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
We aren't paying for our company's health care costs? I wish the health insurance we pay for was completely free. I would have a suite at Boone Pickens.
Do you understand what "self-insured" means?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask