Author Topic: Coronavirus news  (Read 399626 times)

ThePaul711

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4245 on: July 22, 2021, 11:11:10 PM »
And once again, we are reinforced in the understanding that it is only the unvaccinated who are now getting gravely ill and dying from the virus.
Given that as an actual fact, somebody explain to me excusing the actions of the unvaccinated and those who refuse to take the vaccine.
You do understand of course, not to put too much of a price tag on it, that their care is costing millions of dollars and the financial impact on the families after they die is costing many millions of dollars.
Not to mention that those who get long COVID (and with Delta's potency, long COVID is highly likely) are going to drive up health insurance prices for everyone.

Terry W Culler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4246 on: July 23, 2021, 08:17:47 AM »
The question before the house is not whether vaccinations are good or bad.  I believe everyone here agrees about that.  The question is whether the government or anyone else has the right to force people to be vaccinated even if it is against their desires.  At what point in this or any question of similar issues (riding motorcycles, smoking tobacco or marijuana, etc) can individual self determination be pushed aside and group action taken?  And how do we as a society determine when we have reached that point?
Goodnewsforabadworld.wordpress.com

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4247 on: July 23, 2021, 09:44:31 AM »
The question before the house is not whether vaccinations are good or bad.  I believe everyone here agrees about that.  The question is whether the government or anyone else has the right to force people to be vaccinated even if it is against their desires.  At what point in this or any question of similar issues (riding motorcycles, smoking tobacco or marijuana, etc) can individual self determination be pushed aside and group action taken?  And how do we as a society determine when we have reached that point?

In the New York Times I read this morning:
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey of Americans who had been opposed to getting vaccinated and later changed their minds found that mandates — or restrictions on the unvaccinated — were one common reason. One 51-year-old man told Kaiser that he began to feel as if he had “limited options without it.”

Mandating or restricting the unvaccinated is having an impact. I sense for some it will not just be a matter of inconvenience, but of choosing whether one keeps their job or not. I know that part of my motivation was gaining access to hospitals and assisted care centers, although I didn't have any personal objections to being vaccinated.

 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4248 on: July 23, 2021, 10:02:16 AM »
Another New York Times article (which I get in via email; I'm not a subscriber):
‘The No. 1’ public health issue

It is the most discordant part of the U.S. government’s response to Covid-19.

Even as President Biden, the C.D.C. and virtually the entire scientific community are urging — pleading with, even — Americans to get vaccinated, the government has not formally approved any vaccine. The Food and Drug Administration has instead given only “emergency use authorization” to the shots from Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. That’s a temporary form of approval that allows people to receive shots while the agency continues to study their effectiveness and safety.

The difference between emergency authorization and full approval matters. Right now, the military, schools and other organizations cannot easily require vaccinations. The “lack of F.D.A. licensure leave schools, colleges, businesses in a legal quandary,” Dr. Jerome Adams, a former surgeon general, recently wrote. Adams argued that lives were at stake and that the issue should be receiving more media coverage than it has.

The situation also feeds uncertainty and skepticism among some Americans who have not yet gotten a shot. Those skeptics, as Matthew Yglesias of Substack wrote yesterday, are effectively taking the F.D.A. at its word. The F.D.A. leaders’ official position is that “they don’t have enough safety data yet,” Yglesias noted.

The strangest part of all this is that the F.D.A.’s official position does not reflect its leaders’ actual views: They agree with the C.D.C. and other scientists that Americans should be getting vaccinated as soon as possible.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner, has said that the F.D.A. “conducted a rigorous and thorough review” of the vaccines before allowing them to be given to people and that the Pfizer vaccine “meets F.D.A.’s high standards for safety and effectiveness.” She also said, “Getting more of our population vaccinated is critical to moving forward and past this pandemic.”
Hurry up and wait

Why, then, hasn’t the F.D.A. taken the final step of formal approval?

It is following a version of its traditional, cautious process for vaccine approval. That process has historically had some big advantages, reducing the chances that Americans end up taking a faulty drug. To move much more quickly would risk undermining the public’s confidence in the F.D.A. and, by extension, the medicines it approves, Dr. Peter Marks, who oversees the process, has argued.

But I think the F.D.A.’s leaders have failed to understand how most Americans really think about the vaccines. It is different from the way that scientists and epidemiologists do. It’s less technical and based more on an accumulation of the publicly known facts.

It reminds me of another example of expert miscommunication, early in the pandemic. Back then, public health officials made highly technical statements about masks that many people interpreted as discouragement from wearing them. These statements ignored the many reasons to believe that masks could make a difference (like their longtime popularity in Asia to prevent the spread of viruses) and focused instead on the absence of studies showing that masks specifically prevented the spread of Covid.

Later, officials insisted that they were merely “following the data.” In truth, though, they were basing their advice on a narrow reading of the data — and not understanding how most people would interpret their comments.

The long wait to approve the vaccines is similar. F.D.A. officials are acting as if most Americans are experts in the nuances of their approval process and will be shocked if the agency expedites it. In reality, many Americans know almost nothing about that process. But some are understandably confused by the mixed messages that the F.D.A. is sending.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world have been vaccinated. Tens of thousands of them were followed for months in clinical trials. And F.D.A. officials have repeatedly urged other Americans to get vaccinated. “In the history of medicine, few if any biologics (vaccines, antibodies, molecules) have had their safety and efficacy scrutinized to this degree,” Dr. Eric Topol of Scripps Research wrote in The Times.

Yet the agency still has not given formal approval to those same vaccines.
Big costs, few benefits


Think of it this way: In the highly unlikely event that the evidence were to change radically — if, say, the vaccines began causing serious side effects about 18 months after people had received a shot — Americans would not react by feeling confident in the F.D.A. and grateful for its caution. They would be outraged that Woodcock and other top officials had urged people to get vaccinated.

The combination means that the F.D.A.’s lack of formal approval has few benefits and large costs: The agency has neither protected its reputation for extreme caution nor maximized the number of Americans who have been protected from Covid. “In my mind, it’s the No. 1 issue in American public health,” Topol told me. “If we got F.D.A. approval, we could get another 20 million vaccinated,” he estimated.

Rebecca Robbins, who covers the vaccines for The Times, says she is less sure about the size of the impact. But she agrees that full approval, whenever it happens, is “probably going to be the catalyst for many new mandates.”

My colleague Noah Weiland says: “Right now, it appears a full approval for the Pfizer vaccine could come in September, with Moderna not far behind.”

In the meantime, more Americans may get sick from Covid. About 34 percent of Americans who are eligible for the vaccines have not yet gotten a shot. The number of new cases has roughly tripled this month, largely because of the Delta variant. The number of deaths has almost doubled in the past two weeks.

If you want to read the F.D.A.’s explanation, I recommend a letter Marks wrote to The Times: “We want to assure the public that the review of applications for full approval of Covid-19 vaccines is one of the highest priorities at the Food and Drug Administration.”


As we discuss the reasons why some may still be reluctant about receiving the vaccine, the above offers insight into the thinking of these people.  While it's tempting to accuse the unvaccinated of being uncaring or being deliberating uninformed or callous and self-centered, there is often other reasonable answers to explain their hesitancy.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2021, 10:04:30 AM by D. Engebretson »
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4249 on: July 23, 2021, 12:37:09 PM »
The question before the house is not whether vaccinations are good or bad.  I believe everyone here agrees about that.  The question is whether the government or anyone else has the right to force people to be vaccinated even if it is against their desires.  At what point in this or any question of similar issues (riding motorcycles, smoking tobacco or marijuana, etc) can individual self determination be pushed aside and group action taken?  And how do we as a society determine when we have reached that point?


A medical doctor on the news this morning remarked that when it was publicized that second-hand smoke could cause cancer in non-smokers, the number of people who quit smoking went up. They realized that their choice to smoke did not just affect themselves, but other people, too.


I think that most of us grew up seeing signs like, "No shoes, No shirt, No service." Businesses have had restrictions for decades. If they want to require wearing masks or proof of vaccination, they can.


People are free to make choices, such as refusing to be vaccinated or wear a mask; but they must also realize that there are consequences of their choices.


The doctor also theorized that once the vaccines get full approval, businesses will have even more reason and support to require them.


In another story, a man hospitalized with COVID still said he wouldn't get the vaccine because they have not yet been fully approved by the FDA. His doctor noted that the drugs he is taking to treat COVID are also not fully approved - just the emergency use authorization. If he's willing to receive such medications to treat the disease, why not also the vaccine to prevent it?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2021, 12:41:20 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Terry W Culler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4250 on: July 23, 2021, 02:28:49 PM »
The question before the house is not whether vaccinations are good or bad.  I believe everyone here agrees about that.  The question is whether the government or anyone else has the right to force people to be vaccinated even if it is against their desires.  At what point in this or any question of similar issues (riding motorcycles, smoking tobacco or marijuana, etc) can individual self determination be pushed aside and group action taken?  And how do we as a society determine when we have reached that point?


A medical doctor on the news this morning remarked that when it was publicized that second-hand smoke could cause cancer in non-smokers, the number of people who quit smoking went up. They realized that their choice to smoke did not just affect themselves, but other people, too.


I think that most of us grew up seeing signs like, "No shoes, No shirt, No service." Businesses have had restrictions for decades. If they want to require wearing masks or proof of vaccination, they can.


People are free to make choices, such as refusing to be vaccinated or wear a mask; but they must also realize that there are consequences of their choices.


The doctor also theorized that once the vaccines get full approval, businesses will have even more reason and support to require them.


In another story, a man hospitalized with COVID still said he wouldn't get the vaccine because they have not yet been fully approved by the FDA. His doctor noted that the drugs he is taking to treat COVID are also not fully approved - just the emergency use authorization. If he's willing to receive such medications to treat the disease, why not also the vaccine to prevent it?


You haven't responded to my point.  How does a nation or a state determine that individual choice must be overridden by a group determination?  This is not a question that can be blithely answered with factoids and individual opinions.  It requires serious philosophical thought and I'm not seeing too much of that in this discussion.
Goodnewsforabadworld.wordpress.com

jebutler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1744
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4251 on: July 23, 2021, 03:47:58 PM »
Given that as an actual fact, somebody explain to me excusing the actions of the unvaccinated and those who refuse to take the vaccine.

How about this? "'People should have the right to make their healthcare decisions in this country. That's a basic human right,' said Charlie Riffaniello, a nurse."

Apparently, the largest health care workers union in the country is holding holding rallies outside of St. Luke's Presbyterian Hospital, protesting the hospitals "Get vaccinated or you're fired" stance.

So yes, why would a union "excuse the actions" of these unvaccinated people? Why would they hold rallies objecting to their removal?

One other thing. Earlier you described people refusing to get vaccinated as, "Bad, not smart, unreasonable, and lacking concern for others." Does that description apply to the protesting health care workers who are not vaccinated?

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/hospital-workers-protest-ny-presbyterians-covid-vaccine-mandate
The truth we preach is not an abstract thing. The truth is a Person. The goodness we preach is not an ideal quality. The goodness is Someone who is good. The love we preach is God himself in Christ. --H. Grady Davis

Robert Johnson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4252 on: July 23, 2021, 03:59:00 PM »

... with Delta's potency, long COVID is highly likely ...

Do you have a cite for that?

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13589
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4253 on: July 23, 2021, 04:19:52 PM »
Pastor Butler:
One other thing. Earlier you described people refusing to get vaccinated as, "Bad, not smart, unreasonable, and lacking concern for others." Does that description apply to the protesting health care workers who are not vaccinated?

Me:
Insofar as it relates to the vaccine, yes. And you know, of course, that life and people usually cannot be fully circumscribed in a word. A nurse caring for people professionally is not "bad." If that nurse refuses vaccination, the nurse is embracing a bad idea and therefore incurs some badness in his or her being.
All of us, even this humble correspondent, are possessed of some ideas or actions that are not fully noble and eleemosynary. That does not make us totally dishonest or selfish.
BTW, those protesting unions are not taking those actions just because of the requirement that they be vaccinated. They are using the vaccination requirement as a peg on which to hang other concerns. Life is complex, ain't it? 
« Last Edit: July 23, 2021, 04:23:14 PM by Charles Austin »
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4254 on: July 23, 2021, 04:24:36 PM »
The question before the house is not whether vaccinations are good or bad.  I believe everyone here agrees about that.  The question is whether the government or anyone else has the right to force people to be vaccinated even if it is against their desires.  At what point in this or any question of similar issues (riding motorcycles, smoking tobacco or marijuana, etc) can individual self determination be pushed aside and group action taken?  And how do we as a society determine when we have reached that point?


A medical doctor on the news this morning remarked that when it was publicized that second-hand smoke could cause cancer in non-smokers, the number of people who quit smoking went up. They realized that their choice to smoke did not just affect themselves, but other people, too.


I think that most of us grew up seeing signs like, "No shoes, No shirt, No service." Businesses have had restrictions for decades. If they want to require wearing masks or proof of vaccination, they can.


People are free to make choices, such as refusing to be vaccinated or wear a mask; but they must also realize that there are consequences of their choices.


The doctor also theorized that once the vaccines get full approval, businesses will have even more reason and support to require them.


In another story, a man hospitalized with COVID still said he wouldn't get the vaccine because they have not yet been fully approved by the FDA. His doctor noted that the drugs he is taking to treat COVID are also not fully approved - just the emergency use authorization. If he's willing to receive such medications to treat the disease, why not also the vaccine to prevent it?


You haven't responded to my point.  How does a nation or a state determine that individual choice must be overridden by a group determination?  This is not a question that can be blithely answered with factoids and individual opinions.  It requires serious philosophical thought and I'm not seeing too much of that in this discussion.


Perhaps the question should be, why should an individual choice override what benefits the group? It seems to me that the logic should run the other way: what benefits the group should be primary rather than what benefits the individual. When is it OK for an individual to make a choice for the self that is in conflict with what benefits the group?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4255 on: July 23, 2021, 10:28:37 PM »
You haven't responded to my point.  How does a nation or a state determine that individual choice must be overridden by a group determination?  This is not a question that can be blithely answered with factoids and individual opinions.  It requires serious philosophical thought and I'm not seeing too much of that in this discussion.

Perhaps the question should be, why should an individual choice override what benefits the group? It seems to me that the logic should run the other way: what benefits the group should be primary rather than what benefits the individual. When is it OK for an individual to make a choice for the self that is in conflict with what benefits the group?

For the same reason why people want to immigrate to the United States.  People want to make choices instead of having choices made for them.  A number of countries have tried to govern in line with your theory.  The track record is not good.

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4256 on: July 23, 2021, 11:10:06 PM »
You haven't responded to my point.  How does a nation or a state determine that individual choice must be overridden by a group determination?  This is not a question that can be blithely answered with factoids and individual opinions.  It requires serious philosophical thought and I'm not seeing too much of that in this discussion.

Perhaps the question should be, why should an individual choice override what benefits the group? It seems to me that the logic should run the other way: what benefits the group should be primary rather than what benefits the individual. When is it OK for an individual to make a choice for the self that is in conflict with what benefits the group?

For the same reason why people want to immigrate to the United States.  People want to make choices instead of having choices made for them.  A number of countries have tried to govern in line with your theory.  The track record is not good.

Aye...and those who can't emigrate are chanting "Cuba libre!"
Greek Orthodox-Ecumenical Patriarchate

Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014.
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.

Chrismated Antiochian Orthodox, eve of Mary of Egypt Sunday, A.D. 2015

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13589
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4257 on: July 23, 2021, 11:47:05 PM »
Rum and Coca Cola, twist of lime.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4258 on: July 24, 2021, 12:04:50 AM »
Rum and Coca Cola, twist of lime.

Aye, I had a parishioner (now of blessed memory) who was married to a Puerto Rican who introduced me to that tropical delight.
Greek Orthodox-Ecumenical Patriarchate

Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014.
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.

Chrismated Antiochian Orthodox, eve of Mary of Egypt Sunday, A.D. 2015

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4259 on: July 24, 2021, 02:17:51 AM »
You haven't responded to my point.  How does a nation or a state determine that individual choice must be overridden by a group determination?  This is not a question that can be blithely answered with factoids and individual opinions.  It requires serious philosophical thought and I'm not seeing too much of that in this discussion.

Perhaps the question should be, why should an individual choice override what benefits the group? It seems to me that the logic should run the other way: what benefits the group should be primary rather than what benefits the individual. When is it OK for an individual to make a choice for the self that is in conflict with what benefits the group?

For the same reason why people want to immigrate to the United States.  People want to make choices instead of having choices made for them.  A number of countries have tried to govern in line with your theory.  The track record is not good.


We have freedom to choose for self or for group. Our sinful nature will be selfish. If we didn't choose to help others, our congregations would have no offerings. The members would keep it for themselves. If drivers drove however they wanted, there would be chaos on the streets - bad for all; so responsible people drive according to the rules so that it is safe for all people.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]