A
picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, the number of
nursing home residents out of 1000 infected and test positive with
Covid based on vaccination status. Of interest, I have seen some
recent data suggesting that the 2 shot immunization schedule is so
good some infectious disease experts are questioning whether or not
an additional booster is really needed. I believe this graph
published in the paper today says it all. I assume we can all agree
that nursing home residents are the older and sicker of us and living
in a nursing home under close quarters would be assumed to spread
infection faster than the general population. As the graph shows
vaccinated residents have a significantly lower risk of active
infection and residents with an additional booster shot have an
almost nonexistent risk of infection. One can also assume the
extensive reduction in risk of active infection will translate into
lower hospitalization and death rates. The reduction is impressive.
And to boot, this is over the past 2 months so the data is very
recent. For myself and my family, we all have had or will get a
booster.
I provide this information to my blog readers as an objective nonpartisan educational piece of the puzzle regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. I believe the information and graph speak for themselves and answer an important question. Of interest, I published this graph initially on our local community email group for the same reason. Within 24 hours a nice gentleman of 84 years of age responded saying that he had had 3 Moderna shots but still tested positive for Covid. I attempted to respond to him explaining that regrettably, he was THE 1 person out of 1000 the graph was referring to. The problem with statistics is when there is one chance in 1000 and it happens to you it is 100% for you. We buy lotto tickets with every expectation that the 1 chance in 14 million of winning will obviously be us and I am certain many who buy those tickets are equally outraged that 1 chance did not happen for them. Of interest when I attempted to respond to this gentleman the site moderator had already locked any response to my post. Of course, I cannot judge why and any judgment will be an assumption which I am loath to do anymore. But it did get me to think in this regard. Putting aside any discussion regarding the partisan nature of how we as a country are dealing with the pandemic in terms of masking and vaccinations one point to me becomes clearer. I practiced medicine for over 40 years and was trained that preventative medicine was as or more important than waiting to treat after someone got sick. For over 40 years I fought the battle advocating to my patients, the insurance companies, and the public at large that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure at a much lower cost. For all of those decades, I fought a losing battle. No one wanted to hear it. No one wanted to invest or pay for the future. Everything was here and now. Have a sore throat? Give me a pill now so I can get on with my life. Stop smoking, eat a healthier diet, exercise, etc. I don't have time. I'm too busy with other things. Besides later sooner or later medicine will find a better and quick cure. In Florida, the mantra of waiting until you get sick and then going to a monoclonal antibody center provided by the Governor if you feel sick is the same attitude we have had for decades. Why waste time and money for prevention when all you need to do is wait until you get sick, assuming you get sick at all, and then there will be a "miracle" cure awaiting you so you can get on with your life. Believe me, I wish that was how it is. But the statistics clearly show that is not what is going to happen. Yes, some treatments save lives, but the data clearly show prevention saves even more lives but we just don't see it because those people never get sick, and let's face it not getting sick is not sexy and doesn't generate any sympathy or newspaper headlines. Trust me, the above graph is not a fluke, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but that prevention never once said it will prevent 100% of anything. Prevention says it lowers the risk of you getting seriously ill and dying, but again not 100%. Statins prevent and reduce heart attacks but not all of them. Anticoagulants prevent and reduce stroke in patients with Atrial Fibrillation, but not all of them. Seat belts save lives, but if your car flies off the Dames Point Bridge the seat belt will not save your life, in fact, it might cause you to die. So with that in mind do you refuse to wear a seat belt or refuse to drive over any bridges?
No comments:
Post a Comment