Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

[dxmnkd316]

Yeah, teachers have it nice. Enclosed rooms with 30 kids who probably don't wear masks right and rotate rooms every hour. Yeah, that's the easy life!

[Handyman]

Yeah, teachers have it nice. Enclosed rooms with 30 kids who probably don't wear masks right and rotate rooms every hour. Yeah, that's the easy life!

Yeah but that doesnt mean they should get to jump the line either. We think the union is going about it the wrong way. (especially based on the guidelines Walz put in place)

Then again I think the State totally botched this whole thing so I am not sure I am in the right mind yet to decide what is right and wrong.

[jerphisch]

Teacher's shouldn't be in the classroom at all, if they are forced to be they should get priority for vaccination.

[Handyman]

Teacher's shouldn't be in the classroom at all, if they are forced to be they should get priority for vaccination.

Well yeah that is why we go back and forth on it. Though at best schools around here are hybrid and I am not sure how many even do that.

[Swansong]

MA has not adopted the new CDC guidelines on vaccinations. They haven't said they won't - just that they have not yet.

I think the "stop splitting hairs and put it in people's arms immediately" is a good philosophy. We spend so much time making sure we don't give it to people we don't (yet) want to give it to, when we could just be giving it to everyone, much faster.

One of my partner hospitals is spending insane amounts of time making sure specific co-morbidities are included but others aren't that they're delaying the vaccination. I think that's bonkers. Just put it in people.

[St. Clown]

MA has not adopted the new CDC guidelines on vaccinations. They haven't said they won't - just that they have not yet.

I think the "stop splitting hairs and put it in people's arms immediately" is a good philosophy. We spend so much time making sure we don't give it to people we don't (yet) want to give it to, when we could just be giving it to everyone, much faster.

One of my partner hospitals is spending insane amounts of time making sure specific co-morbidities are included but others aren't that they're delaying the vaccination. I think that's bonkers. Just put it in people.

Because Pfizer and Moderna say that their vaccinations haven't been tested for efficacy past 3 weeks when only a single dose has been administered, I disagree. The reason for this is that I don't trust the distro logistics to be in place to reliably get that second shot to people in time for the needed long-term effect. If the whole vax process become moot without the second shot, then we've just wasted perhaps millions of doses. Why risk it?

[Swansong]

I don't think the CDC is advising cutting or delaying doses, are they? I was speaking specifically to the recommendations for which populations are next priority.

[jerphisch]

Well yeah that is why we go back and forth on it. Though at best schools around here are hybrid and I am not sure how many even do that.

Our district was choose in person or online for the semester. Then for the in person schools it went something like, go for two weeks, then so many staff are quarantined they have to switch to online for the next two weeks. Rinse and repeat until they gave up on in person right before Thanksgiving. But since learning from experience is hard, elementary went back to in person this week, and middle and high school next week.

[Swansong]

For whatever it's worth, I'd prefer that we don't cut/split/delay doses at all. Administer as the testing data showed us. We absolutely can't afford cutting doses and then finding they're far less effective.

[St. Clown]

I don't think the CDC is advising cutting or delaying doses, are they? I was speaking specifically to the recommendations for which populations are next priority.

Perhaps I'm confusing their recommendations vs. what others have been advocating. There are officials making a push to not hold back second-dose vials in order to get some sort of vaccination into more people. I think it's an exceptionally short-sighted view.

[Drew S.]

Yeah, teachers have it nice. Enclosed rooms with 30 kids who probably don't wear masks right and rotate rooms every hour. Yeah, that's the easy life!

You can teach online, hard to police online.

[Swansong]

Perhaps I'm confusing their recommendations vs. what others have been advocating. There are officials making a push to not hold back second-dose vials in order to get some sort of vaccination into more people. I think it's an exceptionally short-sighted view.

Yeah we were talking about two different things then.

I agree with you - the Biden administration says they don't plan to withhold distribution of second doses, that they believe there will be enough not to have to conserve. I'm not sure I agree but at this point, I'll cautiously trust them... Their incoming task force seems to be logical and thoughtful and is taking advice from people that aren't braindead morons, so there's that.

[dxmnkd316]

Because Pfizer and Moderna say that their vaccinations haven't been tested for efficacy past 3 weeks when only a single dose has been administered, I disagree. The reason for this is that I don't trust the distro logistics to be in place to reliably get that second shot to people in time for the needed long-term effect. If the whole vax process become moot without the second shot, then we've just wasted perhaps millions of doses. Why risk it?

Exactly. We know it's only (statistically provable) about 50% effective after the first shots and only in the three weeks between the shots. After that, we only have data on two shots.

My big concern is yours. What happens if the 95% is contingent on 3 weeks? Maybe that's absurd and not how it works. Fine, but let's use proven science, not conjecture. Regardless of whether that conjecture is well-intentioned and probably true. I'd really hate to see millions of doses wasted.

[dxmnkd316]

Yeah we were talking about two different things then.

I agree with you - the Biden administration says they don't plan to withhold distribution of second doses, that they believe there will be enough not to have to conserve. I'm not sure I agree but at this point, I'll cautiously trust them... Their incoming task force seems to be logical and thoughtful and is taking advice from people that aren't braindead morons, so there's that.

I thought the CDC has made this policy change as of like a day or two ago.

ANyways, I think it's a bad idea to mortgage current doses on the promise of no manufacturing or supply chain disruptions. I think if we're going to go this route, we need to take a hedged approach. Hold a certain number in reserve, 50-75% of the needed doses, and use the rest.

Bad batches happen, supply chains break down, and I'd hate to see this get screwed up. Because we don't have a protocol in place for how to handle people who have had it delayed. Are they going to need a third shot in three months? SHould they still take extra precautions? Are they more likely to have an asymptomatic infection but are still as contagious as without the vaccine? We don't know for certain if we're pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at our head or at the virus.

[Swansong]

I share your concerns, I'm just trying to be cautiously optimistic.