|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
Biowarfare posted:Doesn't this literally cover like 90% or 95%+ of the US? Basically everyone old or not old and overweight or retail worker I mean, when you consider the ones that rely a ton on personal interpretation like "People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions based on their individual benefits and risks" virtually anyone who wants to can get a booster. There's nothing in that condition that would prevent you from getting a booster based on your occasional cough or cold counting as an "underlying medical condition".
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
In the first round of shots things like age groups were there to triage a limited supply. For the boosters, it seems like a recommendation of who should get it. Like in the big israeli healthcare worker study less than 5% of people under 65 had lost antibody protection after 6 months, while ~10% of people over 65 had. And immunocompromised people had 30-50% odds of being unprotected. I got a booster, because why not, but the realistic benefit of scamming it with no legitimate need is really really low. If someone needs to make up a reason instead of having a reason they probably already have good antibody levels still. It's hard to find up to date stats, but it seems like the number of deaths in vaccinated people younger than 65 is like, in the single digits ever. The system is easy to scam, because unlike the other time it's not trying to keep anyone out to save a limited supply, if the realest reason you can come up with is "I get colds sometimes' you probably are not a person the antibody levels have dropped enough for a booster to matter and probably aren't getting one over on anyone getting one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:12
|
|
|
If you are not a Timelord, your antibody levels have dropped with time because you are subject to the passage of time and that is how the human immune system works. You can go ahead and argue that antibodies don’t matter for the purposes of “severe” disease, but youth does not come with incredible unchanging antibody titers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:21
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If you are not a Timelord, your antibody levels have dropped with time because you are subject to the passage of time and that is how the human immune system works. Okay? And? it does come with higher initial levels and slower decline. The CDC isn't some constant conspiracy you need to defeat and scam. If they say that you: a 30 something stay at home with no major immune issues are probably not going to benefit from a booster at this time, they might just actually mean that, they might not be trying to trick you where you need to pull out some weird "b...b....b....but I get colds sometimes!" thing. If you went and got an antibody test right now, they know the odds are for you it'd show appropriate levels of antibodies to protect you as is, so have not recommended the shot for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:32
|
|
|
I’m not the one putting words in the CDC’s mouth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:35
|
|
|
I'm not necessarily suggesting that people exaggerate conditions to get a booster, just laying out that the rules allow that. Although, from a personal choice perspective, given that the vaccines legitimately will not be redirected elsewhere I can't really fault anyone for getting a booster even if they don't 'need' it. Protection against mild infections isn't strictly necessary, maybe, but it's a benefit, both at an individual and a population level. I have said in the past that at a governmental level though that I think the "boosters for everyone" is just more of the same intense vaccine nationalism that we've seen from the US since vaccines were available, and is worthy of criticism. You as an individual person can't redirect your vaccine to COVAX or a country that's desperate for vaccines, but the US or individual states absolutely can, and the fact that they've decided to go max titers on their population instead of redirecting vaccines where there's an urgent need and they'd be FAR more effective is ultimately just prolonging things and increasing the odds / frequency of variants we'll need to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:37
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’m not the one putting words in the CDC’s mouth. To be less laconic about this, on the last page I quoted extensively from “Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vaccines Currently Approved or Authorized in the United States” § “Considerations for use of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose” CDC, quite contrary from saying that “a 30 something stay at home with no major immune issues are probably not going to benefit from a booster at this time”, have a number of considerations for why stay‐at‐home thirty‐somethings may benefit from a booster. quote:The benefits of a COVID-19 booster dose may include a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a reduced risk for severe COVID-19. Receiving a booster dose may prevent morbidity (including post-COVID symptoms) and may reduce transmission of the virus to other people. People in this risk category should consider the following risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and the potential impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection: There are links and formatting in that that I’m not going to add back in. So sue me. Meanwhile, they are explicitly against the idea that you go out and get an antibody test right now, so their guidance is basically the opposite of what OOCC claims it to be, and that’s good. quote:Serologic testing or cellular immune testing is not recommended as part of the individual risk benefit assessment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Meanwhile, they are explicitly against the idea that you go out and get an antibody test right now, so their guidance is basically the opposite of what OOCC claims it to be, and that’s good. I'm saying that if you are so far out of the booster categories that you have to make up something stupid and fake that you don't need an antibody test because there is very little chance you have low antibody levels, and if you are not at some particular risk factor for extreme exposure (like working in a hospital) there is very little reason to worry about the 3-5% chance your booster has failed you as an under 65 year old with no non-made up health conditions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'm saying that if you are so far out of the booster categories that you have to make up something stupid and fake that you don't need an antibody test because there is very little chance you have low antibody levels, and if you are not at some particular risk factor for extreme exposure (like working in a hospital) there is very little reason to worry about the 3-5% chance your booster has failed you as an under 65 year old with no non-made up health conditions. And I’m saying that you don’t have to make up something “stupid and fake” because the vast majority of superficially healthy thirty‐somethings have multiple independent factors making a case for a booster. Being overweight is not “stupid and fake”. Having a job as a barista is not “stupid and fake”. Having a boss that will fire you for calling off with breakthrough COVID symptoms is not “stupid and fake”. It’s stupid, but it’s sadly not fake. Having children is not “stupid and fake”. Caring for parents or other elders is not “stupid and fake”. Getting vaccinated in February because you called clinics half an hour before closing time to make use of the remainder of a vial that was going to waste is not “stupid and fake”. Living in the United States of America is not “stupid and fake”—but once again, I’m open to debate on the first point. 
Platystemon fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
The fda and cdc aren't tricking people. They've been clear they have little concern over people spreading this disease as they acknowledge boosters are extremely safe, can help prevent infection and spread but refuse widespread recommendations. They believe they can prevent the us healthcare system form imploding with this approach and are failing spectacularly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:And I’m saying that you don’t have to make up something “stupid and fake” because the vast majority of superficially healthy thirty‐somethings have multiple independent factors making a case for a booster. Yeah man, if you have several factors that make you eligible for the booster then you are eligible for the booster. If you are finding yourself unable to name a real health condition and are making up a fake one like "I get colds sometimes", and your not in an environment with increased spread of risk to or from you, the reason they didn't make you eligible for the booster might just be the increase in protection it gives you is too many decimal points past a zero percent to be useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
I understand that a vast majority of Americans are eligible for boosters under the booster conditions but what I meant was that I think Australia is one of the first countries that has straight up said "everybody who has had a vaccine should also get a booster down the track." I presume most countries will eventually also do this and I guess (most of us probably already assumed) we're looking at 2 booster jabs a year for the indefinite future?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah man, if you have several factors that make you eligible for the booster then you are eligible for the booster. If you are finding yourself unable to name a real health condition and are making up a fake one like "I get colds sometimes", and your not in an environment with increased spread of risk to or from you, the reason they didn't make you eligible for the booster might just be the increase in protection it gives you is too many decimal points past a zero percent to be useful. Who is doing this? Is this just your thread for constantly making things up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
Does the average American regularly check the CDC website for their policy recommendations? Seems it's more likely they'll get most of their info from TV or social media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I understand that a vast majority of Americans are eligible for boosters under the booster conditions but what I meant was that I think Australia is one of the first countries that has straight up said "everybody who has had a vaccine should also get a booster down the track." I presume most countries will eventually also do this and I guess (most of us probably already assumed) we're looking at 2 booster jabs a year for the indefinite future? Israel opened it to all in late August.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:39
|
|
|
freebooter posted:I understand that a vast majority of Americans are eligible for boosters under the booster conditions but what I meant was that I think Australia is one of the first countries that has straight up said "everybody who has had a vaccine should also get a booster down the track." I presume most countries will eventually also do this and I guess (most of us probably already assumed) we're looking at 2 booster jabs a year for the indefinite future?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Israel opened it to all in late August. Which is why I said "one of." If you're in an English speaking country then generally nowhere except America/Britain/Canada/New Zealand and maybe Ireland figures much into the thinking of the media or the average man on the street when it comes to the idea of a world beyond your own borders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:43
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:No one knows how much the booster will wane, there's a scenario where it could give you protection for years. I guess if you want 100% protection forever you'll take them every six months, but my guess is you'll probably end up having to pay for them. In America maybe. I've never even paid for flu shot in Australia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
freebooter posted:In America maybe. I've never even paid for flu shot in Australia. You have to pay for flu shots if you're under 55 in the UK, so add us to the list of poo poo countries as though we weren't already on it
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:50
|
|
|
Gort posted:You have to pay for flu shots if you're under 55 in the UK, so add us to the list of poo poo countries That is genuinely surprising because I've lived in the UK and as a general rule of thumb your basic drugs in the pharmacy were cheaper than in Australia (which I assumed was from NHS subsidy). Paracetamol was like 20p or something!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
freebooter posted:That is genuinely surprising because I've lived in the UK and as a general rule of thumb your basic drugs in the pharmacy were cheaper than in Australia (which I assumed was from NHS subsidy). Paracetamol was like 20p or something! You pay 13 pounds for a shot in the UK for flu shots if you are not: on the shielded patient list (or a member of their household); are aged 50 or over on 31 March 2022; are pregnant; are in primary school or secondary school (up to Year 11); are a health or social care worker employed by a registered residential care home, nursing home, hospice or homecare organisation; suffer from a severe long-term health condition such as severe asthma or diabetes (consult with your doctor to find out if you're eligible); care for someone whose welfare may be at risk if you fall ill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised now that I think about it that vaccines are free in Canada (unless they're elective ones for travel like for yellow fever), normally our prescriptions are not covered at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You pay 13 pounds for a shot in the UK for flu shots if you are not: Is this a post-Cameron austerity thing? Or is this me looking back on things with a COVID-influenced eye and thinking it's insane that any government wouldn't want as many people to be jabbed against the flu as possible?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'm saying that if you are so far out of the booster categories that you have to make up something stupid and fake that you don't need an antibody test because there is very little chance you have low antibody levels, and if you are not at some particular risk factor for extreme exposure (like working in a hospital) there is very little reason to worry about the 3-5% chance your booster has failed you as an under 65 year old with no non-made up health conditions. How is it possible to “scam” your way into a vaccine? Who’s being scammed out of something? Is there a significant proportion of the population who wouldn’t be covered by the huge range conditions listed (including depression and substance use disorders)? Finally, how is it possible to scam a system that tells people who merely think they are at risk to get a booster? Eager to familiarize myself with your thinking on this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Given the widely available vaccine access in the US and the wide range of conditions that qualify folks for needing a booster, it's pretty silly at this point to go down this road of arguments. Those vaccines aren't being taken out of the arms of more deserving people and if you have time and money on your hands and want to help increase vaccine access elsewhere, we've got links for that in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Each unauthorized booster is technically an unnecessary expense for Medicare or private insurance but you'd have to be a real one to try to make that argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Each unauthorized booster is technically an unnecessary expense for Medicare or private insurance but you'd have to be a real one to try to make that argument Also what does unauthorized mean in this context when the vast majority of Americans would qualify by weight alone? It's a pointless argument from any direction. If people start throwing around "booster bandit" in here now that it's nearly November I'm gonna assume they're time travelers from 3 months ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Given the widely available vaccine access in the US and the wide range of conditions that qualify folks for needing a booster, it's pretty silly at this point to go down this road of arguments. Those vaccines aren't being taken out of the arms of more deserving people and if you have time and money on your hands and want to help increase vaccine access elsewhere, we've got links for that in the OP. The issue isn't that you would be stealing one. The issue is that if you are really making up fake reasons you need a shot because you can't fit in any of the many categories, that you might not actually need the shot. Many people still have good protective antibodies at 6 months. If you find yourself being one of the people that has good health, is young, and has no specific exposure risk you should be thinking "oh cool, my antibody levels are statistically going to be very high and the booster is not for me at this time", rather than "what weird lie can I use, uh uh uh, I have a cold sometimes"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Smeef posted:Can you share your source? I googled but didn't see anything definitive or with the granularity I was hoping for. Just top 3 (accidents, congenital issues, cancer) and some aggregate of the long tail. Not contesting your claim, just want to learn more. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/10/kids-vaccines-q-and-a/620497/ It's probably at 10 since that would be easier to say. I just noticed it in this article since I was curious when the under 5 will be available.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you find yourself being one of the people that has good health, is young, and has no specific exposure risk you should be thinking "oh cool, my antibody levels are statistically going to be very high and the booster is not for me at this time", rather than "what weird lie can I use, uh uh uh, I have a cold sometimes" But you don't have to make anything up or lie in any way to get the third shot in a lot of places, why is any of this an "issue"? You haven't explained any actual problem yet that I can see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The issue isn't that you would be stealing one. Who is doing this, in this thread? Or are you just making assumptions about the posters here? Many goons are going to be needing a booster from obesity alone, not to mention the fact that most goons are open and upfront about whatever medical issues they have and many goons are definitely in possession of significant risk markers, myself included.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
pigz posted:The fda and cdc aren't tricking people. They've been clear they have little concern over people spreading this disease as they acknowledge boosters are extremely safe, can help prevent infection and spread but refuse widespread recommendations. They believe they can prevent the us healthcare system form imploding with this approach and are failing spectacularly. This isnt a cdc cause, its directly a result of asine decisions by healthcare administration refusing to understand that healthcare workers are fed-up being fed lies about being loving heroes and sacrificing themselves so that the hospital executives can make multimillion bonuses while frontline staff are being mandated to work and actively make less then they did last year. If the Heores act actually was worked and passed it would have helped a significant number of these issues, that and slicing loving health executives off at the news for giving themselves loving raises and bonuses while staff were literally dying. gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:28
|
|
|
If you don’t have any of the conditions listed on the CDC website, you’re probably in a tiny minority of Americans that should be protected at all costs and therefore must be boosted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The issue isn't that you would be stealing one. So what's the harm in getting the booster and being sure?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:If you don’t have any of the conditions listed on the CDC website, you’re probably in a tiny minority of Americans that should be protected at all costs and therefore must be boosted. Actually, they're genetic superpeople and they need to get with conquering the Earth and ushering in WW3 so that we can eventually get Star Trek future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Jethro posted:He talked big talk about "simplify" and living alone in the wilderness while his mother and sister cooked and did laundry for him. What? Walden wasn't about being a survivalist. It was about living intentionally. That doesn't mean living separate from society, just consciously as a part of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:So what's the harm in getting the booster and being sure? Whats the benefit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Whats the benefit? Antibodies at all time high ready for the winter wave Farmer Crack-rear end posted:So what's the harm in getting the booster and being sure? Rates of myocarditis in young men
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Today I read a current (published Oct. 27, 2021) AP news article about a cheap antidepressant (fluvoxamine) that might hold promise for treating COVID. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-antidepressants-db60608bedde0149247ce9a64a394802 Key quote: "Researchers tested the pill used for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder because it was known to reduce inflammation and looked promising in smaller studies." I think that means even though fluvoxamine's primary use is to help with brain chemical imbalances, it also has an anti-inflammation effect, and that could potentially improve COVID survival rates. A small study on 1,500 people in Brazil showed promise. Disclaimer: Although the article seems genuine to me at first glance, I am absolutely not any kind of medical professional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
mawarannahr posted:How is it possible to “scam” your way into a vaccine? Who’s being scammed out of something? Is there a significant proportion of the population who wouldn’t be covered by the huge range conditions listed (including depression and substance use disorders)? Finally, how is it possible to scam a system that tells people who merely think they are at risk to get a booster? Eager to familiarize myself with your thinking on this. OOCC knows no one is scamming anyone for a booster. He’s a Covid-minimizer. He doesn’t believe anyone except the elderly and infirm should get a booster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:22
|
|
