The Coronavirus, not the beer

Using smoking as an example further demonstrates that you really dont' understand what the risks of COVID are and how people are protected naturally and with the vaccine.
 
There is one additional consideration that has only recently started to be taken into account. Which is that the risks of additional mutations grows with the spread of infections. It is difficult to fully assess this risk, but it strikes me as a strong additional argument for getting everyone vaccinated. Now vaccinated people do get infected and do spread the virus, but what is known so far is that this occurs to a much lesser extent than with unvaccinated people.

So I hope y'all have found all this informative and move ahead with getting your shots. Even thethe and sturg. Step up and do your little bit for your fellow human beings.
 
nsacpi said:
There is one additional consideration that has only recently started to be taken into account. Which is that the risks of additional mutations grows with the spread of infections. It is difficult to fully assess this risk, but it strikes me as a strong additional argument for getting everyone vaccinated. Now vaccinated people do get infected and do spread the virus, but what is known so far is that this occurs to a much lesser extent than with unvaccinated people.

So I hope y'all have found all this informative and move ahead with getting your shots. Even thethe and sturg. Step up and do your little bit for your fellow human beings.
Click to expand...

Is there a difference in spread between vaccinated and unvaccinated? Recent evidence suggests there is no discrepancy and there is a belief that the more vaccinated people that get teh virus the more likely it is the vaccine loses effectiveness over time.

I am doing what I think is good for humans and that is to not submit to the global aristocracy ruling our lives with bunk science.
 
People are really saying you should lose your ability to fly because you dont' want to take a vaccine for a virus that you have a 99.9% chance to survive from.

Insanity.

True definition of tyranny.

Buh Buh Buh I'm not making it mandatory! Just removing freedoms you used to enjoy.
 
thethe said:
Is there a difference in spread between vaccinated and unvaccinated? Recent evidence suggests there is no discrepancy and there is a belief that the more vaccinated people that get teh virus the more likely it is the vaccine loses effectiveness over time.

I am doing what I think is good for humans and that is to not submit to the global aristocracy ruling our lives with bunk science.
Click to expand...

ask acesfull, he's had some good things to say about this issue
 
i know this will trigger some around here, but here goes...

E8BrFzNX0AIlA3k
 
nsacpi said:
ask acesfull, he's had some good things to say about this issue
Click to expand...

https://www.verywellhealth.com/cdc-report-vaccinated-breakthrough-infections-5195483

A new report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last Friday found that 74% of people who were infected in a COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts earlier this summer were fully vaccinated against the virus.

I guess we should not listen to the CDC in this instance?

Buried lead in this? The vaccination percentage in this area is below 74% which could indicate that those vaccinated are spreading and contracting the virus at a higher rate than those unvaccinated.
 
Last edited:
acesfull86 said:
https://reason.com/2021/07/30/the-provincetown-outbreak-shows-vaccinated-people-can-be-infected-by-the-coronavirus-but-the-cdcs-director-grossly-exaggerates-that-risk/

"Every 20 vaccinated people, one or two of them could get a breakthrough infection," Walensky told CNN's John Berman. That statement, which implies that 5 to 10 percent of vaccinated people will catch COVID-19, grossly exaggerates the odds of a breakthrough infection. Walensky seems to have misconstrued the meaning of the effectiveness rates reported in vaccine studies, which is a pretty serious mistake for the head of the CDC to make.

When a vaccine is described as 90 percent effective against infection, that does not mean 10 percent of vaccinated subjects were infected. Rather, it means the risk of infection among vaccinated people was 90 percent lower than the risk among unvaccinated people. As the CDC noted on Tuesday, when it issued its revised mask guidance, post-approval studies of COVID-19 vaccines typically have found that they reduce the risk of infection by 86 percent to 99 percent. That means the odds of a breakthrough infection were much lower than Walensky suggested on CNN.

In one U.S. study of adults who had received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, for example, the incidence of positive COVID-19 tests among fully vaccinated subjects was 0.048 per 1,000 person-days, compared to 0.43 per 1,000 person-days among the unvaccinated controls, yielding an effectiveness rate of 89 percent. A study of U.S. health care workers put the incidence of infection at 1.38 per 1,000 person-days when the subjects were unvaccinated, compared to 0.04 per 1,000 person-days when they were fully vaccinated, yielding an effectiveness rate of 97 percent. In both cases, the risk of a breakthrough infection was at least an order of magnitude lower than the 5-to-10-percent estimate that Walensky offered.

…

Last spring, the misconception that seems to underlie Walensky's risk estimate generated an erroneous CNN story that claimed vaccinated air travelers face a 10 percent risk of infection. Confusion about vaccine effectiveness rates continues to show up in press coverage of COVID-19. Yesterday NPR quoted Kathleen Neuzil, director of the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health at the University of Maryland, as saying that "even with a 95% efficacious vaccine, you will have one in 20 vaccinees who are exposed get the disease."

I emailed Neuzil about that statement, which is similar to what Walensky said on CNN. "I was actually misquoted on that one," Neuzil said, "and you are the first one to pick up on it (or at least reach out to me about it!). Sometimes in simplifying we don't get the message right. The bottom line is that vaccine isn't 100% protective, and even at high levels of protection we will have breakthrough."

That bottom line is certainly correct. But in warning people about that possibility, public health officials like Walensky should not distort the underlying science by implying the risk is much bigger than the evidence indicates. This episode is reminiscent of Walensky's hyperbole about the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission, which misrepresented the study she cited in several significant ways.


—————

*shrug* oops! *shrug*

Guess it’s too much to ask that the director of the CDC communicate risk to the American people in an articulate, honest, and accurate way.

It’s only, ya know, ******* central to what they’re supposed to do.
Click to expand...

bump

bolding added for emphasis
 
btw it is a very interesting take for Reason to publish an article criticizing Walensky and others for OVERSTATING the risk of infections among the vaccinated

good to see some daylight between Real Libertarians and their country cousins.
 
Last edited:
We all agree that getting the vaccine significantly reduces the chance of serious illness.

With that in mind, I have no idea why mandating a vaccine is necessary
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
nsacpi said:
No. I think vaccines can override or greatly dampen seasonality when it comes to incidence of severe illness and death.
Click to expand...

Hmm... well Sweden is only 40% vaccinated and is having zero deaths.

Maybe their natural immunity strategy worked quite well.

Sorry to upset you that more people aren't dying there. I know you were a big cheerleader for their failure early on
 
nsacpi mandates that 330M take a medicine so he feels less scared.

Simply a tyrant... a scared little bitch yes, but a tyrant nonetheless
 
sturg33 said:
nsacpi mandates that 330M take a medicine so he feels less scared.

Simply a tyrant... a scared little bitch yes, but a tyrant nonetheless
Click to expand...

Hold on Sturg. He isn't mandating them.

Just not allowing you function in society unless you take them.
 
sturg33 said:
Yeah well we've also known he's a racist for quite some time
Click to expand...

If the vaccine passports don't wake up black people to the fact that the Democrats truly hate them but just use them for political points then I don't know what will.

75% of black people aren't vaccinated and now we are telling these black people you can't have the rights of their fellow whiteys.

Incredible.
 
sturg33 said:
We all agree that getting the vaccine significantly reduces the chance of serious illness.

With that in mind, I have no idea why mandating a vaccine is necessary
Click to expand...

i'm not for mandating vaccines

but society can exercise some prerogatives in similar ways that it restricts smoking at restaurants and commercial flights

in the same way it requires other vaccines to serve in the military or attend a school

in the same way it has speed limits and other traffic laws

in the same way it requires people to file tax returns

none of us asked for covid...but it is with us...and we have to decide how we want to deal with it, including the risks associated with additional mutations
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
i'm not for mandating vaccines

but society can exercise some prerogatives in similar ways that it restricts smoking at restaurants and commercial flights

in the same way it requires other vaccines to serve in the military or attend a school

none of us asked for covid...but it is with us...and we have to decide how we want to deal with it, including the risks associated with additional mutations
Click to expand...

But you are for taking away freedoms from those that make the decision not to get it so what is the difference? You and Dr Wen (abortion queen) would get along well.
 
thethe said:
But you are for taking away freedoms from those that make the decision not to get it so what is the difference? You and Dr Wen (abortion queen) would get along well.
Click to expand...

i am indeed advocating for restrictions on freedoms...i want to be upfront about that...at the same time we have all sorts of restrictions on where we can smoke and how fast we can drive...it is a balancing act that needs to be calibrated to circumstances
 
nsacpi said:
i am indeed advocating for restrictions on freedoms...i want to be upfront about that...at the same time we have all sorts of restrictions on where we can smoke and how fast we can drive...it is a balancing act that needs to be calibrated to circumstances
Click to expand...

Comparing this to speeding is so comical.

We are at 99% mitigation at least and you want to go further.

I would say that you should change your example to be speeding laws and also putting foam bumpers around every car and not allow people to ever switch lanes. Also, you can only drive during certain times based on your needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top