|
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 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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.
I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase.
|
Northern Ireland27040 Posts
Why are some of these things still points of contention? Jaysus Hillary Christ…
While we haven’t dropped all our restrictions here, it seems London’s lead has permeated culturally and most are saying fuck it now. Which I’m cautiously OK with although I’m still masking in work, my only bone of contention is ending mandatory isolation (well, in England but, as I said it blazes a trail). Think that’s not entirely sensible
My kid had it last week, sister too, seemingly unrelated as the common point of contact, I’ve somehow dodged it thus far despite Co-workers dropping like flies lately.
Hope all the rest of you are doing alright with it lately.
|
On February 25 2022 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase.
Now, you see, you know that and yet posted this:
On February 23 2022 09:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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.
In the context of the post you quoted it seems to suggest that unvaxed are the ones spreading virus?
Conflating those two variables my indeed skew the numbers when it comes to research on vaccine efficiency, however for practical purposes (eg who is causing more infections) those two are intertwined.
Bolded part - Truth to be told, yes it may be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions, however this should never be a reason to actually omitting some facts and/or data. In both camps there are people who can never be convinced and find a way to misrepresent any data. However only thing which withholding data/facts will achieve is causing mistrust among people who actually can be convinced.
|
On February 25 2022 19:20 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase. Now, you see, you know that and yet posted this: Show nested quote +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. In the context of the post you quoted it seems to suggest that unvaxed are the ones spreading virus? Conflating those two variables my indeed skew the numbers when it comes to research on vaccine efficiency, however for practical purposes (eg who is causing more infections) those two are intertwined. Bolded part - Truth to be told, yes it may be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions, however this should never be a reason to actually omitting some facts and/or data. In both camps there are people who can never be convinced and find a way to misrepresent any data. However only thing which withholding data/facts will achieve is causing mistrust among people who actually can be convinced.
Who is withholding data and facts? The point I'm trying to make is that you're presenting certain descriptive information in a very biased manner, which can easily lead people to flawed prescriptive decisions. Surely you understand the problem with people concluding that they shouldn't be getting vaccinated because they incorrectly think that such a thing would increase their infection rate, right? And I don't just mean from a perspective of "the problem is that their logic is invalid, shame on them", but additionally "this is a serious oversight that can have negative real-world consequences, in terms of public health, as it endangers themselves and others; it's not just a fun thought-experiment".
If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of lifting quarantine restrictions - for example, one pro being that people get to have more freedoms restored, and one con being that it will increase the number of people infected by coronavirus - I think that's a very valuable conversation to have. I think it's a conversation we've been having ever since the start of the pandemic. And we know that vaccinated people are still capable of spreading the disease (although less likely), and it's also possible that they end up hospitalized or dead from covid (although much, much, much less likely), but the whole reason why vaccinated people earned their freedoms faster than unvaccinated people - and, on a way bigger scale, the reason why masked people earned their freedoms faster than unmasked people - is because being vaccinated (and being masked) are significantly better decisions in terms of dealing with our global pandemic. It's a very basic reward system for taking minimal precautions for the good of yourself and your community, and I think it's sending the wrong message to overly scrutinize and misrepresent the people who are being smarter and less selfish during the pandemic, as it provides an excuse for unvaccinated people to not bother getting vaccinated at all.
|
On February 25 2022 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 19:20 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase. Now, you see, you know that and yet posted this: 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. In the context of the post you quoted it seems to suggest that unvaxed are the ones spreading virus? Conflating those two variables my indeed skew the numbers when it comes to research on vaccine efficiency, however for practical purposes (eg who is causing more infections) those two are intertwined. Bolded part - Truth to be told, yes it may be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions, however this should never be a reason to actually omitting some facts and/or data. In both camps there are people who can never be convinced and find a way to misrepresent any data. However only thing which withholding data/facts will achieve is causing mistrust among people who actually can be convinced. Who is withholding data and facts? The point I'm trying to make is that you're presenting certain descriptive information in a very biased manner, which can easily lead people to flawed prescriptive decisions. Surely you understand the problem with people concluding that they shouldn't be getting vaccinated because they incorrectly think that such a thing would increase their infection rate, right? And I don't just mean from a perspective of "the problem is that their logic is invalid, shame on them", but additionally "this is a serious oversight that can have negative real-world consequences, in terms of public health, as it endangers themselves and others; it's not just a fun thought-experiment". If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of lifting quarantine restrictions - for example, one pro being that people get to have more freedoms restored, and one con being that it will increase the number of people infected by coronavirus - I think that's a very valuable conversation to have. I think it's a conversation we've been having ever since the start of the pandemic. And we know that vaccinated people are still capable of spreading the disease (although less likely), and it's also possible that they end up hospitalized or dead from covid (although much, much, much less likely), but the whole reason why vaccinated people earned their freedoms faster than unvaccinated people - and, on a way bigger scale, the reason why masked people earned their freedoms faster than unmasked people - is because being vaccinated (and being masked) are significantly better decisions in terms of dealing with our global pandemic. It's a very basic reward system for taking minimal precautions for the good of yourself and your community, and I think it's sending the wrong message to overly scrutinize and misrepresent the people who are being smarter and less selfish during the pandemic, as it provides an excuse for unvaccinated people to not bother getting vaccinated at all.
I am not. I actually clearly stated (twice now) that reason for which vaccinated are spreading the infection more than unvaccinated is the restriction system put in place by the governments not vaccine itself.
You blamed unvaxed for spreading the virus, because vaccine limits it spreading to a degree, while ignoring the part about different rulesets for vaxed/unvaxed. You also admitted that you are fully aware of the fact that vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus.
Now which approach seems to you more biased? And which can lead people to incorrect conclusions? If people blame unvaxed for spreading the virus and ignore the part about restriction then it will lead to conclusion that as long as you are vaxed you can do whatever you want without any consequences (pandemic related).
Now the issue which I have with second paragraph. Bolded. Restriction were put in place to prevent spreading the virus, not to be some reward/punishment system. Now once we remember that, then it is becoming quite obvious that lifting those restrictions for vaccinated (while knowing that they can still spread the virus) as a "reward" seems somewhat counterproductive at the very least. Its basically sends the message "it is okay to spread the virus, as long, as you took vaccine". Add partygate to this ( I am living in UK now). What kind of conclusions this leads too?
Honestly if you took vaccine shouldn't the fact that you are protected now, be enough? Do you really need some reward on top of that? Do you take vaccine to be protected, or to be rewarded?
Italic - Thats the issue though. Who is being smarter and less selfish? Vaccinated attending nightclubs and football matches during the pandemic, or unvaccinated staying at home?
|
|
|
On February 25 2022 22:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 22:29 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 19:20 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase. Now, you see, you know that and yet posted this: 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. In the context of the post you quoted it seems to suggest that unvaxed are the ones spreading virus? Conflating those two variables my indeed skew the numbers when it comes to research on vaccine efficiency, however for practical purposes (eg who is causing more infections) those two are intertwined. Bolded part - Truth to be told, yes it may be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions, however this should never be a reason to actually omitting some facts and/or data. In both camps there are people who can never be convinced and find a way to misrepresent any data. However only thing which withholding data/facts will achieve is causing mistrust among people who actually can be convinced. Who is withholding data and facts? The point I'm trying to make is that you're presenting certain descriptive information in a very biased manner, which can easily lead people to flawed prescriptive decisions. Surely you understand the problem with people concluding that they shouldn't be getting vaccinated because they incorrectly think that such a thing would increase their infection rate, right? And I don't just mean from a perspective of "the problem is that their logic is invalid, shame on them", but additionally "this is a serious oversight that can have negative real-world consequences, in terms of public health, as it endangers themselves and others; it's not just a fun thought-experiment". If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of lifting quarantine restrictions - for example, one pro being that people get to have more freedoms restored, and one con being that it will increase the number of people infected by coronavirus - I think that's a very valuable conversation to have. I think it's a conversation we've been having ever since the start of the pandemic. And we know that vaccinated people are still capable of spreading the disease (although less likely), and it's also possible that they end up hospitalized or dead from covid (although much, much, much less likely), but the whole reason why vaccinated people earned their freedoms faster than unvaccinated people - and, on a way bigger scale, the reason why masked people earned their freedoms faster than unmasked people - is because being vaccinated (and being masked) are significantly better decisions in terms of dealing with our global pandemic. It's a very basic reward system for taking minimal precautions for the good of yourself and your community, and I think it's sending the wrong message to overly scrutinize and misrepresent the people who are being smarter and less selfish during the pandemic, as it provides an excuse for unvaccinated people to not bother getting vaccinated at all. I am not. I actually clearly stated (twice now) that reason for which vaccinated are spreading the infection more than unvaccinated is the restriction system put in place by the governments not vaccine itself. You blamed unvaxed for spreading the virus, because vaccine limits it spreading to a degree, while ignoring the part about different rulesets for vaxed/unvaxed. You also admitted that you are fully aware of the fact that vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus. Now which approach seems to you more biased? And which can lead people to incorrect conclusions? If people blame unvaxed for spreading the virus and ignore the part about restriction then it will lead to conclusion that as long as you are vaxed you can do whatever you want without any consequences (pandemic related). Now the issue which I have with second paragraph. Bolded. Restriction were put in place to prevent spreading the virus, not to be some reward/punishment system. Now once we remember that, then it is becoming quite obvious that lifting those restrictions for vaccinated (while knowing that they can still spread the virus) as a "reward" seems somewhat counterproductive at the very least. Its basically sends the message "it is okay to spread the virus, as long, as you took vaccine". Add partygate to this ( I am living in UK now). What kind of conclusions this leads too? Honestly if you took vaccine shouldn't the fact that you are protected now, be enough? Do you really need some reward on top of that? Do you take vaccine to be protected, or to be rewarded? Italic - Thats the issue though. Who is being smarter and less selfish? Vaccinated attending nightclubs and football matches during the pandemic, or unvaccinated staying at home? They were put in to limit the spread AND to encourage vaccination. Both were publicly stated goals, both had positive effects.
Many governmemts tried rewards, lotteries even paying. They had much less success then making it more inconvient for those making the unhealthy and bad choice. Now I get that you are ignoring all the data and believing there is secret data that shows vaccination is actually bad. But for the rest of us who do not believe in a massive global conspiracy it all makes sense.Do you agree that if the data on vaccination for covid is true that a goverment encouraging its uptake makes sense? If not do you disagree with all or most health amd safety rules?
Bolded - funny how they were first put in place before anyone even knew there will be a vaccine. Vaccinated freely spreading the virus is, I hope, positive effect only in your head.
Italic - funny how most of the links I provided is data based and from reputable sources, you my "Flashy Headline" boy.
Bold 2 - what kind of logic is that?? Russian government is encouraging vaccine uptake? Why do you agree with them invading Ukraine??
Please Jimmy either stop posting nonsense and spreading lies, or know your place and dont cut in when grown ups talk. Sadly in your case it seems that both will result in you not posting.
|
Northern Ireland27040 Posts
On February 25 2022 22:29 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 19:20 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase. Now, you see, you know that and yet posted this: 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. In the context of the post you quoted it seems to suggest that unvaxed are the ones spreading virus? Conflating those two variables my indeed skew the numbers when it comes to research on vaccine efficiency, however for practical purposes (eg who is causing more infections) those two are intertwined. Bolded part - Truth to be told, yes it may be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions, however this should never be a reason to actually omitting some facts and/or data. In both camps there are people who can never be convinced and find a way to misrepresent any data. However only thing which withholding data/facts will achieve is causing mistrust among people who actually can be convinced. Who is withholding data and facts? The point I'm trying to make is that you're presenting certain descriptive information in a very biased manner, which can easily lead people to flawed prescriptive decisions. Surely you understand the problem with people concluding that they shouldn't be getting vaccinated because they incorrectly think that such a thing would increase their infection rate, right? And I don't just mean from a perspective of "the problem is that their logic is invalid, shame on them", but additionally "this is a serious oversight that can have negative real-world consequences, in terms of public health, as it endangers themselves and others; it's not just a fun thought-experiment". If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of lifting quarantine restrictions - for example, one pro being that people get to have more freedoms restored, and one con being that it will increase the number of people infected by coronavirus - I think that's a very valuable conversation to have. I think it's a conversation we've been having ever since the start of the pandemic. And we know that vaccinated people are still capable of spreading the disease (although less likely), and it's also possible that they end up hospitalized or dead from covid (although much, much, much less likely), but the whole reason why vaccinated people earned their freedoms faster than unvaccinated people - and, on a way bigger scale, the reason why masked people earned their freedoms faster than unmasked people - is because being vaccinated (and being masked) are significantly better decisions in terms of dealing with our global pandemic. It's a very basic reward system for taking minimal precautions for the good of yourself and your community, and I think it's sending the wrong message to overly scrutinize and misrepresent the people who are being smarter and less selfish during the pandemic, as it provides an excuse for unvaccinated people to not bother getting vaccinated at all. I am not. I actually clearly stated (twice now) that reason for which vaccinated are spreading the infection more than unvaccinated is the restriction system put in place by the governments not vaccine itself. You blamed unvaxed for spreading the virus, because vaccine limits it spreading to a degree, while ignoring the part about different rulesets for vaxed/unvaxed. You also admitted that you are fully aware of the fact that vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus. Now which approach seems to you more biased? And which can lead people to incorrect conclusions? If people blame unvaxed for spreading the virus and ignore the part about restriction then it will lead to conclusion that as long as you are vaxed you can do whatever you want without any consequences (pandemic related). Now the issue which I have with second paragraph. Bolded. Restriction were put in place to prevent spreading the virus, not to be some reward/punishment system. Now once we remember that, then it is becoming quite obvious that lifting those restrictions for vaccinated (while knowing that they can still spread the virus) as a "reward" seems somewhat counterproductive at the very least. Its basically sends the message "it is okay to spread the virus, as long, as you took vaccine". Add partygate to this ( I am living in UK now). What kind of conclusions this leads too? Honestly if you took vaccine shouldn't the fact that you are protected now, be enough? Do you really need some reward on top of that? Do you take vaccine to be protected, or to be rewarded? Italic - Thats the issue though. Who is being smarter and less selfish? Vaccinated attending nightclubs and football matches during the pandemic, or unvaccinated staying at home?
How many people are simultaneously consciously deciding to not vaccinate, and also largely staying at home and isolating out of personal worries/societal obligation?
They exist, sure. They almost certainly contribute to less spread than someone vaccinated going to clubs or what have you.
And?
Some combination of vaccination immunity and natural immunity is the pre-requisite for things to get back to relative normality.
You’re not being rewarded for being vaccinated, it’s the key card to doing various things, or has been, for that reason. We’re talking an all-encompassing public health policy, there will always be edge cases.
Worst case scenario you get someone getting vaccinated purely to party to their heart’s content, but at least they have some degree of personal protection/protection of spread to others.
Which is worse than said person doing the same while unvaccinated how?
|
|
|
On February 25 2022 23:47 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 22:29 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 19:20 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase. Now, you see, you know that and yet posted this: 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. In the context of the post you quoted it seems to suggest that unvaxed are the ones spreading virus? Conflating those two variables my indeed skew the numbers when it comes to research on vaccine efficiency, however for practical purposes (eg who is causing more infections) those two are intertwined. Bolded part - Truth to be told, yes it may be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions, however this should never be a reason to actually omitting some facts and/or data. In both camps there are people who can never be convinced and find a way to misrepresent any data. However only thing which withholding data/facts will achieve is causing mistrust among people who actually can be convinced. Who is withholding data and facts? The point I'm trying to make is that you're presenting certain descriptive information in a very biased manner, which can easily lead people to flawed prescriptive decisions. Surely you understand the problem with people concluding that they shouldn't be getting vaccinated because they incorrectly think that such a thing would increase their infection rate, right? And I don't just mean from a perspective of "the problem is that their logic is invalid, shame on them", but additionally "this is a serious oversight that can have negative real-world consequences, in terms of public health, as it endangers themselves and others; it's not just a fun thought-experiment". If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of lifting quarantine restrictions - for example, one pro being that people get to have more freedoms restored, and one con being that it will increase the number of people infected by coronavirus - I think that's a very valuable conversation to have. I think it's a conversation we've been having ever since the start of the pandemic. And we know that vaccinated people are still capable of spreading the disease (although less likely), and it's also possible that they end up hospitalized or dead from covid (although much, much, much less likely), but the whole reason why vaccinated people earned their freedoms faster than unvaccinated people - and, on a way bigger scale, the reason why masked people earned their freedoms faster than unmasked people - is because being vaccinated (and being masked) are significantly better decisions in terms of dealing with our global pandemic. It's a very basic reward system for taking minimal precautions for the good of yourself and your community, and I think it's sending the wrong message to overly scrutinize and misrepresent the people who are being smarter and less selfish during the pandemic, as it provides an excuse for unvaccinated people to not bother getting vaccinated at all. I am not. I actually clearly stated (twice now) that reason for which vaccinated are spreading the infection more than unvaccinated is the restriction system put in place by the governments not vaccine itself. You blamed unvaxed for spreading the virus, because vaccine limits it spreading to a degree, while ignoring the part about different rulesets for vaxed/unvaxed. You also admitted that you are fully aware of the fact that vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus. Now which approach seems to you more biased? And which can lead people to incorrect conclusions? If people blame unvaxed for spreading the virus and ignore the part about restriction then it will lead to conclusion that as long as you are vaxed you can do whatever you want without any consequences (pandemic related). Now the issue which I have with second paragraph. Bolded. Restriction were put in place to prevent spreading the virus, not to be some reward/punishment system. Now once we remember that, then it is becoming quite obvious that lifting those restrictions for vaccinated (while knowing that they can still spread the virus) as a "reward" seems somewhat counterproductive at the very least. Its basically sends the message "it is okay to spread the virus, as long, as you took vaccine". Add partygate to this ( I am living in UK now). What kind of conclusions this leads too? Honestly if you took vaccine shouldn't the fact that you are protected now, be enough? Do you really need some reward on top of that? Do you take vaccine to be protected, or to be rewarded? Italic - Thats the issue though. Who is being smarter and less selfish? Vaccinated attending nightclubs and football matches during the pandemic, or unvaccinated staying at home? How many people are simultaneously consciously deciding to not vaccinate, and also largely staying at home and isolating out of personal worries/societal obligation? They exist, sure. They almost certainly contribute to less spread than someone vaccinated going to clubs or what have you. And? Some combination of vaccination immunity and natural immunity is the pre-requisite for things to get back to relative normality.
You’re not being rewarded for being vaccinated, it’s the key card to doing various things, or has been, for that reason. We’re talking an all-encompassing public health policy, there will always be edge cases. Worst case scenario you get someone getting vaccinated purely to party to their heart’s content, but at least they have some degree of personal protection/protection of spread to others.
Which is worse than said person doing the same while unvaccinated how?
Honestly I dont know - I tend not to speak for others.
Bolded - I fully agree - I dont agree with one having preference over the other.
Italic - this is however what preventive measures turned into - if you spreading the virus what's the difference between being vaccinated or not, when it comes to social distancing and such?
Bolded 2 - But that's my point. There is no difference between the two. Why both aren't restricted from doing so, when end effect is the same?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27040 Posts
On February 26 2022 00:15 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 23:47 WombaT wrote:On February 25 2022 22:29 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 19:20 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase. Now, you see, you know that and yet posted this: 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. In the context of the post you quoted it seems to suggest that unvaxed are the ones spreading virus? Conflating those two variables my indeed skew the numbers when it comes to research on vaccine efficiency, however for practical purposes (eg who is causing more infections) those two are intertwined. Bolded part - Truth to be told, yes it may be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions, however this should never be a reason to actually omitting some facts and/or data. In both camps there are people who can never be convinced and find a way to misrepresent any data. However only thing which withholding data/facts will achieve is causing mistrust among people who actually can be convinced. Who is withholding data and facts? The point I'm trying to make is that you're presenting certain descriptive information in a very biased manner, which can easily lead people to flawed prescriptive decisions. Surely you understand the problem with people concluding that they shouldn't be getting vaccinated because they incorrectly think that such a thing would increase their infection rate, right? And I don't just mean from a perspective of "the problem is that their logic is invalid, shame on them", but additionally "this is a serious oversight that can have negative real-world consequences, in terms of public health, as it endangers themselves and others; it's not just a fun thought-experiment". If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of lifting quarantine restrictions - for example, one pro being that people get to have more freedoms restored, and one con being that it will increase the number of people infected by coronavirus - I think that's a very valuable conversation to have. I think it's a conversation we've been having ever since the start of the pandemic. And we know that vaccinated people are still capable of spreading the disease (although less likely), and it's also possible that they end up hospitalized or dead from covid (although much, much, much less likely), but the whole reason why vaccinated people earned their freedoms faster than unvaccinated people - and, on a way bigger scale, the reason why masked people earned their freedoms faster than unmasked people - is because being vaccinated (and being masked) are significantly better decisions in terms of dealing with our global pandemic. It's a very basic reward system for taking minimal precautions for the good of yourself and your community, and I think it's sending the wrong message to overly scrutinize and misrepresent the people who are being smarter and less selfish during the pandemic, as it provides an excuse for unvaccinated people to not bother getting vaccinated at all. I am not. I actually clearly stated (twice now) that reason for which vaccinated are spreading the infection more than unvaccinated is the restriction system put in place by the governments not vaccine itself. You blamed unvaxed for spreading the virus, because vaccine limits it spreading to a degree, while ignoring the part about different rulesets for vaxed/unvaxed. You also admitted that you are fully aware of the fact that vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus. Now which approach seems to you more biased? And which can lead people to incorrect conclusions? If people blame unvaxed for spreading the virus and ignore the part about restriction then it will lead to conclusion that as long as you are vaxed you can do whatever you want without any consequences (pandemic related). Now the issue which I have with second paragraph. Bolded. Restriction were put in place to prevent spreading the virus, not to be some reward/punishment system. Now once we remember that, then it is becoming quite obvious that lifting those restrictions for vaccinated (while knowing that they can still spread the virus) as a "reward" seems somewhat counterproductive at the very least. Its basically sends the message "it is okay to spread the virus, as long, as you took vaccine". Add partygate to this ( I am living in UK now). What kind of conclusions this leads too? Honestly if you took vaccine shouldn't the fact that you are protected now, be enough? Do you really need some reward on top of that? Do you take vaccine to be protected, or to be rewarded? Italic - Thats the issue though. Who is being smarter and less selfish? Vaccinated attending nightclubs and football matches during the pandemic, or unvaccinated staying at home? How many people are simultaneously consciously deciding to not vaccinate, and also largely staying at home and isolating out of personal worries/societal obligation? They exist, sure. They almost certainly contribute to less spread than someone vaccinated going to clubs or what have you. And? Some combination of vaccination immunity and natural immunity is the pre-requisite for things to get back to relative normality.
You’re not being rewarded for being vaccinated, it’s the key card to doing various things, or has been, for that reason. We’re talking an all-encompassing public health policy, there will always be edge cases. Worst case scenario you get someone getting vaccinated purely to party to their heart’s content, but at least they have some degree of personal protection/protection of spread to others.
Which is worse than said person doing the same while unvaccinated how? Honestly I dont know - I tend not to speak for others. Bolded - I fully agree - I dont agree with one having preference over the other. Italic - this is however what preventive measures turned into - if you spreading the virus what's the difference between being vaccinated or not, when it comes to social distancing and such? Bolded 2 - But that's my point. There is no difference between the two. Why both aren't restricted from doing so, when end effect is the same?
1. There is A difference though! Albeit not as big as some would make out.
2, We can't monitor people 24/7 for adherence or not to social distancing or other generally responsible behaviour. We can check the box on vaccination status pretty damn easily though.
As I say frequently in here, and elsewhere, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Striving for some perfect system that encompasses all edge cases and exceptions and delivers perfect results is, in effect basically not possible.
We're almost going full circle here where the arguments against restrictions have moved from 'why are there restrictions?' to 'well vaccinated people spread it too so why don't we restrict everyone?'
|
On February 25 2022 22:29 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2022 21:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 19:20 Razyda wrote:On February 25 2022 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2022 09:46 Razyda wrote:On February 24 2022 11:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. I know that keeping all anti-vaxxers quarantined while allowing vaccinated people to return to society necessarily means that any infection would be from the vaccinated people. It's also like pointing out that in a country that is 99% vaxxed and completely open, of course infections are more likely to come from the group that's 99 times larger than the other group. But these conflate two variables: vaccination status and some other criterion like having different quarantine restrictions or having different population sizes. When we talk about infection rates and whether or not being vaccinated helps, it can be misleading to speak about unvaccinated vs. vaccinated when adding extra caveats to one side. Like, I can imagine an anti-vaxxer hearing that vaccinated people might spread covid more than unvaccinated people since unvaccinated people are stuck at home, and arise at the absurd conclusion that being vaccinated causes infection rates to increase. Now, you see, you know that and yet posted this: 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. In the context of the post you quoted it seems to suggest that unvaxed are the ones spreading virus? Conflating those two variables my indeed skew the numbers when it comes to research on vaccine efficiency, however for practical purposes (eg who is causing more infections) those two are intertwined. Bolded part - Truth to be told, yes it may be misleading and lead to incorrect conclusions, however this should never be a reason to actually omitting some facts and/or data. In both camps there are people who can never be convinced and find a way to misrepresent any data. However only thing which withholding data/facts will achieve is causing mistrust among people who actually can be convinced. Who is withholding data and facts? The point I'm trying to make is that you're presenting certain descriptive information in a very biased manner, which can easily lead people to flawed prescriptive decisions. Surely you understand the problem with people concluding that they shouldn't be getting vaccinated because they incorrectly think that such a thing would increase their infection rate, right? And I don't just mean from a perspective of "the problem is that their logic is invalid, shame on them", but additionally "this is a serious oversight that can have negative real-world consequences, in terms of public health, as it endangers themselves and others; it's not just a fun thought-experiment". If you want to have a conversation about the pros and cons of lifting quarantine restrictions - for example, one pro being that people get to have more freedoms restored, and one con being that it will increase the number of people infected by coronavirus - I think that's a very valuable conversation to have. I think it's a conversation we've been having ever since the start of the pandemic. And we know that vaccinated people are still capable of spreading the disease (although less likely), and it's also possible that they end up hospitalized or dead from covid (although much, much, much less likely), but the whole reason why vaccinated people earned their freedoms faster than unvaccinated people - and, on a way bigger scale, the reason why masked people earned their freedoms faster than unmasked people - is because being vaccinated (and being masked) are significantly better decisions in terms of dealing with our global pandemic. It's a very basic reward system for taking minimal precautions for the good of yourself and your community, and I think it's sending the wrong message to overly scrutinize and misrepresent the people who are being smarter and less selfish during the pandemic, as it provides an excuse for unvaccinated people to not bother getting vaccinated at all. I am not. I actually clearly stated (twice now) that reason for which vaccinated are spreading the infection more than unvaccinated is the restriction system put in place by the governments not vaccine itself. You blamed unvaxed for spreading the virus, because vaccine limits it spreading to a degree, while ignoring the part about different rulesets for vaxed/unvaxed. You also admitted that you are fully aware of the fact that vaccinated are the ones spreading the virus. Now which approach seems to you more biased? And which can lead people to incorrect conclusions? If people blame unvaxed for spreading the virus and ignore the part about restriction then it will lead to conclusion that as long as you are vaxed you can do whatever you want without any consequences (pandemic related).
I have certainly never said that you can do whatever you want as long as you're vaccinated, and I definitely haven't said that the vaccinated are "the ones spreading the virus", implying that unvaccinated people aren't. I still think that vaccinated people should wear masks and continue social distancing.
I've tried reading through a bunch of your links that you've posted over the last few pages, and they were about a variety of different things, but I had trouble finding evidence of your assertion that the vaccinated group is generally spreading covid more frequently than the unvaccinated people. Could you please post (or re-post, if I missed it, in which I apologize for overlooking it) the data showing that vaccinated people are spreading covid more than unvaccinated people, *proportionally / per capita*? If you want to ignore the confounding variables that already explain why such a thing might be happening (e.g., quarantine restrictions), that's fine, but I'd like to take a look at the reports that say something like "In this region where 50% are vaccinated and 50% are not, we've found that 80% of new infections are linked to being around the vaccinated group, while only 20% of new infections are linked to being around the unvaccinated group." Obviously, those four percentages could all end up being very different in your actual sources, but that's just an example that would support your assertion. I'm a little suspicious that are just a few outlier events that are promoting such an assertion, rather than this actually being a legitimate, pervasive problem, but I could be wrong and maybe it really is the case that your claim is broadly accurate (in which case, I guess the solution would be to resume more extreme quarantines for everyone, regardless of vaccination status, although I'm open to hearing alternative suggestions from you).
Now the issue which I have with second paragraph. Bolded. Restriction were put in place to prevent spreading the virus, not to be some reward/punishment system. Now once we remember that, then it is becoming quite obvious that lifting those restrictions for vaccinated (while knowing that they can still spread the virus) as a "reward" seems somewhat counterproductive at the very least.
I agree with you that restrictions were put in place to prevent spreading the virus, but from a practical standpoint, there had to be justifications for easing those restrictions. One of those justifications was hopefully having better control of the spread and hospitalization situations, but another one was absolutely to ease social and economic burdens, which includes having more people work again and allowing more people to socialize again. When the people who regain more freedoms are given these freedoms for performing the desired action (in this case, getting vaccinated), it can absolutely be viewed as a reward/punishment situation. You get to go out if you're vaccinated/masked, you get to travel if you're vaccinated/masked, you get to enter into private businesses that have strict safety rules if you're vaccinated/masked, etc. It's pretty clear that plenty of people either didn't care about slowing the spread or didn't believe that being vaccinated actually slowed the spread, and so promoting the desired action (to get vaccinated) in a different way (reward/punishment, as opposed to medically helping you and your fellow neighbor) absolutely convinced some people, particularly those who just wanted more freedom again.
Its basically sends the message "it is okay to spread the virus, as long, as you took vaccine".
I think the idea that you can do whatever you want, as long as you're vaccinated, sends that message, but I reject the premise that we should be doing whatever we want, as long as we're vaccinated. I don't think it's okay to spread the virus, but I'm also aware that countless people have countless other priorities. I don't think you're factoring in those other perspectives. They're not always better or worse perspectives, but they're still perspectives that people are using to justify their levels of caution and exposure. These are real people we need to work with, even if they don't agree with us.
Add partygate to this ( I am living in UK now). What kind of conclusions this leads too?
Honestly if you took vaccine shouldn't the fact that you are protected now, be enough? Do you really need some reward on top of that? Do you take vaccine to be protected, or to be rewarded?
As explained above: it depends. Could be both. Could be just one.
Italic - Thats the issue though. Who is being smarter and less selfish? Vaccinated attending nightclubs and football matches during the pandemic, or unvaccinated staying at home?
I'm really looking forward to seeing your data on this, as I mentioned above, because we know that the people who are unvaccinated are the ones typically being less safe, practicing other unsafe actions (more resistant to masking, etc.), aren't taking the pandemic as seriously, think it's all being blown out of proportion (the video I recently posted shows these relationships, specifically tied to conservative groups), and so on. I'm not going out clubbing, even though I'm vaccinated, but we also know that there are plenty of luxuries/events/parties open to unvaccinated people too, so let's not pretend that anti-vaxxers are suddenly being safe by voluntarily staying home, when we know - tautologically, given that they're anti-vaxxers - that they're already engaging in unsafe practices (like not being vaccinated).
|
3 weeks ago, my state's governor (New Jersey - Murphy) removed his mask mandate for all public school districts. My district has kept the mandate over the past 3 weeks, but is lifting it starting this Monday. I hope that the number of covid cases doesn't significantly increase for us; I'll be keeping my mask on for the rest of the school year anyway, just to be safer.
Edit: Apparently that's March, and not February! Phew! I have another month 
|
|
|
On February 26 2022 05:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2022 04:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
3 weeks ago, my state's governor (New Jersey - Murphy) removed his mask mandate for all public school districts. My district has kept the mandate over the past 3 weeks, but is lifting it starting this Monday. I hope that the number of covid cases doesn't significantly increase for us; I'll be keeping my mask on for the rest of the school year anyway, just to be safer. With omicron the cloth masks do not do much, so if you are going to use one go with n95 or at least surgical.
Yep, will continue to use those
|
|
|
Like everyone else i’ve been more absorbed with the Russia situation and haven’t paid much attention to Covid lately, but this new study really shows just how marginal these jabs are for kids 5-11.Effectiveness just 12% after five weeks.For healthy kids with no other health issues there is clearly no need for these jabs.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/pfizer-vaccine-effectiveness-plummets-to-12-per-cent-in-children-aged-five-to-11/news-story/22ddf3501c164c0a0ea3872b93b5aac0
The researchers analysed statewide immunisation, laboratory testing and hospitalisation databases covering 852,384 fully vaccinated children aged 12 to 17 and 365,502 children aged five to 11.
The analysis compared outcomes among fully vaccinated children – defined as two weeks after their second dose – versus unvaccinated children in the two age groups.
They found that from December 13, 2021 to January 20, 2022, the vaccine’s effectiveness against infection declined from 66 per cent to 51 per cent for those aged 12 to 17, and from 68 per cent to 12 per cent for those aged five to 11.
|
I do like that in the same paper you've linked, they specify that they believe it is reasonable to continue vaccination in that age bracket to specifically assist with severe cases.
Our data support vaccine protection against severe disease among children 5-11 years, but
suggest rapid loss of protection against infection, in the Omicron variant era. Should such findings be
replicated in other settings, review of the dosing schedule for children 5-11 years appears prudent. At
this time, efforts to increase primary vaccination coverage in this age group, which remains <25%
nationally, should continue. Given rapid loss of protection against infections, these results highlight the
continued importance of layered protections, including mask wearing, for children to prevent infection
and transmission.
So, what you're saying, is that we should not follow the recommendation set in the study you have linked, and instead should follow a recommendation set by, who?
Edit: To go even further into the discussion about this specific paper, they even suggest that the lower dosage in the 5-11 bracket could be the cause in the first place.
The finding of markedly-lower VE against infection for children 11 years compared to those 12
and 13 years, despite overlapping physiology, suggests lower vaccine dose may explain lower 5-11 years
VE. Children 12 years had the highest VE of all ages, potentially due to being small size relative to dose
and more recent vaccination (by 6 weeks on average) than those 13-17 years. This gap suggests a
threshold effect between the two BNT162b2 vaccine doses and need for study of numbers of doses,
amount per dose, dose timing, and/or antigens targeted for children 5-11 years
So in fact we should wait for more conclusive studies before doing anything. It could be the case that we need to vaccinate this specific age group more, rather than less.
|
On March 02 2022 12:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Like everyone else i’ve been more absorbed with the Russia situation and haven’t paid much attention to Covid lately, but this new study really shows just how marginal these jabs are for kids 5-11.Effectiveness just 12% after five weeks.For healthy kids with no other health issues there is clearly no need for these jabs. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/pfizer-vaccine-effectiveness-plummets-to-12-per-cent-in-children-aged-five-to-11/news-story/22ddf3501c164c0a0ea3872b93b5aac0Show nested quote +
The researchers analysed statewide immunisation, laboratory testing and hospitalisation databases covering 852,384 fully vaccinated children aged 12 to 17 and 365,502 children aged five to 11.
The analysis compared outcomes among fully vaccinated children – defined as two weeks after their second dose – versus unvaccinated children in the two age groups.
They found that from December 13, 2021 to January 20, 2022, the vaccine’s effectiveness against infection declined from 66 per cent to 51 per cent for those aged 12 to 17, and from 68 per cent to 12 per cent for those aged five to 11.
So long as it is a net positive, it is an obvious choice. The argument of "its not that helpful" is incredibly stupid because you are already saying it is helpful. We've been over this a million times. When the risk of something bad happening is higher for covid than the vaccine, that means you take the vaccine. There is no other logic to apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
