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.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,814
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
25,975
10,817
1,743
Earth
So you are saying that nobody in history of the world can ever use any thought, idea or data from any country except the USA for issues that are faced in the USA.
I think that is wrong. There has to be a balance.
I didn't say that...I do think we can take wisdom from other places and apply it here...States and local places are much more able to do that than entire countries like us. We don't allow mass rule...we sample it state by state and accept or reject it based on the data and the science of it. The amount of risk each state is willing to take is also determined by local people in local areas. IMHO, I love this...not all do...and it certainly comes with risk. If we are taking something that increases the risk factor and the reward factor for certain things...point being...I think we do this the right way in America...for now.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,814
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
So you are saying that nobody in history of the world can ever use any thought, idea or data from any country except the USA for issues that are faced in the USA.
I think that is wrong. There has to be a balance.
I didn't say that...I do think we can take wisdom from other places and apply it here...States and local places are much more able to do that than entire countries like us. We don't allow mass rule...we sample it state by state and accept or reject it based on the data and the science of it. The amount of risk each state is willing to take is also determined by local people in local areas. IMHO, I love this...not all do...and it certainly comes with risk. If we are taking something that increases the risk factor and the reward factor for certain things...point being...I think we do this the right way in America...for now.
This simply isn't an issue that is a "state's rights" issue. I mean, what part of world wide pandemic, national health crisis is so difficult to understand? States simply do not have the apparatus to deal with a national health crisis on a state by state basis. Doubly so when it becomes politically driven.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
25,975
10,817
1,743
Earth
This simply isn't an issue that is a "state's rights" issue. I mean, what part of world wide pandemic, national health crisis is so difficult to understand? States simply do not have the apparatus to deal with a national health crisis on a state by state basis. Doubly so when it becomes politically driven.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
States do decide at what level they are going to institute certain preventive measures, which ones they are and which ones they aren't and it's been that way the entire pandemic. Oklahoma had no statewide mask mandate yet Tulsa and OKC both did, Texas had one and then they didn't have one statewide. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but IMHO, it (mask rules) worked better in Oklahoma for local areas than in Texas in terms of the politically pissed off factor, because local areas in Texas had to pull all kinds of strings to re-institute mask mandates whereas in Oklahoma it was never a top-down rule of law. This is just one example of many in this crazy time. Once again, it's not an argument of it being a pandemic but the very nature of our rule making.

Here's the thing, all the states have asked their populations to get vaccinated especially those at high risk. All states have done a pretty dang good job at compliance of that request, some have gone further than others but we have ALL done it...do you think forcing compliance across the entire nation would have been better for the country in terms of general health and safety? Why and why not? Emotions aside, this hasn't been that simple...and we, as a society, have chosen another path, IMHO wisely...and it's ok to disagree on that.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,814
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
This simply isn't an issue that is a "state's rights" issue. I mean, what part of world wide pandemic, national health crisis is so difficult to understand? States simply do not have the apparatus to deal with a national health crisis on a state by state basis. Doubly so when it becomes politically driven.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
States do decide at what level they are going to institute certain preventive measures, which ones they are and which ones they aren't and it's been that way the entire pandemic. Oklahoma had no statewide mask mandate yet Tulsa and OKC both did, Texas had one and then they didn't have one statewide. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but IMHO, it (mask rules) worked better in Oklahoma for local areas than in Texas in terms of the politically pissed off factor, because local areas in Texas had to pull all kinds of strings to re-institute mask mandates whereas in Oklahoma it was never a top-down rule of law. This is just one example of many in this crazy time. Once again, it's not an argument of it being a pandemic but the very nature of our rule making.

Here's the thing, all the states have asked their populations to get vaccinated especially those at high risk. All states have done a pretty dang good job at compliance of that request, some have gone further than others but we have ALL done it...do you think forcing compliance across the entire nation would have been better for the country in terms of general health and safety? Why and why not? Emotions aside, this hasn't been that simple...and we, as a society, have chosen another path, IMHO wisely...and it's ok to disagree on that.
Which is part and parcel why our response to the pandemic was inadequate.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,814
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
This simply isn't an issue that is a "state's rights" issue. I mean, what part of world wide pandemic, national health crisis is so difficult to understand? States simply do not have the apparatus to deal with a national health crisis on a state by state basis. Doubly so when it becomes politically driven.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
States do decide at what level they are going to institute certain preventive measures, which ones they are and which ones they aren't and it's been that way the entire pandemic. Oklahoma had no statewide mask mandate yet Tulsa and OKC both did, Texas had one and then they didn't have one statewide. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but IMHO, it (mask rules) worked better in Oklahoma for local areas than in Texas in terms of the politically pissed off factor, because local areas in Texas had to pull all kinds of strings to re-institute mask mandates whereas in Oklahoma it was never a top-down rule of law. This is just one example of many in this crazy time. Once again, it's not an argument of it being a pandemic but the very nature of our rule making.

Here's the thing, all the states have asked their populations to get vaccinated especially those at high risk. All states have done a pretty dang good job at compliance of that request, some have gone further than others but we have ALL done it...do you think forcing compliance across the entire nation would have been better for the country in terms of general health and safety? Why and why not? Emotions aside, this hasn't been that simple...and we, as a society, have chosen another path, IMHO wisely...and it's ok to disagree on that.
How did we eradicate polio and smallpox?

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 
Jul 5, 2020
1,432
316
213
58
Broken Arrow
States do decide at what level they are going to institute certain preventive measures, which ones they are and which ones they aren't and it's been that way the entire pandemic. Oklahoma had no statewide mask mandate yet Tulsa and OKC both did, Texas had one and then they didn't have one statewide. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but IMHO, it (mask rules) worked better in Oklahoma for local areas than in Texas in terms of the politically pissed off factor, because local areas in Texas had to pull all kinds of strings to re-institute mask mandates whereas in Oklahoma it was never a top-down rule of law. This is just one example of many in this crazy time. Once again, it's not an argument of it being a pandemic but the very nature of our rule making.

Here's the thing, all the states have asked their populations to get vaccinated especially those at high risk. All states have done a pretty dang good job at compliance of that request, some have gone further than others but we have ALL done it...do you think forcing compliance across the entire nation would have been better for the country in terms of general health and safety? Why and why not? Emotions aside, this hasn't been that simple...and we, as a society, have chosen another path, IMHO wisely...and it's ok to disagree on that.
First and most importantly IMHO is that I don't believe "forcing compliance" at any time is a good thing, particularly when it comes to dividing communities; and It partially means you didn't do a very good job of selling the benefits to begin with. But also, in the big picture, particularly compared to where we were with deaths and lack of a vaccine, I believe we are making reasonable progress to control this without the need for a mandate. Just look at Oklahoma. We've had some spikes and issues with hospital beds, but in the big picture we weathered the storm and things are beginning to settle down again. And although Tulsa and OKC technically had mandates, it really didn't mean anything because of neighboring communities that don't.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,223
2,360
1,743
A rare time when an OU media guy is actually correct. It is one the dumbest item ever …just for optics.

https://twitter.com/eddie_rado/status/1451000097790173185?s=21
 

Boomer.....

Territorial Marshal
Feb 15, 2007
7,701
6,308
1,743
OKC
To our resident doctors, I'd like to hear your take on this. I just heard this clip on Bret Weinstein (biologist) discussing Geert Vanden Bossche (immune biologist) predicting that this pandemic would have many variants but it is more so attributed to the vaccine rather than mutation during spread. Bret suggest that we need to modify our vaccines to become more effective rather than continuing to require boosters. I'm sure there are holes in the theory, but this is the first I've heard of this and like your opinion.

 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,814
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
To our resident doctors, I'd like to hear your take on this. I just heard this clip on Bret Weinstein (biologist) discussing Geert Vanden Bossche (immune biologist) predicting that this pandemic would have many variants but it is more so attributed to the vaccine rather than mutation during spread. Bret suggest that we need to modify our vaccines to become more effective rather than continuing to require boosters. I'm sure there are holes in the theory, but this is the first I've heard of this and like your opinion.

Mutations occur during replication. It isn’t analogous to antibiotic resistance.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 
May 4, 2011
2,879
1,404
1,743
Charleston, SC
To our resident doctors, I'd like to hear your take on this. I just heard this clip on Bret Weinstein (biologist) discussing Geert Vanden Bossche (immune biologist) predicting that this pandemic would have many variants but it is more so attributed to the vaccine rather than mutation during spread. Bret suggest that we need to modify our vaccines to become more effective rather than continuing to require boosters. I'm sure there are holes in the theory, but this is the first I've heard of this and like your opinion.

We'll likely get there, but you'll need to start developing strain specific versions and demonstrate their need. It's a tricky approach right now because you would have needed to know delta would be dominant 8 or so months before it exploded to base a vaccine on it. You're otherwise chasing ghosts until you know what strains will remain dominant or what strains significantly evade vaccines. You can also try to develop some that capture a range of mutations and produce immunity against them all, but that's also hard. Still, those studies are underway and until they reach their conclusion, your best bet is to get as many people to take the vaccine we have now because as @RxCowboy mentioned, reducing its circulation and replication reduces the speed at which it can mutate. Doing that enough allows you to catch up and be able to produce new vaccines that mostly keep up with mutations.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,814
41,685
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
To our resident doctors, I'd like to hear your take on this. I just heard this clip on Bret Weinstein (biologist) discussing Geert Vanden Bossche (immune biologist) predicting that this pandemic would have many variants but it is more so attributed to the vaccine rather than mutation during spread. Bret suggest that we need to modify our vaccines to become more effective rather than continuing to require boosters. I'm sure there are holes in the theory, but this is the first I've heard of this and like your opinion.

We'll likely get there, but you'll need to start developing strain specific versions and demonstrate their need. It's a tricky approach right now because you would have needed to know delta would be dominant 8 or so months before it exploded to base a vaccine on it. You're otherwise chasing ghosts until you know what strains will remain dominant or what strains significantly evade vaccines. You can also try to develop some that capture a range of mutations and produce immunity against them all, but that's also hard. Still, those studies are underway and until they reach their conclusion, your best bet is to get as many people to take the vaccine we have now because as @RxCowboy mentioned, reducing its circulation and replication reduces the speed at which it can mutate. Doing that enough allows you to catch up and be able to produce new vaccines that mostly keep up with mutations.
Which is why we want to vaccinate children, so that we don't have a pool where the virus can replicate unchecked.

sent from Tapatalk penalized by wearing a mask
 
May 4, 2011
2,879
1,404
1,743
Charleston, SC
Since this was discussed before, here's some of the public disclosure on pfizer efficacy among kids 5 to 11. The highlights: 1518 got the active vaccine, 750 got placebo. 91% efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease during an average period of 2.3 months (ranged from 1 to almost 3). .2% of vaccine group had symptomatic cases vs 2.1% of placebo group. The trial also coincided with the emergence of delta. Side effects were minimal and mostly included fatigue, headache, and/or muscle pain.

https://www.fda.gov/media/153409/download
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
8,335
7,929
1,743
Goal post about to get moved again?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ful...n-might-change-with-booster-shots-cdc-2021-10

Individuals who are fully vaccinated now might not be considered so in the future without a COVID-19 booster shot, CDC says
Yelena Dzhanova
Oct 23, 2021, 11:05 AM


Booster shots are being offered to some adults in the US who got Pfizer's vaccine, called Comirnaty. Jens Schlueter/Getty Images
  • As booster shots rollout, the definition of fully vaccinated might change, the CDC says.
  • Currently, being fully vaccinated in the US means an individual has both doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or one dose of the J&J vaccine.
  • About 6% of the total US population has so far received a booster dose, according to CDC data.


The definition of fully vaccinated might be subject to change in the future now that COVID-19 booster shots are out, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Friday.
"We have not yet changed the definition of 'fully vaccinated.' We will continue to look at this. We may need to update our definition of 'fully vaccinated' in the future," CDC director Rochelle Walensky told reporters at a news conference.
Currently, being fully vaccinated in the United States means that an individual has either both doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or one dose of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
With the rollout of booster shots, that definition might change. So far, the CDC has recommended that certain groups of people like those who are 65 or older get one.

"If you're eligible for a booster, go ahead and get your booster and we will continue to follow," Walensky said during the Friday news conference.
People who are at least 18 years old and either work in high-risk settings or have underlying medical conditions are also eligible to receive a booster shot at this time.
The Food and Drug Administration earlier this week authorized booster shots for both Moderna and Johnson and Johnson's COVID-19 vaccines. Individuals are able to mix and match booster doses with their original COVID-19 vaccination, the FDA said.
In a Friday press briefing, White House coronavirus response coordinator Jeff Zients said the booster shot will be available for more than 120 million Americans "in the coming months."

"This includes over 60 million vaccinated with Moderna and J&J, on top of the 60 million vaccinated with Pfizer," he said.
Nearly 58% of the total US population is currently fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. And about 6% of the total population has received a booster dose, CDC data says.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,223
2,360
1,743
Goal post about to get moved again?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ful...n-might-change-with-booster-shots-cdc-2021-10

Individuals who are fully vaccinated now might not be considered so in the future without a COVID-19 booster shot, CDC says
Yelena Dzhanova
Oct 23, 2021, 11:05 AM


Booster shots are being offered to some adults in the US who got Pfizer's vaccine, called Comirnaty. Jens Schlueter/Getty Images
  • As booster shots rollout, the definition of fully vaccinated might change, the CDC says.
  • Currently, being fully vaccinated in the US means an individual has both doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or one dose of the J&J vaccine.
  • About 6% of the total US population has so far received a booster dose, according to CDC data.


The definition of fully vaccinated might be subject to change in the future now that COVID-19 booster shots are out, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Friday.
"We have not yet changed the definition of 'fully vaccinated.' We will continue to look at this. We may need to update our definition of 'fully vaccinated' in the future," CDC director Rochelle Walensky told reporters at a news conference.
Currently, being fully vaccinated in the United States means that an individual has either both doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or one dose of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
With the rollout of booster shots, that definition might change. So far, the CDC has recommended that certain groups of people like those who are 65 or older get one.

"If you're eligible for a booster, go ahead and get your booster and we will continue to follow," Walensky said during the Friday news conference.
People who are at least 18 years old and either work in high-risk settings or have underlying medical conditions are also eligible to receive a booster shot at this time.
The Food and Drug Administration earlier this week authorized booster shots for both Moderna and Johnson and Johnson's COVID-19 vaccines. Individuals are able to mix and match booster doses with their original COVID-19 vaccination, the FDA said.
In a Friday press briefing, White House coronavirus response coordinator Jeff Zients said the booster shot will be available for more than 120 million Americans "in the coming months."

"This includes over 60 million vaccinated with Moderna and J&J, on top of the 60 million vaccinated with Pfizer," he said.
Nearly 58% of the total US population is currently fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. And about 6% of the total population has received a booster dose, CDC data says.
I think the definition of "fully vaccinated" will change. Am traveling again internationally in March so to be pro-active I got my booster yesterday. Once Moderna was approved, I got on CVS.com and it was pretty easy to schedule with your local CVS. Just need: vaccine card, ID, and insurance card
.
 
Last edited:

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
10,518
6,721
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Goal post about to get moved again?

https://www.businessinsider.com/ful...n-might-change-with-booster-shots-cdc-2021-10

Individuals who are fully vaccinated now might not be considered so in the future without a COVID-19 booster shot, CDC says
Yelena Dzhanova
Oct 23, 2021, 11:05 AM


Booster shots are being offered to some adults in the US who got Pfizer's vaccine, called Comirnaty. Jens Schlueter/Getty Images
  • As booster shots rollout, the definition of fully vaccinated might change, the CDC says.
  • Currently, being fully vaccinated in the US means an individual has both doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or one dose of the J&J vaccine.
  • About 6% of the total US population has so far received a booster dose, according to CDC data.


The definition of fully vaccinated might be subject to change in the future now that COVID-19 booster shots are out, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Friday.
"We have not yet changed the definition of 'fully vaccinated.' We will continue to look at this. We may need to update our definition of 'fully vaccinated' in the future," CDC director Rochelle Walensky told reporters at a news conference.
Currently, being fully vaccinated in the United States means that an individual has either both doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or one dose of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
With the rollout of booster shots, that definition might change. So far, the CDC has recommended that certain groups of people like those who are 65 or older get one.

"If you're eligible for a booster, go ahead and get your booster and we will continue to follow," Walensky said during the Friday news conference.
People who are at least 18 years old and either work in high-risk settings or have underlying medical conditions are also eligible to receive a booster shot at this time.
The Food and Drug Administration earlier this week authorized booster shots for both Moderna and Johnson and Johnson's COVID-19 vaccines. Individuals are able to mix and match booster doses with their original COVID-19 vaccination, the FDA said.
In a Friday press briefing, White House coronavirus response coordinator Jeff Zients said the booster shot will be available for more than 120 million Americans "in the coming months."

"This includes over 60 million vaccinated with Moderna and J&J, on top of the 60 million vaccinated with Pfizer," he said.
Nearly 58% of the total US population is currently fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. And about 6% of the total population has received a booster dose, CDC data says.
Ehhh... I can understand where someone would see it as moving the goalposts but if you've been vaccinated for 6+ months and you're no longer fully protected (since we know it wears off over time), it would make sense that the definition of "fully vaccinated" should refer more to what your current protection is, not how many shots you've gotten.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,973
2,991
1,743
47
DFW
Ehhh... I can understand where someone would see it as moving the goalposts but if you've been vaccinated for 6+ months and you're no longer fully protected (since we know it wears off over time), it would make sense that the definition of "fully vaccinated" should refer more to what your current protection is, not how many shots you've gotten.
I had a 4 year warranty on my car. After 4 years, they said I had to pay to extend the warranty. Goal posts moved!