Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates • Hacker News Board

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#721

Post by bonzini » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 9:59 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #705

bonzini wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not say that prior infection does not reduce severe outcome. It does but _it does not change the fact_ that the severe outcomes are much more rare among vaccinated people. This means that there are still too few people with prior infection, for this to be an important factor in policy making. It will be once the proportion of unvaccinated people in hospitals starts to resemble the proportion in the general popu…

The severe outcomes are even more rare amongst prior-infected, unvaccinated people. I suggest you look up seroprevalence surveys. The bulk of COVID infections (barring mandatory and regular testing being extant in a given locality) go undetected, due to the mild symptoms in the vast majority of the population. The seroprevalence surveys have shown this since May 2020.

And again I do not debate that. But they are too few to have an impact on the overall statistics of unvaccinated people. It they were not such a small minority, you would not be seeing so many more severe outcomes among the unvaccinated.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#722

Post by JPKab » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 9:59 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #674

bonzini wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why are they so adamant to vaccinate those with prior infection Because the data shows they don't matter. This is the same thing as deaths due to covid vs. deaths while positive to covid. Sure some people might have been miscounted as covid deaths but actually died due to cancer/car accident/whatever. Despite this the excess deaths over the past two years is much higher than the number of covid deaths; thus showing…

> However, we have a 30/70 split in number of covid hospitalizations, with 30 being vaccinated people, in countries where the split in the normal population is 90/10. This means that despite some unvaccinated people having had prior infection the vaccine reduces hospitalizations by 20x. Given this data the most effective strategy is to just vaccinate everyone without what is effectively a pointless distinction No. Th…

I completely agree with your comment and to help summarize why you are having to explain all of these things to these people, I suggest everyone on this thread read the following link to understand their error.

Dividing groups of people up without going deep enough into categorization creates contradictory conclusions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#723

Post by scarmig » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 9:59 PM UTC

depereo wrote: post #502

scarmig wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the anti-mandate people (I'm not one, to be clear) would be quite happy with a world where the interventions around COVID were awareness campaigns. And just as some people insist on not wearing condoms despite the risks, the same will be true of mask wearing and vaccines.

Would they be happy with "Knowingly infecting someone or non disclosure of positive infection status during possible transmission activities is a jailable offense" for COVID? Ultimately these interventions, mandates and other public health measures, which wind up as a mix of education, awareness and mandates or laws become a balancing act between personal inconvenience and public good; so the work done for HIV is dif…

The standard for criminal HIV transmission (in California, at least; it varies by state) is not "accidentally infecting someone while not knowing your status." It's not even "infecting someone without disclosing that you're HIV-positive while knowing you're HIV-positive." It's "intentionally infecting someone with HIV." And, explicitly, your knowledge of your positive status is not sufficient to establish intent.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#724

Post by nradov » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 9:59 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #595

rkk3 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It has killed more than 865,000 Americans > It looks like that's more Americans than have been killed in combat in all of the wars of the 20th century combined [1] Like all deaths tragic, but let's not pretend young men, effectively kids, dying in war is the same as elderly & chronically sick populations dying of disease.

> Like all deaths tragic, but let's not pretend young men, effectively kids, dying in war is the same as elderly & chronically sick populations dying of disease. Where elderly means > 40 and chronically sick includes "has a bit of high blood pressure".

Elderly doesn't mean > 40. More than 81% of COVID-19 deaths occur in people over age 65.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precaut...

Fortunately the vaccines and other treatments are still very effective in preventing deaths among the elderly population.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#725

Post by throwaway51235 » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

mplewis wrote: post #401

RedBeetDeadpool wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Herd immunity is for the herd. The US is where it is because we have individuals willing to fight for individual rights. If casualty of individuals is the cost to keep individuality in this country then I say let it be. The vaccinated are protected and therefore you are safe (assuming you are vaccinated). So why do you need to proselytize your doctrine on those around you? You're allowed your own opinions, chant your…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#726

Post by twofornone » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

odiroot wrote: post #620

andrewclunn wrote: post #91

> “The only way to get compliance from people and get accommodation [is] if we demonstrate the ability to withdraw these [mandates] in the same manner in which we put them in,” Gottlieb added. Nope. That line was crossed a long time ago. I can't imagine people suddenly regaining trust in pharma companies and health care agencies now because they backed off at this point.

I do trust pharma companies now, more than ever. They offered us a way out of this mess, after all. On the other hand, I do trust the politicians much less.

They made tens of billions of dollars with zero liability and a rubber stamp from the fda...these are still the same toxic companies that have been sued for billions of dollars and benefitted from decades of lobbying and regulatory capture. They have an army of lawyers on standby on the off chance that someone does find a loophole through which to sue them over adverse effects if they prove to be substantial. Meanwhile the pandemic rages on a year after introducing these vaccines, which have gradually been proven less and less effective than these faceless megacorps repeatedly claimed.

Why on earth would you suddenly trust them "more than ever"?

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#727

Post by ynx » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

nu11ptr wrote: post #571

tzs wrote: post #30

Something from the NYT mailing list yesterday: > The Covid vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing serious illness. If you’re vaccinated, your chances of getting severely sick are extremely low. Even among people 65 and older, the combination of the vaccines’ effectiveness and the Omicron variant’s relative mildness means that Covid now appears to present less danger than a normal flu. > For the unvaccinated,…

Apologies in advance for getting on my soapbox, but this has been on my mind for a while. The way in which the media has gotten everyone to say "the unvaccinated" is a 'disease' against basic science (not even getting into the divisive nature of this). I would go as far as saying if you read any paper, study, or other that refers to the "unvaccinated" as a single cohort, you are reading vaccine propaganda, not scienc…

> If you are a rational person who wants to see good science and are unemotional and detached from outcomes, then you will want to see proper study cohorts, and combining prior infection in with the "unvaccinated" cohort, is just bad science.

Not sure what you mean. Science detached from outcomes is bad science. Science is trying to suss out cause and effect, not to avoid reality.

> This bad science fuels the anti-vaxx movement even more, and honestly, it is hard blame them.

Ah. There it is. Nope. It's still easy to blame them. It's not a sufficient criticism to cede moral superiority. "You didn't adjust your tone to distinguish 'unvaccinated' from 'immune-because-infected' from 'vaccinated'." does not suggest that antivaxxers are any less morally bankrupt for promoting the course of action which results in serious illness and death.

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#728

Post by ipaddr » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 10:01 PM UTC

bobbyasdfasdf7 wrote: post #637

nu11ptr wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies in advance for getting on my soapbox, but this has been on my mind for a while. The way in which the media has gotten everyone to say "the unvaccinated" is a 'disease' against basic science (not even getting into the divisive nature of this). I would go as far as saying if you read any paper, study, or other that refers to the "unvaccinated" as a single cohort, you are reading vaccine propaganda, not scienc…

Quoted post unavailable.

Just do what you are told. Follow your leaders. Everyone else is doing it...

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#729

Post by lwkl » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 10:02 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #654

bonzini wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why are they so adamant to vaccinate those with prior infection Because the data shows they don't matter. This is the same thing as deaths due to covid vs. deaths while positive to covid. Sure some people might have been miscounted as covid deaths but actually died due to cancer/car accident/whatever. Despite this the excess deaths over the past two years is much higher than the number of covid deaths; thus showing…

> Because the data shows they don't matter. Source? Because the CDC says otherwise. > In the first full week of October, vaccinated New Yorkers with a prior Covid-19 case were 19.8 times less likely to catch the virus than their unvaccinated and uninfected peers, whereas people who were unvaccinated but previously infected were 14.7 times less likely, and vaccinated but uninfected New Yorkers were just 4.5 times less…

The person you are replying to is talking about hospitalizations for severe ilness. The study you are quoting is talking about covid infections in general. These two are not the same and the vaccine protects from the former (severe illness and death).

Re: Pfizer board member suggests end to mask, vaccine mandates

#730

Post by jeeeb » Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 10:04 PM UTC

dahfizz wrote: post #654

bonzini wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why are they so adamant to vaccinate those with prior infection Because the data shows they don't matter. This is the same thing as deaths due to covid vs. deaths while positive to covid. Sure some people might have been miscounted as covid deaths but actually died due to cancer/car accident/whatever. Despite this the excess deaths over the past two years is much higher than the number of covid deaths; thus showing…

> Because the data shows they don't matter. Source? Because the CDC says otherwise. > In the first full week of October, vaccinated New Yorkers with a prior Covid-19 case were 19.8 times less likely to catch the virus than their unvaccinated and uninfected peers, whereas people who were unvaccinated but previously infected were 14.7 times less likely, and vaccinated but uninfected New Yorkers were just 4.5 times less…

Here is the actual study: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

Importantly it doesn’t account for the effect of boosters and looks at pre-omicron data.

That noted the best protection seems to be had by a combination of vaccination and prior infection, which is perhaps unsurprising.

Also other CDC studies suggest that natural immunity declines quicker than vaccine induced immunity (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm...).

Given these results it would seem like generally a good idea to get vaccinated, even if you have had prior infection.