|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
|
|
|
|
On July 31 2022 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2022 00:05 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Did you really just post another study from June 2021 to counter my post that vaccines don’t do a great job of stopping the spread for Omicron? Ok I think we are done here.
|
|
|
On July 31 2022 04:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2022 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 31 2022 00:05 BlackJack wrote: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:[quote] "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. Did you really just post another study from June 2021 to counter my post that vaccines don’t do a great job of stopping the spread for Omicron? Ok I think we are done here.
Ummm... I guess I'll just copy/paste what I just wrote?
"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
If you want to stop having a discussion, that's fine, but I literally just showed you that Omicron infection rates decreased thanks to the vaccination. That article is from 18 days ago. Just because I also cited additional sources showing that vaccinations have also helped decrease infection rates from earlier variants and earlier time periods doesn't invalidate the data about omicron.
|
On July 31 2022 07:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2022 04:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 31 2022 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 31 2022 00:05 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
From your own source
[quote]
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. Did you really just post another study from June 2021 to counter my post that vaccines don’t do a great job of stopping the spread for Omicron? Ok I think we are done here. Ummm... I guess I'll just copy/paste what I just wrote? "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 If you want to stop having a discussion, that's fine, but I literally just showed you that Omicron infection rates decreased thanks to the vaccination. That article is from 18 days ago. Just because I also cited additional sources showing that vaccinations have also helped decrease infection rates from earlier variants and earlier time periods doesn't invalidate the data about omicron.
Why does it stop after 90 days? Most of us got our last shots way longer ago than that! Those numbers do not tell me universal boosters every 3 months is a good idea, especially as infections are less and less severe.
We do have a fantastic natural immune system, at this point, we should just let it do its thing, except for high-risk groups. A real virus infection can still be preferable long term.
|
I don't think it's saying protection stops after 90 days. It's probably just how long they followed the test group. And I haven't seen any data to suggest getting infected is preferable in any way. Can we not go there please?
If you're at this point somehow and you're still debating, just get the vaccine. The real thing kills people, the vaccine doesn't. There's no way it's better to just catch the disease, and natural immunity is an unreliable prospect. And even if you get that immunity, it comes with the fact that you've probably spread the disease to others. Just get the vaccine.
|
On July 31 2022 00:58 JimmiC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 30 2022 23:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2022 11:50 WombaT wrote: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-saysIt'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. Show nested quote +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. Can you include some sort of source with your ranting or be more specific? I posted on the last page how the US finally had socialized health care for COVID. Are you confused on the people having to pay for testing? While your here, mind explaining why Merck is a "good" multinational big pharma and say Moderna is a "bad" one?
Sorry, when did i say Merck was 'good'? This is you again putting words into peoples mouths that they did not say.Last time i went to the USA (NYC) every 3rd ad on television was for a pharmaceutical drug.Bizarre, but it's always been about money i guess.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages either
If you experience severe side effects after getting a Covid vaccine, lawyers tell CNBC there is basically no one to blame in a U.S. court of law.
The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
“It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed,” said Rogge Dunn, a Dallas labor and employment attorney. “Pharmaceutical companies typically aren’t offered much liability protection under the law.“
You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment.
|
First monkeypox deaths outside Africa have now been reported.Two from Spain and one Brazil.The Brazillian was undergoing treatment for cancer which likely contributed.Spanish autopsies out soon.
https://www.thedailystar.net/world/europe/news/monkeypox-first-deaths-outside-africa-reported-3083621
Spain is one of the world's worst-hit countries, with 4,298 people there infected with the virus, according to the Spanish health ministry."Among the 3,750 (monkeypox) patients... 120 have been hospitalised and two have died," it said in a report, without specifying the date of the second death.It said the victims were "two young men", and that studies were under way to gather more "epidemiologic information" on both cases.
Brazil said a man with monkeypox died on Thursday in Belo Horizonte, the capital of the southeastern Minas Gerais state. The man was undergoing treatment for cancer.Brazil's health ministry has recorded close to 1,000 monkeypox cases, mostly in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro states, which are also in the country's southeast.
The WHO's European office yesterday said that more monkeypox-related deaths can be expected.
"With the continued spread of monkeypox in Europe, we will expect to see more deaths," Catherine Smallwood, Senior Emergency Officer at WHO Europe, said in a statement. The goal needs to be "interrupting transmission quickly in Europe and stopping this outbreak", she said.Early signs of the disease include a high fever, swollen lymph glands and a chickenpox-like rash.But Smallwood stressed that in most cases the disease heals itself without the need for treatment.
The WHO last Saturday declared the monkeypox outbreak a global health emergency.The disease has been detected in 78 countries, with 70 percent of cases found in Europe and 25 percent in the Americas, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Wednesday.
As cases surge globally, the WHO on Wednesday called on the group currently most affected by the virus -- men who have sex with men -- to limit their sexual partners.A full 98 percent of cases have occurred in men who have sex with men.
|
No one is seriously arguing against taking the initial vaccination. It's about taking boosters - how often, how many times, and what extent should they be mandated by government. Not sure where you guys are at, but where I'm from and also many parts of the world afaik, taking boosters once every 3-4 months ain't a thing.
|
|
|
On July 31 2022 14:38 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2022 07:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 31 2022 04:24 BlackJack wrote:On July 31 2022 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 31 2022 00:05 BlackJack wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Did you really just post another study from June 2021 to counter my post that vaccines don’t do a great job of stopping the spread for Omicron? Ok I think we are done here. Ummm... I guess I'll just copy/paste what I just wrote? "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 If you want to stop having a discussion, that's fine, but I literally just showed you that Omicron infection rates decreased thanks to the vaccination. That article is from 18 days ago. Just because I also cited additional sources showing that vaccinations have also helped decrease infection rates from earlier variants and earlier time periods doesn't invalidate the data about omicron. Why does it stop after 90 days? Most of us got our last shots way longer ago than that! Those numbers do not tell me universal boosters every 3 months is a good idea, especially as infections are less and less severe. We do have a fantastic natural immune system, at this point, we should just let it do its thing, except for high-risk groups. A real virus infection can still be preferable long term.
As NewSunshine noted, it's not that the protection stops after 3 months; it's that the data was just collected for 3 months. The fact that the infection reduction actually increased as more time went on, over those first three months, when it came to Omicron - beginning with an infection reduction of 53.7% but then being even more effective at 57.9% reduction and then increasing to a reduction of 63.7% - makes me think that even after 3 months, the vaccination is still doing some really incredible work at reducing infection (as opposed to, for example, the infection reduction rates diminishing substantially from a 53% to a hypothetical 30% and then to an even less effective 10%, over the first 3 months). It's just how long that specific cohort was followed for, and data gathered for them. I don't think there's any reason for it to go 53.7% reduction -> 57.9% reduction -> 63.7% reduction -> 0% reduction. I don't know if the infection reduction gets even stronger, following the trend of the first three months, or if/when it starts to slowly dwindle, but thankfully there's no reason to think (at least, based on the data I've been able to find) that after 90 days the vaccination magically stops doing a pretty good job at lowering infection rate.
I don't think this particular data is leading any experts to conclude that we need to be mandating boosters every three months, or anything like that. However, I do think this data leads experts to recognize the general importance of covid vaccinations and boosters - even with the current Omicron variants - because even though those strains may not be as deadly, they can be highly infectious, and being vaccinated/boosted is clearly reducing the infection rate by between 1/2 and 2/3, compared to being unvaccinated. Remember that even if an infection is, on average, less deadly, we're still going to see plenty of hospitalizations and deaths if there are tons and tons of cases - especially if we end up having 2x or 3x the cases due to unvaccinated people spreading covid like wildfire. Compared to natural immunity, it seems that vaccinated immunity can help drop every 6 infections to a mere 2-3 infections, which means far fewer people will even have a chance at becoming seriously ill.
|
Even though the data is not conclusive, shouldn't the diminishing rate of vaccine efficacy over time, recent rise in cases, and volatility of mutation all point towards regular boosters? Especially since the risk of side effects is very low.
Or do the experts just not know enough about the virus and vaccines to make that call? Or there's some nuance in the data that experts are just not prepared to be vocal about (for example, that only certain groups of people are severely at risk and require constant boosters while the majority don't)?
|
|
|
On July 31 2022 22:29 RKC wrote:
Even though the data is not conclusive, shouldn't the diminishing rate of vaccine efficacy over time, recent rise in cases, and volatility of mutation all point towards regular boosters? Especially since the risk of side effects is very low.
Or do the experts just not know enough about the virus and vaccines to make that call? Or there's some nuance in the data that experts are just not prepared to be vocal about (for example, that only certain groups of people are severely at risk and require constant boosters while the majority don't)?
The data is fairly conclusive that the immunity falls off a cliff after a few months
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/vaccine-induced-immune-response-omicron-wanes-substantially-over-time
Although COVID-19 booster vaccinations in adults elicit high levels of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, antibody levels decrease substantially within 3 months, according to new clinical trial data.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451
No effect against the omicron variant was noted from 20 weeks after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 doses, whereas vaccine effectiveness after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% at 2 to 4 weeks, dropping to 8.8% at 25 or more weeks.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00775-3
But protection waned to around 10% after only 4–6 months, meaning that the vaccines prevented only 10% of the cases that would have occurred if all of the individuals had been unvaccinated.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/vaccines-appear-weak-blocking-omicron-infection-shots-may-reduce-long-covid-2021-12-13/
Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna (MRNA.O), efficacy against symptomatic infection from Omicron is only about 30%, down from about 87% versus Delta, they reported on Sunday on medRxiv ahead of peer review. Protection against symptomatic infection is "essentially eliminated" for individuals vaccinated more than four months earlier.
There's plenty of sources and they all say the exact same thing - protection against infection quickly falls after only a few months.
But for some reason DPB can only find a single study that only tracks people for 3 months and causes him to ponder that protection may get even stronger after 3 months 
|
On July 31 2022 22:29 RKC wrote:
Even though the data is not conclusive, shouldn't the diminishing rate of vaccine efficacy over time, recent rise in cases, and volatility of mutation all point towards regular boosters? Especially since the risk of side effects is very low.
Or do the experts just not know enough about the virus and vaccines to make that call? Or there's some nuance in the data that experts are just not prepared to be vocal about (for example, that only certain groups of people are severely at risk and require constant boosters while the majority don't)?
My guess is that eventually, it'll be the medical recommendation for everyone to not just get an annual flu shot, but also an annual covid shot (hopefully within the same visit, for free). I already get my free flu shot every year at CVS or Walgreens or wherever, just to be safe, so this hypothetical recommendation wouldn't inconvenience me at all.
I have no clue how long it would take us to get there from where we are now (as we slowly transition from pandemic to endemic), but I guess that depends on how dangerous the next few strains/months/years end up being. Given how omicron has really had an emphasis on infection rate, rather than lethality, compared to earlier variants, I think our slow return-to-our-new-normal is beginning (unless a new strain comes out that's super deadly).
I think one of the best-case hypothetical scenarios for us, in terms of lifestyle changes that now have to be considered after surviving a global pandemic, would be getting two, quick, free, annual vaccines in a single trip (flu + covid) instead of just the usual one for the flu. That really wouldn't be much of a lifestyle change at all, thankfully. Maybe I'm being too optimistic though; I'm not an immunologist!
Edit: In this (ideal? not sure) hypothetical scenario, the future covid strains would be so non-lethal (and hopefully not insanely infectious) that there would be no need for future covid vaccine mandates - that they would be completely optional, just like flu vaccines - and that medical researchers would continuously create new, updated shots each year, based on the newest strains and best available data, for maximum efficacy of those optional vaccines.
|
Dudes, and ladies.
I sincerely believe that two contradicting statements have been both true over the course of the pandemic. Like regarding vacc mandates. At some point imo absolutely necessary given the sheet amount of bullshit that went around. But do we need it now with the botched international vaccine delivery programme and high vaccination rates, coupled with waning mortality?
Society might differ from science. And that's alright, if this decision is transparent and understood, and not a kneejerk reaction ala "the libs are trying to curtail muh freedom ".
Some people find that hard to cope with. But that's what happens if a situation is dybamic and conditions change.
Much like the conversation that changed from vaccs help stop the spread to how many times do we have to be vaccd.
These are separate conversations with separate nuances.
|
|
|
I might just be entirely out of the loop, but is there even a booster mandate anywhere? Is any government saying "you must get a booster every X months or else"?
|
On August 01 2022 01:57 Gorsameth wrote:
I might just be entirely out of the loop, but is there even a booster mandate anywhere? Is any government saying "you must get a booster every X months or else"?
I personally haven't heard of such a thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
