Injury Report: 2021/22 Injury Thread Part II of ∞

[hockeyfish]

Part of the issue is that many people in the US got their two shots six or more months ago, and the protection levels waned quicker than anticipated. Hence the push for the third shots as we go into winter.

I also suspect that many of the pro athletes opted for the J&J, which may as well be a Tylenol.

 

[Foppa2118]

Here most people got their 2nd shot less than 6 months ago and we're getting overwhelmed as well. Omicron doesn't seem to care.

I haven't seen any studies on this, but I don't know how much they protect you from actually testing positive if the virus finds it's way to you. What they seem to do a relatively good job at is reducing symptoms, hospitalizations, and deaths. That's the main thing.

Early reports so far are they seem to offer decent protection from that for Omicron as well, but it's still early.

 

[nammerus]

They might have to create a new generation of vaccines

That’s what they’re doing with the mRNA vaccines. Turnaround time is 90-120 days from what I can recall. Pretty amazing stuff, and hopefully it’ll be quick enough to make a difference.

 

[Peter Peckerwood]

Here most people got their 2nd shot less than 6 months ago and we're getting overwhelmed as well. Omicron doesn't seem to care.

How many of those are breakthrough cases?

 

[the_fan]

Can't really argue with anyone regarding their opinions on covid, since no one really knows what exactly covid is or what it does. Why is it continue being a pandemic when people are vaccinated, why do majority of people testing positive for covid have no symptoms and don't feel sick?

 

[katfude]

Can't really argue with anyone regarding their opinions on covid, since no one really knows what exactly covid is or what it does. Why is it continue being a pandemic when people are vaccinated, why do majority of people testing positive for covid have no symptoms and don't feel sick?

Bud. We literally already know the answers to all those questions.

 

[the_fan]

Bud. We literally already know the answers to all those questions.

Nah, it's more like we think we know. Even medical experts today are talking about how they're still learning and finding new things about covid.

 

[nammerus]

Nah, it's more like we think we know. Even medical experts today are talking about how they're still learning and finding new things about covid.

That’s why science is amazing. It keeps evolving. Takes new information into account and is flexible based on the best available evidence.

Unlike the apes on the other side of this debate who are busy reading their in-bred aunts and uncles Facebook account.

 

[TheRarestDangles]

That’s why science is amazing. It keeps evolving. Takes new information into account and is flexible based on the best available evidence.

Unlike the apes on the other side of this debate who are busy reading their in-bred aunts and uncles Facebook account.

To be clear: I'm not deeply vested in either side of this debate. With that said, I must add that science is not infallible, and if one does not know something definitively (based on evidence/data alone) one should not present it as fact. In other words, don't use 'the best possible explanation' and tell others that's 'THE explanation'.

I'm vaccinated but I must say I'm a bit frustrated with how much extrapolation has been going on with respect to vaccine efficacy. I'd rather some Socratic wisdom and have the scientific community say they simply don't know how long these vaccines will hold their initial effectiveness against new variants.

Instead we're told that with the boosters we'll be 'totally protected', not mentioning that it's likely/possible that the same chain of events will occur indefinitely, only with less public trust in vaccines, and thus a much larger pool for the variants to swim in.

 

[nammerus]

To be clear: I'm not deeply vested in either side of this debate. With that said, I must add that science is not infallible, and if one does not know something definitively (based on evidence/data alone) one should not present it as fact. In other words, don't use 'the best possible explanation' and tell others that's 'THE explanation'.

I'm vaccinated but I must say I'm a bit frustrated with how much extrapolation has been going on with respect to vaccine efficacy. I'd rather some Socratic wisdom and have the scientific community say they simply don't know how long these vaccines will hold their initial effectiveness against new variants.

Instead we're told that with the boosters we'll be 'totally protected', not mentioning that it's likely/possible that the same chain of events will occur indefinitely, only with less public trust in vaccines, and thus a much larger pool for the variants to swim in.

No one says science is infallible. That was actually my whole point. And it's more your problem if you take everything as THE explanation, rather than the best possible explanation, which is what science is trying to do for the most part.

Who said we're totally protected? Pfizer states boosters provide up to 70-75% effectiveness against Omicron (based on initial data). Again, it's your fault that you can't read, and believe that we're being told we're 'totally protected'.

 

[bradrich99]

I think the fact that many are contracting the virus post vaccine and not being symptomatic tells me the vaccine is working. I heard on Sirius NHL the other day that of the 135 covid patients in intensive care in the province of Alberta - 115 have not been vaccinated. The majority of the other 20 were unknown but not believed to have been.

 

[Foppa2118]

To be clear: I'm not deeply vested in either side of this debate. With that said, I must add that science is not infallible, and if one does not know something definitively (based on evidence/data alone) one should not present it as fact. In other words, don't use 'the best possible explanation' and tell others that's 'THE explanation'.

I'm vaccinated but I must say I'm a bit frustrated with how much extrapolation has been going on with respect to vaccine efficacy. I'd rather some Socratic wisdom and have the scientific community say they simply don't know how long these vaccines will hold their initial effectiveness against new variants.

Instead we're told that with the boosters we'll be 'totally protected', not mentioning that it's likely/possible that the same chain of events will occur indefinitely, only with less public trust in vaccines, and thus a much larger pool for the variants to swim in.

Respectfully, I believe you have the wrong take on this because neither of these things are true.

They've been upfront for a little while now about the protection waning on the vaccines, starting with some early Israeli studies I believe, and anyone you heard saying you'll be totally protected with the vaccines was using imperfect language. They've known about breakthrough cases for a while now and anybody suggesting early on this wouldn't be possible was also speaking out of turn.

This is a brand new virus and the first kind of pandemic we've had like this for 100 years. Don't let perfection be the bar for whether it's prudent to trust science or not. That's never been the bar for science, but modern science (in part due to vaccines) is the reason the average life expectancy in the US has gone up from around the mid 50's a century ago to around 78 years old today.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Nah, it's more like we think we know. Even medical experts today are talking about how they're still learning and finding new things about covid.

I mean they're currently still doing that with influenza and coming up with new shots every year. That's just what medical science is?

 

[the_fan]

I mean they're currently still doing that with influenza and coming up with new shots every year. That's just what medical science is?

Yeah well, they're gonna need to come up with new vaccine shots since the current one doesn't seem to help as far as people getting and spreading the virus. It might be helping with people getting sick, but if its still gonna spread like this, gotta come up with vaccines that actually prevents people from catching and spreading the virus like the flu shots.

 

[TheRarestDangles]

No one says science is infallible. That was actually my whole point. And it's more your problem if you take everything as THE explanation, rather than the best possible explanation, which is what science is trying to do for the most part.

Who said we're totally protected? Pfizer states boosters provide up to 70-75% effectiveness against Omicron (based on initial data). Again, it's your fault that you can't read, and believe that we're being told we're 'totally protected'.

Oh I can read my friend.

As of September 4th, Dr. Fauci stated "Three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine will offer you full protection against the coronavirus right now". Pfizer states that "Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected." According to Pfizer and BioNTech's website, "The vaccine was 100% effective against severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

Not only that, it was said that based on a clinical trial among adolescents ages 12-15 "A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose".

This efficacy was supposed to last for 6 months against potential variants, not reduce by 1/3rd in 3 months. Again, they didn't qualify these statements, these are the "facts", which are now falsified by changing circumstances. You and I, like many others, were inclined to believe them. I'm open to further vaccination, but there needs to be more transparency with respect to a reduction in efficacy.

 

[TheRarestDangles]

Respectfully, I believe you have the wrong take on this because neither of these things are true.

They've been upfront for a little while now about the protection waning on the vaccines, starting with some early Israeli studies I believe, and anyone you heard saying you'll be totally protected with the vaccines was using imperfect language. They've known about breakthrough cases for a while now and anybody suggesting early on this wouldn't be possible was also speaking out of turn.

This is a brand new virus and the first kind of pandemic we've had like this for 100 years. Don't let perfection be the bar for whether it's prudent to trust science or not. That's never been the bar for science, but modern science (in part due to vaccines) is the reason the average life expectancy in the US has gone up from around the mid 50's a century ago to around 78 years old today.

Kindly read my response to to nammerus.

 

[the_fan]

If 3 shots of the current vaccine offers full protection, is it just that matter of everyone just get vaccinated and the pandemic is over where people will still test positive for covid but you can ignore it, or it will still be considered a pandemic since the virus still spreads around even vaccinated but people don't get sick? If it's the case where everyone is vaccinated, don't get sick but still catch and spread covid, can they just go on as normal and don't even test anymore?

This are the questions still very much need to be answered and no one really knows yet

 

[The Abusement Park]

Yeah well, they're gonna need to come up with new vaccine shots since the current one doesn't seem to help as far as people getting and spreading the virus. It might be helping with people getting sick, but if its still gonna spread like this, gotta come up with vaccines that actually prevents people from catching and spreading the virus like the flu shots.

Which is what they’re doing. From my uneducated pov it’s probably going to end up like the flu. There’s a new variant every year and there will be a shot depending on how the virus mutates. But we’re still early on in our bodies knowing how to fight this so the mutations are a much bigger problem now than they will be in years time.

 

[nammerus]

Oh I can read my friend.

As of September 4th, Dr. Fauci stated "Three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine will offer you full protection against the coronavirus right now". Pfizer states that "Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected." According to Pfizer and BioNTech's website, "The vaccine was 100% effective against severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)."

Not only that, it was said that based on a clinical trial among adolescents ages 12-15 "A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose".

This efficacy was supposed to last for 6 months against potential variants, not reduce by 1/3rd in 3 months. Again, they didn't qualify these statements, these are the "facts", which are now falsified by changing circumstances. You and I, like many others, were inclined to believe them. I'm open to further vaccination, but there needs to be more transparency with respect to a reduction in efficacy.

You are free to mis-interpret it anyway you want. They never said it would be as effective against other variants. But if that’s what you got from their statements, not much I can do to help you.

And if the issue with you is with qualifying statements, then you should probably read the primary literature instead of small snippets from whatever news source you are using. Although I find it hard to believe you would take any nuance in data and analysis as a positive, and probably scream to the heavens how terrible the vaccines are regardless.

 

[TheRarestDangles]

You are free to mis-interpret it anyway you want. They never said it would be as effective against other variants. But if that’s what you got from their statements, not much I can do to help you.

And if the issue with you is with qualifying statements, then you should probably read the primary literature instead of small snippets from whatever news source you are using. Although I find it hard to believe you would take any nuance in data and analysis as a positive, and probably scream to the heavens how terrible the vaccines are regardless.

What part of "full", "complete", and "100%" is misinterpretation? Are the CDC, Fauci, and Pfizer not 'primary' enough sources for you? I don't hate the vaccines; as I said, I've been vaccinated. I just want to have good faith discussions regarding inconsistencies in these claims of efficacy/future projections.

I'm certain you'll continue to swear to the moon that the vaccines are a "Godsend" even if they continue to atrophy in 3 months in the face of the next big bad variant. I, for one, can only hope that they will eventually do what the scientific community has said they will do--which is reduce the spread and save lives at a rate of 90% or greater for the vaccinated.

 

[Mordoch]

What part of "full", "complete", and "100%" is misinterpretation? Are the CDC, Fauci, and Pfizer not 'primary' enough sources for you?

To a certain degree I don't see what you are complaining about since the statement specifically said "right now" and that was back in September. Promising the vaccine would for sure fully protect against new variants with new mutations would have been absurd and clearly unreasonable. There was a massive amount of reporting that there was a risk that the virus might further mutate and make current vaccines less effective or ineffective. (To some degree the news is good and Omicron did not negate the current vaccines to the extent some were concerned it might once they saw how extensive the mutations are.)

Obviously some hoped COVID would mutate more slowly than it has, but that is the kind of thing hard to predict with a new virus. It should be emphasized that 100% against severe disease some does not mean 100% against getting sick at all. Now you could say the statements simplified things slightly, but part of this is about realistically understanding what vaccines ordinarily can and can not do. (Any fairly short statement on a topic like vaccine effectiveness and how they work under all circumstances is going to realistically end up simplifying things a bit, and getting into all the details in practice gets tough when talking about a communication intended for the general public and avoiding confusing people.)

 

[Foppberg]

We should really make a COVID thread, it's seeping into pretty much every thread lately.

 

[Peter Peckerwood]

The vaccine is definitely working. How that can even be debated is beyond me.
How on earth do people think they're supposed to have this all figured out in this short of time when the swine flu has made a comeback. Viruses mutate. That's what they do. This mRNA is relatively new and being employed on a scale that I don't believe has ever been seen. I can't believe people have the audacity to point fingers at anyone working to save lives. This is a moving target that nobody in this generation other than the boomers with polio has seen.
You've got some of the most cutting edge research being done by entire nations full of their brightest people.
These things take time, will have missteps, and will be a long term war against this thing while spinning off great new life-saving technology outside of covid.

Have patience, give grace and be thankful if you are not impacted.

 

[The Kingslayer]

So who got hurt today?

 

[dahrougem2]

So who got hurt today?

Not Tyson Jost.