Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Recent Covid-19 infections and the unvaccinated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TheLurch
    replied
    Just back from my first post-vaccine vacation, which is somewhat on topic.

    Just to loop back to an argument from while i was gone, it's important not to view "not gotten a vaccine" as a single population. There are multiple contributors to that in the US:

    A portion of the population is willing to get it, but can't afford time off work to do so or deal with side effects. Another group is unaware that it's really free, and so is worried about healthcare costs. These two groups are, not surprisingly, low income. That means they're disproportionately minorities, though all ethnic groups are clearly represented here.

    Separately, there's a pool of people who are saying they are likely to never get the vaccine. That's a diverse group as well.

    Some were committed to an anti-vaccine before the pandemic. These tend to come from the far left and far right extremes (due to being anti-big-pharma and anti-government-program), and typically white.

    A number of minority groups have a mistrust in the medical establishment due to historic mistreatment by it, and so are less likely to vaccinate. Obviously, minorities.

    And it's clear that vaccine acceptance has become politicized. In the US, the states with the highest levels of vaccine hesitancy are conservative, and the group that drives that (largely white evangelicals) have the highest level of vaccine refusal here (Data from Pew, which is nonpartisan and nonprofit). Those were also the group that was most likely to consider the pandemic a non-threat, so this isn't much of a surprise.

    So, like most things in society, it's complicated, and if we generalize, we're going to ignore lots of important exceptions.

    In any case, should any of you choose to argue about it again, there's lots of polling data about this, and i'd be happy to dig up some that addresses issues you care about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sherman
    replied
    I got my second vaccine last month. So I am fully vaccinated. I did it to protect my husband who has had three surgeries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Seems like admitting to lying about herd immunity is a good reason.
    It wasn't Fauci who characterized it as "admitting to lying".

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Because so many are attacking him for no good reason.
    Seems like admitting to lying about herd immunity is a good reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Or he was lying. Why do you feel the need to defend Fauci at every turn?
    Because so many are attacking him for no good reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Even the staunchest Trump supporters here would agree that he occasionally mixed things up, got it wrong and played fast and lose with the truth (I doubt that there is a politician who doesn't). But Stoic here shows a willingness to die on every hill often defending the indefensible.
    Much like Psychic Missile.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Or he was lying. Why do you feel the need to defend Fauci at every turn?
    Even the staunchest Trump supporters here would agree that he occasionally mixed things up, got it wrong and played fast and lose with the truth (I doubt that there is a politician who doesn't). But Stoic here shows a willingness to die on every hill often defending the indefensible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Or there is no "true" answer, so whatever guess he makes is not a lie.
    Or he was lying. Why do you feel the need to defend Fauci at every turn?

    Leave a comment:


  • Terraceth
    replied
    A more charitable interpretation would simply be that there were varying estimates and he went with the higher estimates to try to encourage people, not that he was actually lying about it.

    Whether that charitable interpretation is true or not, I am not sure... but it is a possible interpretation of his remarks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    “When polls said about half of all Americans would take a vaccine… I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,'” Fauci told the Times.

    So he either lied in order to "nudge it up a bit" or he was lying before and downplaying the number to reach herd immunity. And he did it based on polls, not science.
    Or there is no "true" answer, so whatever guess he makes is not a lie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    IMO, someone in Fauci's position has the option of telling people what the latest scientific estimates are, or what he himself believes, and it isn't lying. Especially when we're talking about something that is at best a guess, in any case.

    Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html



    In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

    In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

    Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak.

    Asked about Dr. Fauci’s conclusions, prominent epidemiologists said that he might be proven right. The early range of 60 to 70 percent was almost undoubtedly too low, they said, and the virus is becoming more transmissible, so it will take greater herd immunity to stop it.

    © Copyright Original Source



    My own guess is that it may be 50% (or less) in Florida in the summer with the original virus, and 90% in New York City in the winter with the Delta variant. (But you can't stamp out the disease in Florida if people are still getting it in New York City.)
    “When polls said about half of all Americans would take a vaccine… I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,'” Fauci told the Times.

    So he either lied in order to "nudge it up a bit" or he was lying before and downplaying the number to reach herd immunity. And he did it based on polls, not science.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    I do want as many people vaccinated as possible. I don't think Fauci lying to "bump up the numbers" is a good way to accomplish that. People are already suspicious of him. Him lying does nothing to help earn anyone's trust.
    IMO, someone in Fauci's position has the option of telling people what the latest scientific estimates are, or what he himself believes, and it isn't lying. Especially when we're talking about something that is at best a guess, in any case.

    Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html



    In the pandemic’s early days, Dr. Fauci tended to cite the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that most experts did. About a month ago, he began saying “70, 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week, in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75, 80, 85 percent” and “75 to 80-plus percent.”

    In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

    Hard as it may be to hear, he said, he believes that it may take close to 90 percent immunity to bring the virus to a halt — almost as much as is needed to stop a measles outbreak.

    Asked about Dr. Fauci’s conclusions, prominent epidemiologists said that he might be proven right. The early range of 60 to 70 percent was almost undoubtedly too low, they said, and the virus is becoming more transmissible, so it will take greater herd immunity to stop it.

    © Copyright Original Source



    My own guess is that it may be 50% (or less) in Florida in the summer with the original virus, and 90% in New York City in the winter with the Delta variant. (But you can't stamp out the disease in Florida if people are still getting it in New York City.)

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    I do want as many people vaccinated as possible. I don't think Fauci lying to "bump up the numbers" is a good way to accomplish that. People are already suspicious of him. Him lying does nothing to help earn anyone's trust.
    Pro-Sicily.

    I'm going to get my first later this month, as openings suddenly became available (pretty much got a choice time). I've heard that Georgia is refusing new vaccine shipments because enrollment has dropped precipitously. I think there are several reasons for this, and Fauci looking rather duplicitous is among them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    The problem is, we don't know exactly what the value of R0 is. But we know that it is different in different places, and that it changes over time. It changes with the weather, and it changes with people's behavior, and it's higher in places with a higher population density. And it gets higher with new variants.

    We do know that if "enough" people are immune, then the prevalence of the disease will decrease. But "enough" for this summer won't necessarily be "enough" for the coming winter. And "enough" while people are still practicing social distancing won't necessarily be "enough" when they go back to their previous behavior.

    As someone without immunity, your risk decreases whenever someone gets vaccinated. Fauci wants as many people as possible to be vaccinated. You should be on his side.
    I do want as many people vaccinated as possible. I don't think Fauci lying to "bump up the numbers" is a good way to accomplish that. People are already suspicious of him. Him lying does nothing to help earn anyone's trust.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    And some folks are shocked that many of us don't trust him.
    More infectious variants have become more dominant, and herd immunity — 1-1/R0 —has increased. If the Federalist says otherwise, in disagreement with Fauci and basic arithmetic, they are lying to you. Dude, seriously, don’t get your medical information from propaganda sites.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 07:42 AM
23 responses
97 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
19 responses
94 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
23 responses
86 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
1 response
18 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by shunyadragon, 09-13-2021, 09:25 PM
13 responses
75 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X