Vaccinations & Antibodies

[tower912]

The profits are going to be large.  But they spent a lot and developed a vaccine comparatively fast.   They invested in R&D and are going to get paid.  While I understand the underlying instinctive distrust of big pharma, other than ivermectin, what is the alternative?   This is the once in a century killer virus.   Until the next one. 

[Hards Alumni]

The profits are going to be large.  But they spent a lot and developed a vaccine comparatively fast.   They invested in R&D and are going to get paid.  While I understand the underlying instinctive distrust of big pharma, other than ivermectin, what is the alternative?   This is the once in a century killer virus.   Until the next one.

Honestly, develop more competition via subsidies.  Competition drives prices down. 

I'll keep the rest of my nationalized health insurance thoughts to myself.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I don't think that's the thought process behind boosters. I think that in the immediate wake of challenge via booster, the immune system maintains a quantity of circulating antibodies. Eventually those fade, and you're left with memory-cell-mediated immunity. That means that after some period of time, when you're no longer walking around with circulating antibodies, you encounter the virus, the virus has a better chance of establishing a foothold infection while your memory cells fire up the antibodies to clear the infection. This leads to more breakthrough infections, but milder cases.

The booster shot just tops off those circulating antibodies and makes it less likely for an exposure to get a foothold, so to speak.

Similarly, I've seen reasonable proposed studies for 2-dose flu shots. Shot 1 in early October, Shot 2 in early January, hypothesized moa of maintaining that antibody-based immunity.

Perhaps it is a case of the article not being written clearly, but they aren't saying the booster is effective because the effect from the first two doses has begun to fade. It is possible that is what they mean, but to me that isn't stated clearly in the article.

It seems to be that the implication is that it is the 3rd shot that increases a person's immunity levels enough to fight Omi, not the recency of the shots.

[jesmu84]

The profits are going to be large.  But they spent a lot and developed a vaccine comparatively fast.   They invested in R&D and are going to get paid.  While I understand the underlying instinctive distrust of big pharma, other than ivermectin, what is the alternative?   This is the once in a century killer virus.   Until the next one.

1. How much did the pharma companies actually spend on R/D vs how much was subsidized by the feds?
2. I'm not saying to seek out "alternatives", but it seems awfully convenient that every time one of these execs speak, they're saying how we probably need more shots for each person. Ironic that today Pfizer says 4 is the number.

[GB Warrior]

1. How much did the pharma companies actually spend on R/D vs how much was subsidized by the feds?
2. I'm not saying to seek out "alternatives", but it seems awfully convenient that every time one of these execs speak, they're saying how we probably need more shots for each person. Ironic that today Pfizer says 4 is the number.

I'm reasonably skeptical of pharma in that I expect them to be appropriately regulated, but its not like they're willing this into existence - there's a process for this that gets extensively reviewed. Public policy (Mandates, sending vaccines to poorer countries) has to pick up their baton too.

Regarding R&D subsidies, Pfizer explicitly did not take funding under Warp Speed so it could internalize the profits. That said, the government has spent BILLIONS on mRNA, which is really like a platform upon which the vaccines are built.

[jesmu84]

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

[The Sultan]

"It was not always this way. Earlier in the pandemic, many different groups expressed hesitancy toward getting vaccinated. African Americans, younger Americans and rural Americans all had significant portions of their demographic that resisted vaccination. But over time, the vaccination rates in those demographics have risen, while the rate of Republican vaccination against COVID-19 has flatlined at just 59%, according to the latest numbers from Kaiser. By comparison, 91% of Democrats are vaccinated."


It's too bad that the main news sources for this group are more invested in fighting culture wars than keeping their viewers healthy.

[The Sultan]

Supreme Court just ruled 6-3 that New York's vaccine mandate for health care workers does not need to include a religious exemption.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Kroger to take away paid Covid benefits, add insurance surcharges for unvaccinated employees
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/14/kroger-to-eliminate-some-covid-19-benefits-for-unvaccinated-employees-wsj-reports-.html

"Kroger said Tuesday that it will take away paid leave for unvaccinated employees who get Covid-19 and require some of them to pay a monthly health insurance surcharge starting next year.

Starting next year, salaried, nonunion employees who are unvaccinated and enrolled in the company's health insurance plan must pay a monthly $50 surcharge, the company spokeswoman said. But employees who are fully vaccinated are eligible for paid Covid leave, if they get a breakthrough case."

[jesmu84]

Kroger to take away paid Covid benefits, add insurance surcharges for unvaccinated employees
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/14/kroger-to-eliminate-some-covid-19-benefits-for-unvaccinated-employees-wsj-reports-.html

"Kroger said Tuesday that it will take away paid leave for unvaccinated employees who get Covid-19 and require some of them to pay a monthly health insurance surcharge starting next year.

Starting next year, salaried, nonunion employees who are unvaccinated and enrolled in the company's health insurance plan must pay a monthly $50 surcharge, the company spokeswoman said. But employees who are fully vaccinated are eligible for paid Covid leave, if they get a breakthrough case."

Ah. Classic corporate America. Going for the stick, not carrot. Basically, whatever saves them a buck

[JWags85]

Ah. Classic corporate America. Going for the stick, not carrot. Basically, whatever saves them a buck

Hold on, this sub board is constantly mocking and bit**ing about the unvaxxed, now we're complaining that a company is punishing people for not being vaccinated? Cause they aren't giving people Visa gift cards to get a shot at this point?

Feels like you just always are looking for a way to complain about businessand frame them all as greedy when you think they should be altruistic

[jesmu84]

Hold on, this sub board is constantly mocking and bit**ing about the unvaxxed, now we're complaining that a company is punishing people for not being vaccinated? Cause they aren't giving people Visa gift cards to get a shot at this point?

Feels like you just always are looking for a way to complain about businessand frame them all as greedy when you think they should be altruistic

100% on me

I grazed the headline and responded. Assumed the "take away paid covid benefits" was removing something positive for all employees during the pandemic. Just read the full story now.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Ah. Classic corporate America. Going for the stick, not carrot. Basically, whatever saves them a buck

If you read the story, the started with the carrot ($100 for getting vaccinated) and still have the carrot (still $100 for getting vaccinated). The carrot doesn't persuade the remaining hardliners.

This is a common story amongst my clients. Most all have tried the carrot and have moved on to the stick.

[JWags85]

100% on me

I grazed the headline and responded. Assumed the "take away paid covid benefits" was removing something positive for all employees during the pandemic. Just read the full story now.

All good, appreciate the correction 🤙🏼

[rocket surgeon]

what about people with elective comorbidities?  smokers with copd, fat people, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc...throw em to the wolves, eyn'er?   

[TSmith34, Inc.]

what about people with elective comorbidities?  smokers with copd, fat people, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc...throw em to the wolves, eyn'er?

Large companies already charge smokers a surcharge, just like Kroger is proposing for anti-vax morons.

They also routinely offer EAP programs for weight loss, smoking cessation, and drug abuse. Currently there is no EAP program to help people with right wing misinformation regarding vaccines, but maybe that will be the next innovation.

[MU82]

Large companies already charge smokers a surcharge, just like Kroger is proposing for anti-vax morons.

They also routinely offer EAP programs for weight loss, smoking cessation, and drug abuse. Currently there is no EAP program to help people with right wing misinformation regarding vaccines, but maybe that will be the next innovation.

I think we need to stop calling it "misinformation" and call it what it is -- disinformation.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I think we need to stop calling it "misinformation" and call it what it is -- disinformation.

yeah, sorry, my typo

[statnik]

Large companies already charge smokers a surcharge, just like Kroger is proposing for anti-vax morons.

They also routinely offer EAP programs for weight loss, smoking cessation, and drug abuse. Currently there is no EAP program to help people with right wing misinformation regarding vaccines, but maybe that will be the next innovation.

Yes because a young person who already had COVID and decides the calculus  doesn't clearly add up to a clear favorability to take it is a dumb anti-vaxxer 

[Uncle Rico]

Yes because a young person who already had COVID and decides the calculus  doesn't clearly add up to a clear favorability to take it is a dumb anti-vaxxer 

That's correct

[tower912]

I think you should hold true to your beliefs, Statnik.

[The Sultan]

Yes because a young person who already had COVID and decides the calculus  doesn't clearly add up to a clear favorability to take it is a dumb anti-vaxxer 

This is true. The calculus always says getting the shot is the correct decision assuming you don't have health reasons preventing you from doing so.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Yes because a young person who already had COVID and decides the calculus  doesn't clearly add up to a clear favorability to take it is a dumb anti-vaxxer 

Actually they are really bad at math and probabilities, apparently.

[mu_hilltopper]

As discussed back here ..

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=60399.msg1376627#msg1376627

I am delighted to see Kroger following Delta on a Covid surcharge, although they should have matched Delta's $200/month upcharge and not $50.

TONS of companies have a two tier health insurance program, many with smoker/non-smoker rates, and some with "health points" that earn you the discounted rate, my company included.   

Totally makes sense to add vax status as a tier.   It's raining out, free umbrellas everywhere to keep you dry.

[statnik]

This is true. The calculus always says getting the shot is the correct decision assuming you don't have health reasons preventing you from doing so.

It is false, especially in the high school/college age group where there are more reports of blood clots/myocarditis as a result of these vaccines.  If they knew more about the reason or those most at-risk in that age range they could probably eliminate that risk but as of now they don't.  Anyone who has already been infected in that age range has such a low chance of a negative outcome in the future if they happen to catch it again that it's not worth the small risk of side effects/heart issues for a lot of them.