The Coronavirus, not the beer

thethe said:
We will be proven right.

This vaccine should not be taken by healthy people. Massive mistake all pushed by profits.
Click to expand...

You do realize that even that blood clot risk is absurdly low. The risk of blood clots makes the risk of Covid look massive by comparison, even in young healthy populations.

The reason you see regulators tell certain populations to take a different vaccine that doesn't present them a certain risk is because the other vaccines are readily available. If all we had was the AZ vaccine, the advice wouldn't be to not get vaccinated because that would present a greater risk than the tiny risk of blood clots.
 
msstate7 said:
Great, but if vaccines aren't preventing infection, what's the point of requiring it to those not at risk of dying from covid?
Click to expand...

1. Vaccines are preventing infections. You're about 5 times more likely to get Covid if you're unvaccinated. They're not perfect and there are plenty of breakthrough infections, but the numbers are showing that against Delta, you're still getting significant protection against infection.

2. There's a difference between not high risk and no risk. Healthy people under 40 are not at high risk but there are still thousands of deaths in the US in that group. The risk of death is low but still significantly higher than the risk posed by the vaccine. Cost-benefit analysis is pretty easy there.

3. Death isn't the only bad outcome. There are thousands more healthy people under 40 who end up in the hospital for days or weeks. People who have their health absolutely wrecked by Covid. Just because you leave a hospital doesn't mean you leave it at 100%. The husband of one of my coworkers (a healthy guy under 40) ended up in the hospital for over a week with Covid. This was month ago and he's still nowhere near 100%. We're not even talking long covid. This is just lasting effects of Covid pneumonia.

The data is out there. It supports that the risks associated with the vaccine are minuscule and the benefits are significant. The "evidence" people are trying to use to justify not getting the vaccine is flimsy and usually misconstrued.
 
Where do you get the 5x number? No idea how accurate this is, but...

"The secondary attack rate, or the percentage of contacts infected by the index patient, was 25% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18% to 33%) in fully vaccinated participants, compared with 38% (95% CI, 24% to 53%) in the unvaccinated.

Among household contacts of fully vaccinated COVID-19 patients, the secondary attack rate was comparable to that of household contacts of unvaccinated index patients (25% [95% CI, 15% to 35%] for vaccinated vs 23% [95% CI, 15% to 31%] for unvaccinated patients)...."

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...-against-delta-dont-fully-stop-disease-spread
 
msstate7 said:
Where do you get the 5x number? No idea how accurate this is, but...

"The secondary attack rate, or the percentage of contacts infected by the index patient, was 25% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18% to 33%) in fully vaccinated participants, compared with 38% (95% CI, 24% to 53%) in the unvaccinated.

Among household contacts of fully vaccinated COVID-19 patients, the secondary attack rate was comparable to that of household contacts of unvaccinated index patients (25% [95% CI, 15% to 35%] for vaccinated vs 23% [95% CI, 15% to 31%] for unvaccinated patients)...."

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...-against-delta-dont-fully-stop-disease-spread
Click to expand...

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

The number for risk of testing positive has been between 4.9 and 5.8 times higher for unvaccinated. So vaccines are preventing infections.

As for spread, there's a difference between protection and spread. Once someone has a breakthrough infection, they will be just as contagious (though likely for a shorter period of time) and so will spread it around just as easily as someone not vaccinated. So anyone with consistent contact with the person with a breakthrough infection (household contacts) is going to be at just as high of risk.

So if you're vaccinated and your vaccine prevents you from say picking up an infection at work, it will help you not take it home and spread it around at home. If you get a breakthrough infection, you're going to spread it like anyone else.
 
I'm no virologist, and never claimed to be, but the numbers seem funny to me if you're correct. Using Vermont (most vaccinated) as an example...

Last year 7-day avg for cases was 90. This year 7-day avg for cases is 349. This is a 287.8% increase. Then you have to consider natural antibodies and vaccination rates have got up immensely. Another thing to consider is since vaccinated don't get as sick, they most likely don't test as much.

R0 for alpha was 2.79, and R0 for delta is 5.09, so an increase of 82.1%.

I certainly could be reasoning this wrong though.

ETA... Vermont vaccination rate is 76.1% of all eligible
 
Last edited:
msstate7 said:
I'm no virologist, and never claimed to be, but the numbers seem funny to me if you're correct. Using Vermont (most vaccinated) as an example...

Last year 7-day avg for cases was 90. This year 7-day avg for cases is 349. This is a 287.8% increase. Then you have to consider natural antibodies and vaccination rates have got up immensely. Another thing to consider is since vaccinated don't get as sick, they most likely don't test as much.

R0 for alpha was 2.79, and R0 for delta is 5.09, so an increase of 82.1%.

I certainly could be reasoning this wrong though.
Click to expand...

You're not. Fauci said 80% of vaccinations would create immunity walla and herd immunity. That is clearly not the case and to pretend that only unvaccinated people are testing positive is literally 57 levels of cognitive disconnect
 
If the omicron variant is already here (and in Western Europe), why exactly are we still banning travel from countries in southern Africa?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top