|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
|
|
On February 02 2022 09:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 05:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 05:07 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 02:43 Slydie wrote:On February 01 2022 07:09 Sermokala wrote:On February 01 2022 05:14 Slydie wrote:
It is a proven fact that the vaccines do a surprisingly bad job at preventing transmission of Omnicron. So does natural immunity, as the Delta variant is not closely related to Omnicron, double infection is VERY normal, and can even happen if vaccinated on top of that! For serious illness and death, the story is very different.
There are 2 reasons for requiring vaccines:
#1: Require them in high risk situations as the vaccines should reduce the spread of the virus.
#2: Indirectly forcing people to get the vaccine by making not having them as unpractical as possible.
For Omnicron, policies are made for reason #2, but they are often masked as reason #1. If you do not want the vaccine, that obviously pisses people off. There were already vaccine requirements for all travelers to South-Africa when Omnicron broke out, but needless to say, they did a horrible job at containing that strain. I have still not seen any research confirming that vaccine passports etc. have any direct impact on this pandemic.
If you are conciously trying to make life difficult for unvaccinated to force them to get the shots, you have to be honest about it, and not wrap it in bullshit arguments. There is a third reason for requiring vaccines: They cause less people to die and less people to take up hospital space for everyone else. Do you think people aren't dieing because so much hospital space is being taken up by people who are too selfish to get something that is free, safe, and convenient to get? Please tell be a legitimate reason why people don't want to get specifically the covid vaccine and not the list of other vaccines you were mandated to get for the public good as a child? Come on, man. COVID is a rapidly changing respiratory virus which is not approved for small children, and the effect of vaccinating children for such diseases is highly debatable. Flu shots are not mandatory for kids either. The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%. There are some very good reasons why flu shots are typically reserved for the vulnerable and some HC-workers, COVID shots will just be added to the list, and they can likely even be give the same time. Our immune systems take care of the rest, and we can live with getting knocked out once every 5-10 years. The covid vaccine can be given to all school-age children though (5 years old, and older), who come in contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals every day, which is far more important than babies/toddlers who have a much more limited number of interactions. Also, I've never heard of flu shots being reserved for only the vulnerable; that's certainly not true in the United States, where you can walk into just about any pharmacy and get a free flu shot without any sort of check-up or health diagnostic, because we basically have infinitely many doses. Finally, what do you mean by "effectiveness" when you say "The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%." What are these percentages in reference to? Preventing infection? Transmission? Death? Hospitalizations? You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people? Have you missed the news that the vaccines are not very good at preventing you from contracting and spreading COVID? 2 doses of pfizer provide 10% protection against infection after 20 weeks. 3 doses of pfizer provides 45% protection against infection after only 10 weeks. SourceSo if you're concerned about children spreading COVID with those they come into contact you should be really concerned that the vaccines only offer decent protection for a couple months before they quickly wane to almost no protection. Israel says even a 4th shot is likely not enough against Omicron. So allow me to update your argument in light of this new information: What we need is MORE BOOSTERS FOR KIDS. Obviously we need to be updating their protection every 3~ months to protect the hundreds of people they come into contact with. The logistics can be solved quite easily - just cross-train teachers to give out booster shots every 3 months. Every time the students get a report card they can get a shot in the arm to go along with it. How is that any different from an MMR vaccine? It's really weird to read "You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people?" and then right after that, read that you fully concede that there are infection-related benefits to getting vaccinated, but okay  I was going to completely ignore your last paragraph, as it came off as ridiculous trolling and/or slippery sloping into absurdity, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe that this is what I think, I'll respond to it: Although things may change, it seems to be the case that newer variants end up being less deadly. If newer strains continue to be less harmful as covid-19 becomes endemic, then it'll be less impactful to become infected with covid-19. Obviously, it'll be helpful to learn about the effects of long-covid, but as more effective treatments (both proactively and reactively) are researched and developed, we'll likely be able to deal with the virus a lot better, perhaps eventually relegating it to "the scientific and medical communities still recommend that you get your annual flu shot and your annual covid-19 shot, because you'd probably get a little sick if you get infected, and you could spread those viruses to others, but the daily updates of death tolls are long gone". In other words, I'm pretty optimistic that our experts will continue to help us get through this and that covid-19 will become less threatening, not more threatening. I don't see us needing to get vaccinated every 3 months in the future, but also that's irrelevant to the fact that children should already be vaccinated in the present. What other way is there to interpret your argument? If a 2-dose series only offers 10% efficacy after 20 weeks then vaccinating school aged children in the summer before school starts means that by winter they have almost no protection from contracting and spreading COVID. If that were my argument I would certainly be advocating for frequent boosters. If I wanted to stop/slow transmission in the Fall then I would want to stop/slow transmission in the Winter as well, no? I surmise from your 2nd paragraph that your viewpoint is that you generally trust the recommendations of "our experts" to see us through this pandemic and they are currently recommending for children to be vaccinated and you agree. So I'm curious if you and I were born in Sweden where their experts are not recommending for children to be vaccinated would you still trust "our experts." Is your view on childhood COVID vaccination predicated on where you happened to be birthed? It seems weird to me that you have an issue with having additional protection, when the alternative is no protection. Even if it's only 10% protection, that's literally 10% more than not being vaccinated. That's two or three extra students in every single one of my classes, each of which could bring their infection home and infect their older family members. By the way, I read your source, and you conveniently quote mined a lot of information. Here are some other numbers, from your own source, that you left out: "A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data." "The U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot. [you lowballed at 40%]" "Israel found that fourth doses increase protective antibodies fivefold." Even if the 75% effectiveness or 5x protective antibodies dwindles over a few months, that's still additional protection! These aren't nominal precautions, whether we're talking about lowering infection rate, or hospitalization rate, or death rate. We know that countless lives have been saved as a result. I haven't been following Sweden's handling of coronavirus, and I don't know much about Sweden, so I can't comment on what they're doing or why they're doing it.
I didn't lowball 40%. I said 45% which is right in the middle of 40-50%.
We'll have to agree to disagree. For me 10% is "slightly better than nothing" which is not a good reason to advocate for across the board mass vaccination of children.
|
On February 02 2022 13:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 09:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 05:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 05:07 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 02:43 Slydie wrote:On February 01 2022 07:09 Sermokala wrote:On February 01 2022 05:14 Slydie wrote:
It is a proven fact that the vaccines do a surprisingly bad job at preventing transmission of Omnicron. So does natural immunity, as the Delta variant is not closely related to Omnicron, double infection is VERY normal, and can even happen if vaccinated on top of that! For serious illness and death, the story is very different.
There are 2 reasons for requiring vaccines:
#1: Require them in high risk situations as the vaccines should reduce the spread of the virus.
#2: Indirectly forcing people to get the vaccine by making not having them as unpractical as possible.
For Omnicron, policies are made for reason #2, but they are often masked as reason #1. If you do not want the vaccine, that obviously pisses people off. There were already vaccine requirements for all travelers to South-Africa when Omnicron broke out, but needless to say, they did a horrible job at containing that strain. I have still not seen any research confirming that vaccine passports etc. have any direct impact on this pandemic.
If you are conciously trying to make life difficult for unvaccinated to force them to get the shots, you have to be honest about it, and not wrap it in bullshit arguments. There is a third reason for requiring vaccines: They cause less people to die and less people to take up hospital space for everyone else. Do you think people aren't dieing because so much hospital space is being taken up by people who are too selfish to get something that is free, safe, and convenient to get? Please tell be a legitimate reason why people don't want to get specifically the covid vaccine and not the list of other vaccines you were mandated to get for the public good as a child? Come on, man. COVID is a rapidly changing respiratory virus which is not approved for small children, and the effect of vaccinating children for such diseases is highly debatable. Flu shots are not mandatory for kids either. The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%. There are some very good reasons why flu shots are typically reserved for the vulnerable and some HC-workers, COVID shots will just be added to the list, and they can likely even be give the same time. Our immune systems take care of the rest, and we can live with getting knocked out once every 5-10 years. The covid vaccine can be given to all school-age children though (5 years old, and older), who come in contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals every day, which is far more important than babies/toddlers who have a much more limited number of interactions. Also, I've never heard of flu shots being reserved for only the vulnerable; that's certainly not true in the United States, where you can walk into just about any pharmacy and get a free flu shot without any sort of check-up or health diagnostic, because we basically have infinitely many doses. Finally, what do you mean by "effectiveness" when you say "The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%." What are these percentages in reference to? Preventing infection? Transmission? Death? Hospitalizations? You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people? Have you missed the news that the vaccines are not very good at preventing you from contracting and spreading COVID? 2 doses of pfizer provide 10% protection against infection after 20 weeks. 3 doses of pfizer provides 45% protection against infection after only 10 weeks. SourceSo if you're concerned about children spreading COVID with those they come into contact you should be really concerned that the vaccines only offer decent protection for a couple months before they quickly wane to almost no protection. Israel says even a 4th shot is likely not enough against Omicron. So allow me to update your argument in light of this new information: What we need is MORE BOOSTERS FOR KIDS. Obviously we need to be updating their protection every 3~ months to protect the hundreds of people they come into contact with. The logistics can be solved quite easily - just cross-train teachers to give out booster shots every 3 months. Every time the students get a report card they can get a shot in the arm to go along with it. How is that any different from an MMR vaccine? It's really weird to read "You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people?" and then right after that, read that you fully concede that there are infection-related benefits to getting vaccinated, but okay I was going to completely ignore your last paragraph, as it came off as ridiculous trolling and/or slippery sloping into absurdity, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe that this is what I think, I'll respond to it: Although things may change, it seems to be the case that newer variants end up being less deadly. If newer strains continue to be less harmful as covid-19 becomes endemic, then it'll be less impactful to become infected with covid-19. Obviously, it'll be helpful to learn about the effects of long-covid, but as more effective treatments (both proactively and reactively) are researched and developed, we'll likely be able to deal with the virus a lot better, perhaps eventually relegating it to "the scientific and medical communities still recommend that you get your annual flu shot and your annual covid-19 shot, because you'd probably get a little sick if you get infected, and you could spread those viruses to others, but the daily updates of death tolls are long gone". In other words, I'm pretty optimistic that our experts will continue to help us get through this and that covid-19 will become less threatening, not more threatening. I don't see us needing to get vaccinated every 3 months in the future, but also that's irrelevant to the fact that children should already be vaccinated in the present. What other way is there to interpret your argument? If a 2-dose series only offers 10% efficacy after 20 weeks then vaccinating school aged children in the summer before school starts means that by winter they have almost no protection from contracting and spreading COVID. If that were my argument I would certainly be advocating for frequent boosters. If I wanted to stop/slow transmission in the Fall then I would want to stop/slow transmission in the Winter as well, no? I surmise from your 2nd paragraph that your viewpoint is that you generally trust the recommendations of "our experts" to see us through this pandemic and they are currently recommending for children to be vaccinated and you agree. So I'm curious if you and I were born in Sweden where their experts are not recommending for children to be vaccinated would you still trust "our experts." Is your view on childhood COVID vaccination predicated on where you happened to be birthed? It seems weird to me that you have an issue with having additional protection, when the alternative is no protection. Even if it's only 10% protection, that's literally 10% more than not being vaccinated. That's two or three extra students in every single one of my classes, each of which could bring their infection home and infect their older family members. By the way, I read your source, and you conveniently quote mined a lot of information. Here are some other numbers, from your own source, that you left out: "A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data." "The U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot. [you lowballed at 40%]" "Israel found that fourth doses increase protective antibodies fivefold." Even if the 75% effectiveness or 5x protective antibodies dwindles over a few months, that's still additional protection! These aren't nominal precautions, whether we're talking about lowering infection rate, or hospitalization rate, or death rate. We know that countless lives have been saved as a result. I haven't been following Sweden's handling of coronavirus, and I don't know much about Sweden, so I can't comment on what they're doing or why they're doing it. I didn't lowball 40%. I said 45% which is right in the middle of 40-50%. We'll have to agree to disagree. For me 10% is "slightly better than nothing" which is not a good reason to advocate for across the board mass vaccination of children.
Except it's 75%, not 10%. It eventually decreases over several months, but you don't start with only 10% infection protection.
And this doesn't even take into account the other benefits, such as the 88% decrease in hospitalization. Even if you ignored the significantly reduced infection rates for several months and didn't think the vaccine helped prevent infection at all, you'd still need to dismiss the massive protection against hospitalization and death. There are just so many benefits to being vaccinated and so few downsides, and your source provides great arguments for vaccines, not against them.
|
I'm amazed you guys have the will to continue this conversation, the same conversation, every time
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
B: What cost? They are statistically a good idea in every scenario
A: Vaccines don't entirely prevent infection
B: Vaccines are still a benefit in every situation
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
Its the exact same conversation every time.
|
Northern Ireland23314 Posts
On February 02 2022 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm amazed you guys have the will to continue this conversation, the same conversation, every time
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
B: What cost? They are statistically a good idea in every scenario
A: Vaccines don't entirely prevent infection
B: Vaccines are still a benefit in every situation
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
Its the exact same conversation every time.
Is Mohdoo IslandTM prepped yet?
|
On February 02 2022 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm amazed you guys have the will to continue this conversation, the same conversation, every time
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
B: What cost? They are statistically a good idea in every scenario
A: Vaccines don't entirely prevent infection
B: Vaccines are still a benefit in every situation
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
Its the exact same conversation every time.
Yup
|
On February 02 2022 13:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:33 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 09:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 05:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 05:07 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 02:43 Slydie wrote:On February 01 2022 07:09 Sermokala wrote:On February 01 2022 05:14 Slydie wrote:
It is a proven fact that the vaccines do a surprisingly bad job at preventing transmission of Omnicron. So does natural immunity, as the Delta variant is not closely related to Omnicron, double infection is VERY normal, and can even happen if vaccinated on top of that! For serious illness and death, the story is very different.
There are 2 reasons for requiring vaccines:
#1: Require them in high risk situations as the vaccines should reduce the spread of the virus.
#2: Indirectly forcing people to get the vaccine by making not having them as unpractical as possible.
For Omnicron, policies are made for reason #2, but they are often masked as reason #1. If you do not want the vaccine, that obviously pisses people off. There were already vaccine requirements for all travelers to South-Africa when Omnicron broke out, but needless to say, they did a horrible job at containing that strain. I have still not seen any research confirming that vaccine passports etc. have any direct impact on this pandemic.
If you are conciously trying to make life difficult for unvaccinated to force them to get the shots, you have to be honest about it, and not wrap it in bullshit arguments. There is a third reason for requiring vaccines: They cause less people to die and less people to take up hospital space for everyone else. Do you think people aren't dieing because so much hospital space is being taken up by people who are too selfish to get something that is free, safe, and convenient to get? Please tell be a legitimate reason why people don't want to get specifically the covid vaccine and not the list of other vaccines you were mandated to get for the public good as a child? Come on, man. COVID is a rapidly changing respiratory virus which is not approved for small children, and the effect of vaccinating children for such diseases is highly debatable. Flu shots are not mandatory for kids either. The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%. There are some very good reasons why flu shots are typically reserved for the vulnerable and some HC-workers, COVID shots will just be added to the list, and they can likely even be give the same time. Our immune systems take care of the rest, and we can live with getting knocked out once every 5-10 years. The covid vaccine can be given to all school-age children though (5 years old, and older), who come in contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals every day, which is far more important than babies/toddlers who have a much more limited number of interactions. Also, I've never heard of flu shots being reserved for only the vulnerable; that's certainly not true in the United States, where you can walk into just about any pharmacy and get a free flu shot without any sort of check-up or health diagnostic, because we basically have infinitely many doses. Finally, what do you mean by "effectiveness" when you say "The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%." What are these percentages in reference to? Preventing infection? Transmission? Death? Hospitalizations? You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people? Have you missed the news that the vaccines are not very good at preventing you from contracting and spreading COVID? 2 doses of pfizer provide 10% protection against infection after 20 weeks. 3 doses of pfizer provides 45% protection against infection after only 10 weeks. SourceSo if you're concerned about children spreading COVID with those they come into contact you should be really concerned that the vaccines only offer decent protection for a couple months before they quickly wane to almost no protection. Israel says even a 4th shot is likely not enough against Omicron. So allow me to update your argument in light of this new information: What we need is MORE BOOSTERS FOR KIDS. Obviously we need to be updating their protection every 3~ months to protect the hundreds of people they come into contact with. The logistics can be solved quite easily - just cross-train teachers to give out booster shots every 3 months. Every time the students get a report card they can get a shot in the arm to go along with it. How is that any different from an MMR vaccine? It's really weird to read "You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people?" and then right after that, read that you fully concede that there are infection-related benefits to getting vaccinated, but okay I was going to completely ignore your last paragraph, as it came off as ridiculous trolling and/or slippery sloping into absurdity, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe that this is what I think, I'll respond to it: Although things may change, it seems to be the case that newer variants end up being less deadly. If newer strains continue to be less harmful as covid-19 becomes endemic, then it'll be less impactful to become infected with covid-19. Obviously, it'll be helpful to learn about the effects of long-covid, but as more effective treatments (both proactively and reactively) are researched and developed, we'll likely be able to deal with the virus a lot better, perhaps eventually relegating it to "the scientific and medical communities still recommend that you get your annual flu shot and your annual covid-19 shot, because you'd probably get a little sick if you get infected, and you could spread those viruses to others, but the daily updates of death tolls are long gone". In other words, I'm pretty optimistic that our experts will continue to help us get through this and that covid-19 will become less threatening, not more threatening. I don't see us needing to get vaccinated every 3 months in the future, but also that's irrelevant to the fact that children should already be vaccinated in the present. What other way is there to interpret your argument? If a 2-dose series only offers 10% efficacy after 20 weeks then vaccinating school aged children in the summer before school starts means that by winter they have almost no protection from contracting and spreading COVID. If that were my argument I would certainly be advocating for frequent boosters. If I wanted to stop/slow transmission in the Fall then I would want to stop/slow transmission in the Winter as well, no? I surmise from your 2nd paragraph that your viewpoint is that you generally trust the recommendations of "our experts" to see us through this pandemic and they are currently recommending for children to be vaccinated and you agree. So I'm curious if you and I were born in Sweden where their experts are not recommending for children to be vaccinated would you still trust "our experts." Is your view on childhood COVID vaccination predicated on where you happened to be birthed? It seems weird to me that you have an issue with having additional protection, when the alternative is no protection. Even if it's only 10% protection, that's literally 10% more than not being vaccinated. That's two or three extra students in every single one of my classes, each of which could bring their infection home and infect their older family members. By the way, I read your source, and you conveniently quote mined a lot of information. Here are some other numbers, from your own source, that you left out: "A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data." "The U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot. [you lowballed at 40%]" "Israel found that fourth doses increase protective antibodies fivefold." Even if the 75% effectiveness or 5x protective antibodies dwindles over a few months, that's still additional protection! These aren't nominal precautions, whether we're talking about lowering infection rate, or hospitalization rate, or death rate. We know that countless lives have been saved as a result. I haven't been following Sweden's handling of coronavirus, and I don't know much about Sweden, so I can't comment on what they're doing or why they're doing it. I didn't lowball 40%. I said 45% which is right in the middle of 40-50%. We'll have to agree to disagree. For me 10% is "slightly better than nothing" which is not a good reason to advocate for across the board mass vaccination of children. Except it's 75%, not 10%. It eventually decreases over several months, but you don't start with only 10% infection protection. And this doesn't even take into account the other benefits, such as the 88% decrease in hospitalization. Even if you ignored the significantly reduced infection rates for several months and didn't think the vaccine helped prevent infection at all, you'd still need to dismiss the massive protection against hospitalization and death. There are just so many benefits to being vaccinated and so few downsides, and your source provides great arguments for vaccines, not against them.
Good protection from infection for a couple months is great if COVID was only going to be around for a couple months and not forever. Also that 75% is for a booster dose. The 10% was for double vax. So it's an apples to oranges comparison. Do you want all kids to be triple vaxxed now?
It's odd you would accuse me of cherry picking when you are the one that wants to primarily look at the 2 months after vaccination to boast about their efficacy and then ignore the eternity of months after that when the efficacy nosedives.
Anyway, here is the FDA models for the risks/benefits of vaccinating 5-11 year olds per 1 million children
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iWckk41.png)
https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34
So per 1 million vaccinated children they expect to prevent 192 COVID hospitalizations and 62 COVID ICU hospitalizations and they expect to cause 58 excess myocarditis hospitalizations and 34 excess myocarditis ICU hospitalizations. With 1 death prevented.
For males the numbers are even more narrow, for example they expect to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 myocarditis ICU admissions.
These models are from Oct 2021 before Omicron existed and they assumed a vaccine efficacy of 70% which would be a very generous estimation in the framework of 10-75% we were just discussing.
|
Information on the reinfection risk by Omicron (i.e. protection against Omicron after pre-Omicron infection):
"Omicron was associated with a 5.41 (95% CI: 4.87-6.00) fold higher risk of reinfection compared with Delta. This suggests relatively low remaining levels of immunity from prior infection."
"Prior to Omicron, the SIREN cohort study of UK healthcare workers estimated that SARS-CoV-2 infection gave 85% protection against reinfection over 6 months (16), or a relative risk of infection of 0.15 compared with those with no prior infection. Our hazard ratio estimate would suggest the relative risk of reinfection has risen to 0.81 [95%CI: 0.73-1.00] (i.e. remaining protection of 19% [95%CI: 0-27%]) against Omicron."
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-49-Omicron/
|
On February 02 2022 16:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 13:33 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 09:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 05:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 05:07 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 02:43 Slydie wrote:On February 01 2022 07:09 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
There is a third reason for requiring vaccines: They cause less people to die and less people to take up hospital space for everyone else.
Do you think people aren't dieing because so much hospital space is being taken up by people who are too selfish to get something that is free, safe, and convenient to get?
Please tell be a legitimate reason why people don't want to get specifically the covid vaccine and not the list of other vaccines you were mandated to get for the public good as a child? Come on, man. COVID is a rapidly changing respiratory virus which is not approved for small children, and the effect of vaccinating children for such diseases is highly debatable. Flu shots are not mandatory for kids either. The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%. There are some very good reasons why flu shots are typically reserved for the vulnerable and some HC-workers, COVID shots will just be added to the list, and they can likely even be give the same time. Our immune systems take care of the rest, and we can live with getting knocked out once every 5-10 years. The covid vaccine can be given to all school-age children though (5 years old, and older), who come in contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals every day, which is far more important than babies/toddlers who have a much more limited number of interactions. Also, I've never heard of flu shots being reserved for only the vulnerable; that's certainly not true in the United States, where you can walk into just about any pharmacy and get a free flu shot without any sort of check-up or health diagnostic, because we basically have infinitely many doses. Finally, what do you mean by "effectiveness" when you say "The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%." What are these percentages in reference to? Preventing infection? Transmission? Death? Hospitalizations? You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people? Have you missed the news that the vaccines are not very good at preventing you from contracting and spreading COVID? 2 doses of pfizer provide 10% protection against infection after 20 weeks. 3 doses of pfizer provides 45% protection against infection after only 10 weeks. SourceSo if you're concerned about children spreading COVID with those they come into contact you should be really concerned that the vaccines only offer decent protection for a couple months before they quickly wane to almost no protection. Israel says even a 4th shot is likely not enough against Omicron. So allow me to update your argument in light of this new information: What we need is MORE BOOSTERS FOR KIDS. Obviously we need to be updating their protection every 3~ months to protect the hundreds of people they come into contact with. The logistics can be solved quite easily - just cross-train teachers to give out booster shots every 3 months. Every time the students get a report card they can get a shot in the arm to go along with it. How is that any different from an MMR vaccine? It's really weird to read "You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people?" and then right after that, read that you fully concede that there are infection-related benefits to getting vaccinated, but okay I was going to completely ignore your last paragraph, as it came off as ridiculous trolling and/or slippery sloping into absurdity, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe that this is what I think, I'll respond to it: Although things may change, it seems to be the case that newer variants end up being less deadly. If newer strains continue to be less harmful as covid-19 becomes endemic, then it'll be less impactful to become infected with covid-19. Obviously, it'll be helpful to learn about the effects of long-covid, but as more effective treatments (both proactively and reactively) are researched and developed, we'll likely be able to deal with the virus a lot better, perhaps eventually relegating it to "the scientific and medical communities still recommend that you get your annual flu shot and your annual covid-19 shot, because you'd probably get a little sick if you get infected, and you could spread those viruses to others, but the daily updates of death tolls are long gone". In other words, I'm pretty optimistic that our experts will continue to help us get through this and that covid-19 will become less threatening, not more threatening. I don't see us needing to get vaccinated every 3 months in the future, but also that's irrelevant to the fact that children should already be vaccinated in the present. What other way is there to interpret your argument? If a 2-dose series only offers 10% efficacy after 20 weeks then vaccinating school aged children in the summer before school starts means that by winter they have almost no protection from contracting and spreading COVID. If that were my argument I would certainly be advocating for frequent boosters. If I wanted to stop/slow transmission in the Fall then I would want to stop/slow transmission in the Winter as well, no? I surmise from your 2nd paragraph that your viewpoint is that you generally trust the recommendations of "our experts" to see us through this pandemic and they are currently recommending for children to be vaccinated and you agree. So I'm curious if you and I were born in Sweden where their experts are not recommending for children to be vaccinated would you still trust "our experts." Is your view on childhood COVID vaccination predicated on where you happened to be birthed? It seems weird to me that you have an issue with having additional protection, when the alternative is no protection. Even if it's only 10% protection, that's literally 10% more than not being vaccinated. That's two or three extra students in every single one of my classes, each of which could bring their infection home and infect their older family members. By the way, I read your source, and you conveniently quote mined a lot of information. Here are some other numbers, from your own source, that you left out: "A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data." "The U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot. [you lowballed at 40%]" "Israel found that fourth doses increase protective antibodies fivefold." Even if the 75% effectiveness or 5x protective antibodies dwindles over a few months, that's still additional protection! These aren't nominal precautions, whether we're talking about lowering infection rate, or hospitalization rate, or death rate. We know that countless lives have been saved as a result. I haven't been following Sweden's handling of coronavirus, and I don't know much about Sweden, so I can't comment on what they're doing or why they're doing it. I didn't lowball 40%. I said 45% which is right in the middle of 40-50%. We'll have to agree to disagree. For me 10% is "slightly better than nothing" which is not a good reason to advocate for across the board mass vaccination of children. Except it's 75%, not 10%. It eventually decreases over several months, but you don't start with only 10% infection protection. And this doesn't even take into account the other benefits, such as the 88% decrease in hospitalization. Even if you ignored the significantly reduced infection rates for several months and didn't think the vaccine helped prevent infection at all, you'd still need to dismiss the massive protection against hospitalization and death. There are just so many benefits to being vaccinated and so few downsides, and your source provides great arguments for vaccines, not against them. Good protection from infection for a couple months is great if COVID was only going to be around for a couple months and not forever. Also that 75% is for a booster dose. The 10% was for double vax. So it's an apples to oranges comparison. Do you want all kids to be triple vaxxed now? It's odd you would accuse me of cherry picking when you are the one that wants to primarily look at the 2 months after vaccination to boast about their efficacy and then ignore the eternity of months after that when the efficacy nosedives. Anyway, here is the FDA models for the risks/benefits of vaccinating 5-11 year olds per 1 million children https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 So per 1 million vaccinated children they expect to prevent 192 COVID hospitalizations and 62 COVID ICU hospitalizations and they expect to cause 58 excess myocarditis hospitalizations and 34 excess myocarditis ICU hospitalizations. With 1 death prevented. For males the numbers are even more narrow, for example they expect to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 myocarditis ICU admissions. These models are from Oct 2021 before Omicron existed and they assumed a vaccine efficacy of 70% which would be a very generous estimation in the framework of 10-75% we were just discussing.
Those models clearly predict (and were correct about) a decrease in infection, hospitalizations, and deaths... Just like your last source... So yeah, that's even more pro-vax information.
You keep saying that the vaccines aren't worth it, but then you post sources that refute your own perspective. I don't think I need to really be here lol; you're arguing with yourself.
And yes, of course I'd want everyone to have the most up-to-date protection that's recommended by the scientific and medical communities; why would you think my opinion would be "get the initial two-part vaccination, but then *never* get the booster, just so the protection eventually dwindles to numbers that BlackJack prefers"?
On February 02 2022 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm amazed you guys have the will to continue this conversation, the same conversation, every time
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
B: What cost? They are statistically a good idea in every scenario
A: Vaccines don't entirely prevent infection
B: Vaccines are still a benefit in every situation
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
Its the exact same conversation every time.
I'm certainly up for new conversations, too
|
On February 02 2022 18:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I'm certainly up for new conversations, too
Ok!
How about, what people think, that quite a few countries are thinking about dropping Covid restrictions? Or have already dropped, like Denmark:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60215200
From Tuesday[so, yesterday], masks are no longer required in shops, restaurants, and on public transport. Limits on the number of people allowed at indoor gatherings and social distancing measures also come to an end.
|
Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is an acceptable risk. I'm okay with a little pink in my burgers, some people like them well done. I think seat belts are fine as is, maybe you think everyone should wear a 5-point harness with a flame retardant suit and a crash helmet. I see 1 death per million and I know that 1 death is most likely from an immunocompromised child or a child with severe disabilities that is chronically ill and I think we should vaccinate specifically those children that are at risk. You see 1 death per million and you think that's fantastic, 1 > 0 so let's vaccinate every child across the board. I'm sure there's a lower threshhold for you somewhere, or maybe you're one of those people like Mohdoo that thinks if you could save a single life it would be good enough reason for compulsory vaccination of every child.
Btw, I don't really have a problem with people recommending the COVID vaccine for children, I have an issue when people in my state try to mandate it for school children, particularly when it offers shit protection against infection.
|
On February 02 2022 15:13 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm amazed you guys have the will to continue this conversation, the same conversation, every time
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
B: What cost? They are statistically a good idea in every scenario
A: Vaccines don't entirely prevent infection
B: Vaccines are still a benefit in every situation
A: Vaccines aren't worth the cost
Its the exact same conversation every time.
You could liven the place up with some more anecdotes about your family. How's your dumbass cousin doing these days?
User was warned for this post
|
Norway28525 Posts
Just got my booster literally 30 seconds ago. Moderna again, wonder how this one will go!
|
On February 02 2022 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Just got my booster literally 30 seconds ago. Moderna again, wonder how this one will go!
Best of luck! Hopefully things run reasonably smoothly!
|
On February 02 2022 20:08 BlackJack wrote:
Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is an acceptable risk. I'm okay with a little pink in my burgers, some people like them well done. I think seat belts are fine as is, maybe you think everyone should wear a 5-point harness with a flame retardant suit and a crash helmet. I see 1 death per million and I know that 1 death is most likely from an immunocompromised child or a child with severe disabilities that is chronically ill and I think we should vaccinate specifically those children that are at risk. You see 1 death per million and you think that's fantastic, 1 > 0 so let's vaccinate every child across the board. I'm sure there's a lower threshhold for you somewhere, or maybe you're one of those people like Mohdoo that thinks if you could save a single life it would be good enough reason for compulsory vaccination of every child.
Btw, I don't really have a problem with people recommending the COVID vaccine for children, I have an issue when people in my state try to mandate it for school children, particularly when it offers shit protection against infection.
I think you and I can both agree that medium rare tastes far better than well done, even if you just outed yourself as anti-airbags and anti- crumple zones and anti- new car safety features, simply because a seatbelt already exists and apparently that's more than enough protection for you o.O Taking an hour each to get a few shots, and likely feeling crummy for a day or two each time, isn't nearly as big of a deal as your comparison to wearing a flame retardant suit and crash helmet when driving a car. Come on. That analogy is only accurate when comparing the fact that getting infected with coronavirus can absolutely feel like getting hit by a truck 
|
|
|
On February 02 2022 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Just got my booster literally 30 seconds ago. Moderna again, wonder how this one will go!
Based on my family, sample size of 4. None of us had significant side effects to speak of, but when omicron ran through our family:
Worst: Pfizer x3 (Lingering cough, sore throat, half day fever)
OK: Moderna x3 (Cough for a few days, minor sore throat)
Best: Moderna x2, Pfizer Booster (Minor cough for ~2 day)
Basically, in pre-pandemic times, the latter two would've probably been ignored as seasonal colds. All of us had the booster in the same month, and none of us dodged it though, so protection against infection is pretty poor inside a household.
|
On February 02 2022 16:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 13:33 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 09:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 05:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 05:07 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 02:43 Slydie wrote:On February 01 2022 07:09 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
There is a third reason for requiring vaccines: They cause less people to die and less people to take up hospital space for everyone else.
Do you think people aren't dieing because so much hospital space is being taken up by people who are too selfish to get something that is free, safe, and convenient to get?
Please tell be a legitimate reason why people don't want to get specifically the covid vaccine and not the list of other vaccines you were mandated to get for the public good as a child? Come on, man. COVID is a rapidly changing respiratory virus which is not approved for small children, and the effect of vaccinating children for such diseases is highly debatable. Flu shots are not mandatory for kids either. The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%. There are some very good reasons why flu shots are typically reserved for the vulnerable and some HC-workers, COVID shots will just be added to the list, and they can likely even be give the same time. Our immune systems take care of the rest, and we can live with getting knocked out once every 5-10 years. The covid vaccine can be given to all school-age children though (5 years old, and older), who come in contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals every day, which is far more important than babies/toddlers who have a much more limited number of interactions. Also, I've never heard of flu shots being reserved for only the vulnerable; that's certainly not true in the United States, where you can walk into just about any pharmacy and get a free flu shot without any sort of check-up or health diagnostic, because we basically have infinitely many doses. Finally, what do you mean by "effectiveness" when you say "The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%." What are these percentages in reference to? Preventing infection? Transmission? Death? Hospitalizations? You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people? Have you missed the news that the vaccines are not very good at preventing you from contracting and spreading COVID? 2 doses of pfizer provide 10% protection against infection after 20 weeks. 3 doses of pfizer provides 45% protection against infection after only 10 weeks. So if you're concerned about children spreading COVID with those they come into contact you should be really concerned that the vaccines only offer decent protection for a couple months before they quickly wane to almost no protection. Israel says even a 4th shot is likely not enough against Omicron. So allow me to update your argument in light of this new information: What we need is MORE BOOSTERS FOR KIDS. Obviously we need to be updating their protection every 3~ months to protect the hundreds of people they come into contact with. The logistics can be solved quite easily - just cross-train teachers to give out booster shots every 3 months. Every time the students get a report card they can get a shot in the arm to go along with it. How is that any different from an MMR vaccine? It's really weird to read "You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people?" and then right after that, read that you fully concede that there are infection-related benefits to getting vaccinated, but okay I was going to completely ignore your last paragraph, as it came off as ridiculous trolling and/or slippery sloping into absurdity, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe that this is what I think, I'll respond to it: Although things may change, it seems to be the case that newer variants end up being less deadly. If newer strains continue to be less harmful as covid-19 becomes endemic, then it'll be less impactful to become infected with covid-19. Obviously, it'll be helpful to learn about the effects of long-covid, but as more effective treatments (both proactively and reactively) are researched and developed, we'll likely be able to deal with the virus a lot better, perhaps eventually relegating it to "the scientific and medical communities still recommend that you get your annual flu shot and your annual covid-19 shot, because you'd probably get a little sick if you get infected, and you could spread those viruses to others, but the daily updates of death tolls are long gone". In other words, I'm pretty optimistic that our experts will continue to help us get through this and that covid-19 will become less threatening, not more threatening. I don't see us needing to get vaccinated every 3 months in the future, but also that's irrelevant to the fact that children should already be vaccinated in the present. What other way is there to interpret your argument? If a 2-dose series only offers 10% efficacy after 20 weeks then vaccinating school aged children in the summer before school starts means that by winter they have almost no protection from contracting and spreading COVID. If that were my argument I would certainly be advocating for frequent boosters. If I wanted to stop/slow transmission in the Fall then I would want to stop/slow transmission in the Winter as well, no? I surmise from your 2nd paragraph that your viewpoint is that you generally trust the recommendations of "our experts" to see us through this pandemic and they are currently recommending for children to be vaccinated and you agree. So I'm curious if you and I were born in Sweden where their experts are not recommending for children to be vaccinated would you still trust "our experts." Is your view on childhood COVID vaccination predicated on where you happened to be birthed? It seems weird to me that you have an issue with having additional protection, when the alternative is no protection. Even if it's only 10% protection, that's literally 10% more than not being vaccinated. That's two or three extra students in every single one of my classes, each of which could bring their infection home and infect their older family members. By the way, I read your source, and you conveniently quote mined a lot of information. Here are some other numbers, from your own source, that you left out: "A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data." "The U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot. [you lowballed at 40%]" "Israel found that fourth doses increase protective antibodies fivefold." Even if the 75% effectiveness or 5x protective antibodies dwindles over a few months, that's still additional protection! These aren't nominal precautions, whether we're talking about lowering infection rate, or hospitalization rate, or death rate. We know that countless lives have been saved as a result. I haven't been following Sweden's handling of coronavirus, and I don't know much about Sweden, so I can't comment on what they're doing or why they're doing it. I didn't lowball 40%. I said 45% which is right in the middle of 40-50%. We'll have to agree to disagree. For me 10% is "slightly better than nothing" which is not a good reason to advocate for across the board mass vaccination of children. Except it's 75%, not 10%. It eventually decreases over several months, but you don't start with only 10% infection protection. And this doesn't even take into account the other benefits, such as the 88% decrease in hospitalization. Even if you ignored the significantly reduced infection rates for several months and didn't think the vaccine helped prevent infection at all, you'd still need to dismiss the massive protection against hospitalization and death. There are just so many benefits to being vaccinated and so few downsides, and your source provides great arguments for vaccines, not against them. Good protection from infection for a couple months is great if COVID was only going to be around for a couple months and not forever. Also that 75% is for a booster dose. The 10% was for double vax. So it's an apples to oranges comparison. Do you want all kids to be triple vaxxed now? It's odd you would accuse me of cherry picking when you are the one that wants to primarily look at the 2 months after vaccination to boast about their efficacy and then ignore the eternity of months after that when the efficacy nosedives. Anyway, here is the FDA models for the risks/benefits of vaccinating 5-11 year olds per 1 million children https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 So per 1 million vaccinated children they expect to prevent 192 COVID hospitalizations and 62 COVID ICU hospitalizations and they expect to cause 58 excess myocarditis hospitalizations and 34 excess myocarditis ICU hospitalizations. With 1 death prevented. For males the numbers are even more narrow, for example they expect to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 myocarditis ICU admissions. These models are from Oct 2021 before Omicron existed and they assumed a vaccine efficacy of 70% which would be a very generous estimation in the framework of 10-75% we were just discussing.
Why do you pring up models? They are completely useless, as so much of the data they put in is so uncertain they really should not be used to make any decisions.
They can be wrong in the positive direction too, I don't think many expected that Omnicron would spread so easily among vaccinated and perviously infected people.
|
On February 03 2022 07:24 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 16:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 13:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 13:33 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 09:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 07:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 05:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 05:07 BlackJack wrote:On February 02 2022 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2022 02:43 Slydie wrote:
[quote]
Come on, man. COVID is a rapidly changing respiratory virus which is not approved for small children, and the effect of vaccinating children for such diseases is highly debatable. Flu shots are not mandatory for kids either.
The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%. There are some very good reasons why flu shots are typically reserved for the vulnerable and some HC-workers, COVID shots will just be added to the list, and they can likely even be give the same time. Our immune systems take care of the rest, and we can live with getting knocked out once every 5-10 years.
The covid vaccine can be given to all school-age children though (5 years old, and older), who come in contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals every day, which is far more important than babies/toddlers who have a much more limited number of interactions. Also, I've never heard of flu shots being reserved for only the vulnerable; that's certainly not true in the United States, where you can walk into just about any pharmacy and get a free flu shot without any sort of check-up or health diagnostic, because we basically have infinitely many doses. Finally, what do you mean by "effectiveness" when you say "The vaccine effectiveness against COVID infection already dropped from 94% to ~30%." What are these percentages in reference to? Preventing infection? Transmission? Death? Hospitalizations? You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people? Have you missed the news that the vaccines are not very good at preventing you from contracting and spreading COVID? 2 doses of pfizer provide 10% protection against infection after 20 weeks. 3 doses of pfizer provides 45% protection against infection after only 10 weeks. So if you're concerned about children spreading COVID with those they come into contact you should be really concerned that the vaccines only offer decent protection for a couple months before they quickly wane to almost no protection. Israel says even a 4th shot is likely not enough against Omicron. So allow me to update your argument in light of this new information: What we need is MORE BOOSTERS FOR KIDS. Obviously we need to be updating their protection every 3~ months to protect the hundreds of people they come into contact with. The logistics can be solved quite easily - just cross-train teachers to give out booster shots every 3 months. Every time the students get a report card they can get a shot in the arm to go along with it. How is that any different from an MMR vaccine? It's really weird to read "You're STILL using the argument that we have to vaccinate children because they come into contact with other people?" and then right after that, read that you fully concede that there are infection-related benefits to getting vaccinated, but okay I was going to completely ignore your last paragraph, as it came off as ridiculous trolling and/or slippery sloping into absurdity, but giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe that this is what I think, I'll respond to it: Although things may change, it seems to be the case that newer variants end up being less deadly. If newer strains continue to be less harmful as covid-19 becomes endemic, then it'll be less impactful to become infected with covid-19. Obviously, it'll be helpful to learn about the effects of long-covid, but as more effective treatments (both proactively and reactively) are researched and developed, we'll likely be able to deal with the virus a lot better, perhaps eventually relegating it to "the scientific and medical communities still recommend that you get your annual flu shot and your annual covid-19 shot, because you'd probably get a little sick if you get infected, and you could spread those viruses to others, but the daily updates of death tolls are long gone". In other words, I'm pretty optimistic that our experts will continue to help us get through this and that covid-19 will become less threatening, not more threatening. I don't see us needing to get vaccinated every 3 months in the future, but also that's irrelevant to the fact that children should already be vaccinated in the present. What other way is there to interpret your argument? If a 2-dose series only offers 10% efficacy after 20 weeks then vaccinating school aged children in the summer before school starts means that by winter they have almost no protection from contracting and spreading COVID. If that were my argument I would certainly be advocating for frequent boosters. If I wanted to stop/slow transmission in the Fall then I would want to stop/slow transmission in the Winter as well, no? I surmise from your 2nd paragraph that your viewpoint is that you generally trust the recommendations of "our experts" to see us through this pandemic and they are currently recommending for children to be vaccinated and you agree. So I'm curious if you and I were born in Sweden where their experts are not recommending for children to be vaccinated would you still trust "our experts." Is your view on childhood COVID vaccination predicated on where you happened to be birthed? It seems weird to me that you have an issue with having additional protection, when the alternative is no protection. Even if it's only 10% protection, that's literally 10% more than not being vaccinated. That's two or three extra students in every single one of my classes, each of which could bring their infection home and infect their older family members. By the way, I read your source, and you conveniently quote mined a lot of information. Here are some other numbers, from your own source, that you left out: "A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data." "The U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot. [you lowballed at 40%]" "Israel found that fourth doses increase protective antibodies fivefold." Even if the 75% effectiveness or 5x protective antibodies dwindles over a few months, that's still additional protection! These aren't nominal precautions, whether we're talking about lowering infection rate, or hospitalization rate, or death rate. We know that countless lives have been saved as a result. I haven't been following Sweden's handling of coronavirus, and I don't know much about Sweden, so I can't comment on what they're doing or why they're doing it. I didn't lowball 40%. I said 45% which is right in the middle of 40-50%. We'll have to agree to disagree. For me 10% is "slightly better than nothing" which is not a good reason to advocate for across the board mass vaccination of children. Except it's 75%, not 10%. It eventually decreases over several months, but you don't start with only 10% infection protection. And this doesn't even take into account the other benefits, such as the 88% decrease in hospitalization. Even if you ignored the significantly reduced infection rates for several months and didn't think the vaccine helped prevent infection at all, you'd still need to dismiss the massive protection against hospitalization and death. There are just so many benefits to being vaccinated and so few downsides, and your source provides great arguments for vaccines, not against them. Good protection from infection for a couple months is great if COVID was only going to be around for a couple months and not forever. Also that 75% is for a booster dose. The 10% was for double vax. So it's an apples to oranges comparison. Do you want all kids to be triple vaxxed now? It's odd you would accuse me of cherry picking when you are the one that wants to primarily look at the 2 months after vaccination to boast about their efficacy and then ignore the eternity of months after that when the efficacy nosedives. Anyway, here is the FDA models for the risks/benefits of vaccinating 5-11 year olds per 1 million children https://www.fda.gov/media/153447/download Page 34 So per 1 million vaccinated children they expect to prevent 192 COVID hospitalizations and 62 COVID ICU hospitalizations and they expect to cause 58 excess myocarditis hospitalizations and 34 excess myocarditis ICU hospitalizations. With 1 death prevented. For males the numbers are even more narrow, for example they expect to prevent 67 COVID ICU admissions but cause 57 myocarditis ICU admissions. These models are from Oct 2021 before Omicron existed and they assumed a vaccine efficacy of 70% which would be a very generous estimation in the framework of 10-75% we were just discussing. Why do you pring up models? They are completely useless, as so much of the data they put in is so uncertain they really should not be used to make any decisions. They can be wrong in the positive direction too, I don't think many expected that Omnicron would spread so easily among vaccinated and perviously infected people.
Do you have a better alternative than modeling for determining future risk-benefit of decisions? I suspect they use modeling because they don't yet have access to crystal balls or time machines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
