|
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 October 13 2022 23:30 Vinekh wrote:
Never mind the people that lost jobs and their human rights, because of the "COVID passes", that were implemented on the basis of claims, that the vaccines prevented transmission. Now it turns out that these claims, at least in the beginning, were completely baseless. I have basically no sympathy for people who believe themselves uniquely immune to a global pandemic.
If they lost their jobs and their 'human rights' it was entirely by their own active choice.
(note I am obviously not talking about people who could not take the vaccine because of legit medical reasons)
|
On October 14 2022 01:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2022 23:30 Vinekh wrote:
Never mind the people that lost jobs and their human rights, because of the "COVID passes", that were implemented on the basis of claims, that the vaccines prevented transmission. Now it turns out that these claims, at least in the beginning, were completely baseless. Thats not why the lockdowns happened. They happened from the start to stop deaths by stopping the hospital system from being overwhelmed. The basis for why we had the lockdowns were based in science and were proven correct. Also the dead lost their jobs and human rights. As well to a lesser degree those that suffered from long covid. If we had a president that believed in science over politics like you seem to do we would have had less people lose their jobs and human rights.
I didn't say lockdowns. I specifically said - because of the COVID passes - and used that term because it had different name in different countries but had the same idea. These policies were based on the idea that the unvaccinated people were dangerous to the others and should not be allowed on certain public places or their workplace for that matter. Now it turns out that that is not really the case and the humane calls to "get vaccinated or kill your parents" were more or less baseless.
Nice strawman by the way, you defeated it very well.
On October 14 2022 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2022 23:30 Vinekh wrote:
Never mind the people that lost jobs and their human rights, because of the "COVID passes", that were implemented on the basis of claims, that the vaccines prevented transmission. Now it turns out that these claims, at least in the beginning, were completely baseless. I have basically no sympathy for people who believe themselves uniquely immune to a global pandemic. If they lost their jobs and their 'human rights' it was entirely by their own active choice. (note I am obviously not talking about people who could not take the vaccine because of legit medical reasons)
So, you are completely OK, to let some random person in high government position to take away your rights, based on assumption and not scientific evidence. Good for you.
And also, good job completely missing the point of what I wrote.
|
|
|
But it wasn't based on assumption, vaccines help when the world is in a global pandemic and the vaccine works, tho less then we hoped.
I don't care if it was used as justification for Covid passes or not. Everyone that can should get vaccinated. Period, Full stop.
If someone choses, note choice, not to then why should I give a shit about what they think, they're clearly a moron.
|
On October 14 2022 01:34 Vinekh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 01:16 Sermokala wrote:On October 13 2022 23:30 Vinekh wrote:
Never mind the people that lost jobs and their human rights, because of the "COVID passes", that were implemented on the basis of claims, that the vaccines prevented transmission. Now it turns out that these claims, at least in the beginning, were completely baseless. Thats not why the lockdowns happened. They happened from the start to stop deaths by stopping the hospital system from being overwhelmed. The basis for why we had the lockdowns were based in science and were proven correct. Also the dead lost their jobs and human rights. As well to a lesser degree those that suffered from long covid. If we had a president that believed in science over politics like you seem to do we would have had less people lose their jobs and human rights. I didn't say lockdowns. I specifically said - because of the COVID passes - and used that term because it had different name in different countries but had the same idea. These policies were based on the idea that the unvaccinated people were dangerous to the others and should not be allowed on certain public places or their workplace for that matter. Now it turns out that that is not really the case and the humane calls to "get vaccinated or kill your parents" were more or less baseless.
Nice strawman by the way, you defeated it very well. Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 01:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 13 2022 23:30 Vinekh wrote:
Never mind the people that lost jobs and their human rights, because of the "COVID passes", that were implemented on the basis of claims, that the vaccines prevented transmission. Now it turns out that these claims, at least in the beginning, were completely baseless. I have basically no sympathy for people who believe themselves uniquely immune to a global pandemic. If they lost their jobs and their 'human rights' it was entirely by their own active choice. (note I am obviously not talking about people who could not take the vaccine because of legit medical reasons) So, you are completely OK, to let some random person in high government position to take away your rights, based on assumption and not scientific evidence. Good for you. And also, good job completely missing the point of what I wrote.
I mean even if the transmission theory is wrong its still logical. "Get the vaccine so your parents get the best care and don't die in overloaded hospitals" Is a logical argument.
Also Gorsameth is talking about scientific evidence. Vaccines are good in any possible angle you can look at them. The only reason why you would be against vaccines is if you're for letting some random person on the internet take away your rights instead of listening to scientists or the government. The people who don't get the vaccine are the ones making the decision not to have rights.
Preventing the people who would fill up the hospitals if they got covid from going near other possibly infected people is also a justification for covid passes.
|
Oh, boy. I'll give it another try.
1. I didn't comment on the effectiveness of the vaccines. I think they are mostly effective.
2. I didn't comment on the safety of the vaccines. I think they are generally safe.
3. Vaccines in general are good.
What I was concerned about, and I think you should be, too, is the fact that a policy concerning the life of billions of people was created based on no information at all. Don't know, if corruption was involved, but very possible as well.
Now to make my point even clearer I will give you a hypothetical situation. I'm not saying it is real, its purposefully hyperbolic:
What if the Pfizer vaccine instead of reducing transmission, was actually increasing it. Remember, no trials at all. Now we have a situation in which a bunch of people are free from the lockdown but are spreading the virus at an increased rate.
Does that ring the bell? Are we now saying that policies, in healthcare mind you, should be made on the basis of complete lack of information and 'gut feeling' or even worse - corruption?
Are we saying that the scientific method doesn't matter? Moving at the "speed of science"... The irony.
I don't know about you but, I prefer to be more critical and even cynical when it comes to government policies.
On October 14 2022 05:07 Symplectos wrote:Show nested quote +What I was concerned about, and I think you should be, too, is the fact that a policy concerning the life of billions of people was created based on no information at all. I didn't have a great day, so, I might not be entirely calm, but I honestly never know whether those opinions are brought up because of purely wanting to discuss in bad faith, because people like you get paid to be evil, or simply just because of a complete lack of understanding of science, mathematics and the scientific method. And I don't know which alternative is worse.
Including this here, since I'm not interested in making additional comments on this.
Pfizer representative just said in front of the EP, that they didn't know about the effect of the vaccine on transmission, and that they had to move fast to make it before the others. I don't know what science and scientific method you are talking about here, but they did quite the opposite.
And yes, AstraZeneca paid me to write against Pfizer in a forum with 1000 users.
|
What I was concerned about, and I think you should be, too, is the fact that a policy concerning the life of billions of people was created based on no information at all.
I didn't have a great day, so, I might not be entirely calm, but I honestly never know whether those opinions are brought up because of purely wanting to discuss in bad faith, because people like you get paid to be evil, or simply just because of a complete lack of understanding of science, mathematics and the scientific method. And I don't know which alternative is worse.
|
On October 14 2022 05:07 Symplectos wrote:Show nested quote +What I was concerned about, and I think you should be, too, is the fact that a policy concerning the life of billions of people was created based on no information at all. I didn't have a great day, so, I might not be entirely calm, but I honestly never know whether those opinions are brought up because of purely wanting to discuss in bad faith, because people like you get paid to be evil, or simply just because of a complete lack of understanding of science, mathematics and the scientific method. And I don't know which alternative is worse.
I try to initially assume that the person is arguing sincerely - in good faith - unless the evidence proves otherwise. So specifically in regards to the past few posts from other people, it seems that Razyda is arguing in bad faith by quote-mining the response the Pfizer person gave (leaving out her full response and incorrectly summarizing the rest of it as "Seems like situation of the market >>> research. Honestly, what can be said about that..."). It's not like Pfizer never ran those tests and just fabricated transmission reduction rates; it just wasn't done on Day Zero.
On the other hand, I assume that Vinekh is probably arguing in good faith, except for the fact that they didn't watch the video/response and apparently are unaware of what vaccines do (so questions like their "What if the Pfizer vaccine instead of reducing transmission, was actually increasing it" are obviously stupid, but probably sincere). As far as businesses firing anti-vax employees, or owners not allowing anti-vaxxers into their buildings, or people not allowing anti-vaxxers into their homes, those things were at the discretion of the employers, business owners, and homeowners, and those conversations were still had long after there were tons of data/results establishing the fact that covid vaccines reduced transmission rates.
The video literally has timestamps, including "0:58:22 - Answers from Janine Small (Pfizer)". It's not that hard to watch. The Pfizer rep makes it clear that their first, immediate priority was to make sure that the vaccine safely protects the inoculated individual from covid, so that they could save millions of lives as quickly as possible. Any additional benefits, such as significant reductions in transmission rates, were fantastic bonuses and were tested/observed/documented soon after, but the point is that they wanted to get some sort of useful treatment out ASAP. When there's a global pandemic destroying lives and economies, you don't have the luxury of waiting around for the perfect cure.
|
On October 14 2022 04:40 Vinekh wrote:Oh, boy. I'll give it another try. 1. I didn't comment on the effectiveness of the vaccines. I think they are mostly effective. 2. I didn't comment on the safety of the vaccines. I think they are generally safe. 3. Vaccines in general are good. What I was concerned about, and I think you should be, too, is the fact that a policy concerning the life of billions of people was created based on no information at all. Don't know, if corruption was involved, but very possible as well. Now to make my point even clearer I will give you a hypothetical situation. I'm not saying it is real, its purposefully hyperbolic: What if the Pfizer vaccine instead of reducing transmission, was actually increasing it. Remember, no trials at all. Now we have a situation in which a bunch of people are free from the lockdown but are spreading the virus at an increased rate. Does that ring the bell? Are we now saying that policies, in healthcare mind you, should be made on the basis of complete lack of information and 'gut feeling' or even worse - corruption? Are we saying that the scientific method doesn't matter? Moving at the "speed of science"... The irony. I don't know about you but, I prefer to be more critical and even cynical when it comes to government policies. Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 05:07 Symplectos wrote:What I was concerned about, and I think you should be, too, is the fact that a policy concerning the life of billions of people was created based on no information at all. I didn't have a great day, so, I might not be entirely calm, but I honestly never know whether those opinions are brought up because of purely wanting to discuss in bad faith, because people like you get paid to be evil, or simply just because of a complete lack of understanding of science, mathematics and the scientific method. And I don't know which alternative is worse. Including this here, since I'm not interested in making additional comments on this. Pfizer representative just said in front of the EP, that they didn't know about the effect of the vaccine on transmission, and that they had to move fast to make it before the others. I don't know what science and scientific method you are talking about here, but they did quite the opposite. And yes, AstraZeneca paid me to write against Pfizer in a forum with 1000 users.
Unironically having the vaccine cause you to spread the disease more would be a good thing. It would also justify much harsher covid passes and much harsher measures to spread the vaccine but would result in less deaths long term.
The bolded conflicts with your 3 points. If you believe they tested for those 3 points than you believe that they created policy off the information from those tests.
Also the breakneck pace of the vaccine trials was exceptional in their own right and I don't think that they had control over how fast the vaccine got to market after they went through trials. Thousands and thousands of people were probably sacrificed so the vaccines could make it through as fast as possible and their sacrifices were justified in the face of a plague that would have taken many many more. The throttle was held open and the gas pedal had a brick on top of it.
Its not that transmission is irrelevant persay its just not the only relevant thing nor is it the most important thing. Again hospital capacity and capability for treatment was the only relevant metric for what to do.
|
The covid passes were a bad idea from the start.The vaccine mandate makes no sense now from a transmission standpoint.
My opinion is the same as it was two years ago.Restrictions (I prefer recommendations) should only have applied to those over 65 and/or with serious underlying health conditions (including morbid obesity).Mandates, restrictions, lockdowns should never have applied to healthy teenagers, 20s, 30s even up to 60s.
The mental health and economic damage from those policies was too great, we are still dealing with it now.
|
On October 14 2022 08:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The covid passes were a bad idea from the start.The vaccine mandate makes no sense now from a transmission standpoint.
My opinion is the same as it was two years ago.Restrictions (I prefer recommendations) should only have applied to those over 65 and/or with serious underlying health conditions (including morbid obesity).Mandates, restrictions, lockdowns should never have applied to healthy teenagers, 20s, 30s even up to 60s.
The mental health and economic damage from those policies was too great, we are still dealing with it now.
It is a lot easier to say now than back in 2020, but I generally agree.
What is really puzzelig is that is wasn't really a question of restrictions OR overloaded hospitals, countries usually had both.
Once panic set in, all plans were thrown out the window, and a massive experiment no one knew the consequences of was set in motion.
This was a shocking how vulnerable we are to fear and how much we respect authority.
|
On October 14 2022 05:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 05:07 Symplectos wrote:What I was concerned about, and I think you should be, too, is the fact that a policy concerning the life of billions of people was created based on no information at all. I didn't have a great day, so, I might not be entirely calm, but I honestly never know whether those opinions are brought up because of purely wanting to discuss in bad faith, because people like you get paid to be evil, or simply just because of a complete lack of understanding of science, mathematics and the scientific method. And I don't know which alternative is worse. I try to initially assume that the person is arguing sincerely - in good faith - unless the evidence proves otherwise. So specifically in regards to the past few posts from other people, it seems that Razyda is arguing in bad faith by quote-mining the response the Pfizer person gave (leaving out her full response and incorrectly summarizing the rest of it as "Seems like situation of the market >>> research. Honestly, what can be said about that..."). It's not like Pfizer never ran those tests and just fabricated transmission reduction rates; it just wasn't done on Day Zero. On the other hand, I assume that Vinekh is probably arguing in good faith, except for the fact that they didn't watch the video/response and apparently are unaware of what vaccines do ( so questions like their "What if the Pfizer vaccine instead of reducing transmission, was actually increasing it" are obviously stupid, but probably sincere). As far as businesses firing anti-vax employees, or owners not allowing anti-vaxxers into their buildings, or people not allowing anti-vaxxers into their homes, those things were at the discretion of the employers, business owners, and homeowners, and those conversations were still had long after there were tons of data/results establishing the fact that covid vaccines reduced transmission rates. The video literally has timestamps, including "0:58:22 - Answers from Janine Small (Pfizer)". It's not that hard to watch. The Pfizer rep makes it clear that their first, immediate priority was to make sure that the vaccine safely protects the inoculated individual from covid, so that they could save millions of lives as quickly as possible. Any additional benefits, such as significant reductions in transmission rates, were fantastic bonuses and were tested/observed/documented soon after, but the point is that they wanted to get some sort of useful treatment out ASAP. When there's a global pandemic destroying lives and economies, you don't have the luxury of waiting around for the perfect cure.
Bolded:
I am not sure where I am arguing - I started the subject and till now left it there. Quote-mining - this quote is what the article is about, actual title of the article is direct reference to it. Describing world in pandemic as market does seem inconsiderate (to me) and it did lead me to conclusion you mentioned.
Italic:
This is quite rude and besides "there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers"
Bolded 2:
So it is okay to do that to group of people based on one characteristic they have in common?
|
On October 14 2022 11:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 05:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2022 05:07 Symplectos wrote:What I was concerned about, and I think you should be, too, is the fact that a policy concerning the life of billions of people was created based on no information at all. I didn't have a great day, so, I might not be entirely calm, but I honestly never know whether those opinions are brought up because of purely wanting to discuss in bad faith, because people like you get paid to be evil, or simply just because of a complete lack of understanding of science, mathematics and the scientific method. And I don't know which alternative is worse. I try to initially assume that the person is arguing sincerely - in good faith - unless the evidence proves otherwise. So specifically in regards to the past few posts from other people, it seems that Razyda is arguing in bad faith by quote-mining the response the Pfizer person gave (leaving out her full response and incorrectly summarizing the rest of it as "Seems like situation of the market >>> research. Honestly, what can be said about that..."). It's not like Pfizer never ran those tests and just fabricated transmission reduction rates; it just wasn't done on Day Zero. On the other hand, I assume that Vinekh is probably arguing in good faith, except for the fact that they didn't watch the video/response and apparently are unaware of what vaccines do ( so questions like their "What if the Pfizer vaccine instead of reducing transmission, was actually increasing it" are obviously stupid, but probably sincere). As far as businesses firing anti-vax employees, or owners not allowing anti-vaxxers into their buildings, or people not allowing anti-vaxxers into their homes, those things were at the discretion of the employers, business owners, and homeowners, and those conversations were still had long after there were tons of data/results establishing the fact that covid vaccines reduced transmission rates. The video literally has timestamps, including "0:58:22 - Answers from Janine Small (Pfizer)". It's not that hard to watch. The Pfizer rep makes it clear that their first, immediate priority was to make sure that the vaccine safely protects the inoculated individual from covid, so that they could save millions of lives as quickly as possible. Any additional benefits, such as significant reductions in transmission rates, were fantastic bonuses and were tested/observed/documented soon after, but the point is that they wanted to get some sort of useful treatment out ASAP. When there's a global pandemic destroying lives and economies, you don't have the luxury of waiting around for the perfect cure. Bolded: I am not sure where I am arguing - I started the subject and till now left it there. Quote-mining - this quote is what the article is about, actual title of the article is direct reference to it. Describing world in pandemic as market does seem inconsiderate (to me) and it did lead me to conclusion you mentioned. Italic: This is quite rude and besides "there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers" Bolded 2: So it is okay to do that to group of people based on one characteristic they have in common?
"Bolded" I don't mean that you were engaged in a back-and-forth argument; I mean that you tried to make an argument for Pfizer not caring about its covid research, and that the evidence you used was a partial response to a single question taken out of context. I didn't think that was a particularly good argument, and I thought it was in bad faith because you had access to the video that you used as evidence (you literally posted it and started the conversation, so presumably you had watched the video) and you pasted some quotes, yet didn't really represent things properly. I could be mistaken though; perhaps your argument was in good faith.
"Italic" Perhaps the word Unscientific would be a kinder word to use, but it's not like the adjective is going to suddenly validate the hypothesis that being vaccinated intrinsically makes you more infectious and worse off against covid, all other things being equal.
"Bolded 2" We literally do that all the time. No shirt, no shoes, no service. If you don't do the work, you get fired. It's not like being an anti-vaxxer is a protected class like sex or race, so this isn't comparable to those forms of discrimination, and countless jobs have required vaccinations and other criteria for a very long time (e.g., being a public school teacher), and not meeting those conditions can absolutely disqualify you from getting hired. This isn't anything new.
|
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions.
|
On October 14 2022 08:20 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2022 08:01 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
The covid passes were a bad idea from the start.The vaccine mandate makes no sense now from a transmission standpoint.
My opinion is the same as it was two years ago.Restrictions (I prefer recommendations) should only have applied to those over 65 and/or with serious underlying health conditions (including morbid obesity).Mandates, restrictions, lockdowns should never have applied to healthy teenagers, 20s, 30s even up to 60s.
The mental health and economic damage from those policies was too great, we are still dealing with it now.
It is a lot easier to say now than back in 2020, but I generally agree. What is really puzzelig is that is wasn't really a question of restrictions OR overloaded hospitals, countries usually had both. Once panic set in, all plans were thrown out the window, and a massive experiment no one knew the consequences of was set in motion. This was a shocking how vulnerable we are to fear and how much we respect authority.
I think that for most people, their experiences with the covid pandemic are going to reinforce their "side" of the related issues, because people tend to interpret and filter events through their own lenses and preconceived notions. For example, I'm sure that most of those who are pro-vaccination (or anti-vaxx, or pro-quarantine, or anti-quarantine, or pro-mask, or anti-mask, or pro/anti- anything else related to the last few years of covid) would feel more strongly than ever that they were right and that they'll be sure to double-down on their perspective next time (god forbid there's a "next time").
One person might think that we were too fearful or overly cautious, while another might think we weren't cautious or fearful enough. It may depend on their priorities and their experiences, such as the former person seeing their quality of life deteriorate from quarantines or the loss of a job, while the latter person may have unnecessarily lost a family member due to covid parties and refusing to be vaccinated.
I'm interested in unpacking "how much we respect authority", because I imagine this means a variety of different things across different countries, between individuals, and based on who we're calling "authority" (scientific/medical experts, government officials, police officers, etc.). There are even taglines on social media saying things like "I have a healthy distrust for authority and even I understand that vaccines save lives", in an effort to let anti-vaxxers know that getting vaccinated isn't just about blindly trusting an authority figure.
Similarly, so many anti-vaxxers brag about "doing their own research" (which, 99.99% of the time, does not mean they actually did legitimate scientific/medical research, but rather found a conspiracy theorist on YouTube who already agrees with them), and so it's important to discuss what proper research looks like, and that blindly disagreeing with an authority is just as fallacious as blindly agreeing with them.
All this being said, the average person doesn't have the resources, knowledge, or desire to spend months, years, or an entire career setting up randomized controlled trials, gathering and analyzing data, and engaging with the peer-reviewed process. The entire scientific and publishing processes, and the act of gaining a scientific/medical consensus - especially not just within one group of experts but across multiple groups found across multiple countries - are built to create a reasonable amount of confidence when these expert organizations (which could be defined as "authorities" when it comes to science and medicine) draw conclusions. Are these groups perfect? Absolutely not, but they're also our best bet (far better than a single individual who is merely being a contrarian because #authoritysux), and we can generally find the researchers' articles if we're sincerely interested in being better informed and more confident when we say that we agree with the results and conclusions of the scientific and medical research, not just because Authority X made a claim.
"Authority" might be referring to government officials making laws that restrict or allow certain freedoms as a result of how the pandemic is playing out. They could absolutely be overstepping... or they could be not taking it seriously enough. I would hope that these authorities are using all of their resources and advisors to make decisions that are as informed as possible.
"Authority" might also be referring to employers and homeowners that are designing rules for their businesses/families based on what they think about the pandemic and how that affects their specific circumstances. I hope they're being well-informed too.
"Authority" could really mean a ton of different things.
|
On October 14 2022 21:55 xM(Z wrote:
useless arguments here as usual.
the question is: if transmissibility for the vaccinated was never tested('cause logic dictates they(the vaccinated) could obviously spread it), why were they allowed free passage everywhere?.
only the recently tested ones should've been free(ish) from restrictions.
1. It was tested (and still is), and I don't think anyone is claiming that it wasn't ever tested. The quote from the video was in reference to the fact that it wasn't the first priority of the researchers; the first priority was making sure that the vaccine was at least helpful for fighting against covid within the vaccinated individual. I assume that's a baseline for most of this kind of research - that either proactive or reactive medicine should at least help the person taking it.
2. Despite the incorrect premise, we can still possibly address the question of "why were they allowed free passage everywhere?" I'm not sure if everywhere is fully accurate, but the reason why vaccinated individuals may have had more freedom to go places (e.g., businesses) than unvaccinated individuals could be because vaccinated+infected people tend to be less of a financial/medical strain on our system (e.g., hospitals) than unvaccinated+infected people (all other things being equal), because vaccines significantly reduced the probability of either dying or needing to be hospitalized. But also, keep in mind that infection rates were also reduced and that we had data for this too. It's a restoration of freedoms/benefits for those willing to participate in a local/regional/national/international effort to deal with covid, and allowing some people to go out and work and spend money also helps mitigate the negative economic impact of covid. As far as I can tell, people had the right to stay unvaccinated, but there are obvious consequences for that decision (just as how there are consequences for every decision).
|
semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless...
logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side.
Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations .
your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen.
imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally.
|
Northern Ireland26637 Posts
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks?
One question I’d certainly feel as fair is did the various governments know this was not tested, or not.
But ultimately there’s a difference between not having proved something via testing, but having a fair idea that it should do x, and rushing something out due to a desperate situation, only for it to turn out to do x in practice, and more insidious malfeasance.
I’m really not personally inclined to defend large pharmaceutical companies but some of the charges are bogus, specifically the waiver of liability.
You don’t have the vaccine without that waiver if said companies go by standard regulatory procedure that can take years.
|
On October 14 2022 23:26 xM(Z wrote:semantics and assumptions, but i'll give you that my use of "never" was related to "never tested prior to being released" and it caused some confusion; it's not that it wasn't their first concern, is that testing it would've been useless... logic, and their passed experiences with viruses weren't on their side. Show nested quote +Vaccine effectiveness studies have conclusively demonstrated the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing individual symptomatic and severe disease, resulting in reduced hospitalisations and intensive care unit admissions.1 However, the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people.2 , 3 The scientific rationale for mandatory vaccination in the USA relies on the premise that vaccination prevents transmission to others, resulting in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.4 Yet, the demonstration of COVID-19 breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated health-care workers (HCW) in Israel, who in turn may transmit this infection to their patients,5 requires a reassessment of compulsory vaccination policies leading to the job dismissal of unvaccinated HCW in the USA. Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.2,3,5–7 A recent investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a prison in Texas showed the equal presence of infectious virus in the nasopharynx of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.6 Similarly, researchers in California observed no major differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in the nasopharynx, even in those with proven asymptomatic infection.7 Thus, the current evidence suggests that current mandatory vaccination policies might need to be reconsidered, and that vaccination status should not replace mitigation practices such as mask wearing, physical distancing, and contact-tracing investigations, even within highly vaccinated populations . your assumptions, even thou possible, look more like excuses for what you let happen. imo, you and people like you should take some responsibility for the bad shit that happen during those years, shit that you supported unconditionally. Take responsibility for morons being morons and being treated as morons as a result of their own voluntary choices?
I don't see why I should.
If everyone got vaccinated as soon as they were able the world would have been better off.
Yes lockdowns sucked, and I absolutely do not want to downplay the psychological effects that can have on people, and we should do what we can, and certainly a lot more then is currently being done, to help anyone in need because of it but incase you forgot, there was a global pandemic happening at the time and in places healthcare was certainly stressed near or beyond breaking. Absolutely no one should want to see people dying on stretchers in hospital corridors because there is no bed to put them in, let alone any equipment to help them.
Extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures and I don't care about your snowflake feelings.
Once upon a time I thought all those virus/plague movies were silly because no way would humanity be that stupid. No, we are that stupid. Well some are, sadly enough to make an impact.
|
On October 14 2022 23:28 WombaT wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong but in practice did the vaccine not reduce transmissibility in practice and this was shown to be the case? By all sorts of different folks?
Yep. We're wayyy past this; we've already established many times that infection rates are significantly reduced during the early period after becoming vaccinated, and that the reduction of infection rate becomes less significant over the next several months. We've posted study upon study about this, and have had many discussions in this very thread. I think the recent question is more in line with "When did scientists actually discover that this awesome additional benefit (reducing infection rates, even temporarily) was actually a thing with the vaccines?"
Unfortunately, I think xM(Z is still a little behind, still pasting unsourced quotes and accusing the medical and scientific communities of "the bad shit that happen during those years", which I assume does not include the millions of lives saved from the covid vaccines. Also, the fact that xM(Z asked "Why" and then just dismissed the answers of "For medical and economic reasons" as "excuses" is worrying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
