Theme parks reduce mask requirements on CDC guidance

Not totally disputing the point about reinfection. That's certainly good news. But the data is only for mild infections and it's certainly not strong enough to replace a vaccine. I'm not just poking holes for the sake of it, the Washington University School of Medicine where the study was done summarized the news this way:

The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.

People who were infected and never had symptoms also may be left with long-lasting immunity, the researchers speculated. But it’s yet to be investigated whether those who endured more severe infection would be protected against a future bout of disease, they said.

“It could go either way,” said first author Jackson Turner, PhD, an instructor in pathology & immunology. “Inflammation plays a major role in severe COVID-19, and too much inflammation can lead to defective immune responses. But on the other hand, the reason why people get really sick is often because they have a lot of virus in their bodies, and having a lot of virus around can lead to a good immune response. So it’s not clear. We need to replicate the study in people with moderate to severe infections to understand whether they are likely to be protected from reinfection.”

Don't take my word for it, take the word of the author of the study, Jackson Turner:

But if people become sick with COVID-19 a second time, it would likely be a milder version of the infection, he adds. “In most cases, a second infection is likely to be milder since there is some pre-existing immunity to help fight off the virus," Turner says. "Getting vaccinated boosts this immunity even further and greatly reduces the risk of re-infection.”

ApolloAndy said:
For instance “X number of people who got the vaccine died the same week” was a typical anti-vax headline, but didn’t mention that statisticaly X people would have died anyway, so there’s actually no correlation between the shot and dying.

CoastingInMN said:

Reported Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths

which does exactly what ApolloAndy said not to do.

HHS and CDC said:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires health care providers to report any serious adverse event (including death) that happens after a COVID-19 vaccination – whether or not the provider thinks there is any link. The CDC says, "Health care providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination…regardless if the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the AE." AE stands for adverse event and includes death.

That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event. Since we've vaccinated over 140 million people in the United States, many deaths will occur coincidentally after vaccination.

As of May 10, there have been 4,434 reports of death following a COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS. Doctors at the CDC review each reported death, looking at death certificates, autopsy and medical records. They have no reason to believe that COVID-19 vaccines cause death.

VAERS is like the Wikipedia of data reporting. Anyone can report anything. Many reports are helpful. Some reports are nonsense – one anesthesiologist successfully submitted a VAERS report that the flu vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. Another false report of a 2-year-old dying from a COVID-19 vaccine was removed from VAERS because the CDC says it was "completely made up."

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/does-vaers-list-deaths-caused-by-...9-vaccines
https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Thanks Coasting in MN. Finally, some common sense here. You'll be called every name in the book, for sure. Some people simply don't want to get this rushed-into-use gotta-bribe-people-to-get it bullcrap.

Yes, those are people who don't engage in critical thinking and ignore facts.

T2 - I must have missed it. Can you point out the factual, common sense items in MN's post?

Same ones as in T2's post.

That is to say, none.

Regardless of whatever side you are on, you must acknowledge both sides. A not insignificant number of people are holding off on vaccination. This isn’t a small group of crazies out in the desert with tinfoil hats. But a large diverse percentage of the population of this country.

What are the true root causes? Those causes would probably be worth addressing as it would likely propel us all forward in many other facets of life.

CoastingInMN said:

This is why it is so important to always stand up for freedom, because if we lose it, we will most likely never get it back.

"Freedom" is kind of the flip side of "regulation," in the literal sense (more regulation = less freedom), but also in the sense that there are two types of freedom, just as there are two types of regulation (per Matt Levine):

there are two kinds of regulation: Custom regulations, which are created to serve some specific goal; and bulk regulations, which add "friction to the system without accompanying it with significant benefits," are the subject of all discussions of "regulation," and do not exist.

Everyone is in favor of bulk freedom. Everyone is also willing to give up at least a little "custom freedom" (usually someone else's) to achieve some benefit they perceive. I may think that seat-belt laws are a good thing, or at least tolerable, given the upside; Gonch may disagree. Someone else may think there are advantages to gay folks not adopting kids, or doctors not giving abortions, or whatever, and feel perfectly OK about sacrificing those specific freedoms; I may disagree.

I tend to find the sorts of people martialing arguments against masks and vaccines are perfectly comfortable putting limits on other specific freedoms. I'm not saying this describes anyone in this conversation. And for what it's worth, I'm not particularly bothered by anyone's hypocrisy. I acknowledge I am more sensitive to the examples I gave above than to some of cases of people I generally agree with trying to limit others' freedoms, because of my political perspective. But overall, I think arguments in favor of bulk "freedom" aren't worth the pixels they're written on.

^^ The issue I have with this is the fact it is not really that diverse a percentage of the population. It is a geographic diversity that is vaccine reluctant. South, Great Plains, Upper Midwest. What do these areas have in common? Look at Politics.

It has been argued that no one knows the effects of the vaccines 1, 5, or 10 years down the road. That is fine. It is also crap. I am a Fully Vaccinated Republican. In 1, 5, or 10 years I could be dead from Cancer, Heart Attack, Stroke, or an unfortunate meeting with the windshield of a bus. What I will not be dead from is Covid. The initial trials started 14 months ago. There have been no reports of anyone growing a second head or third arm.

Those who argue their point by using fearmongering, debunked, discredited and partisan sources will win no points. Get out of the Faux News, Newsmax, OAN Echo Chamber and expand your horizons. Not directed at any one person. There are plenty of sources for information. Don't rely on one or two. Get competing opinions and make an informed argument.

If you bring an ill-informed thought here, you deserve to be called out. The people on this site are extremely intelligent, and will see through any bull****. From both sides.

@TMR -

That is understood. However, when the response to why they are holding off is that "thousands of people who got vaccinated have died" there really is not anything there to acknowledge. When someone is using "facts" that are flat out wrong it is hard to have an intelligent discussion.

A position was presented ("vaccines carry substantial risk"). The poster was asked to justify that position. The poster attempted to justify that position and the justification was refuted in ways that I think are extremely reasonable (and not just because I did my fair share of the refuting). No names were called and no counter argument to the refutation has been presented. Instead, responses are "Some people just don't want to get it" which is obviously indisputable, but doesn't actually justify that position.

The fact that it's about vaccines is immaterial. If the original post were about flat earth or climate change or UFO's or Nessie or whatever, nobody has presented any real evidence to support a position and yet are asking that position to be taken seriously. The fact that a lot of people maintain that position doesn't mean it is an equally justifiable position.

So, what conclusion are we to draw other than "The people who just don't want to get it are not justified in doing so?"

TheMillenniumRider said:

What are the true root causes? Those causes would probably be worth addressing as it would likely propel us all forward in many other facets of life.

NYT had a pretty good summary of this:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/18/opinion/covid-19-vac...tancy.html

I was with you until the flat earth reference. If Kyrie Irving believes it, it must be true.

From my perspective:

-I personally know three people have or are currently suffering from serious health issues from COVID. Including: hospitalization, needing portable oxygen, having nerve damage, etc...

-I know many people who have gotten the vaccine, and I don't know anyone that had any serious effects from the vaccine. The worst side effect from the vaccine was a couple people having pretty bad flu-like symptoms for a couple of days.

-It is true that we don't know what the long term side-effects of the vaccine will be two, three, or ten years down the road. Just like we don't know what the people suffering from long COVID will be dealing with two, three, or ten years down the road.

-I was a bit nervous about getting the vaccine, so I did a bit of a risk-analysis. I considered that there are many well documented long term effects caused by COVID from 1 year + of the COVID pandemic. I compared that to the 6 months or so of mass vaccinations: The 1 in a million of having blood clots with the J & J vaccine (at least this was the case about the time I got mine) and really nothing with Moderna or Pfizer. While the vaccine is not risk free, in my personal risk-analysis, I decided the vaccine is a much lower risk that COVID. You can, and should do your own risk analysis and make your own decision.

I made the decision to get the vaccine, and I'm glad I did.

I don't get everyone's outcry about parks lifting restrictions. It is everyone's right to make their own decision about the risks an whether or not to visit a park. If a person is so worried about it, stay the f home and let others enjoy themselves.

I have never lost any sleep over the pandemic. What happens, happens. So be it. I got the vaccine couple months ago. Not because I was paranoid about getting Covid, but as part of my responsibility. Worse part about it was the stupid cards they give you that are NOT wallet-sized. How idiotic can they be to make a card for you to carry with you showing proof you got the vaccine, only to make it too big. I scanned and resized it so I now have it in my wallet.

TheMillenniumRider said:

Regardless of whatever side you are on, you must acknowledge both sides.

But you don't have to accept that there's any basis in reality for the "side." Moral equivalence arguments are my trigger. 🙂

The parallels to the folks who are generally white and insist that they're not racist are pretty similar, and I think they're mostly the same people. I can understand that this group of people truly believe that their way of life is at risk, or may change, but my patience to explain why Black people and gay people and vaccines and masks are not going to ruin their lives is finite.

CoffinBoy said:

It is everyone's right to make their own decision about the risks an whether or not to visit a park. If a person is so worried about it, stay the f home and let others enjoy themselves.

I happen to think most parks' lifting or restrictions are very reasonable, but I don't think the argument is as simple as you make it. Community transmission is a real (ever decreasing) threat. What other people do in a amusement park/restaurant/home/dry humpery does have an effect on me, even if I stay home.

For the number of times I've said that, I feel like I need to get that tattooed on my forehead or something. I've had the same forum signature forever, but this is actually making me consider changing it.

Jeff said:

TheMillenniumRider said:

Regardless of whatever side you are on, you must acknowledge both sides.

But you don't have to accept that there's any basis in reality for the "side." Moral equivalence arguments are my trigger. 🙂

The parallels to the folks who are generally white and insist that they're not racist are pretty similar, and I think they're mostly the same people. I can understand that this group of people truly believe that their way of life is at risk, or may change, but my patience to explain why Black people and gay people and vaccines and masks are not going to ruin their lives is finite.

Earth was never flat, but for a long period of time it was flat, and a hazard if you sailed too far. Witches never existed, but we sure did execute quite a few of them. What is truth and absolute is one thing, but reality can be totally different. Typically the two align, but oftentimes they do not.

For an anti vaxxer, reality is that if they get a shot they will die, get sick, be tracked, whatever.

Reality is an interesting thing because it is created, it is argued, it is fought over, and people die for it.

Reality is created by the population and regardless of how silly or factual it is, it is still reality that everyone deals with, whether or not they believe the basis for it.

Maybe replace basis in reality with basis in fact. Even then I completely accept that people act and behave upon beliefs that have zero basis in fact. We see that on a daily basis.

I'll give people a pass hundreds of years ago for thinking the world was flat, but we have never had more universal access to knowledge. Ever. It's all completely obtainable from super computers we carry in our pocket. Coupled with even the smallest amounts of critical thinking and curiosity, you can arrive at facts faster than at any time in human history. What do we do with it? We elect game show hosts as president and ignore science at our peril.

Maybe I should post this on PhilosophyBuzz instead, but I will never concede the idea of objective truth. Sometimes people are just wrong.