|
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 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself.
Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted.
The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent?
|
On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent?
I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all.
|
On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent?
You know what, that's exactly the plan. How'd you find out?
Compulsory vaccination every 6 months or compulsory mask wearing by non vaccd people. Safe the CO2 of ship transport to MI.
I do think that everyone who wants or has to protect themselves is going to wear masks during the endemic stage of covid. Endemic also doesn't mean harmless.
Thinking that endemicity is both mild and inevitable is more than wrong, it is dangerous: it sets humanity up for many more years of disease, including unpredictable waves of outbreaks. It is more productive to consider how bad things could get if we keep giving the virus opportunities to outwit us. Then we might do more to ensure that this does not happen.
Source
What you don't seem to value is that covid is gonna stick around. Currently, as a dangerous virus. Thanks to omicron, we're currently having a dominant strain that is the least deadly - for whatever reason. But that can change. And the best we can do is to minimize infections worldwide. Which is why we want people to get vaccd.
Although I'm soo close to trading my body my choice for everyone against the compulsory vaccination for everybody, as with women's bodys, it's not my choice.
|
On February 24 2022 05:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent? I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all.
This is incorrect. In the US, which is the country you are referring to, being "fully vaccinated" is still considered to be 2-doses of mRNA or 1-dose of J&J. It is not generally understood that "being vaccinated" also means receiving the booster, i.e. being "up-to-date on their vaccinations."
It's especially the case when it comes to adolescents. You think healthy children should receive booster shots across the board. That's not the position of the UK, or Ireland, or Finland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway. It's not the position of the WHO whose chief scientist said there's no evidence healthy children and adolescents need COVID boosters.
So I think we should clarify that it's not a general consensus that healthy children and adolescents should be boosted. That's just the recommendation in the country that you happen to be from. Unfortunately, it's probably also the country among those that I listed that's the most likely to have money and politics influence public health policy. Which is probably why the CDC director had to overrule her advisory panel on the issue of boosters or why two senior members on the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest on the issue of boosters.
|
|
|
On February 24 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 05:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent? I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all. This is incorrect. In the US, which is the country you are referring to, being "fully vaccinated" is still considered to be 2-doses of mRNA or 1-dose of J&J. It is not generally understood that "being vaccinated" also means receiving the booster, i.e. being "up-to-date on their vaccinations." It's especially the case when it comes to adolescents. You think healthy children should receive booster shots across the board. That's not the position of the UK, or Ireland, or Finland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway. It's not the position of the WHO whose chief scientist said there's no evidence healthy children and adolescents need COVID boosters.So I think we should clarify that it's not a general consensus that healthy children and adolescents should be boosted. That's just the recommendation in the country that you happen to be from. Unfortunately, it's probably also the country among those that I listed that's the most likely to have money and politics influence public health policy. Which is probably why the CDC director had to overrule her advisory panel on the issue of boosters or why two senior members on the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest on the issue of boosters.
I didn't write "fully vaccinated". YOU wrote "fully vaccinated", just now. And I have no problem with the medical communities or various countries recognizing that phrase as excluding a booster. I was never talking about different countries or official definitions; I was talking about how I understood the way other people in this thread were using certain phrasing, which could be a misinterpretation on my part, and that's why I decided to simply clarify that when *I* use that language, I'm also interested in finding out if people are boostered too. And that should have been a point of agreement between the two of us, given that you're the one who brought up the importance of making that distinction, when your response to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was to point out differences between vaccinated+booster and vaccinated-without-booster and shift the conversation away from the fact that both of those vaccinated positions are still better than being unvaccinated.
If you want to assert that there are significant medical benefits to being additionally boostered for many people, that's fine. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this.
If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this.
Even when I agree with you, you're overly confrontational. I swear, I could just plagiarize your exact posts and you'd still find a way to disagree with "me", by ignoring the general public (mostly adults) and focusing on special cases like "healthy children and adolescents". I don't know why you're obsessed with moving goalposts and trying to score semantics wins, but I honestly can't remember the last time someone was so hell-bent on trying to respond to everything I wrote in the least charitable way possible, instead of having a normal conversation.
|
On February 23 2022 11:36 JimmiC wrote:
Your logic is like fineing people for following the speed limit.
The governments reason for wanting people to uave one is largly a cost savings one.
If this is your logic than I know get how you think vaccination is bad! 🤣
Your logic is like driving twenty under the limits and expecting priority and free repairs...
Also as you were unable to provide any quotes, it seems like you do making stuff up?
Amusingly having my logic questioned by someone who suggest "news" to counter ignorance on controversial medical subject pretty much convinced me that my logic is flawless 
On February 22 2022 22:57 JimmiC wrote:
Stop being willfully ignorant. And read some actual news instead of whatever garbage you are taking to in feed your ignorance through confirmation bias.
On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself.
To be honest " These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves" seems to suggest just that though.
As for who is more likely to spread the virus...
We know one thing for sure - vaccine doesnt prevent you from getting infection or spreading the virus. There are some additional variables also:
On January 30 2022 12:21 JimmiC wrote:
Vaccinated people are allowed to go to returaunts, theaters, arenas, malls so on, unvaccinated are not.
That pretty much sums up who is more likely to spread the virus.
As for unvaxxed vs vaxed and spreading the omicron BA.2:
This is the study mentioned in news article:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.28.22270044v1.full-text
"The vaccination status of all individuals was classified into three groups following Lyngse et al. (2021b): i) unvaccinated (including partially vaccinated individuals); ii) fully vaccinated (defined by the vaccine used, Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech): 7 days after second dose; Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca): 15 days after second dose; Spikevax (Moderna): 14 days after second dose; Janssen (Johnson & Johnson): 14 days after vaccination, and 14 days after the second dose for cross vaccinated individuals) or 14 days after previous infection; or iii) booster-vaccinated, defined by 7 days after the booster vaccination, (Pfizer, 2021; Bomze et al., 2021). By 22 December 2021, of all vaccinated individuals in Denmark, 85% were vaccinated with Comirnaty, 14% with Spikevax, 1% with Janssen, and approximately 0% with AstraZeneca (SSI, 2021)."
I am fully vaxxed now. Feels great. I did my part, I am responsible. I will now find crowd of fully vaxxed and blend in. I have little cough, who cares...
|
On February 24 2022 10:51 Razyda wrote:
As for who is more likely to spread the virus...
We know one thing for sure - vaccine doesnt prevent you from getting infection or spreading the virus.
Being vaccinated absolutely makes it less likely to become infected and spread the virus. And lowers the chance of hospitalization. And death. These aren't up for debate. We're also way past the false dichotomy of "if the vaccine doesn't perfectly make you immune 100% or stop infection 100% or guarantee something else 100%, then it's not worth taking".
|
|
|
On February 24 2022 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 05:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent? I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all. This is incorrect. In the US, which is the country you are referring to, being "fully vaccinated" is still considered to be 2-doses of mRNA or 1-dose of J&J. It is not generally understood that "being vaccinated" also means receiving the booster, i.e. being "up-to-date on their vaccinations." It's especially the case when it comes to adolescents. You think healthy children should receive booster shots across the board. That's not the position of the UK, or Ireland, or Finland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway. It's not the position of the WHO whose chief scientist said there's no evidence healthy children and adolescents need COVID boosters.So I think we should clarify that it's not a general consensus that healthy children and adolescents should be boosted. That's just the recommendation in the country that you happen to be from. Unfortunately, it's probably also the country among those that I listed that's the most likely to have money and politics influence public health policy. Which is probably why the CDC director had to overrule her advisory panel on the issue of boosters or why two senior members on the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest on the issue of boosters. I didn't write "fully vaccinated". YOU wrote "fully vaccinated", just now. And I have no problem with the medical communities or various countries recognizing that phrase as excluding a booster. I was never talking about different countries or official definitions; I was talking about how I understood the way other people in this thread were using certain phrasing, which could be a misinterpretation on my part, and that's why I decided to simply clarify that when *I* use that language, I'm also interested in finding out if people are boostered too. And that should have been a point of agreement between the two of us, given that you're the one who brought up the importance of making that distinction, when your response to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was to point out differences between vaccinated+booster and vaccinated-without-booster and shift the conversation away from the fact that both of those vaccinated positions are still better than being unvaccinated. If you want to assert that there are significant medical benefits to being additionally boostered for many people, that's fine. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. Even when I agree with you, you're overly confrontational. I swear, I could just plagiarize your exact posts and you'd still find a way to disagree with "me", by ignoring the general public (mostly adults) and focusing on special cases like "healthy children and adolescents". I don't know why you're obsessed with moving goalposts and trying to score semantics wins, but I honestly can't remember the last time someone was so hell-bent on trying to respond to everything I wrote in the least charitable way possible, instead of having a normal conversation.
I don't think you really understand my point at all. I'm criticizing your inconsistency in feeling that for certain groups being double vaccinated is "good enough" when that "good enough" is barely less likely to spread COVID than someone without any vaccine at all.
0% protection from infection for unvaccinated
10% protection from infection for double vaccinated
45% protection from infection for triple vaccinated
So in the speed limit analogy
The triple vaccinated are driving the speed limit at 65 mph
The double vaccinated are driving 95 mph
The unvaccinated are driving 105 mph
My issue is when someone talks about how reckless and dangerous the people driving 105mph are but says "that's fine" to some of the people driving 95mph. Why exactly would you agree that 10% protection is "fine" for certain groups when there is literally nothing stopping them from getting 45% protection? Do you think it's odd that your threshold for what's an adequate level of protection seems to be just whatever level of protection you get from anything other than being unvaccinated?
|
On February 24 2022 19:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 05:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent? I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all. This is incorrect. In the US, which is the country you are referring to, being "fully vaccinated" is still considered to be 2-doses of mRNA or 1-dose of J&J. It is not generally understood that "being vaccinated" also means receiving the booster, i.e. being "up-to-date on their vaccinations." It's especially the case when it comes to adolescents. You think healthy children should receive booster shots across the board. That's not the position of the UK, or Ireland, or Finland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway. It's not the position of the WHO whose chief scientist said there's no evidence healthy children and adolescents need COVID boosters.So I think we should clarify that it's not a general consensus that healthy children and adolescents should be boosted. That's just the recommendation in the country that you happen to be from. Unfortunately, it's probably also the country among those that I listed that's the most likely to have money and politics influence public health policy. Which is probably why the CDC director had to overrule her advisory panel on the issue of boosters or why two senior members on the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest on the issue of boosters. I didn't write "fully vaccinated". YOU wrote "fully vaccinated", just now. And I have no problem with the medical communities or various countries recognizing that phrase as excluding a booster. I was never talking about different countries or official definitions; I was talking about how I understood the way other people in this thread were using certain phrasing, which could be a misinterpretation on my part, and that's why I decided to simply clarify that when *I* use that language, I'm also interested in finding out if people are boostered too. And that should have been a point of agreement between the two of us, given that you're the one who brought up the importance of making that distinction, when your response to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was to point out differences between vaccinated+booster and vaccinated-without-booster and shift the conversation away from the fact that both of those vaccinated positions are still better than being unvaccinated. If you want to assert that there are significant medical benefits to being additionally boostered for many people, that's fine. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. Even when I agree with you, you're overly confrontational. I swear, I could just plagiarize your exact posts and you'd still find a way to disagree with "me", by ignoring the general public (mostly adults) and focusing on special cases like "healthy children and adolescents". I don't know why you're obsessed with moving goalposts and trying to score semantics wins, but I honestly can't remember the last time someone was so hell-bent on trying to respond to everything I wrote in the least charitable way possible, instead of having a normal conversation. I don't think you really understand my point at all. I'm criticizing your inconsistency in feeling that for certain groups being double vaccinated is "good enough" when that "good enough" is barely less likely to spread COVID than someone without any vaccine at all. 0% protection from infection for unvaccinated 10% protection from infection for double vaccinated 45% protection from infection for triple vaccinated So in the speed limit analogy The triple vaccinated are driving the speed limit at 65 mph The double vaccinated are driving 95 mph The unvaccinated are driving 105 mph My issue is when someone talks about how reckless and dangerous the people driving 105mph are but says "that's fine" to some of the people driving 95mph. Why exactly would you agree that 10% protection is "fine" for certain groups when there is literally nothing stopping them from getting 45% protection? Do you think it's odd that your threshold for what's an adequate level of protection seems to be just whatever level of protection you get from anything other than being unvaccinated?
Me, two posts ago: "I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore". And yes, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of people who are recommended to be taking the booster by medical communities, so as per your sources, that appears to be mostly the adults (I don't want to get derailed further by what-about-this-exception).
I don't know why you think that I think it's "fine" or "good enough" to not be boostered, if we're talking about demographics where it's recommended to be boostered (I believe that "fine" and "good enough" are your words/quotes, not mine). I think I've been consistently siding with what the experts have been concluding.
|
On February 24 2022 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 19:46 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 05:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:
[quote]
if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work.
But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent? I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all. This is incorrect. In the US, which is the country you are referring to, being "fully vaccinated" is still considered to be 2-doses of mRNA or 1-dose of J&J. It is not generally understood that "being vaccinated" also means receiving the booster, i.e. being "up-to-date on their vaccinations." It's especially the case when it comes to adolescents. You think healthy children should receive booster shots across the board. That's not the position of the UK, or Ireland, or Finland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway. It's not the position of the WHO whose chief scientist said there's no evidence healthy children and adolescents need COVID boosters.So I think we should clarify that it's not a general consensus that healthy children and adolescents should be boosted. That's just the recommendation in the country that you happen to be from. Unfortunately, it's probably also the country among those that I listed that's the most likely to have money and politics influence public health policy. Which is probably why the CDC director had to overrule her advisory panel on the issue of boosters or why two senior members on the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest on the issue of boosters. I didn't write "fully vaccinated". YOU wrote "fully vaccinated", just now. And I have no problem with the medical communities or various countries recognizing that phrase as excluding a booster. I was never talking about different countries or official definitions; I was talking about how I understood the way other people in this thread were using certain phrasing, which could be a misinterpretation on my part, and that's why I decided to simply clarify that when *I* use that language, I'm also interested in finding out if people are boostered too. And that should have been a point of agreement between the two of us, given that you're the one who brought up the importance of making that distinction, when your response to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was to point out differences between vaccinated+booster and vaccinated-without-booster and shift the conversation away from the fact that both of those vaccinated positions are still better than being unvaccinated. If you want to assert that there are significant medical benefits to being additionally boostered for many people, that's fine. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. Even when I agree with you, you're overly confrontational. I swear, I could just plagiarize your exact posts and you'd still find a way to disagree with "me", by ignoring the general public (mostly adults) and focusing on special cases like "healthy children and adolescents". I don't know why you're obsessed with moving goalposts and trying to score semantics wins, but I honestly can't remember the last time someone was so hell-bent on trying to respond to everything I wrote in the least charitable way possible, instead of having a normal conversation. I don't think you really understand my point at all. I'm criticizing your inconsistency in feeling that for certain groups being double vaccinated is "good enough" when that "good enough" is barely less likely to spread COVID than someone without any vaccine at all. 0% protection from infection for unvaccinated 10% protection from infection for double vaccinated 45% protection from infection for triple vaccinated So in the speed limit analogy The triple vaccinated are driving the speed limit at 65 mph The double vaccinated are driving 95 mph The unvaccinated are driving 105 mph My issue is when someone talks about how reckless and dangerous the people driving 105mph are but says "that's fine" to some of the people driving 95mph. Why exactly would you agree that 10% protection is "fine" for certain groups when there is literally nothing stopping them from getting 45% protection? Do you think it's odd that your threshold for what's an adequate level of protection seems to be just whatever level of protection you get from anything other than being unvaccinated? Me, two posts ago: "I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore". And yes, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of people who are recommended to be taking the booster by medical communities, so as per your sources, that appears to be mostly the adults (I don't want to get derailed further by what-about-this-exception). I don't know why you think that I think it's "fine" or "good enough" to not be boostered, if we're talking about demographics where it's recommended to be boostered (I believe that "fine" and "good enough" are your words/quotes, not mine). I think I've been consistently siding with what the experts have been concluding.
"If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this."
Your words, not mine. These anti-boosters are literally killing people and you have a very lackadaisical attitude about it. It's not just about whether these young people will fight off COVID just fine without a booster, it's about whether they will spread it to their grandparents and kill them!
Yes, I'm being facetious here but this is what you sound like to me when you talk about the unvaccinated.
I also just want to point out that in the US the CDC recommends healthy children and adolescents aged 12+ receive the Booster. The WHO says there is no evidence this group needs a booster. You seem to be simultaneously saying that you agree with the international medical communities that being vaccinated is good enough without a booster but also saying that you think people should take the booster where it's recommended. You're contradicting yourself here.
|
On February 25 2022 06:11 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 19:46 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 05:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent? I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all. This is incorrect. In the US, which is the country you are referring to, being "fully vaccinated" is still considered to be 2-doses of mRNA or 1-dose of J&J. It is not generally understood that "being vaccinated" also means receiving the booster, i.e. being "up-to-date on their vaccinations." It's especially the case when it comes to adolescents. You think healthy children should receive booster shots across the board. That's not the position of the UK, or Ireland, or Finland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway. It's not the position of the WHO whose chief scientist said there's no evidence healthy children and adolescents need COVID boosters.So I think we should clarify that it's not a general consensus that healthy children and adolescents should be boosted. That's just the recommendation in the country that you happen to be from. Unfortunately, it's probably also the country among those that I listed that's the most likely to have money and politics influence public health policy. Which is probably why the CDC director had to overrule her advisory panel on the issue of boosters or why two senior members on the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest on the issue of boosters. I didn't write "fully vaccinated". YOU wrote "fully vaccinated", just now. And I have no problem with the medical communities or various countries recognizing that phrase as excluding a booster. I was never talking about different countries or official definitions; I was talking about how I understood the way other people in this thread were using certain phrasing, which could be a misinterpretation on my part, and that's why I decided to simply clarify that when *I* use that language, I'm also interested in finding out if people are boostered too. And that should have been a point of agreement between the two of us, given that you're the one who brought up the importance of making that distinction, when your response to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was to point out differences between vaccinated+booster and vaccinated-without-booster and shift the conversation away from the fact that both of those vaccinated positions are still better than being unvaccinated. If you want to assert that there are significant medical benefits to being additionally boostered for many people, that's fine. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. Even when I agree with you, you're overly confrontational. I swear, I could just plagiarize your exact posts and you'd still find a way to disagree with "me", by ignoring the general public (mostly adults) and focusing on special cases like "healthy children and adolescents". I don't know why you're obsessed with moving goalposts and trying to score semantics wins, but I honestly can't remember the last time someone was so hell-bent on trying to respond to everything I wrote in the least charitable way possible, instead of having a normal conversation. I don't think you really understand my point at all. I'm criticizing your inconsistency in feeling that for certain groups being double vaccinated is "good enough" when that "good enough" is barely less likely to spread COVID than someone without any vaccine at all. 0% protection from infection for unvaccinated 10% protection from infection for double vaccinated 45% protection from infection for triple vaccinated So in the speed limit analogy The triple vaccinated are driving the speed limit at 65 mph The double vaccinated are driving 95 mph The unvaccinated are driving 105 mph My issue is when someone talks about how reckless and dangerous the people driving 105mph are but says "that's fine" to some of the people driving 95mph. Why exactly would you agree that 10% protection is "fine" for certain groups when there is literally nothing stopping them from getting 45% protection? Do you think it's odd that your threshold for what's an adequate level of protection seems to be just whatever level of protection you get from anything other than being unvaccinated? Me, two posts ago: "I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore". And yes, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of people who are recommended to be taking the booster by medical communities, so as per your sources, that appears to be mostly the adults (I don't want to get derailed further by what-about-this-exception). I don't know why you think that I think it's "fine" or "good enough" to not be boostered, if we're talking about demographics where it's recommended to be boostered (I believe that "fine" and "good enough" are your words/quotes, not mine). I think I've been consistently siding with what the experts have been concluding. "If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this." Your words, not mine. These anti-boosters are literally killing people and you have a very lackadaisical attitude about it. It's not just about whether these young people will fight off COVID just fine without a booster, it's about whether they will spread it to their grandparents and kill them!
You misunderstood what I agreed to. I agreed to your hypothetical assertion, that medical communities generally think blahblahblah. I agree with you that that's the statement being made for some people. The "good enough" and "fine" aren't my words; they're the words of those medical communities in very specific contexts - words that your sources have said, which I assume you also acknowledge.
Yes, I'm being facetious here but this is what you sound like to me when you talk about the unvaccinated.
I also just want to point out that in the US the CDC recommends healthy children and adolescents aged 12+ receive the Booster. The WHO says there is no evidence this group needs a booster. You seem to be simultaneously saying that you agree with the international medical communities that being vaccinated is good enough without a booster but also saying that you think people should take the booster where it's recommended. You're contradicting yourself here.
I've made the distinction several times between children vs. the majority of people (adults), even as you waffle back and forth between focusing on the general population in one breath and then bait-and-switch to some subset of children in the next. As far as why the CDC and the WHO may not see eye to eye on boostering kids, your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that the CDC is working through the lens of a country that has unlimited boosters and doesn't need to prioritize only boostering the most at-risk patients, while the WHO is considering countries that aren't as fortunate as the United States. After all, you've already cited sources that show benefits to being boostered, so I can only imagine that it's related to rationing those shots as wisely as possible, when there are too few of them. Given the evidence that boosters improve immunity and lessens symptoms, why do you think certain organizations might be at odds?
|
<3<3 DPB for your tenacity and dedication
|
On February 25 2022 07:05 Artisreal wrote:
<3<3 DPB for your tenacity and dedication
I think these are important conversations to have
|
On February 25 2022 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 06:11 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 19:46 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 05:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent? I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all. This is incorrect. In the US, which is the country you are referring to, being "fully vaccinated" is still considered to be 2-doses of mRNA or 1-dose of J&J. It is not generally understood that "being vaccinated" also means receiving the booster, i.e. being "up-to-date on their vaccinations." It's especially the case when it comes to adolescents. You think healthy children should receive booster shots across the board. That's not the position of the UK, or Ireland, or Finland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway. It's not the position of the WHO whose chief scientist said there's no evidence healthy children and adolescents need COVID boosters.So I think we should clarify that it's not a general consensus that healthy children and adolescents should be boosted. That's just the recommendation in the country that you happen to be from. Unfortunately, it's probably also the country among those that I listed that's the most likely to have money and politics influence public health policy. Which is probably why the CDC director had to overrule her advisory panel on the issue of boosters or why two senior members on the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest on the issue of boosters. I didn't write "fully vaccinated". YOU wrote "fully vaccinated", just now. And I have no problem with the medical communities or various countries recognizing that phrase as excluding a booster. I was never talking about different countries or official definitions; I was talking about how I understood the way other people in this thread were using certain phrasing, which could be a misinterpretation on my part, and that's why I decided to simply clarify that when *I* use that language, I'm also interested in finding out if people are boostered too. And that should have been a point of agreement between the two of us, given that you're the one who brought up the importance of making that distinction, when your response to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was to point out differences between vaccinated+booster and vaccinated-without-booster and shift the conversation away from the fact that both of those vaccinated positions are still better than being unvaccinated. If you want to assert that there are significant medical benefits to being additionally boostered for many people, that's fine. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. Even when I agree with you, you're overly confrontational. I swear, I could just plagiarize your exact posts and you'd still find a way to disagree with "me", by ignoring the general public (mostly adults) and focusing on special cases like "healthy children and adolescents". I don't know why you're obsessed with moving goalposts and trying to score semantics wins, but I honestly can't remember the last time someone was so hell-bent on trying to respond to everything I wrote in the least charitable way possible, instead of having a normal conversation. I don't think you really understand my point at all. I'm criticizing your inconsistency in feeling that for certain groups being double vaccinated is "good enough" when that "good enough" is barely less likely to spread COVID than someone without any vaccine at all. 0% protection from infection for unvaccinated 10% protection from infection for double vaccinated 45% protection from infection for triple vaccinated So in the speed limit analogy The triple vaccinated are driving the speed limit at 65 mph The double vaccinated are driving 95 mph The unvaccinated are driving 105 mph My issue is when someone talks about how reckless and dangerous the people driving 105mph are but says "that's fine" to some of the people driving 95mph. Why exactly would you agree that 10% protection is "fine" for certain groups when there is literally nothing stopping them from getting 45% protection? Do you think it's odd that your threshold for what's an adequate level of protection seems to be just whatever level of protection you get from anything other than being unvaccinated? Me, two posts ago: "I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore". And yes, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of people who are recommended to be taking the booster by medical communities, so as per your sources, that appears to be mostly the adults (I don't want to get derailed further by what-about-this-exception). I don't know why you think that I think it's "fine" or "good enough" to not be boostered, if we're talking about demographics where it's recommended to be boostered (I believe that "fine" and "good enough" are your words/quotes, not mine). I think I've been consistently siding with what the experts have been concluding. "If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this." Your words, not mine. These anti-boosters are literally killing people and you have a very lackadaisical attitude about it. It's not just about whether these young people will fight off COVID just fine without a booster, it's about whether they will spread it to their grandparents and kill them! You misunderstood what I agreed to. I agreed to your hypothetical assertion, that medical communities generally think blahblahblah. I agree with you that that's the statement being made for some people. The "good enough" and "fine" aren't my words; they're the words of those medical communities in very specific contexts - words that your sources have said, which I assume you also acknowledge. Show nested quote +Yes, I'm being facetious here but this is what you sound like to me when you talk about the unvaccinated.
I also just want to point out that in the US the CDC recommends healthy children and adolescents aged 12+ receive the Booster. The WHO says there is no evidence this group needs a booster. You seem to be simultaneously saying that you agree with the international medical communities that being vaccinated is good enough without a booster but also saying that you think people should take the booster where it's recommended. You're contradicting yourself here. I've made the distinction several times between children vs. the majority of people (adults), even as you waffle back and forth between focusing on the general population in one breath and then bait-and-switch to some subset of children in the next. As far as why the CDC and the WHO may not see eye to eye on boostering kids, your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that the CDC is working through the lens of a country that has unlimited boosters and doesn't need to prioritize only boostering the most at-risk patients, while the WHO is considering countries that aren't as fortunate as the United States. After all, you've already cited sources that show benefits to being boostered, so I can only imagine that it's related to rationing those shots as wisely as possible, when there are too few of them. Given the evidence that boosters improve immunity and lessens symptoms, why do you think certain organizations might be at odds?
" I agreed to your hypothetical assertion, that medical communities generally think blahblahblah."
What's hypothetical about it? I gave you a list of countries that are not recommending boosters for healthy children and adolescents. I gave you what the chief scientist of the WHO said. These aren't hypotheticals, this is what's happening. The problem with defaulting everything to "Trust the experts" is you have to confront the fact that different experts in different countries take different approaches. This is an internet forum, you're not a politician running for office. You can say what approach you think is right, what approach you think is wrong. You're giving these ride-the-fence half-answers that don't even say anything.
What's the point of telling me that you agree that certain medical communities have said certain things? I don't need you to agree to this, CNBC is reputable enough without your concurrence. We need to know whether you agree with what the medical communities are saying, not simply whether or not they are saying it.
|
|
|
On February 25 2022 08:25 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 06:11 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 20:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 19:46 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 07:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 24 2022 05:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 24 2022 05:40 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur?
My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. Right, and that source I provided showed that being double vaccinated after 20 weeks offered 10% protection against infection, whereas being boosted offered 40-50% against infection after 10 weeks. So the question is why do you and others care so much more about that 10% than that 40-50%? So instead of you and others dividing people between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, you should be dividing people between boosted and non-boosted. The gap between 0% and 10% is a lot smaller than the gap between 10% and 40-50%. So wouldn't you agree that if we have to send people to Mohdoo Island™ that all of the double-vaccinated booster-eligible people should join the unvaccinated on the island? Or do you prefer to be inconsistent? I'm not sending anyone to MI lol. And yes, of course I'd love people to be up-to-date on their vaccines, which as of right now, means receiving the booster. There hasn't really been a reason to semantically make the distinction, since we all seem to generally understand that "being vaccinated" is generally used to mean "being up-to-date on their vaccinations", but I have no problem further clarifying that I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore, although both of those options (vaccine+booster and vaccine-only) are still better than having no vaccination at all. This is incorrect. In the US, which is the country you are referring to, being "fully vaccinated" is still considered to be 2-doses of mRNA or 1-dose of J&J. It is not generally understood that "being vaccinated" also means receiving the booster, i.e. being "up-to-date on their vaccinations." It's especially the case when it comes to adolescents. You think healthy children should receive booster shots across the board. That's not the position of the UK, or Ireland, or Finland, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Norway. It's not the position of the WHO whose chief scientist said there's no evidence healthy children and adolescents need COVID boosters.So I think we should clarify that it's not a general consensus that healthy children and adolescents should be boosted. That's just the recommendation in the country that you happen to be from. Unfortunately, it's probably also the country among those that I listed that's the most likely to have money and politics influence public health policy. Which is probably why the CDC director had to overrule her advisory panel on the issue of boosters or why two senior members on the FDA advisory committee resigned in protest on the issue of boosters. I didn't write "fully vaccinated". YOU wrote "fully vaccinated", just now. And I have no problem with the medical communities or various countries recognizing that phrase as excluding a booster. I was never talking about different countries or official definitions; I was talking about how I understood the way other people in this thread were using certain phrasing, which could be a misinterpretation on my part, and that's why I decided to simply clarify that when *I* use that language, I'm also interested in finding out if people are boostered too. And that should have been a point of agreement between the two of us, given that you're the one who brought up the importance of making that distinction, when your response to vaccinated vs. unvaccinated was to point out differences between vaccinated+booster and vaccinated-without-booster and shift the conversation away from the fact that both of those vaccinated positions are still better than being unvaccinated. If you want to assert that there are significant medical benefits to being additionally boostered for many people, that's fine. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this. Even when I agree with you, you're overly confrontational. I swear, I could just plagiarize your exact posts and you'd still find a way to disagree with "me", by ignoring the general public (mostly adults) and focusing on special cases like "healthy children and adolescents". I don't know why you're obsessed with moving goalposts and trying to score semantics wins, but I honestly can't remember the last time someone was so hell-bent on trying to respond to everything I wrote in the least charitable way possible, instead of having a normal conversation. I don't think you really understand my point at all. I'm criticizing your inconsistency in feeling that for certain groups being double vaccinated is "good enough" when that "good enough" is barely less likely to spread COVID than someone without any vaccine at all. 0% protection from infection for unvaccinated 10% protection from infection for double vaccinated 45% protection from infection for triple vaccinated So in the speed limit analogy The triple vaccinated are driving the speed limit at 65 mph The double vaccinated are driving 95 mph The unvaccinated are driving 105 mph My issue is when someone talks about how reckless and dangerous the people driving 105mph are but says "that's fine" to some of the people driving 95mph. Why exactly would you agree that 10% protection is "fine" for certain groups when there is literally nothing stopping them from getting 45% protection? Do you think it's odd that your threshold for what's an adequate level of protection seems to be just whatever level of protection you get from anything other than being unvaccinated? Me, two posts ago: "I'd prefer people to be boostered than merely having an outdated vaccination that isn't as effective anymore". And yes, I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of people who are recommended to be taking the booster by medical communities, so as per your sources, that appears to be mostly the adults (I don't want to get derailed further by what-about-this-exception). I don't know why you think that I think it's "fine" or "good enough" to not be boostered, if we're talking about demographics where it's recommended to be boostered (I believe that "fine" and "good enough" are your words/quotes, not mine). I think I've been consistently siding with what the experts have been concluding. "If you want to assert that many medical communities around the world generally think that being vaccinated without the booster is good enough for certain groups of people, that's fine too. I agree with you and the sources you've presented that show exactly this." Your words, not mine. These anti-boosters are literally killing people and you have a very lackadaisical attitude about it. It's not just about whether these young people will fight off COVID just fine without a booster, it's about whether they will spread it to their grandparents and kill them! You misunderstood what I agreed to. I agreed to your hypothetical assertion, that medical communities generally think blahblahblah. I agree with you that that's the statement being made for some people. The "good enough" and "fine" aren't my words; they're the words of those medical communities in very specific contexts - words that your sources have said, which I assume you also acknowledge. Yes, I'm being facetious here but this is what you sound like to me when you talk about the unvaccinated.
I also just want to point out that in the US the CDC recommends healthy children and adolescents aged 12+ receive the Booster. The WHO says there is no evidence this group needs a booster. You seem to be simultaneously saying that you agree with the international medical communities that being vaccinated is good enough without a booster but also saying that you think people should take the booster where it's recommended. You're contradicting yourself here. I've made the distinction several times between children vs. the majority of people (adults), even as you waffle back and forth between focusing on the general population in one breath and then bait-and-switch to some subset of children in the next. As far as why the CDC and the WHO may not see eye to eye on boostering kids, your guess is as good as mine. My guess is that the CDC is working through the lens of a country that has unlimited boosters and doesn't need to prioritize only boostering the most at-risk patients, while the WHO is considering countries that aren't as fortunate as the United States. After all, you've already cited sources that show benefits to being boostered, so I can only imagine that it's related to rationing those shots as wisely as possible, when there are too few of them. Given the evidence that boosters improve immunity and lessens symptoms, why do you think certain organizations might be at odds? " I agreed to your hypothetical assertion, that medical communities generally think blahblahblah." What's hypothetical about it? I gave you a list of countries that are not recommending boosters for healthy children and adolescents. I gave you what the chief scientist of the WHO said. These aren't hypotheticals, this is what's happening. The problem with defaulting everything to "Trust the experts" is you have to confront the fact that different experts in different countries take different approaches. This is an internet forum, you're not a politician running for office. You can say what approach you think is right, what approach you think is wrong. You're giving these ride-the-fence half-answers that don't even say anything. What's the point of telling me that you agree that certain medical communities have said certain things? I don't need you to agree to this, CNBC is reputable enough without your concurrence. We need to know whether you agree with what the medical communities are saying, not simply whether or not they are saying it.
The reason why I said "your hypothetical assertion" and not "your assertion" is because I wasn't interested in arguing over whether or not you literally asserted that statement, and more interested in discussing the substance of such a statement (regardless of whether or not you actually said it). That obviously didn't happen, as you're apparently not interested in engaging with covid-related questions of mine.
The actual statement - the one put forth by various medical communities - is not what I'm calling hypothetical.
Maybe my posts have been unclear or maybe you're perpetuating this conversation in bad faith - or maybe both - but I feel like we have some serious semantics issues that we can't seem to get past, to get to any meaningful, substantive dialogue about coronavirus. For that reason, I don't think it's fruitful for me to continue this particular conversation with you.
|
On February 24 2022 12:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 10:51 Razyda wrote:On February 23 2022 11:36 JimmiC wrote:
Your logic is like fineing people for following the speed limit.
The governments reason for wanting people to uave one is largly a cost savings one.
If this is your logic than I know get how you think vaccination is bad! 🤣 Your logic is like driving twenty under the limits and expecting priority and free repairs... Also as you were unable to provide any quotes, it seems like you do making stuff up? Amusingly having my logic questioned by someone who suggest "news" to counter ignorance on controversial medical subject pretty much convinced me that my logic is flawless On February 22 2022 22:57 JimmiC wrote:
Stop being willfully ignorant. And read some actual news instead of whatever garbage you are taking to in feed your ignorance through confirmation bias.
On February 23 2022 20:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 12:26 BlackJack wrote:On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 23 2022 09:26 Artisreal wrote:On February 23 2022 09:21 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Why even bother arguing? Just let people be. If they want to be and die, just let it happen. As a physician I think it's fine if people want to choose their own destiny.
My main gripe is that people who don't want to believe in science should not dictate policy or how they are treated at hospitals. if we send everyone anti-vax to mohdoo island (TM) and let the virus rip, having them mind their own business might work. But we dont do that so careless people will spread the disease to those who accept the science but are vulnerable or simply unlucky. That's my main concern, too. These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves. So we're still going to pretend only the unvaccinated spread the virus? Why do I get the feeling that I could have said something as innocuous as "Hello again, everyone! I hope we're all doing well!" and you still would have replied with the same non sequitur? My comment was a response to Artisreal and Titusmaster6, acknowledging that when an anti-vaxxer makes the very common - and very incorrect - statement "My decision to stay unvaccinated doesn't affect anyone else, so don't worry about whether or not I'm vaccinated", it's problematic. No one is saying that vaccinated people can't also spread the virus, but if you're interested in that particular conversation - how likely it is for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people to spread the virus - I would recommend you reread the conversation the two of us already had on p.581. You had already conceded that being vaccinated reduces infection rates (and hospitalization rates and death rates), based on a source that you had provided. I'm not interested in reshashing that argument, but feel free to argue with yourself. To be honest " These anti-vaxxers aren't just killing themselves" seems to suggest just that though. As for who is more likely to spread the virus... We know one thing for sure - vaccine doesnt prevent you from getting infection or spreading the virus. There are some additional variables also: On January 30 2022 12:21 JimmiC wrote:
Vaccinated people are allowed to go to returaunts, theaters, arenas, malls so on, unvaccinated are not. That pretty much sums up who is more likely to spread the virus. As for unvaxxed vs vaxed and spreading the omicron BA.2: This is the study mentioned in news article: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.28.22270044v1.full-text"The vaccination status of all individuals was classified into three groups following Lyngse et al. (2021b): i) unvaccinated (including partially vaccinated individuals); ii) fully vaccinated (defined by the vaccine used, Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech): 7 days after second dose; Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca): 15 days after second dose; Spikevax (Moderna): 14 days after second dose; Janssen (Johnson & Johnson): 14 days after vaccination, and 14 days after the second dose for cross vaccinated individuals) or 14 days after previous infection; or iii) booster-vaccinated, defined by 7 days after the booster vaccination, (Pfizer, 2021; Bomze et al., 2021). By 22 December 2021, of all vaccinated individuals in Denmark, 85% were vaccinated with Comirnaty, 14% with Spikevax, 1% with Janssen, and approximately 0% with AstraZeneca (SSI, 2021)." I am fully vaxxed now. Feels great. I did my part, I am responsible. I will now find crowd of fully vaxxed and blend in. I have little cough, who cares... How many times do we have to post how effective vaccines are from the most severcases, and how much those cost. Show nested quote +
In April 2020, a Kaiser Family Foundation study projected that the cost of treating just COVID-19 cases for the uninsured would range from $13.9 billion to $41.8 billion. If even close to 30 percent of Americans get COVID-19 because they refused to get vaccinated, Amin told me, you’ll see a massive spike in health-care costs.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dont-want-the-covid-19-vaccine-then-pay-the-full-cost-if-you-land-in-the-hospital-11628206594This one says unvaxx cost extra 13.B between june and november. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/unvaccinated-covid-patients-cost-the-u-s-health-system-billions-of-dollars/It would only cost 50 B to vaccinate the whole world. Its not close on how vaccination is much cheaper. Just think about a shot being 25 bucks and a hospitalization 20k per night. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-01/vaccinations-key-for-recovery-would-only-cost-50-billion-oecdThe really funny part is you keep claiming you want course but then just ignore it and and keep repeating the same shit as if it has not been sourced before. Or mis read the source .
Usually I find blatant ignorance annoying, there is however something about you what makes it just amusing.
So to support your opinion you linked:
1 - Opinion
2 - specualtion with margin of error unheard of before, more so, based on some very dubious numbers. 85% of all covid patients unvaccinated for 6 months straight ?
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5
3 - article of someone who cant multiply:
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
lets be generous and say that 7 billion only is eligible for vax
bolded
7 billion x 3 shots x 25 bucks
how do you make 50 billion out of that??
Honest question, do you even read (let alone check) articles you link, or is it more on the bases "ooh flashy"?
On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 10:51 Razyda wrote:
As for who is more likely to spread the virus...
We know one thing for sure - vaccine doesnt prevent you from getting infection or spreading the virus. Being vaccinated absolutely makes it less likely to become infected and spread the virus. And lowers the chance of hospitalization. And death. These aren't up for debate. We're also way past the false dichotomy of "if the vaccine doesn't perfectly make you immune 100% or stop infection 100% or guarantee something else 100%, then it's not worth taking".
I believe you misread my post and only because of that quoted it in a way which is quite significantly changing context.
Reason why it were vaccinated spreading the virus more, was various governments policies which in general more or less confined unvaxxed to their homes, while letting vaxxed more or less freely roam through crowded places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
