|
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. |
Northern Ireland24724 Posts
On July 30 2022 10:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 10:23 WombaT wrote:On July 30 2022 09:16 NewSunshine wrote:
It's likely I got infected in 2020, before we had vaccines. I got my two shots and booster as soon as I could, and just the other week got reinfected. I posted it in this thread before all this contrarian devil's advocate nonsense started up.
Like, you got the vaccine early on. Good for you. But now because a shitload of people didn't also get the vaccine, the virus has now mutated enough times that it basically doesn't give a shit if you're vaccinated anymore. Congratulations, your principal of letting people get vaccinated only if they want to is paying off splendidly. It very much becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the suboptimal uptake of vaccines at the time they could have made the biggest difference is held up as proof of their inefficacy. Ye cannae win like. The more suboptimal uptake of vaccines occurred because we didn’t want to share them with the poor people. But I’m sure the coronavirus knows to only spread and mutate in the selfish assholes that are antivaxx and not in the unvaccinated people that just didn’t have access.
Given time perhaps we will get that variant.
If you can’t de facto wipe it out in the most affluent and well-resourced nations on earth, it’s not happening.
We don’t have access to alternate realities, perhaps if certain conditions were changed, such a thing was viable at some point. Perhaps, no such conditions exist. Perhaps they do but are so unpalatable as to be totally unviable, etc etc
My main worry is for whenever the next pandemic is, if it’s something worse. I mean vaccine skepticism went from niche to pretty mainstream, through this pandemic and hasn’t been shoved back in the box. Next pandemic you’re going to be entering day 1 with a lot more people already hostile from the outset. Or less uptake of more established vaccines for things we’ve already eradicated
|
On July 30 2022 10:37 BlackJack wrote:
Ok sure. Without the antivaxx trumpers we’d have no variants and almost no cases. COVID would be a stones throw away from being eradicated. Let’s just ignore waning vaccine immunity, animal reservoirs, or the daunting task of vaccinating 8 billion people at once. Believe whatever you want. The good news is you can make any claim you want no matter how bold and nobody here is going to challenge you because you’re on the correct side.
Also considering how much less lethal omicron is to delta I’m not sure why the antivaxxers being solely responsible for the variants is supposed to be a knock on them. I’ll take a sore throat over a breathing tube any day. But I’m sure neither are as pleasant as believing In a 3rd option where nobody dies of covid.
You're going to have to walk me through this logic. New variants emerge, which are more contagious but generally less lethal, and that's supposed to be a credit to anti-vaxxers? As opposed to being a knock on them? The continued propagation and evolution of the virus is a good thing now? I'll uh... I'll let folks know. That's helpful.
Also, a crazy infectious disease plagues the world, killing millions of people over just a couple years. Maybe it's correct, as a human with a frankly uninteresting level of self-interest, to be pro-thing-that-stops-the-disease. I dunno. I didn't think that was a hard one.
|
This is how I understand Blackjack's point in the last few posts - that the efficacy of a healthcare system ultimately still comes down to personal autonomy and responsibility, and no amount of state intervention (at least not to the extent acceptable by democratic societies) can improve societal health above a certain tipping point.
Now, we can of course argue where that tipping point is for unforeseen pandemics and different type of diseases, and the acceptable level of coercive state intervention in different societies.
Whether that's indeed Blackjack's point or not, at the very least I don't at all view him as 'anti-vaxxer' (at least, in my book - your own definition of an 'anti-vaxxer' may vary).
I'm not necessarily saying that I'm fully on board with Blackjack's points, but I appreciate how his points raises some interesting points of debate that deserves more critical thought rather than outright dismissal.
|
On July 30 2022 10:37 BlackJack wrote:
Ok sure. Without the antivaxx trumpers we’d have no variants and almost no cases. COVID would be a stones throw away from being eradicated. Let’s just ignore waning vaccine immunity, animal reservoirs, or the daunting task of vaccinating 8 billion people at once. Believe whatever you want. The good news is you can make any claim you want no matter how bold and nobody here is going to challenge you because you’re on the correct side.
Also considering how much less lethal omicron is to delta I’m not sure why the antivaxxers being solely responsible for the variants is supposed to be a knock on them. I’ll take a sore throat over a breathing tube any day. But I’m sure neither are as pleasant as believing In a 3rd option where nobody dies of covid.
I'm not sure that is the point of BlackJack... but basically he says, that anti-vaxxers are _not_ the reason that Covid is mutating. And I think he is right about that. And somehow people are angry about that?
But let me be with BlackJack and say it a little bit directly:
Your studies ... I don't care about the results, because they suck! - Not the studies, the results!
I will explain: Let's remember back September 2020, first results of big vaccination tests were released (don't know if the month is correct, it is not important). You maybe remember the numbers: 90+%! Meaning the chances of getting covid should be reduced by 90+% if you take the vaccine! That are good numbers! So good, that a few months later a pharma-company that got results of about 60% didn't even bother to release their vax-version!
But back to the first numbers. Imagine, the numbers were not 90+ but 25! Would you, the world and media be in the corner of "well, at least 25%..." or "ok, this is just bad! back to the drawing board"? I think we all agree that this would be bad (and we would greedily look at the 60% vax)
So, fast forward "back to the future" and now: Because we have those numbers now with mutated strains! And instead saying the same thing: "They are shit!" it seems people clamber about "good enough". No, they are not! They are shit! Chances are much to high to still get Covid even vaxxed. I got it two months after my booster; my favorite still a friend of mine that got her 4. shot just a few weeks back ... and basically exactly a week later told me she is positive ... wow, that vaccination was helpful!
"at least she has mild symptoms" - yeah, that is true! But that is what is all about! Someone mentioned that "we" don't get vaccines. Well do you?
Vaccines are not "magical barriers" around your body where the disease get burned and gone. No, the disease will enter your body! And your body goes "ah, this thing... get out the guns!" and in best cases it goes that fast of dealing with the "enemy" you didn't even noticed that some disease entered your body. And this "best case scenario" is what "not getting Covid" (or other) is meaning! Your body has absolutely no symptoms and eradicates the virus from your body! It is all about symptoms! If you get symptoms the vaccine did a bad job and we are more in direction of some kind of "fancy medicine". And that is not bad in itself! It is helpful! Will save lives!
But here, right now, if someone goes "we need more people getting vaxxed" or wants more "vaccine passports" for anything because "cases are rising" you are stupid! The numbers are too bad to be impactful.
If you, with your mild cough, infect someone else they will be happy, that you were vaccinated and they didn't get it from the unvaxed guy! Good job! Get your golden sticker in the mail!
Most countries have everything open, you can go to concerts, bars, discos, ... and nobody needs to show vax-proof or even wear masks (I'm still confused why I have to wear a mask in the morning, driving to work by train, but in the evening can go to a packs concert ... doesn't make sense to me!) and not much is happening! It seems if you have a war around the corner and trouble dealing with rising costs for basic supplies and maybe later in the year power and energy ... Covid takes a place in the last ranks!
|
On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 05:24 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 05:18 BlackJack wrote:
I love being this threads resident “antivaxxer” despite the fact that I got my first shot in December 2020 days after it was authorized and I’m clearly the only person that feels so supremely confident in my 3 shots to protect me that I don’t insist that everyone else around me also needs to be vaccinated in order for my 3 shots to work. You know… just the usual antivaxx rhetoric. Carry on. What's your actual problem with them covid vaccines again? You're conflating so many points in time that it's hard to track what period of the pandemic you're talking about. The point is very simple and it hasn’t changed: people should make their healthcare decisions, particularly regarding what goes in their body, for themselves. By the way in case you didn’t know there are a few medications now authorized to treat COVID such as Paxlovid and monoclonal antibodies. Literally every argument used to justify why we should coerce people to take the vaccine could also be used to justify why we should coerce people to take Paxlovid. It prevents the severity of symptoms, likely making you less infectious and less of a burden on the taxpayers and healthcare system. The fact that the COVID vaccines don’t even function as traditional vaccines do ie they don’t grant you immunity and don’t stop you from getting COVID and spreading it to others makes this analogy even more apt. So that begs the question. Do you think we should coerce people to take Paxlovid if they are diagnosed with COVID? Maybe tell them they will be financially responsible for the excess burden they are placing on the system? You want to live in a world where people can tell you to open your mouth and swallow what they put in there? I’m sure you’ll tell me this is totally different and not the same at all before you go on to compare the COVID vaccines to seatbelts This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much.
I mean, what you think (or rather posted but it's difficult to say whether these 2 align) has turned out false so many times in this last episode alone... Just some food for thought.
If you had read what the CDC says then you'd know that vaccing reduced the likelihood of spreading significantly.
It's also apparently no use that the same public health info piece states that unvaccinated people are the primary cause of the spread.
"But artisreal, significantly is not a number". If science were to give an estimate, you'd cry out loud if it turns out to be 1 or 2% lower in the long run. Or with another variant (like delta omicron). Suddenly the goalpost is not that it reduces spread by a margin that is epidemiological significant, no it has to be a number big enough. Never mind the precautionary principle with a deadly, air-born disease.
Absolute agreement that the international distribution of the vaccine is a shameful thing and we will see how much it contributed to the emergence of omicron and further variants.
It's don't look up but in a never ending season in here.
|
On July 30 2022 15:22 RKC wrote:
This is how I understand Blackjack's point in the last few posts - that the efficacy of a healthcare system ultimately still comes down to personal autonomy and responsibility, and no amount of state intervention (at least not to the extent acceptable by democratic societies) can improve societal health above a certain tipping point.
I think that opinion can be made clear without trivializing the immensely important, positive impact that covid vaccines have had, and continue to have, throughout the pandemic. (And then BlackJack insisting that they're beyond reproach because they're vaccinated gave me some very serious "What I said can't be racist because I have a black friend" parallel vibes.)
|
Northern Ireland24724 Posts
On July 30 2022 15:22 RKC wrote:
This is how I understand Blackjack's point in the last few posts - that the efficacy of a healthcare system ultimately still comes down to personal autonomy and responsibility, and no amount of state intervention (at least not to the extent acceptable by democratic societies) can improve societal health above a certain tipping point.
Now, we can of course argue where that tipping point is for unforeseen pandemics and different type of diseases, and the acceptable level of coercive state intervention in different societies.
Whether that's indeed Blackjack's point or not, at the very least I don't at all view him as 'anti-vaxxer' (at least, in my book - your own definition of an 'anti-vaxxer' may vary).
I'm not necessarily saying that I'm fully on board with Blackjack's points, but I appreciate how his points raises some interesting points of debate that deserves more critical thought rather than outright dismissal.
I think that’s broadly correct, when it comes to altering behaviours that are personal or quite difficult or complex to fix. Obesity or addiction problems or what have you. There’s both personal autonomy to factor in, as well as the sheer amount of effort required to eliminate all unhealthy risk factors at a state level.
It gets trickier when the personal and the public merge, as with something like a pandemic.
Lockdown measures required coercion, and significant suffering and additional externalities. Aside from the base principle of bodily autonomy, vaccinations are one of the least coercive arms of state intervention as one can get.
We all have positions, at one end not one instance of bodily autonomy can be countenanced, at the other any improvement for wider public health could justify it, and for the rest of us different thresholds in terms of public health outcomes that would mediate our position.
Which, absolutely are discussions worth having.
A discussion that is largely worthless in having with many anti-vaxers, you can’t come up with any kind of mutually agreed thresholds with wildly varying input data. It’s impossible to find a middle ground in terms of policy through the vector of vaccine efficiency if one side thinks they are effective and the other thinks they do nothing, or are actively harmful.
I would also agree that BlackJack is not an anti-vaxxer, more the concept of a Devil’s Advocate given human form. Which I certainly can’t be critical of given that’s largely been me the entirety of my adult life.
|
On July 30 2022 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 05:24 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 05:18 BlackJack wrote:
I love being this threads resident “antivaxxer” despite the fact that I got my first shot in December 2020 days after it was authorized and I’m clearly the only person that feels so supremely confident in my 3 shots to protect me that I don’t insist that everyone else around me also needs to be vaccinated in order for my 3 shots to work. You know… just the usual antivaxx rhetoric. Carry on. What's your actual problem with them covid vaccines again? You're conflating so many points in time that it's hard to track what period of the pandemic you're talking about. The point is very simple and it hasn’t changed: people should make their healthcare decisions, particularly regarding what goes in their body, for themselves. By the way in case you didn’t know there are a few medications now authorized to treat COVID such as Paxlovid and monoclonal antibodies. Literally every argument used to justify why we should coerce people to take the vaccine could also be used to justify why we should coerce people to take Paxlovid. It prevents the severity of symptoms, likely making you less infectious and less of a burden on the taxpayers and healthcare system. The fact that the COVID vaccines don’t even function as traditional vaccines do ie they don’t grant you immunity and don’t stop you from getting COVID and spreading it to others makes this analogy even more apt. So that begs the question. Do you think we should coerce people to take Paxlovid if they are diagnosed with COVID? Maybe tell them they will be financially responsible for the excess burden they are placing on the system? You want to live in a world where people can tell you to open your mouth and swallow what they put in there? I’m sure you’ll tell me this is totally different and not the same at all before you go on to compare the COVID vaccines to seatbelts This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much. "A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time." https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 I wouldn't consider cutting the transmission rate by half to be "not very much".
From your own source
Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.”
Ok I said “not very much” and the professor in the source you offered says “not so much”. I guess that is way different.
|
On July 30 2022 19:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 15:22 RKC wrote:
This is how I understand Blackjack's point in the last few posts - that the efficacy of a healthcare system ultimately still comes down to personal autonomy and responsibility, and no amount of state intervention (at least not to the extent acceptable by democratic societies) can improve societal health above a certain tipping point.
Now, we can of course argue where that tipping point is for unforeseen pandemics and different type of diseases, and the acceptable level of coercive state intervention in different societies.
Whether that's indeed Blackjack's point or not, at the very least I don't at all view him as 'anti-vaxxer' (at least, in my book - your own definition of an 'anti-vaxxer' may vary).
I'm not necessarily saying that I'm fully on board with Blackjack's points, but I appreciate how his points raises some interesting points of debate that deserves more critical thought rather than outright dismissal. I think that’s broadly correct, when it comes to altering behaviours that are personal or quite difficult or complex to fix. Obesity or addiction problems or what have you. There’s both personal autonomy to factor in, as well as the sheer amount of effort required to eliminate all unhealthy risk factors at a state level. It gets trickier when the personal and the public merge, as with something like a pandemic. Lockdown measures required coercion, and significant suffering and additional externalities. Aside from the base principle of bodily autonomy, vaccinations are one of the least coercive arms of state intervention as one can get. We all have positions, at one end not one instance of bodily autonomy can be countenanced, at the other any improvement for wider public health could justify it, and for the rest of us different thresholds in terms of public health outcomes that would mediate our position. Which, absolutely are discussions worth having. A discussion that is largely worthless in having with many anti-vaxers, you can’t come up with any kind of mutually agreed thresholds with wildly varying input data. It’s impossible to find a middle ground in terms of policy through the vector of vaccine efficiency if one side thinks they are effective and the other thinks they do nothing, or are actively harmful. I would also agree that BlackJack is not an anti-vaxxer, more the concept of a Devil’s Advocate given human form. Which I certainly can’t be critical of given that’s largely been me the entirety of my adult life.
Quite spot on. Vaccination (a one-off relatively painless experience) is definitely the less coercive measure compared to lockdowns and strict masking and social distancing requirements (which requires daily observance).
Whilst anti-vaxxers are definitely a thorn, I feel that only-vaxxers should also bear some piece of the blame.
Only-vaxxers - people who treat vaccination status as a free pass to irresponsibly break all other precautionary measures. Based on my own anecdotal experience, friends and family members who are quickest to get down with COVID and fall ill happen to be the ones quickest to get jabbed and boosted. The reason is simply because they tend to let their guard down more after vaccination by travelling and mingling around freely. And they end up getting infected and spreading the virus the whole household and office. Downright irresponsible.
Ultimately, that's why I feel the focus should be personal responsibility rather than vaccination status. Yes, anti-vaxxers tend to be rather irresponsible. But being vaxxed shouldn't immunise one from criticism and scrutiny either.
|
On July 30 2022 20:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 05:24 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 05:18 BlackJack wrote:
I love being this threads resident “antivaxxer” despite the fact that I got my first shot in December 2020 days after it was authorized and I’m clearly the only person that feels so supremely confident in my 3 shots to protect me that I don’t insist that everyone else around me also needs to be vaccinated in order for my 3 shots to work. You know… just the usual antivaxx rhetoric. Carry on. What's your actual problem with them covid vaccines again? You're conflating so many points in time that it's hard to track what period of the pandemic you're talking about. The point is very simple and it hasn’t changed: people should make their healthcare decisions, particularly regarding what goes in their body, for themselves. By the way in case you didn’t know there are a few medications now authorized to treat COVID such as Paxlovid and monoclonal antibodies. Literally every argument used to justify why we should coerce people to take the vaccine could also be used to justify why we should coerce people to take Paxlovid. It prevents the severity of symptoms, likely making you less infectious and less of a burden on the taxpayers and healthcare system. The fact that the COVID vaccines don’t even function as traditional vaccines do ie they don’t grant you immunity and don’t stop you from getting COVID and spreading it to others makes this analogy even more apt. So that begs the question. Do you think we should coerce people to take Paxlovid if they are diagnosed with COVID? Maybe tell them they will be financially responsible for the excess burden they are placing on the system? You want to live in a world where people can tell you to open your mouth and swallow what they put in there? I’m sure you’ll tell me this is totally different and not the same at all before you go on to compare the COVID vaccines to seatbelts This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much. "A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time." https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 I wouldn't consider cutting the transmission rate by half to be "not very much". From your own source Show nested quote + Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.” Ok I said “not very much” and the professor in the source you offered says “not so much”. I guess that is way different.
That professor is comparing the lowering of the rates of hospitalization (by 90+%) and mortality (by 90+%) to the lowering of the rate of transmission (40-50%), so yes, contrasting those things on a relative scale shows a marked difference - reducing something by 40-50% isn't as much as reducing something by 90%.
That is not what you were saying, and your refusal to acknowledge this - and to clearly not care if the number of covid cases was doubled - is why people are criticizing you, regardless of your vaccination status. When context is taken into consideration, what you were saying (on an absolute scale) and what this professor was saying (on a relative scale) were two very different things, even though you both used the same words. You're not fooling anyone with your attempt at semantics arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 30 2022 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 20:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 05:24 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 05:18 BlackJack wrote:
I love being this threads resident “antivaxxer” despite the fact that I got my first shot in December 2020 days after it was authorized and I’m clearly the only person that feels so supremely confident in my 3 shots to protect me that I don’t insist that everyone else around me also needs to be vaccinated in order for my 3 shots to work. You know… just the usual antivaxx rhetoric. Carry on. What's your actual problem with them covid vaccines again? You're conflating so many points in time that it's hard to track what period of the pandemic you're talking about. The point is very simple and it hasn’t changed: people should make their healthcare decisions, particularly regarding what goes in their body, for themselves. By the way in case you didn’t know there are a few medications now authorized to treat COVID such as Paxlovid and monoclonal antibodies. Literally every argument used to justify why we should coerce people to take the vaccine could also be used to justify why we should coerce people to take Paxlovid. It prevents the severity of symptoms, likely making you less infectious and less of a burden on the taxpayers and healthcare system. The fact that the COVID vaccines don’t even function as traditional vaccines do ie they don’t grant you immunity and don’t stop you from getting COVID and spreading it to others makes this analogy even more apt. So that begs the question. Do you think we should coerce people to take Paxlovid if they are diagnosed with COVID? Maybe tell them they will be financially responsible for the excess burden they are placing on the system? You want to live in a world where people can tell you to open your mouth and swallow what they put in there? I’m sure you’ll tell me this is totally different and not the same at all before you go on to compare the COVID vaccines to seatbelts This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much. "A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time." https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 I wouldn't consider cutting the transmission rate by half to be "not very much". From your own source Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.” Ok I said “not very much” and the professor in the source you offered says “not so much”. I guess that is way different. That professor is comparing the lowering of the rates of hospitalization (by 90+%) and mortality (by 90+%) to the lowering of the rate of transmission (40-50%), so yes, contrasting those things on a relative scale shows a marked difference - reducing something by 40-50% isn't as much as reducing something by 90%. That is not what you were saying, and your refusal to acknowledge this - and to clearly not care if the number of covid cases was doubled - is why people are criticizing you, regardless of your vaccination status. When context is taken into consideration, what you were saying (on an absolute scale) and what this professor was saying (on a relative scale) were two very different things, even though you both used the same words. You're not fooling anyone with your attempt at semantics arguments.
Wrong. Like me, the professor is referring to how the vaccine is faring against transmission in modern times. You on the other hand are clinging to a study from the Alpha variant that doesn’t even exist anymore. Most people respond to changing variables. You stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it because the numbers now aren’t as favorable.
|
On July 30 2022 22:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 20:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 05:24 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 05:18 BlackJack wrote:
I love being this threads resident “antivaxxer” despite the fact that I got my first shot in December 2020 days after it was authorized and I’m clearly the only person that feels so supremely confident in my 3 shots to protect me that I don’t insist that everyone else around me also needs to be vaccinated in order for my 3 shots to work. You know… just the usual antivaxx rhetoric. Carry on. What's your actual problem with them covid vaccines again? You're conflating so many points in time that it's hard to track what period of the pandemic you're talking about. The point is very simple and it hasn’t changed: people should make their healthcare decisions, particularly regarding what goes in their body, for themselves. By the way in case you didn’t know there are a few medications now authorized to treat COVID such as Paxlovid and monoclonal antibodies. Literally every argument used to justify why we should coerce people to take the vaccine could also be used to justify why we should coerce people to take Paxlovid. It prevents the severity of symptoms, likely making you less infectious and less of a burden on the taxpayers and healthcare system. The fact that the COVID vaccines don’t even function as traditional vaccines do ie they don’t grant you immunity and don’t stop you from getting COVID and spreading it to others makes this analogy even more apt. So that begs the question. Do you think we should coerce people to take Paxlovid if they are diagnosed with COVID? Maybe tell them they will be financially responsible for the excess burden they are placing on the system? You want to live in a world where people can tell you to open your mouth and swallow what they put in there? I’m sure you’ll tell me this is totally different and not the same at all before you go on to compare the COVID vaccines to seatbelts This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much. "A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time." https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 I wouldn't consider cutting the transmission rate by half to be "not very much". From your own source Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.” Ok I said “not very much” and the professor in the source you offered says “not so much”. I guess that is way different. That professor is comparing the lowering of the rates of hospitalization (by 90+%) and mortality (by 90+%) to the lowering of the rate of transmission (40-50%), so yes, contrasting those things on a relative scale shows a marked difference - reducing something by 40-50% isn't as much as reducing something by 90%. That is not what you were saying, and your refusal to acknowledge this - and to clearly not care if the number of covid cases was doubled - is why people are criticizing you, regardless of your vaccination status. When context is taken into consideration, what you were saying (on an absolute scale) and what this professor was saying (on a relative scale) were two very different things, even though you both used the same words. You're not fooling anyone with your attempt at semantics arguments. Wrong. Like me, the professor is referring to how the vaccine is faring against transmission in modern times. You on the other hand are clinging to a study from the Alpha variant that doesn’t even exist anymore. Most people respond to changing variables. You stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it because the numbers now aren’t as favorable.
You assert this as if you've provided any actual data that contradicts the many sources and studies that the rest of us have shown you. And no, there is a significant difference between saying "This didn't help much" and "This didn't help as much as this other thing".
|
|
|
On July 30 2022 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 22:09 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 20:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 05:24 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 05:18 BlackJack wrote:
I love being this threads resident “antivaxxer” despite the fact that I got my first shot in December 2020 days after it was authorized and I’m clearly the only person that feels so supremely confident in my 3 shots to protect me that I don’t insist that everyone else around me also needs to be vaccinated in order for my 3 shots to work. You know… just the usual antivaxx rhetoric. Carry on. What's your actual problem with them covid vaccines again? You're conflating so many points in time that it's hard to track what period of the pandemic you're talking about. The point is very simple and it hasn’t changed: people should make their healthcare decisions, particularly regarding what goes in their body, for themselves. By the way in case you didn’t know there are a few medications now authorized to treat COVID such as Paxlovid and monoclonal antibodies. Literally every argument used to justify why we should coerce people to take the vaccine could also be used to justify why we should coerce people to take Paxlovid. It prevents the severity of symptoms, likely making you less infectious and less of a burden on the taxpayers and healthcare system. The fact that the COVID vaccines don’t even function as traditional vaccines do ie they don’t grant you immunity and don’t stop you from getting COVID and spreading it to others makes this analogy even more apt. So that begs the question. Do you think we should coerce people to take Paxlovid if they are diagnosed with COVID? Maybe tell them they will be financially responsible for the excess burden they are placing on the system? You want to live in a world where people can tell you to open your mouth and swallow what they put in there? I’m sure you’ll tell me this is totally different and not the same at all before you go on to compare the COVID vaccines to seatbelts This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much. "A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time." https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 I wouldn't consider cutting the transmission rate by half to be "not very much". From your own source Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.” Ok I said “not very much” and the professor in the source you offered says “not so much”. I guess that is way different. That professor is comparing the lowering of the rates of hospitalization (by 90+%) and mortality (by 90+%) to the lowering of the rate of transmission (40-50%), so yes, contrasting those things on a relative scale shows a marked difference - reducing something by 40-50% isn't as much as reducing something by 90%. That is not what you were saying, and your refusal to acknowledge this - and to clearly not care if the number of covid cases was doubled - is why people are criticizing you, regardless of your vaccination status. When context is taken into consideration, what you were saying (on an absolute scale) and what this professor was saying (on a relative scale) were two very different things, even though you both used the same words. You're not fooling anyone with your attempt at semantics arguments. Wrong. Like me, the professor is referring to how the vaccine is faring against transmission in modern times. You on the other hand are clinging to a study from the Alpha variant that doesn’t even exist anymore. Most people respond to changing variables. You stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it because the numbers now aren’t as favorable. You assert this as if you've provided any actual data that contradicts the many sources and studies that the rest of us have shown you. And no, there is a significant difference between saying "This didn't help much" and "This didn't help as much as this other thing".
According to your source on the last page:
Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load—or amount of SARS-CoV-2—in your body. “Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus,” says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia. One study,5 sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found “no difference in infectious virus titer between groups” who had been vaccinated and had not.
Instead, it’s the principle that the UKHSA identified above: if you don’t get infected in the first place thanks to a vaccine, you can’t spread it. Once you’re infected, you still can—although what we know about the window when you’re most likely to transmit the virus to others has improved.
So the amount that vaccines reduce transmission is more or less equal to the amount that it reduces infection. The vaccine efficacy against the Omicron strain offers some protection for a few months but then quickly wanes down to nothing after any significant period of time. Each new booster offers the same small amount of protection that quickly wanes to 0.
COVID surveilane report the UK government
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1088974/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-27.pdf
Table 3a. Consensus estimates of vaccine effectiveness against BA.1 or BA.2 Omicron for 2 doses and 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine compared to unvaccinated individuals
Conveniently all 3 vaccines offer the same protection against infection after a booster dose and they are as follows:
0-3 months: 45%
3-6 months: 15%
>6 months: 0%
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before and your attitude was basically hey those numbers are greater than nothing. Nevermind the fact that before the 1st vaccines were even approved the FDA said it wanted to see at least 50% vaccine efficacy in any vaccine it approves. Even at it's peak none of the vaccines would hit the bare minimum of what the FDA originally deemed acceptable for approval. That's okay, just shift the goalposts.
So the variables that have changed with the Omicron variant:
Transmission - vaccines far more helpful against transmission under Alpha/Delta than Omicron
Symptoms - largest symptom of Omicron is sore throat and almost nobody is being ventilated for COVID-pneumonia anymore
Lethality - Omicron 91% less lethal than Delta
Vaccine availabilty - Vaccines available for anyone that wants one unlike last year when they are still being rolled out and not everyone had access
So if you'd like to come out and say, "Hey, I supporteed vaccine mandates last year during Alpha/Delta COVID but they don't make sense anymore because Omicron is far less lethal, everyone has an opprtunity to protect themselves, and the vaccines are not doing a great job at preventing the spread of it" that's okay by me.
|
On July 30 2022 23:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 22:09 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 20:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 06:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 05:24 Artisreal wrote:
[quote]
What's your actual problem with them covid vaccines again?
You're conflating so many points in time that it's hard to track what period of the pandemic you're talking about. The point is very simple and it hasn’t changed: people should make their healthcare decisions, particularly regarding what goes in their body, for themselves. By the way in case you didn’t know there are a few medications now authorized to treat COVID such as Paxlovid and monoclonal antibodies. Literally every argument used to justify why we should coerce people to take the vaccine could also be used to justify why we should coerce people to take Paxlovid. It prevents the severity of symptoms, likely making you less infectious and less of a burden on the taxpayers and healthcare system. The fact that the COVID vaccines don’t even function as traditional vaccines do ie they don’t grant you immunity and don’t stop you from getting COVID and spreading it to others makes this analogy even more apt. So that begs the question. Do you think we should coerce people to take Paxlovid if they are diagnosed with COVID? Maybe tell them they will be financially responsible for the excess burden they are placing on the system? You want to live in a world where people can tell you to open your mouth and swallow what they put in there? I’m sure you’ll tell me this is totally different and not the same at all before you go on to compare the COVID vaccines to seatbelts This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much. "A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time." https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 I wouldn't consider cutting the transmission rate by half to be "not very much". From your own source Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.” Ok I said “not very much” and the professor in the source you offered says “not so much”. I guess that is way different. That professor is comparing the lowering of the rates of hospitalization (by 90+%) and mortality (by 90+%) to the lowering of the rate of transmission (40-50%), so yes, contrasting those things on a relative scale shows a marked difference - reducing something by 40-50% isn't as much as reducing something by 90%. That is not what you were saying, and your refusal to acknowledge this - and to clearly not care if the number of covid cases was doubled - is why people are criticizing you, regardless of your vaccination status. When context is taken into consideration, what you were saying (on an absolute scale) and what this professor was saying (on a relative scale) were two very different things, even though you both used the same words. You're not fooling anyone with your attempt at semantics arguments. Wrong. Like me, the professor is referring to how the vaccine is faring against transmission in modern times. You on the other hand are clinging to a study from the Alpha variant that doesn’t even exist anymore. Most people respond to changing variables. You stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it because the numbers now aren’t as favorable. You assert this as if you've provided any actual data that contradicts the many sources and studies that the rest of us have shown you. And no, there is a significant difference between saying "This didn't help much" and "This didn't help as much as this other thing". According to your source on the last page: Show nested quote +Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load—or amount of SARS-CoV-2—in your body. “Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus,” says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia. One study,5 sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found “no difference in infectious virus titer between groups” who had been vaccinated and had not.
Instead, it’s the principle that the UKHSA identified above: if you don’t get infected in the first place thanks to a vaccine, you can’t spread it. Once you’re infected, you still can—although what we know about the window when you’re most likely to transmit the virus to others has improved. So the amount that vaccines reduce transmission is more or less equal to the amount that it reduces infection. The vaccine efficacy against the Omicron strain offers some protection for a few months but then quickly wanes down to nothing after any significant period of time. Each new booster offers the same small amount of protection that quickly wanes to 0. COVID surveilane report the UK government https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1088974/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-27.pdfTable 3a. Consensus estimates of vaccine effectiveness against BA.1 or BA.2 Omicron for 2 doses and 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine compared to unvaccinated individualsConveniently all 3 vaccines offer the same protection against infection after a booster dose and they are as follows: 0-3 months: 45% 3-6 months: 15% >6 months: 0% I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before and your attitude was basically hey those numbers are greater than nothing. Nevermind the fact that before the 1st vaccines were even approved the FDA said it wanted to see at least 50% vaccine efficacy in any vaccine it approves. Even at it's peak none of the vaccines would hit the bare minimum of what the FDA originally deemed acceptable for approval. That's okay, just shift the goalposts. So the variables that have changed with the Omicron variant: Transmission - vaccines far more helpful against transmission under Alpha/Delta than Omicron Symptoms - largest symptom of Omicron is sore throat and almost nobody is being ventilated for COVID-pneumonia anymore Lethality - Omicron 91% less lethal than Delta Vaccine availabilty - Vaccines available for anyone that wants one unlike last year when they are still being rolled out and not everyone had access So if you'd like to come out and say, "Hey, I supporteed vaccine mandates last year during Alpha/Delta COVID but they don't make sense anymore because Omicron is far less lethal, everyone has an opprtunity to protect themselves, and the vaccines are not doing a great job at preventing the spread of it" that's okay by me.
Where are those 45%/15%/0% numbers you're quoting, because they're not from Table 3a's transmission rows. In fact, they literally just say "Insufficient Data", so I don't see how this establishes anything. I think you're mistaking the "all infection" rows with the transmission rows, which are clearly not the same or else the tables would have matching numbers there. Your assertion that "all infection" numbers match "transmission" numbers is literally refuted by Table 3a, as those rows don't match at all. You're trying to change the topic from one Outcome row to a different Outcome row.
And we're in agreement that Omicron seems to be less deadly than Delta. I'm just not interested in these red herrings.
You were trivializing the vaccines' effects on transmission rates. Studies contradicted your trivialization. You tried to find one that supported your assertion (ignoring the other studies), but your study literally left that information blank, so you tried claiming that other things in the table are basically the same thing as transmission rates, even though the very table you quoted separates each of them from transmission rates and doesn't have them match. Did you just assume I wasn't going to look at the table? They're entirely different rows.
|
On July 30 2022 11:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 10:55 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 10:23 WombaT wrote:On July 30 2022 09:16 NewSunshine wrote:
It's likely I got infected in 2020, before we had vaccines. I got my two shots and booster as soon as I could, and just the other week got reinfected. I posted it in this thread before all this contrarian devil's advocate nonsense started up.
Like, you got the vaccine early on. Good for you. But now because a shitload of people didn't also get the vaccine, the virus has now mutated enough times that it basically doesn't give a shit if you're vaccinated anymore. Congratulations, your principal of letting people get vaccinated only if they want to is paying off splendidly. It very much becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the suboptimal uptake of vaccines at the time they could have made the biggest difference is held up as proof of their inefficacy. Ye cannae win like. The more suboptimal uptake of vaccines occurred because we didn’t want to share them with the poor people. But I’m sure the coronavirus knows to only spread and mutate in the selfish assholes that are antivaxx and not in the unvaccinated people that just didn’t have access. Given time perhaps we will get that variant. If you can’t de facto wipe it out in the most affluent and well-resourced nations on earth, it’s not happening. We don’t have access to alternate realities, perhaps if certain conditions were changed, such a thing was viable at some point. Perhaps, no such conditions exist. Perhaps they do but are so unpalatable as to be totally unviable, etc etc My main worry is for whenever the next pandemic is, if it’s something worse. I mean vaccine skepticism went from niche to pretty mainstream, through this pandemic and hasn’t been shoved back in the box. Next pandemic you’re going to be entering day 1 with a lot more people already hostile from the outset. Or less uptake of more established vaccines for things we’ve already eradicated
Well yes the idea of wiping it out was impossible, as i stated 18 months ago.
Australia locked down (Melbourne most locked down city in the world), banned overseas travel for 18 months, almost impossible for overseas visitors to enter and those that did had to spend 14 days in quarantine.The country got 95% double dose vaccinated and close to 80% triple dose vaccinated.
Suddenly a new variant appears that is 'vaccine resistant' and you're back to square one.Now Australia has got some of the absolute highest case numbers, number in ICU and deaths.They're still pushing people to get their fourth and fifth jabs of a vaccine developed for the original variant from over 2 years ago, which to me is concerning considering EU regulators warned 6 months ago of the dangers of getting these jabs every 4 months, the possibility it could weaken immune systems : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says
It's a concern alright, maybe think twice before getting that 3rd, 4th, 5th booster.Judging by the declining numbers for each successive shot here seems like people are finally starting to get the message.As i stated before most have moved on, mask wearing is 5% or less even though it's strongly recommended.
JimmiC wrote:
Having stupid choices lose peoples privliges is a pretty key part of how free society works. Stop pretending your a victim, its offensive to actual victims, and make better choices or FUCKING deal with the consequences of your stupid choice quietly.
Do you believe corporations have a responsibility to provide safe products and be liable when the consumer of that product has serious injuries or illness from it? Here we are over 18 months into the vaccine rollout and many people are still OK with the fact that many in the USA had to pay medical bills out of their own pocket for these jabs while the multinational corporations did not pay a dime.There would be no mandates it that wasn't the case, lets face it.
|
On July 30 2022 23:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 23:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 22:09 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 20:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:On July 30 2022 06:53 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
The point is very simple and it hasn’t changed: people should make their healthcare decisions, particularly regarding what goes in their body, for themselves.
By the way in case you didn’t know there are a few medications now authorized to treat COVID such as Paxlovid and monoclonal antibodies. Literally every argument used to justify why we should coerce people to take the vaccine could also be used to justify why we should coerce people to take Paxlovid. It prevents the severity of symptoms, likely making you less infectious and less of a burden on the taxpayers and healthcare system. The fact that the COVID vaccines don’t even function as traditional vaccines do ie they don’t grant you immunity and don’t stop you from getting COVID and spreading it to others makes this analogy even more apt.
So that begs the question. Do you think we should coerce people to take Paxlovid if they are diagnosed with COVID? Maybe tell them they will be financially responsible for the excess burden they are placing on the system? You want to live in a world where people can tell you to open your mouth and swallow what they put in there?
I’m sure you’ll tell me this is totally different and not the same at all before you go on to compare the COVID vaccines to seatbelts This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much. "A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time." https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 I wouldn't consider cutting the transmission rate by half to be "not very much". From your own source Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.” Ok I said “not very much” and the professor in the source you offered says “not so much”. I guess that is way different. That professor is comparing the lowering of the rates of hospitalization (by 90+%) and mortality (by 90+%) to the lowering of the rate of transmission (40-50%), so yes, contrasting those things on a relative scale shows a marked difference - reducing something by 40-50% isn't as much as reducing something by 90%. That is not what you were saying, and your refusal to acknowledge this - and to clearly not care if the number of covid cases was doubled - is why people are criticizing you, regardless of your vaccination status. When context is taken into consideration, what you were saying (on an absolute scale) and what this professor was saying (on a relative scale) were two very different things, even though you both used the same words. You're not fooling anyone with your attempt at semantics arguments. Wrong. Like me, the professor is referring to how the vaccine is faring against transmission in modern times. You on the other hand are clinging to a study from the Alpha variant that doesn’t even exist anymore. Most people respond to changing variables. You stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it because the numbers now aren’t as favorable. You assert this as if you've provided any actual data that contradicts the many sources and studies that the rest of us have shown you. And no, there is a significant difference between saying "This didn't help much" and "This didn't help as much as this other thing". According to your source on the last page: Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load—or amount of SARS-CoV-2—in your body. “Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus,” says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia. One study,5 sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found “no difference in infectious virus titer between groups” who had been vaccinated and had not.
Instead, it’s the principle that the UKHSA identified above: if you don’t get infected in the first place thanks to a vaccine, you can’t spread it. Once you’re infected, you still can—although what we know about the window when you’re most likely to transmit the virus to others has improved. So the amount that vaccines reduce transmission is more or less equal to the amount that it reduces infection. The vaccine efficacy against the Omicron strain offers some protection for a few months but then quickly wanes down to nothing after any significant period of time. Each new booster offers the same small amount of protection that quickly wanes to 0. COVID surveilane report the UK government https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1088974/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-27.pdfTable 3a. Consensus estimates of vaccine effectiveness against BA.1 or BA.2 Omicron for 2 doses and 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine compared to unvaccinated individualsConveniently all 3 vaccines offer the same protection against infection after a booster dose and they are as follows: 0-3 months: 45% 3-6 months: 15% >6 months: 0% I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before and your attitude was basically hey those numbers are greater than nothing. Nevermind the fact that before the 1st vaccines were even approved the FDA said it wanted to see at least 50% vaccine efficacy in any vaccine it approves. Even at it's peak none of the vaccines would hit the bare minimum of what the FDA originally deemed acceptable for approval. That's okay, just shift the goalposts. So the variables that have changed with the Omicron variant: Transmission - vaccines far more helpful against transmission under Alpha/Delta than Omicron Symptoms - largest symptom of Omicron is sore throat and almost nobody is being ventilated for COVID-pneumonia anymore Lethality - Omicron 91% less lethal than Delta Vaccine availabilty - Vaccines available for anyone that wants one unlike last year when they are still being rolled out and not everyone had access So if you'd like to come out and say, "Hey, I supporteed vaccine mandates last year during Alpha/Delta COVID but they don't make sense anymore because Omicron is far less lethal, everyone has an opprtunity to protect themselves, and the vaccines are not doing a great job at preventing the spread of it" that's okay by me. Where are those 45%/15%/0% numbers you're quoting, because they're not from Table 3a's transmission rows. In fact, they literally just say "Insufficient Data", so I don't see how this establishes anything. I think you're mistaking the "all infection" rows with the transmission rows, which are clearly not the same or else the tables would have matching numbers there. Your assertion that "all infection" numbers match "transmission" numbers is literally refuted by Table 3a, as those rows don't match at all. You're trying to change the topic from one Outcome row to a different Outcome row. And we're in agreement that Omicron seems to be less deadly than Delta. I'm just not interested in these red herrings. You were trivializing the vaccines' effects on transmission rates. Studies contradicted your trivialization. You tried to find one that supported your assertion (ignoring the other studies), but your study literally left that information blank, so you tried claiming that other things in the table are basically the same thing as transmission rates, even though the very table you quoted separates each of them from transmission rates and doesn't have them match. Did you just assume I wasn't going to look at the table? They're entirely different rows.
Go back to the start of the quote tree and see that I said we don’t have good data on quantifying how much the vaccines reduce transmission. Then it’s not really a surprise that the table has insufficient data for transmission.
However it’s your own source that says the vaccines reduce transmission by reducing infection. So it’s not difficult to deduce that if vaccines reduce infection a lot then they reduce transmission a lot. If they don’t reduce infection a lot then they don’t reduce transmission a lot. Not sure why you’re arguing with this since it’s your own source that says this is how the vaccines reduce transmission, although I suppose its possible you don’t even believe your own sources.
|
On July 31 2022 00:05 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 23:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 23:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 22:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 22:09 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 20:44 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 30 2022 08:35 BlackJack wrote:On July 30 2022 07:35 Artisreal wrote:[quote] This point is not so simple. If you're a danger to the public, you should be penalized, right? Personal responsibilty and such. Thus science said take the vacc to protect those more vulnerable (who despite being vacced are still susceptible) and those who get severely ill but have a chance to survive but die on the hospital floor because shit, beds are fulll already. ok. a couple more months in, lots of people vaccd, it's basically today. it's still 700 people a week that die of covid here currently. but the desease lost its threat, life goes on. the science also said that vaccs are not only good for preventing severe illness, but also help mitigate spread of the desease. thanks to that we're were we are with only so much mortality. do we still need vaccination? fuck yes. to stop the spread as each infection gives the virus room to mutate in a direction we won't like. Fuck, we're seeing summer waves now and people catching it outside, whereas alpha would previously have needed people to be in the same room for 15 minutes. Paxlovid or any other means used to treat patients with covid do not have the aforementoined benefits. I really fail to see any harm done to bodily autonomy by providing a wonderful means to protect yourself and your loved ones for free. it's weird that you still struggle with the fact that the vacc helps mitigate the spread. why is that? + Show Spoiler [CDC on covid spread] +COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized in the United States have been shown to provide considerable protection against severe disease and death caused by COVID-19. These findings, along with the early evidence for reduced levels of viral mRNA and culturable virus in vaccinated people who acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggest that any associated transmission risk is substantially reduced in vaccinated people: even for Delta, evidence suggests fully vaccinated people who become infected are infectious for shorter periods of time than unvaccinated people infected with Delta. While vaccine effectiveness against emerging and other SARS-CoV-2 variants will continue to be assessed, available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines approved or authorized in the United States offer substantial protection against hospitalization and death from emerging variants, including the Delta variant. Data suggest lower vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed illness and symptomatic disease caused by the Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants compared with the ancestral strain and Alpha variant. Early data also find some decline in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection over time, although in fall 2021, 9 months after the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, vaccination remains highly protective against hospitalization with COVID-19. re: not functioning as traditional vaccs. have you heard of the yearly flu vaccine? have you heard of the refresher vaccinations for tetanus, rabies, Polio, diphtheria, or whooping couch. oh and if you had measles, chances are your immune system "forgot" your immunity status for any obtained (temporary or permanent) immunity. I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much. "A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time." https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298 I wouldn't consider cutting the transmission rate by half to be "not very much". From your own source Most papers to date (notably, many are preprints and have yet to be peer reviewed) indicate vaccines are holding up against admission to hospital and mortality, says Linda Bauld, professor of public health at the University of Edinburgh, “but not so much against transmission.” Ok I said “not very much” and the professor in the source you offered says “not so much”. I guess that is way different. That professor is comparing the lowering of the rates of hospitalization (by 90+%) and mortality (by 90+%) to the lowering of the rate of transmission (40-50%), so yes, contrasting those things on a relative scale shows a marked difference - reducing something by 40-50% isn't as much as reducing something by 90%. That is not what you were saying, and your refusal to acknowledge this - and to clearly not care if the number of covid cases was doubled - is why people are criticizing you, regardless of your vaccination status. When context is taken into consideration, what you were saying (on an absolute scale) and what this professor was saying (on a relative scale) were two very different things, even though you both used the same words. You're not fooling anyone with your attempt at semantics arguments. Wrong. Like me, the professor is referring to how the vaccine is faring against transmission in modern times. You on the other hand are clinging to a study from the Alpha variant that doesn’t even exist anymore. Most people respond to changing variables. You stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it because the numbers now aren’t as favorable. You assert this as if you've provided any actual data that contradicts the many sources and studies that the rest of us have shown you. And no, there is a significant difference between saying "This didn't help much" and "This didn't help as much as this other thing". According to your source on the last page: Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load—or amount of SARS-CoV-2—in your body. “Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus,” says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia. One study,5 sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found “no difference in infectious virus titer between groups” who had been vaccinated and had not.
Instead, it’s the principle that the UKHSA identified above: if you don’t get infected in the first place thanks to a vaccine, you can’t spread it. Once you’re infected, you still can—although what we know about the window when you’re most likely to transmit the virus to others has improved. So the amount that vaccines reduce transmission is more or less equal to the amount that it reduces infection. The vaccine efficacy against the Omicron strain offers some protection for a few months but then quickly wanes down to nothing after any significant period of time. Each new booster offers the same small amount of protection that quickly wanes to 0. COVID surveilane report the UK government https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1088974/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-27.pdfTable 3a. Consensus estimates of vaccine effectiveness against BA.1 or BA.2 Omicron for 2 doses and 3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine compared to unvaccinated individualsConveniently all 3 vaccines offer the same protection against infection after a booster dose and they are as follows: 0-3 months: 45% 3-6 months: 15% >6 months: 0% I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before and your attitude was basically hey those numbers are greater than nothing. Nevermind the fact that before the 1st vaccines were even approved the FDA said it wanted to see at least 50% vaccine efficacy in any vaccine it approves. Even at it's peak none of the vaccines would hit the bare minimum of what the FDA originally deemed acceptable for approval. That's okay, just shift the goalposts. So the variables that have changed with the Omicron variant: Transmission - vaccines far more helpful against transmission under Alpha/Delta than Omicron Symptoms - largest symptom of Omicron is sore throat and almost nobody is being ventilated for COVID-pneumonia anymore Lethality - Omicron 91% less lethal than Delta Vaccine availabilty - Vaccines available for anyone that wants one unlike last year when they are still being rolled out and not everyone had access So if you'd like to come out and say, "Hey, I supporteed vaccine mandates last year during Alpha/Delta COVID but they don't make sense anymore because Omicron is far less lethal, everyone has an opprtunity to protect themselves, and the vaccines are not doing a great job at preventing the spread of it" that's okay by me. Where are those 45%/15%/0% numbers you're quoting, because they're not from Table 3a's transmission rows. In fact, they literally just say "Insufficient Data", so I don't see how this establishes anything. I think you're mistaking the "all infection" rows with the transmission rows, which are clearly not the same or else the tables would have matching numbers there. Your assertion that "all infection" numbers match "transmission" numbers is literally refuted by Table 3a, as those rows don't match at all. You're trying to change the topic from one Outcome row to a different Outcome row. And we're in agreement that Omicron seems to be less deadly than Delta. I'm just not interested in these red herrings. You were trivializing the vaccines' effects on transmission rates. Studies contradicted your trivialization. You tried to find one that supported your assertion (ignoring the other studies), but your study literally left that information blank, so you tried claiming that other things in the table are basically the same thing as transmission rates, even though the very table you quoted separates each of them from transmission rates and doesn't have them match. Did you just assume I wasn't going to look at the table? They're entirely different rows. Go back to the start of the quote tree and see that I said we don’t have good data on quantifying how much the vaccines reduce transmission. Then it’s not really a surprise that the table has insufficient data for transmission. However it’s your own source that says the vaccines reduce transmission by reducing infection. So it’s not difficult to deduce that if vaccines reduce infection a lot then they reduce transmission a lot. If they don’t reduce infection a lot then they don’t reduce transmission a lot. Not sure why you’re arguing with this since it’s your own source that says this is how the vaccines reduce transmission, although I suppose its possible you don’t even believe your own sources.
Your very first quote I responded to was "I think it’s not easily quantified to what extent vaccination reduces transmission but all signs seem to point to not very much." That was the beginning of our dialogue chain, and we learned that the reduction ends up being 40-50%. Perhaps that's "not very much" by your standards - maybe you wouldn't care about other people vaccinating unless the transmission reduction was something like 70% or higher - but I suspect that if the data showed 70%, then you would have insisted on 80%, and if the data said 80%, then you would have insisted on 90%. I'm sure different people have different standards, but I think that lowering covid's transmissibility by half is a serious improvement.
As for your bait-and-switch from "transmission" (A) to "all infection" (B), which your study states are two different things:
1. You said A is low.
2. I showed you a study that shows that A is not low.
3. You found a study that doesn't support your claim that A is low, but does say that B eventually becomes low.
4. You assert that A and B are basically interchangeable, even though your study makes it clear that they are not.
If you want to compare infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, there's plenty of good data on that too:
"Once fully vaccinated, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 91 percent. After partial vaccination, participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 81 percent. These estimates included symptomatic and asymptomatic infections."
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html
"Researchers found there was a significant and rapid reduction in infection risk after even a single dose of vaccine, reaching -80.4% and -53.7% at 14–30 days with Delta and Omicron variants respectively. This reduction in risk persisted, at -86.4% and -57.9% at 31–60 days, and -61.5% and -63.7% after 61–90 days."
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/pfizer-vaccine-reduces-the-risk-of-covid-19-infection-in-children
Lowering the risk of infection by roughly 53-91% is yet another great reason to not only get vaccinated, but to also want others to get vaccinated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
