Have any of you gotten a vaccine?

[Sparko]

No - that is NOT the proper response. This virus is NOT like other viruses. I presents differently, it has an asymptomatic phase where it can spread, half the people that get it don't even get sick, it barely touches the young but mortality can reach over 10% for the elderly. Making assumptions that this virus behaves like others has been a mistake all along the way. The fact it has the asymptomatic phase and a high percent of asymptomatic carriers also makes it necessary we do not just assume the vaccine activating the immune system necessarily prevents spread.

Every virus is different. But our immune system works the same on all of them. If we can make antibodies (that's what the vaccine triggers) then any infection will be stopped before it can take root and make us ill. That's how it works. No matter what the virus. This isn't a magic virus that can somehow not infect someone but still be spread to other people. You either get infected because the vaccine didn't work correctly, or you don't get infected and can't spread the disease to others. It takes an active infection, in the lining of the lungs, for the virus to create enough copies of itself to shed through breathing and coughing.

That is simply not true CP.

Sparko.

Herd immunity is when ratio of the spread from person to person is less than 1, not when spread is impossible. If each infected person can't spread the virus to at least one other person, the virus dies away because it runs out of hosts.

And so if the vaccine allowed immunized people to still spread the virus then it would be ineffective in doing that right?

I am not saying it is impossible for someone who has been immunized to spread it. I am saying they would have to BE infected (i.e. the vaccine didn't work, perhaps because they have a weak immune response) before they could spread it.

That is really good news about the kids (keeping in mind 100% means relative to the study size, if the study is 1000 people, that means the\at the probability is it is 99% effective or better. larger studies could tease out some small chink in the armour - though at that level it doesn't matter much )

Nothing is perfect.

But if we have to live our lives wearing masks and avoiding people just because there is a very small chance that we maybe might possibly be infected and not know it and they might catch it even though they are immunized, then we will be doing that forever.

[oxmixmudd]

Every virus is different. But our immune system works the same on all of them. If we can make antibodies (that's what the vaccine triggers) then any infection will be stopped before it can take root and make us ill. That's how it works. No matter what the virus. This isn't a magic virus that can somehow not infect someone but still be spread to other people. You either get infected because the vaccine didn't work correctly, or you don't get infected and can't spread the disease to others. It takes an active infection, in the lining of the lungs, for the virus to create enough copies of itself to shed through breathing and coughing.

It's not that simple Sparko. And it is in fact a virus that can not produce symptoms in some people while spreading to others and killing them. That is in fact one of its most insidious characteristics.

Sparko.

Sorry

And so if the vaccine allowed immunized people to still spread the virus then it would be ineffective in doing that right?

It's not all or nothing Sparko. If the virus R value is 3, and the vaccine makes it 0.2, then it can still be spread to other people. Just not often enough for the virus to survive within an immunized population. It's exponential decay, but at some point there is a last person with covid and it doesn't hop to anyone else and it is gone (ideally). But as long as there are non-vaccinated people out there, it can still hurt them by spreading to them from the 8% or so of immunized people that still get infected.

I am not saying it is impossible for someone who has been immunized to spread it. I am saying they would have to BE infected (i.e. the vaccine didn't work, perhaps because they have a weak immune response) before they could spread it.

That is what the new data shows. But there are two issues. 1) someone can BE infected and not know it, vaccinated or not 2) there was always the possibility the vaccine merely increased the number of asymptomatic people - prevents symptoms by not infection. Non-symmetric protection. I have the vaccine, the virus can't make me FEEL sick. But it doesn't protect you. Even though I feel fine, the virus can still spread. The new data appears to eliminate 2, but not 1. Rand Paul was mouthing off before 2 had been eliminated.

Nothing is perfect.

But if we have to live our lives wearing masks and avoiding people just because there is a very small chance that we maybe might possibly be infected and not know it and they might catch it even though they are immunized, then we will be doing that forever.

I agree. Risk management. Death is a possibility every day. But competent risk management comes from a clear assessment of our priorities and the facts. This paranoid misinformation/conspiracy theory stuff is neither. For the next 3 to 9 months we sit between what has been necessary to save millions of lives and what was normal before covid. We just need to navigate that time patiently and soberly - keeping our eyes on the prize of normal as soon as possible. It we jump the gun - as we have done several times so far - we only PROLONG the suffering. And the most critical thing we have to deal with right now it keeping the variants that are more contagious and more deadly from undoing the progress we have made. at 2 million vaccinations a day, we don't have to wait too much longer. Why risk all that because we don't want to wait another month?

[Sparko]

It's not that simple Sparko. And it is in fact a virus that can not produce symptoms in some people while spreading to others and killing them. That is in fact one of its most insidious characteristics.






Sorry



It's not all or nothing Sparko. If the virus R value is 3, and the vaccine makes it 0.2, then it can still be spread to other people. Just not often enough for the virus to survive within an immunized population. It's exponential decay, but at some point there is a last person with covid and it doesn't hop to anyone else and it is gone (ideally). But as long as there are non-vaccinated people out there, it can still hurt them by spreading to them from the 8% or so of immunized people that still get infected.



That is what the new data shows. But there are two issues. 1) someone can BE infected and not know it, vaccinated or not 2) there was always the possibility the vaccine merely increased the number of asymptomatic people - prevents symptoms by not infection. Non-symmetric protection. I have the vaccine, the virus can't make me FEEL sick. But it doesn't protect you. Even though I feel fine, the virus can still spread. The new data appears to eliminate 2, but not 1. Rand Paul was mouthing off before 2 had been eliminated.



I agree. Risk management. Death is a possibility every day. But competent risk management comes from a clear assessment of our priorities and the facts. This paranoid misinformation/conspiracy theory stuff is neither. For the next 3 to 9 months we sit between what has been necessary to save millions of lives and what was normal before covid. We just need to navigate that time patiently and soberly - keeping our eyes on the prize of normal as soon as possible. It we jump the gun - as we have done several times so far - we only PROLONG the suffering. And the most critical thing we have to deal with right now it keeping the variants that are more contagious and more deadly from undoing the progress we have made. at 2 million vaccinations a day, we don't have to wait too much longer. Why risk all that because we don't want to wait another month?

So if the CDC comes out with advice in the next few weeks saying immunized people don't need to wear a mask because they don't spread the virus will you admit I am right?

[oxmixmudd]

So if the CDC comes out with advice in the next few weeks saying immunized people don't need to wear a mask because they don't spread the virus will you admit I am right?

I'm not sure the point Sparko. If you guessed right about the effect of the vaccine, that means you guessed correctly. Sure - I'll be glad to admit you guessed correctly, Your hunch was right. But that hunch is nothing to make policy on, and if you or anyone else acts on that hunch without clear evidence to back it up, then the risk is you could have killed someone. You willing to take the risk? I'm not. I can wear a mask a few months longer when I'm inside and around unknown, unvaccinated people for their sake. It's not really much of a big deal at this point. We are all used to it by now.

[Sparko]

I'm not sure the point Sparko. If you guessed right about the effect of the vaccine, that means you guessed correctly. Sure - I'll be glad to admit you guessed correctly, Your hunch was right. But that hunch is nothing to make policy on, and if you or anyone else acts on that hunch without clear evidence to back it up, then the risk is you could have killed someone. You willing to take the risk? I'm not. I can wear a mask a few months longer when I'm inside and around unknown, unvaccinated people for their sake. It's not really much of a big deal at this point. We are all used to it by now.

Either you are right and a vaccinated person can spread the disease as you have been arguing the science shows, or I am right and they can't (except in cases where they do catch the virus because the vaccine didn't work) which is how every other vaccine in history works.

[oxmixmudd]

Either you are right and a vaccinated person can spread the disease as you have been arguing the science shows, or I am right and they can't (except in cases where they do catch the virus because the vaccine didn't work) which is how every other vaccine in history works.

We appear to have lost site of whatever goal existed when the conversation started. My point is that we need data to make decisions, and that this virus can spread asymptomatically. Because of that, being vaccinated doesn't eliminate the possibility a vaccinated person can make an unvaccinated person sick. About 8% of the vaccinated people will catch the virus as long as it is still in circulation. And of those, we know about 4% won't have any symptoms. That possibility requires we be careful about opening up before the majority of the population is vaccinated.

Do you understand that 4% that are vaccinated but asymptomatic can still make people sick? That is my point. And that is not changed by the CDC data you are quoting. What that data says is that if you are exposed to the virus and the vaccine protects you, you can't spread it either. That's not the same as saying no one who is vaccinated can spread the virus.

There is additional data that shows that vaccinated people that get sick anyway do tend to have a lower viral load - about 11% lower. But again, that doesn't keep them from getting others sick.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...ission-disease

[Terraceth]

It has been discussed at length how unreliable the China flu death numbers are because of overcounting. I honestly don't feel like rehashing it. I'm sure if you dig around the forum you can find previous discussions on the topic.

Here's the problem. I looked around at the actual estimations of those who claim they're overcounted. The estimates of those who claim they're being overcounted--at least those that seem to have any kind of data at all underlying their claims (not necessarily good data), is that the deaths are overcounted by about 40%. I have my doubts that it's actually that high, but let's accept their findings. In fact, let's suppose that even that's an underestimation and they're overcounted by 100%--that is, the number of COVID deaths reported is twice that of the actual deaths.

So with that in mind, let's take a look at what you were responding to with this post:

If Covid-19 had a 99.9% survival rate, and the entire US population caught it, there would only be 332,000 recorded deaths. There have been nearly twice that many.*

Please explain how an illness that has reduced the US population to approximately 99.83% has a 99.9% chance of survival.

Once you've failed at that, you might consider not spreading moronic falsehoods that are literally getting people killed.

*https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

As of right now it lists 565,066 deaths in the United States. If we cut that in half to get the supposedly "real" count, we have 282,533. Which still demonstrates Roy's point: The death count is really not that much lower than the number of deaths if the entire US caught the coronavirus. To reach 282,533 deaths with a 99.9% survival rate, then 282,533,000 people would have to catch it. The US has a population of about 330 million, meaning to reach that many deaths with a 99.9% survival rate, the US would have had to have had 85.6% of its population infected. That does not seem accurate. And remember, this is assuming the deaths from COVID are so overcounted that even those who claim they're being overcounted are underestimating how much.

[Mountain Man]

Here's the problem. I looked around at the actual estimations of those who claim they're overcounted. The estimates of those who claim they're being overcounted--at least those that seem to have any kind of data at all underlying their claims (not necessarily good data), is that the deaths are overcounted by about 40%. I have my doubts that it's actually that high, but let's accept their findings. In fact, let's suppose that even that's an underestimation and they're overcounted by 100%--that is, the number of COVID deaths reported is twice that of the actual deaths.

So with that in mind, let's take a look at what you were responding to with this post:

As of right now it lists 565,066 deaths in the United States. If we cut that in half to get the supposedly "real" count, we have 282,533. Which still demonstrates Roy's point: The death count is really not that much lower than the number of deaths if the entire US caught the coronavirus. To reach 282,533 deaths with a 99.9% survival rate, then 282,533,000 people would have to catch it. The US has a population of about 330 million, meaning to reach that many deaths with a 99.9% survival rate, the US would have had to have had 85.6% of its population infected. That does not seem accurate. And remember, this is assuming the deaths from COVID are so overcounted that even those who claim they're being overcounted are underestimating how much.

It's all just guesswork and speculation. We don't have a good count of how many people have actually been infected nor how many people have died as a direct result of the China flu. Even the CDC admitted that something like only 4% of reported China flu deaths could not be attributed to other causes. In fact, if you look at overall death rates from 2018 through 2020, there was (maybe) a slight increase in 2020, but not all of those deaths can be attributed to the China flu since there has also been an increase in deaths from things like untreated heart heart attacks and cancer because China flu fearmongering has made people afraid to go the hospital as well as increased deaths from suicides and substance abuse because the endless lockdowns and paranoia are destroying people's mental health.

[Roy]

We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

It's all just guesswork and speculation. We don't have a good count of how many people have actually been infected nor how many people have died as a direct result of the China flu.

Then where did your "better than 99.9% rate of survival" come from?

You're spreading moronic falsehoods that are literally getting people killed.

[NorrinRadd]

No one knows how common it really is, and no one knows how dangerous it really is.

Let's all assume that we're not going to one who gets it, and we're also not going to be one who spreads it, and just live our lives.

[Mountain Man]

Then where did your "better than 99.9% rate of survival" come from?

Like I said earlier, it comes from a number of different sources. The take away here is that the China flu is almost certainly not as deadly as fearmongers like you have been claiming.

You're spreading moronic falsehoods that are literally getting people killed.

Nothing I have posted is "literally getting people killed".

[CivilDiscourse]

Fair enough. But I think what is missing from both my original statement and your counter to it is that asymptomatic spread was not anticipated to the extent it was found to exist. And as our knowledge of this virus grew, it became clear we could not anticipate a set of behaviors for it from other, similar, pathogens. And my point is that as many times as those that have the requisite knowledge to make such assessments were not able to anticipate the idiosyncrasies of this virus, it is wise this far in not to continue to make the mistake of believing that we can anticipate what this virus will do based on what other similar virus's do. And since some virus's can spread even from those that have been vaccinated, it is best to err on the side of caution until we have hard data that releases us from the need for that caution.

Not anticipated is not the same as not-common (or not like other viruses). The difference on COVID isn't that it behaves differently than other viruses, it's that the human body didn't have the anti-bodies for combating it. Your might have had a good point in not trusting the vaccines completely (yet), but your supporting evidence was to put it mildly, wrong.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...heWrongReasons

[oxmixmudd]

No one knows how common it really is, and no one knows how dangerous it really is.

Let's all assume that we're not going to one who gets it, and we're also not going to be one who spreads it, and just live our lives.

The first statement is just wrong, evidence of your distrust of the medical community and your trust of those that are spreading misinformation for political purposes.

The second statement is simply foolish, but based on the misinformation driving the first.

I realize you have effectively been trained to think this way, but that does not change the fact thinking that way is dangerous for you and for others.

[oxmixmudd]

Not anticipated is not the same as not-common (or not like other viruses). The difference on COVID isn't that it behaves differently than other viruses, it's that the human body didn't have the anti-bodies for combating it. Your might have had a good point in not trusting the vaccines completely (yet), but your supporting evidence was to put it mildly, wrong.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...heWrongReasons

not common is a relative term, we are clearly using different interpretations of it. Further, for a behavior to be unanticipated by professionals in virology, it means that for some reason such behavior is one way or the other 'not common' for this type of virus. We anticipate what is the most likely result or outcome. Likewise, we are taken off guard or surprised by that which is not anticipated, or not common. The other option would be those professionals driving the policies were in fact incompetent and did not anticipate common behavior for this type of virus, which is very, very unlikely.

Beyond that I don't really have a point. If we follow the history, the potential that the virus could produce asymptomatic spread was discussed early on but it was not expected. Now I'm thinking in terms of 'common' being %70/80, you seem to be thinking more along the lines of 20% or maybe even less - as long as it is not so rare as to be 'beyond the pale' as it were. If %70-80 of coronavirus' exhibit asymptomatic spread, then our medical community was incompetent not to expect it. If %10 do, then they were cautiously looking for it but had to wait for evidence. If it was <1%, then they could perhaps legitimately have been surprised by it. Keeping in mind the most likely model for what this virus might be or do was SARS-COVID-1.

So lets not go all absolute in terms of 'right/wrong' here. We are talking as best I can tell semantics that were not clearly defined in our posts. Mostly what we need, I think, is more precise language.

[rogue06]

There are many in the US who 'won't get the vaccine for daft reasons'. Which will limit our capacity to put the variants to bed and increase the chance boosters or various sorts will be required.It will also keep the morgues full. All this paranoid conspiracy stuff is incredibly destructive. But ignorance is not a cause easily remedied. It has no vaccine, though one can 'vaccinate' against knowledge with enough of the right sorts of misinformation. Very sad.

The largest single group of "vaccine resistors" are blacks. And it is due to not trusting the government or the medical profession when it comes to stuff like this. Tuskegee Syphilis Study.