Fantastic Vaccine Results in US

[sengsational]

But you made it sound like these drugs were just money makers for the drug companies. These drugs do work and are miracles for many people.

Yeah, I did do that. Sorry. I'm fed-up with our medical system, including drug manufacturers, and that comes through. I just read a book (amazon link): Chronic: The Hidden Cause of the Autoimmune Pandemic and How to Get Healthy Again which has as a basic premise that the medical establishment is a bit quick to prescribe these immune suppressing drugs without really making much of an attempt to understand the root cause. Sometimes there are alternatives, but exploring them isn't typical.

The profit motive in drug development became crystal clear to me when, during the pandemic when people are dying by the thousands, effective repurposed drugs were and are being passed-over and new, expensive ones are going through trials.

 

[harllee]

What sensi is forgetting is that a lot of people on these type drugs would have bigger issues with Covid anyway.

True --people with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, crones disease etc are at higher risk for all types of infections. Maybe taking a biologic like Humira makes these folks even more likely to get viruses but-- at least for my husband-- Humira gave him his life back. He may die of some virus because he takes Humira but at least in the meantime he can live a normal life and not be in horrible pain all the time.

 

[harllee]

Yeah, I did do that. Sorry. I'm fed-up with our medical system, including drug manufacturers, and that comes through. I just read a book (amazon link): Chronic: The Hidden Cause of the Autoimmune Pandemic and How to Get Healthy Again which has as a basic premise that the medical establishment is a bit quick to prescribe these immune suppressing drugs without really making much of an attempt to understand the root cause. Sometimes there are alternatives, but exploring them isn't typical.

The profit motive in drug development became crystal clear to me when, during the pandemic when people are dying by the thousands, effective repurposed drugs were and are being passed-over and new, expensive ones are going through trials.

My husband has had psoriatic arthritis since he was in his 20s (he is now 70) and tried every treatment available including all types of medications, surgery, diets, exercise, PT etc etc but he just continued to have swollen joints and terrible pain. Then about 15 years ago he went on Humira. Within a few months most all his swelling and joint pain were gone and he had a normal life for the first time since he was in his 20s. I am sure that the drug makers are making a killing on these types drugs but people are willing to pay for them because they are truly miracle drugs. I do think that the drug advertisements should be banned.

 

[audreyh1]

More great vaccine results:

US: Fully Vaccinated Adults 65 and Older Are 94% Less Likely to Be Hospitalized with COVID-19 according to a recently published CDC study.

Both mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) authorized and recommended in the United States protect against COVID-19-related hospitalization among adults 65 years and older, according to a new CDC assessment that finds fully vaccinated adults 65 years and older were 94% less likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people of the same age who were not vaccinated. People 65 and older who were partially vaccinated were 64% less likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people who were not vaccinated. People were considered “partially vaccinated” two weeks after their first dose of mRNA vaccine and “fully vaccinated” two weeks after their second dose.

These are the first real-world findings in the United States confirming clinical trial data showing mRNA vaccines prevent severe COVID-19 illness. The findings provide additional support for CDC’s recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination among people 65 and older in the U.S. population under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the applicable COVID-19 vaccine as the risk for severe illness with COVID-19 increases with age, with older adults at highest risk.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0428-vaccinated-adults-less-hospitalized.html

 

[Freedom56]

Dr. Scott Gottlieb was pretty optimistic today on Face The Nation. He cited San Francisco as an example where over 71% have received at least one dose and infections are down to 20 per day and there were only 20 hospitalizations due to COVID.

 

[audreyh1]

San Francisco has been interesting. They were even able to somehow keep their infections way down even when other parts of California were on fire. I sense there are more things going on there then just the vaccination rate.

 

[explanade]

Generally you didn't have too many people revolting against restrictions.

High compliance on masking and distancing.

Of course they cut out sports attendance early. I don't know how they handled schools though.

 

[audreyh1]

Right, I figured high compliance was a big part of it.

 

[Freedom56]

Both Seattle and San Francisco did a fine job managing the pandemic. San Francisco was the first major city to shut down. Businesses in the Bay area were telling employees to work from home in early February. There was of course more compliance with health orders in San Francisco.

 

[Chuckanut]

Seattle and its county will possibly go backwards to Phase 2 restrictions this week. They are not doing so well. They are not meeting the Guv’s standards for staying in phase 3.

 

[W2R]

Seattle and its county will possibly go backwards to Phase 2 restrictions this week. They are not doing so well. They are not meeting the Guv’s standards for staying in phase 3.

So sorry to learn this! I thought they were doing great and hadn't heard the latest. How disappointing that must be for Seattle citizens.

New Orleans has been doing really well for quite a while. Some of our restrictions were loosened, as of mid April.

 

[dirtbiker]

San Francisco has been interesting. They were even able to somehow keep their infections way down even when other parts of California were on fire. I sense there are more things going on there then just the vaccination rate.

The main thing this city has done pretty consistently well is to NOT deny science. It's as if what the medical experts have been telling us all along actually works.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

...It's as if what the medical experts have been telling us all along actually works.

As of late, yes. Initially...I'm not so sure. There was a LOT of conflicting information and it was generally a shiznat show.

Also, I noticed today that a COVID risk calculator that has been referenced a couple of times has been revamped as of late. It takes a number of variables to give you a "chance of catching" COVID. It uses info such as age, zip code, medical conditions, vaccine status, etc. Now, they have added some other variables to it to include activities you are doing...such as indoor dining, air travel, staying in a hotel, etc. It's one of the better ones I have seen.

https://19andme.covid19.mathematica.org/

 

[ivinsfan]

The main thing this city has done pretty consistently well is to NOT deny science. It's as if what the medical experts have been telling us all along actually works.

Feeling nice and superior there I see. In MN our recent uptick has been traced back to a surge in the UK variant among kids that weren't yet eligible to get vaccinated. But whatever you say..

 

[oiseux]

San Francisco has been interesting. They were even able to somehow keep their infections way down even when other parts of California were on fire. I sense there are more things going on there then just the vaccination rate.

(and in response to the other replies) San Francisco and the Greater Bay Area, in general, have maintained stricter regulations all along. That, along with higher compliance and high vaccinations rates, has led to low current results.

The bigger story is that Los Angeles, which was hit much harder during the peak, is also in the lowest tier of restrictions. Other major counties like Orange and San Bernardino also have low rates (per capita) of transmission and are approaching the lowest tier, and didn't necessarily have the same level of compliance.

 

[dirtbiker]

As of late, yes. Initially...I'm not so sure. There was a LOT of conflicting information and it was generally a shiznat show.

Also, I noticed today that a COVID risk calculator that has been referenced a couple of times has been revamped as of late. It takes a number of variables to give you a "chance of catching" COVID. It uses info such as age, zip code, medical conditions, vaccine status, etc. Now, they have added some other variables to it to include activities you are doing...such as indoor dining, air travel, staying in a hotel, etc. It's one of the better ones I have seen.

https://19andme.covid19.mathematica.org/

Initially it was a bit of a snotshow, but that's because it was a new disease that we were all still learning about. Recommendations and guidance changed as we learned more about it, which can be frustrating, but it is what it is.

Feeling nice and superior there I see. In MN our recent uptick has been traced back to a surge in the UK variant among kids that weren't yet eligible to get vaccinated. But whatever you say..

Yes. Whatever I say. Thanks.

 

[MrsHaloFIRE]

I just checked out this calculator spoken of. For my area with my exposures being 1 other individual living in my house that also has virtually no contact with people just like I do, my risk as a 30s female in excellent health is still 27 out of 100. Kinda hard to believe. It says in the last 14 days my county ahs had 4400 cases. Extremely hard to believe bc in the last 30 days according to the county website weve had only 6600 cases. These are the actual case counts from the calculator, not the inflated ones they extrapolate by estimating our undercounts. So the calculator will have me believe that in the prior month, days 1-14 we had 2200 cases and days 15-30 we had 4400? Not lining up. SOrry. I call bogus. I do not have a 27 out of 100 risk of catching covid sitting in my kitchen getting groceries delivered. THats complete trash data in there somewhere.

 

[someguy]

I didn't look extensively, but I think you've misinterpreted the 27 number you received. It doesn't appear to be a 27% chance of catching COVID but rather simply a risk score on a scale of 100. IOW, presumably 100 would be the highest risk status in general, not "you are guaranteed to get COVID".

I just checked out this calculator spoken of. For my area with my exposures being 1 other individual living in my house that also has virtually no contact with people just like I do, my risk as a 30s female in excellent health is still 27 out of 100. Kinda hard to believe. It says in the last 14 days my county ahs had 4400 cases. Extremely hard to believe bc in the last 30 days according to the county website weve had only 6600 cases. These are the actual case counts from the calculator, not the inflated ones they extrapolate by estimating our undercounts. So the calculator will have me believe that in the prior month, days 1-14 we had 2200 cases and days 15-30 we had 4400? Not lining up. SOrry. I call bogus. I do not have a 27 out of 100 risk of catching covid sitting in my kitchen getting groceries delivered. THats complete trash data in there somewhere.

 

[MrsHaloFIRE]

I think youre misinterpretting what Im saying. Im saying their case counts dont match with my county case counts so there is a huge error somewhere in this calculator. I think its garbage in, garbage out

 

[donheff]

Yes, I think they could do a better job explaining what the number means. I’m fully vaccinated and engage in low risk activities. I got a 26, which they describe as “relatively low risk.”

 

[braumeister]

I didn't look extensively, but I think you've misinterpreted the 27 number you received. It doesn't appear to be a 27% chance of catching COVID but rather simply a risk score on a scale of 100. IOW, presumably 100 would be the highest risk status in general, not "you are guaranteed to get COVID".

Yes, it's important to read the whole page on that calculator.

I just ran it for myself, and it came up with a "risk score" of 19.
Farther down the page, that is described as follows:

Among people in your county who have behaviors and levels of interaction with others that are similar to yours, the estimated probability of catching COVID-19 through community transmission in a week is 0.00027% .

 

[braumeister]

I think youre misinterpretting what Im saying. Im saying their case counts dont match with my county case counts so there is a huge error somewhere in this calculator. I think its garbage in, garbage out

In the explanations, they are assuming for several reasons that the official counts are under-reported, and they tell you by how much.

 

[Gumby]

I just checked out this calculator spoken of. For my area with my exposures being 1 other individual living in my house that also has virtually no contact with people just like I do, my risk as a 30s female in excellent health is still 27 out of 100. Kinda hard to believe. It says in the last 14 days my county ahs had 4400 cases. Extremely hard to believe bc in the last 30 days according to the county website weve had only 6600 cases. These are the actual case counts from the calculator, not the inflated ones they extrapolate by estimating our undercounts. So the calculator will have me believe that in the prior month, days 1-14 we had 2200 cases and days 15-30 we had 4400? Not lining up. SOrry. I call bogus. I do not have a 27 out of 100 risk of catching covid sitting in my kitchen getting groceries delivered. THats complete trash data in there somewhere.

You need to look at the text below the simple graphic meter, which is a "risk score" whatever that means, but is most certainly not a percentage risk. When I run the calculator, my "risk score" also shows as 27, but when I look at the text, it says my risk of contracting COVID in a week is .0012 percent, which is 1 in 83,333, not 27 in 100.

 

[jollystomper]

You need to look at the text below the simple graphic meter, which is a "risk score" whatever that means, but is most certainly not a percentage risk. When I run the calculator, my "risk score" also shows as 27, but when I look at the text, it says my risk of contracting COVID in a week is .0012 percent, which is 1 in 83,333, not 27 in 100.

True. I took the test, and my score was a 39 (doesn't like that I go to the gym ). The text read:

Among people in your county who have behaviors and levels of interaction with others that are similar to yours, the estimated probability of catching COVID-19 through community transmission in a week is 0.006% . For comparison, 0.41% of Americans catch the flu every week during flu season.

 

[Chuckanut]

Here’s an interesting chart:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E035C1UUUAMaHnc?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Note the sharp drop in the seven day average that started at the same time vaccinations became available.