What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Swansong said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
Handyman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Swansong said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
St. Clown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
St. Clown said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Swansong said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
NY, NY and MA are likely not going to lose their place at the top for total deaths / 1M pop, but SD and ND have slowly climbed their way into the Top 10 at 6th and 7th respectively.
 
Kepler said:
Well, if you're gonna count NY twice...
Click to expand...

tumblr_nyytnuI9UX1utfx72o1_500.gif
 
Arizona is blowing up with the snowbird arrivals. My delivery lead on this project and his wife (in Phoenix) have both been battling it for the last 8-10 days. Their symptoms have cycled from mild to moderate.
 
Slap Shot said:
NY, NY and MA are likely not going to lose their place at the top for total deaths / 1M pop, but SD and ND have slowly climbed their way into the Top 10 at 6th and 7th respectively.
Click to expand...

Actually, North Dakota has been dropping in rank in that particular category. Obviously, the per capita number doesn't go down because once the people are dead, they're dead. But at one point I believe North Dakota was as high as #4 in terms of death per capita (as pointed out to me repeatedly on this board) but they've dropped a few places as Rhode Island, Connecticut and others have stepped up their game.
 
Last edited:
Population density should play a huge factor into death rates as well. NY is not #1 because, for the most part, it's NYC/LI and then a whole lot of nothingness. But MA is the third most dense state in the country. It makes sense that it has the 3rd highest death rate. Plus we got whacked early, before we really knew how to treat it.
 
Swansong said:
Population density should play a huge factor into death rates as well. NY is not #1 because, for the most part, it's NYC/LI and then a whole lot of nothingness. But MA is the third most dense state in the country. It makes sense that it has the 3rd highest death rate. Plus we got whacked early, before we really knew how to treat it.
Click to expand...

I think it's mostly the latter. NY got destroyed because it was first. It would have happened to any major city that was first.

Well, any in the US. Singapore has 29 deaths.
 
SJHovey said:
Actually, North Dakota has been dropping in rank in that particular category. Obviously, the per capita number doesn't go down because once the people are dead, they're dead. But at one point I believe North Dakota was as high as #4 in terms of death per capita (as pointed out to me repeatedly on this board) but they've dropped a few places as Rhode Island, Connecticut and others have stepped up their game.
Click to expand...

Proud of you.
 
St. Clown said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right. So far it seems that there's a number of vaccines available out there, they just haven't ended up in people's arms. Why release those second dose units they're holding back if they haven't even got the first batch used yet?

It doesn't seem that there are production issues so far, so I don't believe there are shortages, but the feds haven't been getting the allotments to the states they were expecting, even if they've been slow to get them in people's arms. But as you say, what if all these people do get the first dose, and then it's weeks beyond the scheduled time before a second dose becomes available?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top