danlb_2000
Premium Member
Yeah, bottom line is that what happened over the past two years was very complex and it's going to take a long time to figure out the answers, if we ever do.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Yeah, bottom line is that what happened over the past two years was very complex and it's going to take a long time to figure out the answers, if we ever do.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Yep, I agree. What I have a problem with, is people looking at this article, and just because they like the conclusion running with it as the final word on the topic.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
I agree. And I had a problem with people reaching an automatic conclusion because Fox wrote an article about it. Works both ways.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
If we are talking about mortality, looking at who died in the US, it is hard not to reach the conclusion that this was the greatest contributing factor to a poor outcome.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
Age has always been the "greatest contributing factor."
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Fair point.
Intersting CDC site to review. If you look at the excess deaths from normal, we are at about 1m total since Feb 1, 2020. This aligns fairly well with the numbers reportedly linked to COVID as either the cause or a contributing factor for a given death. As you look into the data, it is clear that those with co-morbidities were the ones that died at a significantly higher rate than others. Obesity along with age creates a perfect storm for COVID being that as people age and if they are obese, they likely have co-morbidities that would make them much more susceptible to the effects of a COVID infection.
www.cdc.gov
Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19
Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.
www.cdc.gov
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
The third dose was a solution for today, not long term. The booster boosted antibodies, the active cells that fight covid, but they’ll decrease over time so in a year the people who got boosters will have no advantage over those that didn’t get the booster.
The long term advantage comes from memory B cells and memory T cells and everyone who’s got a vaccination has those, whether one shot, two shot, or three shots. The vaccines teach our immune system how to fight the virus and our immune system creates memory cells that remember how to fight it in the future.
I got boosted because of the huge number of cases of Omicron but I dont know if I’ll get another booster or not, all depends on how frequent exposure is, our memory cells are adequate to fight occasional exposure but constant exposure would probably push me to boost again to increase active antibodies.
The booster will have absolutely no impact on what happens in 20 years though. People should absolutely get vaccinated for long term protection but any additional shot beyond that is purely a short term solution.
Because all vaccines are just one or two doses? With the 5 does of Tetanus vaccine, is it just the first one or two teach the immune response and the other 3 are because babies have such high exposure to rusty nails that they need constant fresh antibodies?
Perhaps, and just read this with an open mind, it's that the immune response to a vaccine is a complex system with lots of moving and interconnected parts. A system that sometimes needs more exposures for a long lasting response. Sometimes less. Sometimes refreshers after some amount of time.
We simply don't know yet how the COVID vaccine is going to work long term. We didn't wait to start giving it to people until we had 5, 10, or 20 years of efficacy durability data before we started. We don't know yet how that's going to look or what the final vaccine schedule for the most robust long term efficacy is going end up. All we know is what was safe to give and what provided some immediate protection.
Glossing over the current booster as "it just creates fresh antibodies and doesn't do anything to help with the rest of the long term immune response" is a superficial assumption and nowhere near the truth.
We simply don't know yet. The one study of a fourth dose at relatively the same 6 months later seemed to say it didn't help any extra. So, it didn't just pop out some fresh new antibodies.
We'll know when we know.
And you know that because all other 3 dose vaccines wear off in less than 20 years?
I mean, sure, some don't have lasting efficacy that long. But, some do.
I haven't seen any reports or studies on the long term COVID vaccine efficacy after 20 years. Any idea how large the pool of people is that got there first doses 20 years ago?
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
You’re right we don’t know, and as I’m guilty of saying the booster will make no difference in 20 years with no proof you’re equally as guilty of shaming someone for not getting the booster because you think it’ll make a difference in 20 years, despite no evidence.
That said we know how vaccines traditionally work, they have 2 main components, antibodies that offer immediate protection and memory cells that offer long term protection, the boosters selling point was they’d increase antibodies so my assumptions are based on the benefits as touted by the makers.
Maybe they’ll have some difference in long term effect but that’s 100% speculation and, although I got boosted, I’m not going to shame someone for making a different choice, especially since none of us have any idea what the long term difference will be.
Yes but those cells were also boosted by the boosted. Long term we may find out you needed that 3rd dose to keep long lasting cellular immunity. We don’t know yet.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
Possible, I just don’t like people questioning others for making a different decision based on pure speculation. The original post was that they were setting their kids back and in 20 years their kids would pay for that decision, if they didn’t die first, there’s absolutely no proof of that and shaming people for making a different choice just annoys the heck out of me.
We’ve gone from shaming people for not getting vaccinated to shaming people who were responsible and got both shots but not the booster, that’s just insane to me.
Getting a booster will have impact today.
I don't know if it will or not in 20 years.
I don't know if we'll need to take one every 5 years or more or less often.
What I do know is that it will have an impact today.
I know that if it does last 20 years, waiting 20 years to get it is going to be worse then getting it today.
I know that if it only lasts 5 years, skipping 3 doses and just getting one 20 years from now will be a worse outcome than getting it today.
I also know that we'll all be better off if everyone got one today instead of acting like 4 times more likely to end up in a hospital and all the other impacts that also implies are more likely was just a small thing instead of 400% more.
Which means, it doesn't matter if it's going to still be effective in 20 years or not. Either way, getting it today is the better option. It's nice when the same action produces the better result and doesn't matter if you know the long term or not. Makes it much simpler.
I also know that I would like community transmission to get as low as possible, and that's directly related to how many people get the booster instead of giving up after a partial series of doses.
It feels like there's a whole bunch of people who bought the Magic Kingdom ticket, paid for the Lightning Lane 7DMT, got in line, then when they got right to the front just gave up and left to sit on a bench instead of the ride. Then, they're all mad that they didn't get to ride 7DMT.
The shame is for making a decision for a crap reason that's not logical.
The stated reason for not getting a booster today was "they're only 20 and 20 year old aren't at as much risk". That logic is only true if you're going to be 20 forever. Nobody on this thread has questioned that a 40 year old is at more risk than a 20 year old, and that a 60 year old is at even more risk.
So, using the reason of "not 40" or "not 60" as the reason to not get a booster or vaccinated today is a poorly thought out reason. And really, not getting the booster should mean you're deciding to not get vaccinated, since it's very clear that without you're not getting the full benefit of the vaccine.
All those 20 year old will one day be 40 or 60. They'll all be in the higher risk group then. Which brings us back, in the higher risk group they should all get vaccinated. Waiting now makes no sense at all. Plus, they all already made the decision to start getting the vaccine.
Unless you don't expect to ever get to the higher risk group. I don't know, maybe all those 20 year olds are daredevil stunt bike riders or base jumpers, or some other high risk group and they just assume they'll never get that old.
That's the point. It doesn't matter at all if the vaccine has a 1 year, 5 year, 10 year, 20 year, or longer efficacy. Whatever the answer is, eventually all us would like to end up in a group that is higher risk. If we're going to get there, it's an advantage to getting vaccinated and boosted now instead of waiting.
All waiting does is give you a chance to show up in a hospital asking the doctor if getting vaccinated or finally getting the booster now will help and getting to hear them say it's to late.
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
All of which pales into insignificance to the lockdown rules that stopped people travelling to be with a dying relative. Or where they had to have their final conversation via zoom. Or even where a child died without a parent with them, and yes I do mean an under 18yo.
And that is why people are so angry right now here. Which is all I will say.
New vaccines will emerge within the lifetime of my son's and other young people.The shame is for making a decision for a crap reason that's not logical.
The stated reason for not getting a booster today was "they're only 20 and 20 year old aren't at as much risk". That logic is only true if you're going to be 20 forever. Nobody on this thread has questioned that a 40 year old is at more risk than a 20 year old, and that a 60 year old is at even more risk.
So, using the reason of "not 40" or "not 60" as the reason to not get a booster or vaccinated today is a poorly thought out reason. And really, not getting the booster should mean you're deciding to not get vaccinated, since it's very clear that without you're not getting the full benefit of the vaccine.
All those 20 year old will one day be 40 or 60. They'll all be in the higher risk group then. Which brings us back, in the higher risk group they should all get vaccinated. Waiting now makes no sense at all. Plus, they all already made the decision to start getting the vaccine.
Unless you don't expect to ever get to the higher risk group. I don't know, maybe all those 20 year olds are daredevil stunt bike riders or base jumpers, or some other high risk group and they just assume they'll never get that old.
That's the point. It doesn't matter at all if the vaccine has a 1 year, 5 year, 10 year, 20 year, or longer efficacy. Whatever the answer is, eventually all us would like to end up in a group that is higher risk. If we're going to get there, it's an advantage to getting vaccinated and boosted now instead of waiting.
All waiting does is give you a chance to show up in a hospital asking the doctor if getting vaccinated or finally getting the booster now will help and getting to hear them say it's to late.
Do you remember how quickly Phizer and Moderna got these vaccines together and out?
The two shots they have received are more than adequate to protect them now.
If things get worse, they'll get a booster if statistics dictate that they should.
If years from now, some new and dangerous virus arises, these young adults - perhaps middle aged men by then - can get those vaccines.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s not just age. 20 year olds get hurt. 20 year olds get other illnesses and cancer. All sorts of things can change actual risk and awareness of risk.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
What is the harm in getting more than “adequate” protection?
Incomudro
Well-Known Member
It isn't necessary at this point in time.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
What is the harm in never eating sugar again in your life?
- Status