You need to stop saying things like “vaccine preventable disease”. It’s patently false at this point. Even the cdc has come out to say it doesn’t prevent. It makes everything else you say impossible to listen to,
You need to stop saying things like “vaccine preventable disease”. It’s patently false at this point. Even the cdc has come out to say it doesn’t prevent. It makes everything else you say impossible to listen to,
The disease is COVID-19 (that's what the "D" stands for). An infection with SARS-CoV-2 may or may not cause disease in the infectee. To a large extent (not 100%, but to a large extent), the vaccines prevent COVID-19, particularly the more severe manifestations.
There is no vaccine of which I am aware that prevents 100% disease in 100% of the recipients. The COVID-19 vaccines are no different in that regard.
"Primary prevention aims to prevent disease or injury before it ever occurs. This is done by preventing exposures to hazards that cause disease or injury, altering unhealthy or unsafe behaviours that can lead to disease or injury, and increasing resistance to disease or injury should exposure occur."
To the extent China (or Taiwan, or New Zealand, etc) was able to repeatedly achieve zero cases of community spread subsequent to reimportation of cases, is proof I'd accept that this was a 100% preventable disease. NPI tools of prevention include masking, hand-washing, distancing, and other individual risk mitigations; formal isolation of infected, quarantine of exposed; reduction of crowding, structured and regular testing and surveillance, contact tracing, etc...and ALSO there is vaccination, as the pharmacologic arm of prevention. Prevention isn't just jabs in arms.
But together each country had options and tools to successfully prevent this 100% preventable disease, had they summoned the coordinated will and efforts of the population and the government. A big ask you say? What's the price of a million lives? What's the cost of a 10-20 point IQ drop in a large part of the long covid cohort? What's the cost of the burden of care for a lifetime for this fraction?
But yes, any country that could not agree on purpose or method or objective to prevent death and disease, was surely going to fail, e.g., the US.
Here's an article from JAMA published today that reports a 93% reduction in infection in Israeli HCWs during a median of 39 days of follow-up after having received a booster of the Pfizer vaccine. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788104
Note that this was a reduction in infection (including asymptomatic infection), not just COVID-19. Granted, that reduction is not a 100% reduction in infection, but it is significant in having prevented a large percentage of infections during the study period.
In one, very limited sense, you're correct. It remains possible to be infected by the virus and contract COVID-19. People who are vaccinated tend to have much milder cases, fewer require hospitalization and even fewer, most often those with compromised immune systems and multiple other medical problems, known as comorbiditites, die. On the other hand, the unvaccinated are at higher risk for more serious disease, hospitalization and death. This was already understood when delta was the prominent variant, and little has changed with omicron.
The original stated purpose of the vaccines was to reduce the incidence of serious illness and death. Sterilizing or fully neutralizing immunity was not involved in the intent of the developers because the chance of achieving sterilizing immunity is very small, approaching zero for a rapidly changing virus such as SARS-CoV-2 (or any of the coronaviruses).
Finally, vaccination reduces the likelihood of significant variant creation in an individual. Consensus is that virtually all the successful variants evolved in an unvaccinated individual. Vaccination allows the body's own defenses to more rapidly clear the viral infection by creating antibodies, but also by initiating the cellular immune system's response to the virus, and to infected cells.
Current CDC guidance is that everyone who is eligible for vaccination should be fully vaccinated, and all who are eligible for boosters be boosted.
Repairing the damage done to CDC will take years. The exodus of experienced scientists starting in 2017, ahead of, and concomitant with budget cuts, and placing Redfield in charge, was a damning indictment of the direction the place was headed. Walensky has had her share of messaging gaffes. Some of the decisions (e.g., reduction in quarantine/isolation periods) failed to disclose what, if any science was involved, and missed its mark with regard to testing: It had more the appearance of trying to keep people going to work in the face of illness than protecting the public.
That said, I was reminded that, overall, CDC does better talking to medical and public health professionals or once did, at least, than to the public.
You are entitled to your opinion. I will stick to the fact that I can get a lot of information from what CDC has published, perhaps because I'm familiar with the material already, and speak their language.
You need to stop saying things like “vaccine preventable disease”. It’s patently false at this point. Even the cdc has come out to say it doesn’t prevent. It makes everything else you say impossible to listen to,
The disease is COVID-19 (that's what the "D" stands for). An infection with SARS-CoV-2 may or may not cause disease in the infectee. To a large extent (not 100%, but to a large extent), the vaccines prevent COVID-19, particularly the more severe manifestations.
There is no vaccine of which I am aware that prevents 100% disease in 100% of the recipients. The COVID-19 vaccines are no different in that regard.
She continues to call it a fully preventable disease. That’s simply a false statement,
Primary prevention:
"Primary prevention aims to prevent disease or injury before it ever occurs. This is done by preventing exposures to hazards that cause disease or injury, altering unhealthy or unsafe behaviours that can lead to disease or injury, and increasing resistance to disease or injury should exposure occur."
To the extent China (or Taiwan, or New Zealand, etc) was able to repeatedly achieve zero cases of community spread subsequent to reimportation of cases, is proof I'd accept that this was a 100% preventable disease. NPI tools of prevention include masking, hand-washing, distancing, and other individual risk mitigations; formal isolation of infected, quarantine of exposed; reduction of crowding, structured and regular testing and surveillance, contact tracing, etc...and ALSO there is vaccination, as the pharmacologic arm of prevention. Prevention isn't just jabs in arms.
But together each country had options and tools to successfully prevent this 100% preventable disease, had they summoned the coordinated will and efforts of the population and the government. A big ask you say? What's the price of a million lives? What's the cost of a 10-20 point IQ drop in a large part of the long covid cohort? What's the cost of the burden of care for a lifetime for this fraction?
But yes, any country that could not agree on purpose or method or objective to prevent death and disease, was surely going to fail, e.g., the US.
I've not seen that. What I've seen in this particular post is "...vaccine-preventable disease," not a "fully" preventable disease.
Where did you see where Dr. Jetelina described COVID-19 as "a FULLY [my emphasis] preventable disease?"
Here's an article from JAMA published today that reports a 93% reduction in infection in Israeli HCWs during a median of 39 days of follow-up after having received a booster of the Pfizer vaccine. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788104
Note that this was a reduction in infection (including asymptomatic infection), not just COVID-19. Granted, that reduction is not a 100% reduction in infection, but it is significant in having prevented a large percentage of infections during the study period.
In one, very limited sense, you're correct. It remains possible to be infected by the virus and contract COVID-19. People who are vaccinated tend to have much milder cases, fewer require hospitalization and even fewer, most often those with compromised immune systems and multiple other medical problems, known as comorbiditites, die. On the other hand, the unvaccinated are at higher risk for more serious disease, hospitalization and death. This was already understood when delta was the prominent variant, and little has changed with omicron.
The original stated purpose of the vaccines was to reduce the incidence of serious illness and death. Sterilizing or fully neutralizing immunity was not involved in the intent of the developers because the chance of achieving sterilizing immunity is very small, approaching zero for a rapidly changing virus such as SARS-CoV-2 (or any of the coronaviruses).
Finally, vaccination reduces the likelihood of significant variant creation in an individual. Consensus is that virtually all the successful variants evolved in an unvaccinated individual. Vaccination allows the body's own defenses to more rapidly clear the viral infection by creating antibodies, but also by initiating the cellular immune system's response to the virus, and to infected cells.
Current CDC guidance is that everyone who is eligible for vaccination should be fully vaccinated, and all who are eligible for boosters be boosted.
The CDC has lost literally all credibility as everything is rapidly coming undone.
Repairing the damage done to CDC will take years. The exodus of experienced scientists starting in 2017, ahead of, and concomitant with budget cuts, and placing Redfield in charge, was a damning indictment of the direction the place was headed. Walensky has had her share of messaging gaffes. Some of the decisions (e.g., reduction in quarantine/isolation periods) failed to disclose what, if any science was involved, and missed its mark with regard to testing: It had more the appearance of trying to keep people going to work in the face of illness than protecting the public.
That said, I was reminded that, overall, CDC does better talking to medical and public health professionals or once did, at least, than to the public.
You are entitled to your opinion. I will stick to the fact that I can get a lot of information from what CDC has published, perhaps because I'm familiar with the material already, and speak their language.