funkygunther
Banned
I just know that when I join a gaming forum my main priority is to troll the Covid thread
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
The unvaccinated are more like to get sick, more likely to need to be hospitalized, and more likely to die.
I don't know how to be any clearer than that.
RouteBypass
Banned
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Physiognomonics
Member
Let me define "unvaccinated" for you.
All people vaccinated by only one dose or 14 days after the second dose who get sick with COVID related symptoms are put into the "unvaccinated people treated for COVID" file.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Yeah people who are not fully vaccinated are generally put into the unvaccinated category. Crazy I know.
RouteBypass
Banned
I'm saying the data suggests that the pandemic is not fueled by unvaccinated spread. The best you can do is look at the data. There's nothing to suggest a statistically significant impact by the unvaccinated on spread. And certainly not enough to base authoritarian policy measures on that violate bodily autonomy.
If you're that convinced of the unvaccinated being the primary disease vector, so be it. The calculous shouldn't change for, essentially, forced vaccination in an age group that has essentially no risk.
My contention is with using a faulty narrative to force a potentially harmful vaccine on children to protect a bunch of frightened adults.
If you're that convinced of the unvaccinated being the primary disease vector, so be it. The calculous shouldn't change for, essentially, forced vaccination in an age group that has essentially no risk.
My contention is with using a faulty narrative to force a potentially harmful vaccine on children to protect a bunch of frightened adults.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
The vaccine is safe. This thread has debunked that particular conspiracy several times now. That horse has been beaten to a pulp.
The same goes for the idea that vaccine mandates have never been a thing before or that they are somehow unconstitutional.
Last edited:
RouteBypass
Banned
Who knew all the answers to the pandemic were squirreled away in the off topic section of a gaming forum. Someone should cc the FDA on this place.
Last edited:
RouteBypass
Banned
I figured this would pop up. I guess this is an allusion to measles or polio, as if they're even in the same realm of discussion.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
It's not about the disease being the same. It's about the vaccine.
RouteBypass
Banned
The risk/benefit analysis of administering a vaccine should include the severity of the disease.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
I see the endless parade of fresh anti vaxxers eager to have their social media loving little conspiracy hearts broken, continues apace in these here parts.
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Tough.
RouteBypass
Banned
I see the endless parade of fresh anti vaxxers eager to have their social media loving little conspiracy hearts broken, continues apace in these here parts.
God help us.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I say the same thing everytime I come into this thread and see another one of you popping up in here.
FunkMiller
Member
Damn. That could be an issue. He doesn’t exist.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Looks in the thread. Petty fighting. Walking back out. See yall later.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
So basically the same that it's been for the last 216 pages? lol
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Yes you seem to be very wary of discussing the implications of what you posted. You are not the first person to have involuntarily suggested that lockdowns of varying degree are needed while trying to justify being anti vaccine.
RouteBypass
Banned
I already stated how I feel about lockdowns and the way forward, as irrelevant as it is. I wasn't trying to stealthily suggest we need more, just reposting what a study suggested may be a driver of transmission.
I guess I'll bite this anti vax thing. Being anti vax has been conflated with a common sense aversion to an untested hastily rolled out vaccine program that shows, at best, by all accounts up to now, low and temporary effectiveness across the board. Not even getting into the adverse events, which are real and not made up. And the only thing really up for debate there is how rare they are.
I hate to speculate on your stance but you seem caught between a disapproval of lockdowns and, as a result, support the vaccine rollout because it, at one point in time, was said to be the one true path to end lockdowns. That didn't pan out but no one wants to admit failure or reassess.
Last edited:
And this suggestion is not supported by the data. Even with Delta you are getting at least a 60% reduction in symptomatic infections.
"Data up to 4 August from Imperial College London’s React study found that people who said they had received two vaccine doses were half as likely to test positive for covid-19, adjusting for other factors such as age and whether or not they had symptoms.3 The researchers estimated a 50-60% lower risk of infection from the delta variant if a person was double vaccinated. The picture emerging from various countries does, however, suggest that vaccinated people are more likely to experience symptoms after catching the delta variant compared with earlier forms of the virus. Data published by the Israeli government suggest that the Pfizer BioNTech jab’s efficacy against symptomatic infection fell from 94% to 64% after the delta variant began spreading in the country.4 Figures from Public Health Scotland published in the Lancet also show a drop in protection against symptomatic illness,5 from 92% against the alpha variant, which was first detected in the UK, to 75% against delta among people with two doses of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. For the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, the reduction was from 81% to 61%. Data from Canada, yet to be peer reviewed, also show a drop in efficacy".6
Covid-19: How effective are vaccines against the delta variant?
The delta variant is now the dominant form of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK and many other countries. Chris Baraniuk asks how effective the leading vaccines are against this new threat “Two days after my first symptoms, I began to feel seriously ill,” wrote BBC TV presenter Andrew Marr.1 He described...
The study you cited was about whether vaccination rates are predictive of case numbers. Well, vaccination rates determine how much a society can open up before seeing the virus spread, but that decision is ultimately what decides the case rate. If you found that two otherwise identical societies with different vaccination rates did not differ in their infection rates, it would be a big deal. But that isn't the case here.
Last edited:
MisterFalcon
Member
The numbers that are coming into the hospitals of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated are what you would expect of a vaccine that prevents 90 percent of hospitalizations. I'm not sure how that can be considered low effectiveness unless you expected it to protect the unvaccinated as well.
RouteBypass
Banned
This study is encouraging but seems to have been conducted exclusively on the elderlyAnd this suggestion is not supported by the data. Even with Delta you are getting at least a 60% reduction in symptomatic infections.
"Data up to 4 August from Imperial College London’s React study found that people who said they had received two vaccine doses were half as likely to test positive for covid-19, adjusting for other factors such as age and whether or not they had symptoms.3 The researchers estimated a 50-60% lower risk of infection from the delta variant if a person was double vaccinated. The picture emerging from various countries does, however, suggest that vaccinated people are more likely to experience symptoms after catching the delta variant compared with earlier forms of the virus. Data published by the Israeli government suggest that the Pfizer BioNTech jab’s efficacy against symptomatic infection fell from 94% to 64% after the delta variant began spreading in the country.4 Figures from Public Health Scotland published in the Lancet also show a drop in protection against symptomatic illness,5 from 92% against the alpha variant, which was first detected in the UK, to 75% against delta among people with two doses of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. For the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, the reduction was from 81% to 61%. Data from Canada, yet to be peer reviewed, also show a drop in efficacy".6
Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England: test negative case-control study
Objective To estimate the real world effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S vaccines against confirmed covid-19 symptoms (including the UK variant of concern B.1.1.7), admissions to hospital, and deaths. Design Test negative case-control study. Setting...www.bmj.com
The study you cited was about whether vaccination rates are predictive of case numbers. Well, vaccination rates determine how much a society can open up before seeing the virus spread, but that decision is ultimately what decides the case rate. If you found that two otherwise identical societies with different vaccination rates did not differ in their infection rates, it would be a big deal. But that isn't the case here.
("Data were restricted to those older than 70 (defined as those aged 70 and older on 31 March 2021").
and evaluated the vaccine effectiveness against the alpha variant, not delta.
"The B.1.1.7 variant now dominates in the UK and these results will largely reflect vaccine effectiveness against this variant."
Conducted in early 2021, published April 2021 it seems. Delta appeared over the summer in the west and completely overtook all other variants afaict.
Last edited:
Sorry, I put the wrong link by accident. Should be fixed now.
Edit: Another study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I live my life almost exactly like I did before the pandemic, except for wearing a mask at work. I go to the movies, go on vacations, stay in hotels, visit packed tourist attractions, eat at restaurants, take my kids to the park etc, even with immune compromised individuals in my household. And I feel relatively safe doing this due to the high vaccination rate and low case/hospitalization/death stats for my state and the fact that I am double vaccinated. Before the vaccination roll out this was not the case, I worked on site throughout the pandemic but it was a pretty curtailed lifestyle there for awhile (albeit with some sweet commute times)
RouteBypass
Banned
At the risk of seemingly cherry picking the article (not the study),
"A recently released report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that the viral load of vaccinated people infected with the delta variant is similar to that of unvaccinated people.8 People remain less likely to become infected in the first place when they have been vaccinated, however.9"
And even aside from that it doesn't paint a very convincing picture.
Though the study seems to suggest a moderate degree of protection against delta after 2 doses of AstraZenica and Phizer, delta was only detected in 22% of the cases in the study. Given the vaccines were tuned for Alpha I don't know how much stock to put here.
Characteristic | Alpha Variant (N=14,837) | Delta Variant (N=4272) | Total (N=19,109) |
|---|---|---|---|
Percent of total cases | 77.6 | 22.4 | 100 |
Also I didn't suggest anywhere vaccines are 0% effective. I think you could argue forever about the very specific effectiveness of the vaccines but I'm going to guess it falls somewhere well above 0% and quite a ways below where we'd actually want or hope for it to be. While it's effectiveness is most potent, that is.
But, my original point of contention was about transmission and using it as a metric for mandates and forced vaccination.
Last edited:
Physiognomonics
Member
But those people are vaccinated (they received a vaccine). The vax is not just fully working yet. It is as defined by health authorities.
Last edited:
You suggested that the vaccinations do nothing to limit spread. I presented evidence demonstrating that vaccinations decrease the incidence of symptomatic disease by ~60% even with the Delta variant. So the only way the evidence supports your position is if catching symptomatic disease doesn't increase your chance of spreading the virus.
In this regard, whether or nor vaccines reduce transmissibility once infected is irrelevant, since we are talking about preventing spread by preventing people from becoming infected in the first place. The proportion of cases made up by each variant is also irrelevant, since in this case we are comparing the vulnerability of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals to catching a given variant.
If vaccines indeed do nothing to reduce transmission, then the "moral" case against mandates is easier to make. But we don't just get to assume that just because it makes life simpler for us.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Okay so they are not fully vaccinated yet as far as the medical professionals are concerned so they get put in the unvaccinated column.
I'm not sure where the confusing part is for you? Or is your tinfoil hat telling you this is why the numbers are so skewed towards the unvaccinated side of things?
Last edited:
HoodWinked
Member
I just had a realization of something. I was trying to find the effectiveness when it comes to Natural Immunity and Vaccine Immunity.
It's not like there is something in the Pfizer shot that would give you some kind of magic immunity over the actual virus, heck the actual virus should be better than a facsimile. Both basically just causes a reaction in your Immune system which then creates the antibodies and subsequent T-cells.
So they should be effectively similar. So then when I was digging into studies I was seeing meta data analysis where they were observing Vaccinated are less likely to become re-infected vs people with Natural immunity. At first this seems clear and a reasonable conclusion per data.
but you have think a bit more you can't use a meta-data analysis like this because there are factors that they're not accounting for. There have been 45m Covid cases which is around 13% of the US population (possibly less because reinfection). So the odds of getting Covid19 is still a far minority but think about the people who have gotten covid19 this likely means those that have contracted Cov19 are in situations where infections are more likely to occur. Either they work where there are a higher density of people or are people who don't use masks or uses them improperly. So the sample of people who have Natural immunity due to the circumstances of getting infected in the first place are people who are at a greater chance of getting re-infected. It's like a self selecting sample.
So it seems like the methodology of these meta-data analysis may be wrongly concluding that Vaccines are more effective than Natural Immunity. There's a CDC study that says Vaccines are more effective but also an Israeli study that says Natural immunity is more effective. Which is kind of interesting because the CDC could be using a bad study to drive policy where as Israel has one of the highest vaccinated rates and would have less biased studies.
It's not like there is something in the Pfizer shot that would give you some kind of magic immunity over the actual virus, heck the actual virus should be better than a facsimile. Both basically just causes a reaction in your Immune system which then creates the antibodies and subsequent T-cells.
So they should be effectively similar. So then when I was digging into studies I was seeing meta data analysis where they were observing Vaccinated are less likely to become re-infected vs people with Natural immunity. At first this seems clear and a reasonable conclusion per data.
but you have think a bit more you can't use a meta-data analysis like this because there are factors that they're not accounting for. There have been 45m Covid cases which is around 13% of the US population (possibly less because reinfection). So the odds of getting Covid19 is still a far minority but think about the people who have gotten covid19 this likely means those that have contracted Cov19 are in situations where infections are more likely to occur. Either they work where there are a higher density of people or are people who don't use masks or uses them improperly. So the sample of people who have Natural immunity due to the circumstances of getting infected in the first place are people who are at a greater chance of getting re-infected. It's like a self selecting sample.
So it seems like the methodology of these meta-data analysis may be wrongly concluding that Vaccines are more effective than Natural Immunity. There's a CDC study that says Vaccines are more effective but also an Israeli study that says Natural immunity is more effective. Which is kind of interesting because the CDC could be using a bad study to drive policy where as Israel has one of the highest vaccinated rates and would have less biased studies.
RouteBypass
Banned
~60% in a study where 22.5% of cases were delta. If I read it correctly, that doesn't seem very convincing. And I'm not sure why the insistence on symptomatic spread, as far as I know asymptomatic spread is nearly as prevalent.
Maybe I'm missing something but it would seem relevant if the only variant circulating is delta and the only vaccines available fail to protect against delta causing infection, and thus transmission. I'm just not seeing where infection is prevented with vaccines.
Reduction in incidence of symptoms doesn't mean you aren't infected or infectious. And if viral loads are similar in both vaccinated and unvaccinated...
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I will never in all my life understand how ordinary everyday people on the internet somehow think that they know better than actual medical experts and governments from across the world. Like okay sure you think you are big brain compared to one person, but you are so narcissistic and ignorant that you think you know better than the entire medical industry, the entire medical profession, and agencies across the globe whose job it is to monitor this EXACT KIND OF SITUATION???? These are people who studied their whole lives to deal with issues like this. These are people who work for organizations whose very creation was meant to monitor and accurately police this very kind of thing. There are billions of dollars behind these people and their knowledge. Years of study. Years of experience. But some people on social media feel more comfortable trusting their own ignorant and uninformed judgement that is based on half ass information from no name schmucks on Facebook and Twitter than these specialized organizations and their personnel whose job it is to deal with this stuff.
Not only that but they feel so confident in their ignorance that they think that they need to go onto the internet and convince others that they know better than the experts, that they alone are smarter than the doctors, and that they have a better picture of the situation than the government. Then not only do they say as much as all that, but then when confronted with actual statistical evidence that proves that they are not only wrong but that they did not even come even remotely close to being right. And then when faced with their proven ignorance they have the the gall (or they are just disingenuously trolling) to double and triple down on their own stupidity.
The amount of willful stupidity that requires is fucking astronomical and I weep for humanity when I realize that those clowns make up a non-inconsequential part of the voting population. Walking jokes trying to tell people that they know better than doctors and medical agencies. Like something out of a bad Onion article.
Not only that but they feel so confident in their ignorance that they think that they need to go onto the internet and convince others that they know better than the experts, that they alone are smarter than the doctors, and that they have a better picture of the situation than the government. Then not only do they say as much as all that, but then when confronted with actual statistical evidence that proves that they are not only wrong but that they did not even come even remotely close to being right. And then when faced with their proven ignorance they have the the gall (or they are just disingenuously trolling) to double and triple down on their own stupidity.
The amount of willful stupidity that requires is fucking astronomical and I weep for humanity when I realize that those clowns make up a non-inconsequential part of the voting population. Walking jokes trying to tell people that they know better than doctors and medical agencies. Like something out of a bad Onion article.
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Mild curiosity. Was this related to the mandates?
Malakhov
Banned
A bit yeah but I didnt like being forced to go in covid units without a mask when this whole mess started, having my vacations taken away from me and a lot of other measures as well. Also a lot of services are closed or run at 50% so the work is pretty boring as well and I dont see it coming back to what it was before this anytime soon.
There's a lot of factors, but yeah mandates is also a part of it.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
You were forced to go into places without a mask? In the past year?
Malakhov
Banned
First weeks when it hit, starting March 2020. We couldn't wear masks, it was forbidden. Even some employees made homemade masks and wanted to wear them at work and it was strictly forbidden as to not scare patients and other staff
Meanwhile you had the staff from the direction wearing them in offices.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
I will never in all my life understand how ordinary everyday people on the internet somehow think that they know better than actual medical experts and governments from across the world. Like okay sure you think you are big brain compared to one person, but you are so narcissistic and ignorant that you think you know better than the entire medical industry, the entire medical profession, and agencies across the globe whose job it is to monitor this EXACT KIND OF SITUATION???? These are people who studied their whole lives to deal with issues like this. These are people who work for organizations whose very creation was meant to monitor and accurately police this very kind of thing. There are billions of dollars behind these people and their knowledge. Years of study. Years of experience. But some people on social media feel more comfortable trusting their own ignorant and uninformed judgement that is based on half ass information from no name schmucks on Facebook and Twitter than these specialized organizations and their personnel whose job it is to deal with this stuff.
Not only that but they feel so confident in their ignorance that they think that they need to go onto the internet and convince others that they know better than the experts, that they alone are smarter than the doctors, and that they have a better picture of the situation than the government. Then not only do they say as much as all that, but then when confronted with actual statistical evidence that proves that they are not only wrong but that they did not even come even remotely close to being right. And then when faced with their proven ignorance they have the the gall (or they are just disingenuously trolling) to double and triple down on their own stupidity.
The amount of willful stupidity that requires is fucking astronomical and I weep for humanity when I realize that those clowns make up a non-inconsequential part of the voting population. Walking jokes trying to tell people that they know better than doctors and medical agencies. Like something out of a bad Onion article.
Stop trying to rationalise it, dude. These people think all the medical experts are lying to them. They haven’t got egos large enough to think they know better, they are delusionists who think the information they are getting is false.
Cyberpunkd
Member
You don't understand, it's their CHOICE, stop telling them what they should do...even though it effects other people around them.
Cyberpunkd
Member
Are you vaccinated?
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I believe that's a Hippo violation to ask that. You'll be hearing from my constitutional lawyer.
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
How dare you.
Maiden Voyage
Gold™ Member
No one violates my hippo and gets away with it.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Im pretty sure that's kinda a universal rule for all hippos.
