Posted on 12/17/2020 1:41:16 AM PST by Libloather
I’ll confess that I didn’t see this one coming. Much of the cable news programming currently blasting across our screens these days is celebrating the arrival of the first COVID vaccines approved for general distribution. People lining up to be the first in their state to receive it are hailed in the press like rock stars. But out in Southern California, there’s one group of people who are choosing to either delay taking the shot or simply declining entirely. Those are the nurses. CBS Los Angeles is reporting that a recent survey conducted by the UCLS Fielding School of Public Health reports that a full two-thirds of the nurses surveyed either said no or at least… not yet.
A number of local healthcare workers have reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use, according to a new survey from the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
“Two-thirds of the health workers that we surveyed wished to delay vaccination or not get vaccinated,” Dr. Anne Rimoin, the senior author of the study, said Monday.
She said the survey collected data from about 600 workers between mid-September and the end of October.
At least out where I live, healthcare workers are among the first being vaccinated, which kind of makes sense since so many of them are dealing with COVID patients on a daily basis. And at least based on the information being spread around by the media, you would think that these educated individuals would put the most faith in the system that developed and tested these vaccines, right? So what gives with the nurses in California?
A representative for the union covering these nurses was quick to point out that their members are not “anti-vaxxers.” 90% of them reportedly get the flu vaccine every year.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Sure thing!
IFR is the Infection Fatality Rate. It’s the rate at which people die when contracting a particular disease, irrespective of how many cases are caught or missed. You may have seen the CFR or Case Fatality Rate published before (usually by the media when they want to pump up the fear). For the CFR, you take the total number of deaths (e.g. 314,629 confirmed in the US so far) and divide by the total number of cases (17,394,314), or ~1.8%. However, the CFR is subject to biases, particularly when you have a lot of missed cases. Essentially you’ll pretty much always catch deaths (the numerator), but you’ll miss a lot of cases (the denominator), making the percent higher than it should be.
IFR corrects for this mismatch between that measure and reality. It does so by looking at things like antibody (serology) studies compared to diagnosed cases. It looks like how many cases are likely to be missed due to asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic people not being tested. Apply some statistical modeling to all that data, spit out a result. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, that comes out to 0.65%, which is far lower than the ~1.8% CFR. Now you see why the media only ever talks about the Case Fatality Rate!
R0 is the basic reproductive number. In essence, if you have one person infected in a population where everyone is vulnerable, how many people - on average - will that person infect? An R0 of 1 means each person who’s infected infects one other. This is the minimum sustainable number for a disease. An R0 under 1 means the disease is spreading so slowly that the number of infected persons is dwindling over time. An R0 of 3 means if I’m infected, I’ll infect 3 others. Now 4 have it. They’ll each infect 3 others. Now 13 have it (me + 3 I infected + 9 they infected). Then 40, etc. SARS-CoV-2 has an R0 of 2.5.
HIT is the Herd Immunity Threshold. When you recover from an infection, you typically develop immunity to it. So as more people in a population become infected, recover, and develop immunity, the number of vulnerable hosts drops. This means R0 (which is based on everyone being vulnerable) is no longer valid because some are immune. The Re (”effective reproductive rate”) or Rt change over time based on people becoming immune either through infection or vaccination. The Herd Immunity Threshold is the point where Re dips below 1. Remember, that’s the point where new infections will begin to dwindle as each person infects fewer than one other on average. Important to note this is not a wall where the virus vanishes. Rather, it’s the beginning of the end for the virus.
1-1/R0 is the formula to calculate HIT. You simply take 1-1/R0 (R0 being 2.5 for SARS-CoV-2, so 1-1/2.5). 1/2.5 is 0.4 and 1-0.4 is 0.6 or 60%. So once 60% of the population becomes immune (either through infection or vaccination), Re will drop below 1 and new infections will dwindle over time.
Hope that helps!
These do not have approval.
They have EUA. Slightly different. I’ll wait several rounds of vaccinations, but certainly not taking it right out of the gate.
Let’s be sure we understand what an EUA is before they decide to expand the definition recently.
Why FDA’s Issuance of EUAs are not ‘approvals’ and why that matters
Posted 03 April 2020 | By Zachary Brennan
Patricia Zettler, assistant professor of law at Ohio State University and a former FDA lawyer, explained to Focus via email: “I think it’s really important that patients, healthcare professionals, and the public understand that emergency use authorizations are *not* the same as standard FDA approvals or authorizations.
“Typically we think of FDA authorization as meaning that there is data and information that in the agency’s view shows the product is safe and effective for its intended use. For example, to approve a drug, FDA must determine that there is ‘substantial evidence’-—consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations-—that the drug will have the effect it is intended to have. An EUA, on the other hand, can be authorized if ‘it is reasonable to believe that . . . the product may be effective.’ The EUA standard is simply a lower standard, and everyone should understand that.” https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/4/why-fdas-issuance-of-euas-are-not-approvals-and-wh
WyFlu has claimed another casualty: the Medical Industrial Complex.
Trust is the coin of the realm, and Big Med lost ours when it got in bed with Deep State.
Well then...how about we just ignore any testing and all FDA approvals and not take ANY medications made by Big Pharma..cause theyre just in it for the money?
You belong on a socialist site with your big pharma bad..capitalism makes money for big pharma...ooo capitalism bad
How do they determine the effectiveness of this vaccine? Do they expose the injected to a roomful of people with Covid?
Nurses, Docs, bureaucrats, public official and subversives everywhere are raking in power and money because of Covid. Gotta keep the hoax alive.
“Medical Industrial Complex.”
Thanks for not calling it the “HEALTHCARE Industrial Complex”. After the last year, I’ve concluded that healthcare has nothing to do with health, and has nothing to do with care. And that’s not even considering WuFlu issues; that’s just one more thing to add.
Oooooooo..big pharma bad !
Big pharma makes trillions...capitalism bad!
Its the word of the Fda ...who sometimes makes errors..
Well then how about we just kill big pharma like socialist rant endlessly
This hoax and brutal knockdown ends or the next step are Pb injections.
Besides because so many people are saying they aren’t taking it I took it because I have to care for those who do get it. Now every minute I get more immune as I generate antibodies.
It’s a great feeling after this long of an annoying pandemic.
It is a real disease to some. Not all. Not even the majority. But it’s real. And it’s exhausting.
That said I still wouldn’t recommend requiring it.
It doesn’t need to be injected if the infection is ‘treated’ early.
There is NO OTHER THERAPY for eradicating a bacterial or viral infection from the lungs that isn’t pharmacological...besides what I describe here.
In case you missed it:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3831003/posts
And by the way, I reached out to a couple dozen doctors/nurses both here & internationally...to deaf ears.
Oh..big pharma bad. Rant on.
Without big pharma i wouldnt be alive today...even thogh its not perfect.
Guess thats why our drugs are used all over the world.
There's no evidence to support that there will be any long term problems, particularly since all the components of these vaccines break down quickly. That's why they require advanced refrigeration: they fall apart. mRNA is effective as a short term messenger. Nature built DNA for long term stability; mRNA breaks down quickly. And how long as we to sit idly by and wait to see whether some incredibly small risk of long term effects appear? 5 years? 10 years? How many years or decades of Democrats shutting down the economy can people endure? The damage that's already been done just this year will ripple through a generation or more. Poverty kills many people. Vaccines very rarely cause anyone any real harm.
"there hasn’t been enough time to know how babies of pregnant women can be affected by Mom getting the vaccine."
These vaccines - like all new drugs and vaccines - are not currently recommended for women who are pregnant. This is precisely BECAUSE it would be unethical to knowingly test them on pregnant women. Data emerges over time as women who take the vaccine discover they were pregnant at the time they took it and safety data is gleaned from that. It's the only ethical way to do it.
"I’m all for “my body, my choice”, so if people choose to do it, then fine."
I agree with you here. I want people to have all the facts and not be subject to misinformation or fearmongering, but if they then decide the vaccine isn't for them, I 100% support their right to make that decision for themselves. Part of being a free people is having the right to make poor decisions. I may not agree with the decision made, but it's yours to make.
"Mom is 96 — in the vulnerable demographic — and said she won’t take it."
And I fully support her right to make that call. Each and every individual should have their right to decide what is best for their own health and wellbeing respected by all.
There is no motivation to do anything to alleviate the COVID power grab. Vaccines included.
Your efforts are amazing to respond so well!
I just rant or get upset..but you patiently answer w valid info.
You’re a real role model for me.
Im not anti-big pharma. For me, I don’t take any drugs unless I need them. I know several people in my age group who had it and are fine. My niece and nephew had it and are fine. I would rather have covid than take the shot....
I figure after 16 years teaching in the public schools of Los Angeles, mostly inner-city, and five years of riding public transportation, without ever getting the flu, and rarely getting colds, my immune system is the stuff of legends.
It’s not the CFR that’s scary about the vaccine, it’s the side and long-term effects. An employee of mine has a friend who is 30 years old, who got COVID-19 and “recovered” a month and a half ago. Today, he still tests positive for the disease. Worryingly, he said this week that he’s having a lot of trouble remembering simple things and that his hand-eye coordination (videogames) is completely gone.
Thirty years old and healthy.
That’s called a challenge trial, and it’s unethical to do when you have a disease that can kill people.
What they do instead is divide the volunteers into a group that gets the vaccine you’re testing and a group that gets a placebo (typically just a sugar pill or saline injection). Neither the patient nor the doctor giving the shot knows which the person is getting to avoid any tainting of the study. You then closely monitor everyone. After a period of time, a statistically significant number of people will get infected. You reduce the amount of time this takes by selecting volunteers who are most at risk for exposure and thus likely to get infected sooner rather than later.
Once you have enough people infected, you pull the data on who was in the control group and who was vaccinated to see how well you did. If you had 1,000 people in the control group get infected and 2 people in the vaccine group get infected, you did really well. If you had 1,000 people in each group get infected, your vaccine is worthless. You can further look at the people who got the vaccine and still got infected to see whether it made a difference in the severity of their illness. Again, you look at your control group and see what percentage of them got seriously ill, then you look at your vaccine group and see whether that percentage of seriously ill people was lower.
In the case of Moderna, not only was the vaccine 95% effective, but no one who got the vaccine got seriously ill. Given the large number of study participants, some of them SHOULD have gotten seriously ill, so the vaccine made a difference even when it didn’t 100% protect them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.