Coronavirus

Absolutely amazing how everyone can be so, so different!!

Two of about twenty people I am aware of were down 2 -3 days with moderna. SWMBO and I had just a sore arm each shot.

Pfizer no problems..good to see everyone is getting the vaccine..

I do go out a lot & in NY state everywhere we have went you need the NYS vaccine ID...from the city , bronx , LI & Westchester Co.

First Moderna shot no reaction, second I was tired & had a headache for most of the day after buy not bad, I could have gone fishing.
John

Two shots for me as well...
1: Makers Mark
2: and a lovely Disoronio Reserve on the rocks..

No side effects.

Nice too see everyone getting along I had to double check to make sure I was on the right site

Interesting piece on the push/pull situation between science and bureaucracy, a constant set of opposing forces in Public Health, more than amplified in the case of COVID-19

Booster Confusion

[HEADING=2]Booster Confusion[/HEADING]
When an F.D.A. panel meets today about J. & J. booster shots, there will be an elephant in the room.

For the 15 million Americans who have received the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine, the confusing messages from the federal government just keep coming.

An F.D.A. advisory panel is [scheduled to vote today]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/us/politics/johnson-vaccine-boosters-fda.html') on whether J. & J. recipients should receive a booster shot. But the panel is not likely to vote on what seems to be the most relevant question: Should the booster shot come from one of the other vaccines — Pfizer’s or Moderna’s, which are known as mRNA vaccines — rather than a follow-up J. & J. shot?

The scientific evidence increasingly suggests that the answer is yes (as I explain below). Still, the F.D.A. panel seems likely to duck the question and rule only on whether J. & J. recipients should receive a J. & J. booster.

It is the latest example of a recurring Covid problem. Again and again, government officials have chosen to follow pre-existing bureaucratic procedures even when doing so has led to widespread public confusion and counterproductive behavior.

Officials often defend this approach by saying they merely “[follow the science]('https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/10/14/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-covid-19-response-and-vaccination-program-2/'),” but that’s not quite accurate. When there is a conflict between scientific evidence and bureaucratic protocols, science often takes a back seat. Consider:

[LIST]
[*]At the start of the pandemic, health officials around the country were [desperate to conduct Covid-19 tests]('https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/testing-coronavirus-pandemic.html'), but the C.D.C. sometimes kept those officials from developing their own tests — even as the C.D.C.’s own initial test was a failure.
[*]Around the same time, federal officials [discouraged the public from wearing masks]('https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473'), saying there was not enough evidence to support them — despite masks’ longtime effectiveness in Asia and inside hospitals.
[*]For much of this year, the F.D.A. [refused to grant full authorization]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/briefing/fda-pfizer-vaccine-approval.html') to any Covid vaccine — even as its top leaders were saying the shots were safe and effective and urging Americans to get vaccinated.
[*]The F.D.A. has been [slow to approve rapid Covid tests]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/briefing/covid-rapid-tests-fda-approval.html'), which helps explain why Britain, France and Germany are awash in the tests — but your local drugstore may not have any.
[/LIST]

The repeated slowness of U.S. officials stems from a worthy goal. They want to consider the scientific evidence carefully before making decisions. They want to avoid confusing the public or, even worse, promoting less than optimal medical treatments.

Yet in their insistence on following procedures that were not written with a global pandemic in mind, officials have often ended up doing precisely what they sought to avoid. They have perplexed the public and encouraged medically dubious behavior.

During a public-health crisis, officials are most effective when they are “first, right and credible,” as the sociologist and Times Opinion columnist Zeynep Tufekci [has written]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/opinion/covid-data-vaccines.html'). They are least effective when they offer “mixed messaging, delays and confusion.”

[HEADING=1]The J. & J. question[/HEADING]
Last month, this newsletter published a guide to [whether J. & J. recipients should follow the mix-and-match approach]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/briefing/johnson-and-johnson-boosters-explainer.html') of getting a booster shot with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. We concluded that the available scientific evidence argued for the mix-and-match approach, but that there was still uncertainty. We wrote that we understood why many people would not want to do so until the government encouraged it.

This week, the data in favor of the mix-and-match approach became even stronger.

The National Institutes of Health, which is part of the federal government, [released a study]('https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.10.21264827v1') comparing the antibody levels in J. & J. recipients who had received a J. & J. booster with those who had received an mRNA booster. With both of the mRNA shots — Moderna’s and Pfizer’s — the antibody levels were higher. The study did not involve enough people or a long enough time frame to be definitive, but many experts believe it’s significant.

It also follows other evidence in favor of a mix-and-match approach. In other countries, a similar approach appears [to be successful]('https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01359-3'). Partly as a result, an unknown number of U.S. doctors and scientists who received the J. & J. vaccine have already taken it upon themselves to get a follow-up shot from Pfizer or Moderna. And the city of San Francisco already offers mix-and-match booster shots. “At the end of the day, folks having the Johnson & Johnson should probably get an mRNA booster,” Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania, [told The Times]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/health/johnson-vaccine-booster-fda.html').

Absent a late addition to its agenda, however, the F.D.A. panel will only discuss the mix-and-match issue today but take no action on it. If you’re a J. & J. recipient looking for clarity from your government, you’re on your own.

[HEADING=1]A National Health Adviser?[/HEADING]
Bureaucratic sluggishness and confusion are not new problems. At several points in U.S. history, the federal government has taken steps to address them.

In 1947, Congress created the National Security Council to help the president make sense of competing advice from military leaders, diplomats and others. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton created a similar council to coordinate economic policy. And some individual officials — like Ben Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chairman — previously managed to avoid the problem that has bedeviled the F.D.A. and C.D.C.: These officials refused to let inertia block common-sense policies during a crisis. Bernanke’s memoir, as I’ve noted before, is titled [“The Courage to Act.”]('https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/books/review/ben-bernankes-the-courage-to-act.html')

During the pandemic, many Americans have come to think of Dr. Anthony Fauci as playing a similar role. He occasionally has (especially when Donald Trump was flouting medical evidence). But Fauci is an N.I.H. official who lacks the power to coordinate federal policy. It isn’t his job to clarify the government’s competing public-health messages. He has not done so on some big issues, including rapid tests and J. & J. boosters.

Nobody has. As a result, federal policy has sometimes fallen behind the scientific evidence, leaving many Americans to feel confused and frustrated — and the country’s Covid response to be less effective than it could have been.

Nice too see everyone getting along I had to double check to make sure I was on the right site

I heard they are all getting together to sing kumbyya while they wait for new commands from goofy and the mad magazine guy.

I don’t sing

Interesting piece on the push/pull situation between science and bureaucracy, a constant set of opposing forces in Public Health, more than amplified in the case of COVID-19

[Booster Confusion]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/briefing/johnson-and-johnson-booster-fda.html')

[HEADING=2]Booster Confusion[/HEADING]
When an F.D.A. panel meets today about J. & J. booster shots, there will be an elephant in the room.

For the 15 million Americans who have received the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine, the confusing messages from the federal government just keep coming.

An F.D.A. advisory panel is [scheduled to vote today]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/us/politics/johnson-vaccine-boosters-fda.html') on whether J. & J. recipients should receive a booster shot. But the panel is not likely to vote on what seems to be the most relevant question: Should the booster shot come from one of the other vaccines — Pfizer’s or Moderna’s, which are known as mRNA vaccines — rather than a follow-up J. & J. shot?

The scientific evidence increasingly suggests that the answer is yes (as I explain below). Still, the F.D.A. panel seems likely to duck the question and rule only on whether J. & J. recipients should receive a J. & J. booster.

It is the latest example of a recurring Covid problem. Again and again, government officials have chosen to follow pre-existing bureaucratic procedures even when doing so has led to widespread public confusion and counterproductive behavior.

Officials often defend this approach by saying they merely “[follow the science]('https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/10/14/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-covid-19-response-and-vaccination-program-2/'),” but that’s not quite accurate. When there is a conflict between scientific evidence and bureaucratic protocols, science often takes a back seat. Consider:

[LIST]
[*]At the start of the pandemic, health officials around the country were [desperate to conduct Covid-19 tests]('https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/testing-coronavirus-pandemic.html'), but the C.D.C. sometimes kept those officials from developing their own tests — even as the C.D.C.’s own initial test was a failure.
[*]Around the same time, federal officials [discouraged the public from wearing masks]('https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473'), saying there was not enough evidence to support them — despite masks’ longtime effectiveness in Asia and inside hospitals.
[*]For much of this year, the F.D.A. [refused to grant full authorization]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/briefing/fda-pfizer-vaccine-approval.html') to any Covid vaccine — even as its top leaders were saying the shots were safe and effective and urging Americans to get vaccinated.
[*]The F.D.A. has been [slow to approve rapid Covid tests]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/briefing/covid-rapid-tests-fda-approval.html'), which helps explain why Britain, France and Germany are awash in the tests — but your local drugstore may not have any.
[/LIST]

The repeated slowness of U.S. officials stems from a worthy goal. They want to consider the scientific evidence carefully before making decisions. They want to avoid confusing the public or, even worse, promoting less than optimal medical treatments.

Yet in their insistence on following procedures that were not written with a global pandemic in mind, officials have often ended up doing precisely what they sought to avoid. They have perplexed the public and encouraged medically dubious behavior.

During a public-health crisis, officials are most effective when they are “first, right and credible,” as the sociologist and Times Opinion columnist Zeynep Tufekci [has written]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/opinion/covid-data-vaccines.html'). They are least effective when they offer “mixed messaging, delays and confusion.”

[HEADING=1]The J. & J. question[/HEADING]
Last month, this newsletter published a guide to [whether J. & J. recipients should follow the mix-and-match approach]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/briefing/johnson-and-johnson-boosters-explainer.html') of getting a booster shot with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. We concluded that the available scientific evidence argued for the mix-and-match approach, but that there was still uncertainty. We wrote that we understood why many people would not want to do so until the government encouraged it.

This week, the data in favor of the mix-and-match approach became even stronger.

The National Institutes of Health, which is part of the federal government, [released a study]('https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.10.21264827v1') comparing the antibody levels in J. & J. recipients who had received a J. & J. booster with those who had received an mRNA booster. With both of the mRNA shots — Moderna’s and Pfizer’s — the antibody levels were higher. The study did not involve enough people or a long enough time frame to be definitive, but many experts believe it’s significant.

It also follows other evidence in favor of a mix-and-match approach. In other countries, a similar approach appears [to be successful]('https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01359-3'). Partly as a result, an unknown number of U.S. doctors and scientists who received the J. & J. vaccine have already taken it upon themselves to get a follow-up shot from Pfizer or Moderna. And the city of San Francisco already offers mix-and-match booster shots. “At the end of the day, folks having the Johnson & Johnson should probably get an mRNA booster,” Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania, [told The Times]('https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/health/johnson-vaccine-booster-fda.html').

Absent a late addition to its agenda, however, the F.D.A. panel will only discuss the mix-and-match issue today but take no action on it. If you’re a J. & J. recipient looking for clarity from your government, you’re on your own.

[HEADING=1]A National Health Adviser?[/HEADING]
Bureaucratic sluggishness and confusion are not new problems. At several points in U.S. history, the federal government has taken steps to address them.

In 1947, Congress created the National Security Council to help the president make sense of competing advice from military leaders, diplomats and others. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton created a similar council to coordinate economic policy. And some individual officials — like Ben Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chairman — previously managed to avoid the problem that has bedeviled the F.D.A. and C.D.C.: These officials refused to let inertia block common-sense policies during a crisis. Bernanke’s memoir, as I’ve noted before, is titled [“The Courage to Act.”]('https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/books/review/ben-bernankes-the-courage-to-act.html')

During the pandemic, many Americans have come to think of Dr. Anthony Fauci as playing a similar role. He occasionally has (especially when Donald Trump was flouting medical evidence). But Fauci is an N.I.H. official who lacks the power to coordinate federal policy. It isn’t his job to clarify the government’s competing public-health messages. He has not done so on some big issues, including rapid tests and J. & J. boosters.

Nobody has. As a result, federal policy has sometimes fallen behind the scientific evidence, leaving many Americans to feel confused and frustrated — and the country’s Covid response to be less effective than it could have been.

Key word

confusion

Key word

confusion

cant agree more from drinking bleach & sticking black lights up you butt to horse dewoming ..

R7 should help this soul on reasons to not believe CNN and the Marxist left. In the mean time watch Gupta get a ass whipping.
Joe Rogan rants about CNN ‘lies’ over his ivermectin use to Dr Sanjay Gupta

See where

cant agree more from drinking bleach & sticking black lights up you butt to horse dewoming ..

we’re we don’t agree is that anything you mentioned is anything more than a cherry picked line load of shit

See where

we’re we don’t agree is that anything you mentioned is anything more than a cherry picked line load of shit

what's a load of chit? what did I post that wasn't said ? Maybe its just a flu? go away in April ? just fourteen people have it ? after the election it will go away ?

R7 should help this soul on reasons to not believe CNN and the Marxist left. In the mean time watch Gupta get a ass whipping.
[Joe Rogan rants about CNN ‘lies’ over his ivermectin use to Dr Sanjay Gupta]('https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/joe-rogan-sanjay-gupta-ivermectin-b1938603.html%3famp')

didn't Mr. Rogan get the vaccine ? Kinda like a guy who puts on a life jacket on a sinking ship & tells you that you don't need one ..

None of what u posted was actually said as U posted it

it’s a liberal thing can’t help but to lie and exaggerate
It’s ok we’re used to that from u guys

what's a load of chit? what did I post that wasn't said ? Maybe its just a flu? go away in April ? just fourteen people have it ? after the election it will go away ?

This is not a hit to vaccines. My entire family made the educated decision to be vaccinated.

But, interesting where this went. Quoting someone? Let's play with some numbers.

First vaccine shot 12/14 (after record time getting it out, what 9-10 months?)

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/coronavirus-case-numbers-in-the-united-states-january-20-2021-update[/URL]

So, deaths at 1/20/2021 was 392,428. Vaccine available, we were told after this date it will be fine, "I will get rid of it for the American people, blah blah blah." Ok, fast forward. Remember, all that data from hospitals, doctors, better understanding how to treat patients, etc. to assist the new admin. You would think the way it was told to the American people that we were going to be fine! So where are we?

[URL unfurl="true"]https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html[/URL]

According to John Hopkins, current death tally is 722,903.................................and growing. So, deaths since the miracle man came in, 330,475 have died. So what is that, say 62,000 more souls and the two of them will have been in power over the same amount of deaths? Correct? So with about 2,000 souls lost each day, another 31 days and they will have both been in power over the same loss of life?

And the current person will be in power with many more deaths to come.

Both people said things a bit different from the truth. Keep an open mind, and call it both ways.

None of what u posted was actually said as U posted it

it’s a liberal thing can’t help but to lie and exaggerate
It’s ok we’re used to that from u guys

its has nothing to do with Liberal or otherwise ..but as you first posted ...so I did push it a little with the black light up the butt.. but he did say inside the body..what in the hell he was talking about I'm sure no one really knows..But whats scary is people believe that moron & drank bleach...words matter

This is not a hit to vaccines. My entire family made the educated decision to be vaccinated.

But, interesting where this went. Quoting someone? Let's play with some numbers.

First vaccine shot 12/14 (after record time getting it out, what 9-10 months?)

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/coronavirus-case-numbers-in-the-united-states-january-20-2021-update[/URL]

So, deaths at 1/20/2021 was 392,428. Vaccine available, we were told after this date it will be fine, "I will get rid of it for the American people, blah blah blah." Ok, fast forward. Remember, all that data from hospitals, doctors, better understanding how to treat patients, etc. to assist the new admin. You would think the way it was told to the American people that we were going to be fine! So where are we?

[URL unfurl="true"]https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html[/URL]

According to John Hopkins, current death tally is 722,903.................................and growing. So, deaths since the miracle man came in, 330,475 have died. So what is that, say 62,000 more souls and the two of them will have been in power over the same amount of deaths? Correct? So with about 2,000 souls lost each day, another 31 days and they will have both been in power over the same loss of life?

And the current person will be in power with many more deaths to come.

Both people said things a bit different from the truth. Keep an open mind, and call it both ways.

CDC stats 95% of Americans dying from covid are not vaccinated .. current person in charge is urging Americans to get a vaccine & wear a mask..last person didn't..thats the difference

CDC stats 95% of Americans dying from covid are not vaccinated .. current person in charge is urging Americans to get a vaccine & wear a mask..last person didn't..thats the difference

But but but.......................He said it will be gone "once I'm in." Numbers don't lie!! Roughly 31 days and he will OWN more deaths. So, he must be ineffective, can we agree? It's his watch.

I do not have time to pull old comments, but weren't there a bunch who kind of condemned the vaccine until 1/20/2021? Remember that?

Anyway, have a good weekend, and if you are fishing, good luck!