COVID-19 vaccines: medical concerns and recommendations

[Crow Hunter]

Good news- the local hospital has received a new batch of AZ. I'm going to go ahead and move dose #2 up by a week, and get mine Wednesday.

I am not a medical professional nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but I did read several articles that mentioned the time between shots being a component to their effectiveness. I remember reading that getting the shots too close together reduced the protective effects and suggested if you couldn't keep your 2nd shot appointment you should try to get a later shot, even several weeks later than to go early. This was in relation to the Moderna and Pfizer.

You may want to check on the AZ recommendations or with some of the med guys here.

[Tensaw]

Have we covered which vaccine we like the best?

[YVK]

Have we covered which vaccine we like the best?

We haven't and we won't have an RCT. Because of that my professional statement to inquiring patients is to get whatever, with a very small risk of side effects.
That said, based on gender and age distribution of those reported rare side effects and having a young man going through our facility with a myocarditic injury equal to that of a good size heart attack, my personal advice is Janssen for younger men and mRNA for everyone else. My parents were vaccinated with Sputnik V, I am giving them Pfizer on top of that.
We've seen breakthroughs cases (again, positives, not hospitalized) with all of them.

[Joe in PNG]

I am not a medical professional nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but I did read several articles that mentioned the time between shots being a component to their effectiveness. I remember reading that getting the shots too close together reduced the protective effects and suggested if you couldn't keep your 2nd shot appointment you should try to get a later shot, even several weeks later than to go early. This was in relation to the Moderna and Pfizer.

You may want to check on the AZ recommendations or with some of the med guys here.

Third world problems. Do I take it a week under the recommended schedule, or do I take the risk of not getting it at all?
Based on my 21 years working here, better if I get it while I can.

If I was in the USA or Australia, then I would be more confident about the availability.

[Hemiram]

IMHO, legit info about Covid is pretty easy to find. IF you trust mainstream medical sites. IF you don't, and go to what I personally feel are pretty much "kooksites", you will find all kinds of bizarre claims about horrible vaccination side effects, designed, IMHO, to "stir the pot", not really inform anyone of anything useful. I don't understand the politicizing of Covid and the policies on it at all, it's kind of insane. Some of the stuff on Fox borders on insanity, as the people that will be hurt mostly by their disinfo and spin are the core of their viewers. Cutting their own throats. And the attempted demonization of D. Fauchi is just totally insane, and the people doing it should be ashamed of themselves.

Yes, there are SOME people who will have bad side effects from any medication. My mother had bizzare reactions to an amazing amount of them. Some were inverse, where she would be all jazzed up from something that normally had the side effect of making them sleepy, and others were that they had no effect at all. She and I both are pretty much immune to intravenous morphine. I had 3 vials of it after I had knee surgery, and it didn't even make me slightly drowsy. My roomate had 2 of them after knee replacement(mine was much more minor), and was out for 14 hours. Orally, opioids do work, but mom and I both had/have a huge tolerance of them to the point where many people are unconcious and we were able to function pretty much fine. The point is, most people, by far the vast majority will not have bad side effects to the vaccines, and your risk of problems from them are very low. Things you do every day without a care are much more risky. Eating bad stuff, driving a car, walking your dog and possibly falling, etc, are much riskier than getting the vaccines. You've already had a bunch of them, why are you scared of them now? Because of fringe groups basically making stuff up/amplifying a very slight risk? It seems this kind of stuff started with the thimerosol in vaccines nonsense. If you ate a Tuna sandwich, you ate more mercury than was in the whole damn vial of vaccine. People's lack of basic science and math skills, lack of common sense, fear of basically totally insignifcant risks, and just plain gullibility makes me wonder about the future. I'm about to be 65, so I won't see it anyway.

I had the J&J vaccine in April. Zero point zero issues. If legitimate experts say I need a booster, I will get it without any hesitation. I drove for over an hour yesterday, and felt much more at risk than I have ever been from Covid itself, let alone a vaccine. There are some very stupid drivers out there. I know firsthand, I've been in two major wrecks in my 49 years of driving.

[Bio]

If her crank status doesn't begin until after ivermectin...man, then how as some dude with no MD, no PHD, half a boat and a history of pretty well-earned distrust of groups like the WHO, am I supposed to tell the difference between Chicken Little, and Pompeii's only vulcanologist?

It's hard. It's very hard to tell if someone notices something real, that conflicts with something dominant. That's the problem that I think a lot of skeptics have here.

You're definitely right in that is is hard. It's so easy to come across single articles that seem entirely reasonable, but with more information are revealed to be extremely misleading. The only answer I have is that you have to look at consensus. The scientific process in the western world is unfortunately contaminated with culture, emotion, and politics, but it is still probably the best its been in most of history. It isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good at finding answers to things. If the vast majority of scientists doing work on a proboem think one thing, there's a good chance that they're going in the right direction. Scientists are not prone to agreeing with colleagues just because.

Read a lot of articles from a lot of sources, do your best to learn the science and ask experts you can trust. It's a crummy answer, but it's akin to the question "what handgun do I buy to make consistent 25 yard hits?" when the answer is education, training, and ammo.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

You're definitely right in that is is hard. It's so easy to come across single articles that seem entirely reasonable, but with more information are revealed to be extremely misleading. The only answer I have is that you have to look at consensus. The scientific process in the western world is unfortunately contaminated with culture, emotion, and politics, but it is still probably the best its been in most of history. It isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good at finding answers to things. If the vast majority of scientists doing work on a proboem think one thing, there's a good chance that they're going in the right direction. Scientists are not prone to agreeing with colleagues just because.

Read a lot of articles from a lot of sources, do your best to learn the science and ask experts you can trust. It's a crummy answer, but it's akin to the question "what handgun do I buy to make consistent 25 yard hits?" when the answer is education, training, and ammo.

In general I think this is totally true and in the past I've rarely found myself being at odds with any mainstream scientific consensus. For example, I think you could probably find posts on this site where I've argued that climate change is a pressing problem. I know you weren't accusing me of anything (and also that this thread isn't about me or anything) but I'm just trying to illustrate that I agree with the normal scientific process, I'm not a "whatever Fox says" team player, I'm not USUALLY someone going "hang on, this is hard to figure out."

What is tripping me up in this instance, and again I say this not because I think I'm important to the equation but because I think people who are looking at this the way I am are more common than it looks, what is tripping me up is that if there's any field in which people will lie to your face if it gets you to modify your behaviour in the way they think is best for you, it's public health. AND we're in this bizarrely polarized climate in which team allegiance has completely short-circuited the normal critical thinking process for lots of people who should know better, AND the big tech companies have come down on one side of things and have been keeping a thumb on the scale even when they've been wrong.

There's no way I'm going to the batshit sites for info, I trust them way less than the CDC... it's just that my own experience with this stuff really leads me to believe that even with the CDC you might trust but you should absolutely verify. That's why I'm often here hunting for some kind of smoking gun on someone's credibility or something.

I'm genuinely not trying to be a pain and I find the posts from Sensei and 45dotACP, pangloss and a couple of others super informative and I don't doubt their expertise.

I am just waiting and hoping to see something really crushing re: ivermectin etc so all of the arguments that there could be a good alternative to the vaccines will be shown to be false in some conclusive manner.

Once that's the case, then whatever misgivings I might have about a relatively new technology, I'd be more inclined to believe that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Of course you have to remember, also, that I live in a tiny town with no cases, I work from home, my wife doesn't work, and my kid isn't in school. In the entire province since day one we've had about 1750 deaths. I live on an island with a million people on it and this is what our cumulative case count looks like, starting from last March:



You can't even plot the hospitalizations or deaths, there's only been a couple.

So my situation is such that I can really afford to wait. My risk level is extraordinarily low.

If I was a Walmart greeter in Chicago, I'd have trampled ten people to get the shot. But I'm comparing a very different baseline risk than most people.

That's why I'm able to concern myself with minutae.


Oh, I guess the x axis isn't labeled there. That first line that we make it about a third of the way to on the south island is 10,000.

The whole island, in this whole thing, has had about 5000 cases. A few people were hospitalized and I don't think anyone died.

It's a pretty different ball game.

[Sensei]

You're definitely right in that is is hard. It's so easy to come across single articles that seem entirely reasonable, but with more information are revealed to be extremely misleading. The only answer I have is that you have to look at consensus. The scientific process in the western world is unfortunately contaminated with culture, emotion, and politics, but it is still probably the best its been in most of history. It isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good at finding answers to things. If the vast majority of scientists doing work on a proboem think one thing, there's a good chance that they're going in the right direction. Scientists are not prone to agreeing with colleagues just because.

Read a lot of articles from a lot of sources, do your best to learn the science and ask experts you can trust. It's a crummy answer, but it's akin to the question "what handgun do I buy to make consistent 25 yard hits?" when the answer is education, training, and ammo.

I’d say that the scientific consensus has been incredibly fucking consistent and clear. From the CDC to the AMA and everything in between that includes IDSA, AAFP, AAP, SCCM, etc. and every single large organization that existed before the pandemic, the message has been remarkably harmonious - get your vaccine and probably wear a mask indoors if your going to be unvaccinated. Keep in mind that I’m philosophically opposed to half of these organizations that I see as progressive, but even I must admit the consensus and scientific rigor of my usual opponents is impressive. As a practicing physician for the past 20 years, I’ve not seen this level of agreement spread across this many government AND independent healthcare organizations. Amazingly, these organizations were saying the same thing no matter who controlled the White House and Congress - get your vaccine and probably wear a mask if your going to be unvaccinated. Moreover, when the recommendations to change around the margins, it is generally in response to specific, new information such as outstanding vaccination rates or the emergence of a new strain.

The only healthcare organizations contradicting this messaging are fringe elements (usually less than 100 doctors) who popped up AFTER the pandemic to offer their alternative view. These include BIRD, America’s Frontline Physicians, et al. To the letter, almost all of these organizations mix politics with their recommendations with a prime example being America’s Frontline Physicians getting mixed up in the Jan 6 bullshit. Many weave praise for their favorite politician in with their recommendations.

So, the only way someone is getting a mixed message is if they are turning the dial to some obscure channel and seeking out a fringe view point. They will insist that these fringe elements be given a robust platform, only to then complain about the mixed message. In the end, they sound a lot like this guy: https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/stat...656972808?s=20

[Bio]

I’d say that the scientific consensus has been incredibly fucking consistent and clear. From the CDC to the AMA and everything in between that includes IDSA, AAFP, AAP, SCCM, etc. and every single large organization that existed before the pandemic, the message has been remarkably harmonious - get your vaccine and probably wear a mask indoors if your going to be unvaccinated. Keep in mind that I’m philosophically opposed to half of these organizations that I see as progressive, but even I must admit the consensus and scientific rigor of my usual opponents is impressive. As a practicing physician for the past 20 years, I’ve not seen this level of agreement spread across this many government AND independent healthcare organizations. Amazingly, these organizations were saying the same thing no matter who controlled the White House and Congress - get your vaccine and probably wear a mask if your going to be unvaccinated. Moreover, when the recommendations to change around the margins, it is generally in response to specific, new information such as outstanding vaccination rates or the emergence of a new strain.

The only healthcare organizations contradicting this messaging are fringe elements (usually less than 100 doctors) who popped up AFTER the pandemic to offer their alternative view. These include BIRD, America’s Frontline Physicians, et al. To the letter, almost all of these organizations mix politics with their recommendations with a prime example being America’s Frontline Physicians getting mixed up in the Jan 6 bullshit. Many weave praise for their favorite politician in with their recommendations.

So, the only way someone is getting a mixed message is if they are turning the dial to some obscure channel and seeking out a fringe view point. They will insist that these fringe elements be given a robust platform, only to then complain about the mixed message. In the end, they sound a lot like this guy: https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/stat...656972808?s=20

I totally agree with you.

[Sensei]

I totally agree with you.

I know and I apologize if it seems like I’m directing any vitriol at you. I’m really tired of people like the dude in the Twitter feed that I linked in my last reply to you. Be sure to watch it if you haven’t already because this is what floats as conservatism now - make stupid choices, and the hospital, insurance company, or even fellow co-workers paying into the insurance pool handle the tab. And thanks to ObamaCare, they can’t raise the premiums or kick this fucker out of the plan for his pre-existing condition of stupidity. Yeah individualism.