Covid-19

[Smails]

Some people didn’t read the entire article?

But despite the risks of the condition, a new CDC report estimates the vaccines could prevent 5,700 COVID-19 cases and as many as 215 hospitalizations among boys aged 12-17, noting that the benefits of vaccinating that age group "still clearly outweigh the risks."

"This experience was much better than getting COVID and much lower risk of anything long lasting occurring," Noah Hiers said.

Is that your answer to my question? Are you able to see and understand why some people are apprehensive about getting their kids vaccinated, or is it a black and white issue with you?

[Xville]

I have much younger kids so if it comes time where there is a vaccine for them, then I will be making the decision for them. Maybe I am naive and will think differently by the time they are teenagers but right now I think 12-17 year olds (at least in the 14-17 range) should probably be making their own decisions on this anyway. I think the job of the parent should be more about educating them on the pros/cons etc, and outlining the risks and potential consequences of the decision.

As far as the apprehension, I can certainly understand because you just never know, but I'd also have apprehension about my hypothetical 12 year old not getting vaccinated and the chance of getting a bad reaction to covid, which is probably about the same chance as having this kind of reaction from the shot.

Just my two cents.

[boozehound]

I have much younger kids so if it comes time where there is a vaccine for them, then I will be making the decision for them. Maybe I am naive and will think differently by the time they are teenagers but right now I think 12-17 year olds (at least in the 14-17 range) should probably be making their own decisions on this anyway. I think the job of the parent should be more about educating them on the pros/cons etc, and outlining the risks and potential consequences of the decision.

As far as the apprehension, I can certainly understand because you just never know, but I'd also have apprehension about my hypothetical 12 year old not getting vaccinated and the chance of getting a bad reaction to covid, which is probably about the same chance as having this kind of reaction from the shot.

Just my two cents.

I agree with this. I do think that statistically the chances of a bad reaction to COVID are actually probably significantly greater than the chance of a bad reaction to the vaccine. If that doesn't hold true for any age group then I can't imagine it getting through clinical trials and getting approved.

My opinion is that people who are anti-vax for their kids tend to weigh one side of the scale disproportionately to the data. They are worried about potential adverse effects to the vaccine (a totally normal thing for a parent) but are dismissive of the potential for adverse effects of getting COVID for whatever reason. While children having a severe or long lasting case of COVID is rare, it does happen, and in the age cohorts that have tested the vaccine it happens more than a significant adverse reaction to the vaccine.

There is also the very real possibility that this rapidly spreading (globally, at present) virus undergoes a mutation that makes it significantly more virulent to younger children.

My kids are 5 and 7. If the vaccine passes clinical trials for their age I would probably get them vaccinated. A more palatable (to me) solution would be getting 90% of the eligible adults and teens vaccinated, hopefully eliminating or reducing the need for vaccinations for young children.

[xu82]

Is that your answer to my question? Are you able to see and understand why some people are apprehensive about getting their kids vaccinated, or is it a black and white issue with you?

I TOTALLY understand why it’s such a gray area. Nothing black and white about it. You can find info to seemingly support either side. Everybody has to make their own call. We went with what we thought were the best odds, but there is no perfect option.

[noteggs]

It's interesting, because I think that this should be a big win for the medical profession. We developed a remarkably effective vaccine within the first year of the initial outbreak. It's 90%+ effective, and safe. Sure, we lucked out to some extent that the work had already been started during the SARS outbreak a while back, but it's still an impressive feat, IMO.

There were some communication and messaging missteps initially (i.e. masks don't work) that I think had as much to do with our lack of understanding of the virus as any type of willful attempt to mislead people. We significantly improved our treatment protocol for infected people as well.

I really wonder what would have happened if the Trump administration had just backed the CDC guidance and stayed out of opining on masks, treatments, etc. Or just said nothing at all about treatments and other medical issues.

Take the whole HCQ thing for example. Nobody knew what HCQ was. We initially heard it was being used to treat some COVID patients, but I don't think anyone had much of an opinion initially. The Trump started touting it. His supporters treated it like a miracle cure and started trying to buy it up like crazy. His substantial group of haters (including much of the media) then had an equally strong negative opinion.

Honestly I think that the whole thing is just a function of how broken we are as a society, and how the internet is destroying us. This could/should have been a galvanizing moment for the United Stated, and a point of overall pride. Instead it's basically been the opposite.

Agree with you both and don’t really see a big difference in these two comments. You rightly pointed towards a positive in which there have been several. First and foremost, front line workers have been amazing.

Despite these great accomplishments, we’ve allowed politics to overshadow them and even tarnish the medical profession. Hate to speak for GIMMFD, but think that’s the point here.

A couple more examples on top of the Trump’s mismanagement and Fauci’s mask blunder which stays with us today.

- Future VP stating she would not take a vaccine because of Trump’s involvement. We lost a big chunk of the black community on getting them vaccinated.

- Allow Cuomo to blame the CDC for his own decision to return nursing home patients which was the contrary.

- Have the two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world print a complete bogus study as peered reviewed.

- Allow the teachers union to be in the discussions with the CDC on opening schools.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and describe the ridiculousness from the right. Just reread this thread if you want a refresher lol.

[Strange Brew]

Agree with you both and don’t really see a big difference in these two comments. You rightly pointed towards a positive in which there have been several. First and foremost, front line workers have been amazing.

Despite these great accomplishments, we’ve allowed politics to overshadow them and even tarnish the medical profession. Hate to speak for GIMMFD, but think that’s the point here.

A couple more examples on top of the Trump’s mismanagement and Fauci’s mask blunder which stays with us today.

- Future VP stating she would not take a vaccine because of Trump’s involvement. We lost a big chunk of the black community on getting them vaccinated.

- Allow Cuomo to blame the CDC for his own decision to return nursing home patients which was the contrary.

- Have the two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world print a complete bogus study as peered reviewed.

- Allow the teachers union to be in the discussions with the CDC on opening schools.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and describe the ridiculousness from the right. Just reread this thread if you want a refresher lol.

How did Trump mismanage the situation based on what is now known?

[Muskie in dayton]

Agree with you both and donÂ’t really see a big difference in these two comments. You rightly pointed towards a positive in which there have been several. First and foremost, front line workers have been amazing.

Despite these great accomplishments, weÂ’ve allowed politics to overshadow them and even tarnish the medical profession. Hate to speak for GIMMFD, but think thatÂ’s the point here.

A couple more examples on top of the TrumpÂ’s mismanagement and FauciÂ’s mask blunder which stays with us today.

- Future VP stating she would not take a vaccine because of TrumpÂ’s involvement. We lost a big chunk of the black community on getting them vaccinated.

- Allow Cuomo to blame the CDC for his own decision to return nursing home patients which was the contrary.

- Have the two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world print a complete bogus study as peered reviewed.

- Allow the teachers union to be in the discussions with the CDC on opening schools.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and describe the ridiculousness from the right. Just reread this thread if you want a refresher lol.

Here's what happens when political science muddles natural science:

February 2020: "This virus is not very dangerous except to the the sick/elderly"
March 2020: "We're all going to die! Stay home, shut down public places, stop seeing friends and family!"
June 2020: "This virus is not very dangerous for most people. Only the sick/elderly. But we need to keep things shut down and stay away from friends and family."
June 2021: "OK, as you were. Did we need to lockdown? Nothing to see here. Move along. Hey, how about those variants?"

February 2020: "Masks do not stop an airborne respiratory virus, and COVID-19 is airborne"
May 2020: "COVID-19 spready by droplets. We need to wear masks. If 80% of the population masks, it will be done".
September 2020: "COVID-19 spreads by aerosols, but masks will stop it"
April 2021: "We need to wear masks for another year"
June 2021: "Masks do not stop an airborne respiratory virus, and COVID-19 is airborne"

February 2020: "Asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is inconsequential to the pandemic".
March 2020: "Cases are spreading asymptomatically. People don't realize they have it and can infect hundreds"
June 2021: "Asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is inconsequential to the pandemic".

April 2020: "Once one has had COVID-19, they are immune, likely for years"
January 2021: "Everyone needs a vaccine, even if they had COVID-19. We don't know enough about natural immunity."
June 2021: "Yeah, OK, but get vaccinated anyway. Just because, now stop asking, or I'll fine you $500"
TBD...

February 2020: "The virus is not dangerous to children."
August 2020: "Not only is the virus not dangerous to children, but they have a low rate of transmitting it."
June 2021: "All children must be vaccinated! Because I said!"
TBD....

Natural science always wins out, because it's true. It just takes time.

[X-man]

Here's what happens when political science muddles natural science:

February 2020: "This virus is not very dangerous except to the the sick/elderly"
March 2020: "We're all going to die! Stay home, shut down public places, stop seeing friends and family!"
June 2020: "This virus is not very dangerous for most people. Only the sick/elderly. But we need to keep things shut down and stay away from friends and family."
June 2021: "OK, as you were. Did we need to lockdown? Nothing to see here. Move along. Hey, how about those variants?"

February 2020: "Masks do not stop an airborne respiratory virus, and COVID-19 is airborne"
May 2020: "COVID-19 spready by droplets. We need to wear masks. If 80% of the population masks, it will be done".
September 2020: "COVID-19 spreads by aerosols, but masks will stop it"
April 2021: "We need to wear masks for another year"
June 2021: "Masks do not stop an airborne respiratory virus, and COVID-19 is airborne"

February 2020: "Asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is inconsequential to the pandemic".
March 2020: "Cases are spreading asymptomatically. People don't realize they have it and can infect hundreds"
June 2021: "Asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is inconsequential to the pandemic".

April 2020: "Once one has had COVID-19, they are immune, likely for years"
January 2021: "Everyone needs a vaccine, even if they had COVID-19. We don't know enough about natural immunity."
June 2021: "Yeah, OK, but get vaccinated anyway. Just because, now stop asking, or I'll fine you $500"
TBD...

February 2020: "The virus is not dangerous to children."
August 2020: "Not only is the virus not dangerous to children, but they have a low rate of transmitting it."
June 2021: "All children must be vaccinated! Because I said!"
TBD....

Natural science always wins out, because it's true. It just takes time.

Too bad the "former guy", unlike scientists, can't take in new information and modify his take on the election.

[noteggs]

How did Trump mismanage the situation based on what is now known?

When I think of Trump’s mismanagement of covid, it was mostly his messaging to the country. Not “from what we know now” tactical perspective which I thought was good at times. Both sides love to play the hindsight rule really well after situations like this in terms of tactical performance.

Here are a few of messaging errors IMO.

- His press conferences were way too long and he completely lost his overall message because they turned into the normal him vs the press slap fest. Did the press poke the bear- sure. I did not mind the banter before the pandemic but should have pulled a Biden and tell the press he was going to get in trouble if he didn’t leave the presser.

- Unfortunately Trump always thought he was the smartest guy in the room. He did not allow (to his detriment) the medical professionals explain the situation without his input. It would have been more reputable if he just said, “you heard what I heard and this is what I’m planning to do with this information.”

- If Trump knew it was airborne disease, he should’ve let us know.

- Continuing to tell Americans the disease is going away soon. I get he was trying to be optimistic for the people, but…

- In March 2020 “anyone needing a test can get a test.” We all know testing was a huge issue at this point and not universally available.

[boozehound]

When I think of Trump’s mismanagement of covid, it was mostly his messaging to the country. Not “from what we know now” tactical perspective which I thought was good at times. Both sides love to play the hindsight rule really well after situations like this in terms of tactical performance.

I think there is a decent chance Trump would still be President if he had let the healthcare professionals handle most of the COVID response, and had just stayed out of it. It was the quintessential example of Trump being his own worst enemy. I don't think he did himself any favors by transforming mask wearing into political theater, and opining publicly about all manner of experimental treatments. He could have kept the message about America needing to re-open and the 'cure' being potentially worse than the disease if he had just (publicly, at least) deferred more to the healthcare professionals and showed some empathy. That's a big 'if' obviously, as it seems to go against the core of who he is (particularly the part about empathy).