Coronavirus Pandemic

The UK data didn't show that. It showed that among COVID positive people, in some age ranges, there were more people who had been vaccinated. But that doesn't mean vaccinated people were more likely to be COVID positive. It means the number of vaccinated people was much larger than the number of unvaccinated people in that age group. And/or that the risk of exposure was higher among vaccinated people (vaccinated people out and about way more than unvaccinated, dropping mask use, etc.).

If the vaccination rate among infected is approx same as among the general population then the vaccine offers little to no protection from getting infected or spreading it.

Even the CDC is admitting it. Here’s a CNN report on CDC’s findings in Mass where 74% infected were vaccinated. They admit vaccine won’t reduce spread.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1436418096051412993/pu/vid/480x304/JHLtR8_daFFJvd6I.mp4?tag=12

And the “efficacy” numbers published by Pfizer and others was never about stopping infection just reducing serious symptoms.

The herd immunity thru vax argument is a non-starter therefore he COVID vax should be up to individual choice and recommendation of personal doctor. There’s no reason to push it and no need to register administration of it or mandate it except to put in place a new ID control mechanism.
 
The CDC counts people as unvaccinated if death occurs within 14 days of jab, so that pads the numbers.
Again you do not cite any source for that.
But even then, if you look at the numbers i provided, the average between states is somewhere around 98 percent.
Recent data from the UK (which I still don't trust - obviously) has it closer to 5x rather than 10x or 11x as is being claimed here.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf
Don't you live in the US?
Of course the situation in Britain is going to be different, the percentage of vaccinated is way higher than in the US, especially in the age groups where it matters the most.
If we would have vaccinated 100% of the population, 100% of hospitalizations and deaths would be vaccinated people.

And these of course are official sources which I trust about as much as I trust an election with Diebold voting machines and mail in ballots.
So if the stats are perceived to support your cause they are right, but if they contradict it they are wrong?
So many ways to lie with statistics.
Yes, and you seem to be trying them all.
One interesting thing to note from the UK data is vaccinated people in many age ranges were actually more likely to be COVID positive. This goes along with some other studies that showed about 250x higher virus loads in the sinuses of vaccinated individuals vs. unvaxxed.
This seems to be another social media fake news story, fact checked here.
If the vaccine does nothing to stop the spread there is NO CASE for vax mandates.
again not true, from the very source you provided:
Studies have now reported on vaccine effectiveness against infection in healthcare workers, care home residents and the general population. With the Pfizer-BioNTech, estimates of effectiveness against infection range from around 55 to 70%, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine they range from around 60 to 70% (5, 13, 14, 15). With 2 of 2 doses of either vaccine effectiveness against infection is estimated at around 65 to 90% (5, 13).
But even if this was true, the vaccinations do dramatically reduce the risk of severe illness or death, which in itself is the reason enough to get the vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sbu
If the vaccination rate among infected is approx same as among the general population then the vaccine offers little to no protection from getting infected or spreading it.

You can't draw that conclusion from the data, because your sample was selected by looking for cases, and then determining vaccinations status. The only way to get a half-assed idea of vaccine efficacy from that kind of data is to calculate the odds ratio. That means you have to know the number of vaccinated people who tested negative for COVID, and the number of unvaccinated people who tested negative. You don't have that information. The report you referenced states specifically, in several spots, that you can't use the data from from vaccination status among cases, hospitalizations and deaths to determine vaccine efficacy.

To get some idea of vaccine efficacy (i.e. protection from getting infected or spreading it) you have to start the other way around. Determine vaccination/non-vaccination status, then follow for COVID/no COVID. Then at least you can calculate a relative risk.

Even the CDC is admitting it. Here’s a CNN report on CDC’s findings in Mass where 74% infected were vaccinated. They admit vaccine won’t reduce spread.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1436418096051412993/pu/vid/480x304/JHLtR8_daFFJvd6I.mp4?tag=12

Dude, why are you getting your science reporting from CNN? The CDC said no such thing. Look at the actual report where they say:

"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, data from this report are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant, during this outbreak. As population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of COVID-19 cases. Second, asymptomatic breakthrough infections might be underrepresented because of detection bias. Third, demographics of cases likely reflect those of attendees at the public gatherings, as events were marketed to adult male participants; further study is underway to identify other population characteristics among cases, such as additional demographic characteristics and underlying health conditions including immunocompromising conditions.*** MA DPH, CDC, and affected jurisdictions are collaborating in this response; MA DPH is conducting additional case investigations, obtaining samples for genomic sequencing, and linking case information with laboratory data and vaccination history. Finally, Ct values obtained with SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR diagnostic tests might provide a crude correlation to the amount of virus present in a sample and can also be affected by factors other than viral load.††† Although the assay used in this investigation was not validated to provide quantitative results, there was no significant difference between the Ct values of samples collected from breakthrough cases and the other cases. This might mean that the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 is also similar. However, microbiological studies are required to confirm these findings."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

And the “efficacy” numbers published by Pfizer and others was never about stopping infection just reducing serious symptoms.

Wrong. The reported research used "infection" as the primary endpoint. And the reported efficacy hitting the news used those numbers. Look at Table 1 in the UK data you linked to for their breakdown of efficacy for different outcomes, including "infection".
 
Here in the U.S. we have a lot of ancestors who risked their lives or gave their lives because they believed the risk and sacrifice was worth it to protect personal liberty and limited government. Anyone who refuses the vaccine and mandates and lockdowns is doing the same - albeit with much lower risk… bullets and bayonets are a lot more terrifying than a bad cold with something like a 99.9% survival rate for most groups.
If we are in a war, it is one against the virus. The only real weapons we have are the vaccins, those who refuse to take up those arms should be compared with deserters, not soldiers.
And if you really want to use war as a metaphor, keep in mind that in most wars soldiers had no choice to fight, is that not the ultimate form of mandate?
If a getting a vaccine is all you must do for your fellow humans, is that not very little effort in comparison to potentially giving up your life.
 
If we are in a war, it is one against the virus.

No, the virus is a force of nature... (with a little help from Fauci and China).

The only real weapons we have are the vaccins,

Patently false.

those who refuse to take up those arms should be compared with deserters, not soldiers. And if you really want to use war as a metaphor, keep in mind that in most wars soldiers had no choice to fight, is that not the ultimate form of mandate?

Even soldiers are obliged to disobey illegal or inhumane orders. "Just following orders" is not a defense.

If a getting a vaccine is all you must do for your fellow humans, is that not very little effort in comparison to potentially giving up your life.

If getting the vaccine doesn't slow the spread or contribute to herd immunity and if I've already had COVID twice and gotten over it, then taking the vaccine does squat for my fellow humans.
 
If we are in a war, it is one against the virus. The only real weapons we have are the vaccins, those who refuse to take up those arms should be compared with deserters, not soldiers.
And if you really want to use war as a metaphor, keep in mind that in most wars soldiers had no choice to fight, is that not the ultimate form of mandate?
If a getting a vaccine is all you must do for your fellow humans, is that not very little effort in comparison to potentially giving up your life.
hi Bart am pretty sure you mean well but you really are talking rubbish. For starters there are numerous ways of tackling covid. Secondly why would anyone expect others or others' children to play russian roullete with their lives, particularly for a virus which is no big deal to most people? If you want a vaccine that's great but you have no right to impose your way on others. Also for many people it is a lot harder keeping the covid nazis at bay than rolling up their sleeve.
Another question, do you think most people in 1930s Germany wanted to put Jewish people in concentration camps even though eugenics was acceptable 'science' to many in that time era? I'll answer that, no they didnt. Once fighting starts tho it is a slippery slope and psychopaths often start getting away with murder. I would suggest that if you want a vaccine, be happy with it but leave other people alone.
 
Ellis please stop the long drawn out conversations with your fellow and answer my question (#2721). I think it is one of if not the most important issues regarding covid vaccines and it looks like you are dodging giving an answer
 
You can't draw that conclusion from the data, because your sample was selected by looking for cases, and then determining vaccinations status. The only way to get a half-assed idea of vaccine efficacy from that kind of data is to calculate the odds ratio. That means you have to know the number of vaccinated people who tested negative for COVID, and the number of unvaccinated people who tested negative. You don't have that information. The report you referenced states specifically, in several spots, that you can't use the data from from vaccination status among cases, hospitalizations and deaths to determine vaccine efficacy.

To get some idea of vaccine efficacy (i.e. protection from getting infected or spreading it) you have to start the other way around. Determine vaccination/non-vaccination status, then follow for COVID/no COVID. Then at least you can calculate a relative risk.

I'm well aware of how vaccine effectiveness is determined from odds ratio. Every year to get a flu vaccine effectiveness number they do a cohort study on those with ILI (influenza like illness) and those with confirmed flu and with odds ratio calculation they pull out a number which is then presented to the public as marketing (of course no mention of absolute risk reduction which would only be about 1% to be very generous). The problem with this is that it is assumed those with ILI are just as likely to be vaccinated as the general population. If getting the flu vaccine makes you more likely to get ILI, then you could potentially show high vaccine effectiveness even if the only people who are getting sick (with either ILI or Flu) are vaccinated.

ANNNNYway... we could do that in this case to tease out some more specific vaccine effectiveness number, but it isn't necessary. If vaccination rate among infected is approximately the same as the general population then that is enough to say the vaccine cannot even come close to providing herd immunity and that was the whole justification for mandates.

Dude, why are you getting your science reporting from CNN?

I'm glad we share a disdain for CNN... I just thought ...based on your mainstream opinions, that you might respect the Communist News Network more than... alternative sources.

The CDC said no such thing. Look at the actual report where they say:

Okay thank you I didn't look deeper... just the most current thing on my twitter feed. Okay let's have a look...

"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, data from this report are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant, during this outbreak.

Well whoever is writing this obviously is aware of how bad this looks for the vaccine and is afraid that this will be used by anti-vaxxers so they're just putting in a disclaimer to try and aid the propaganda effort.

As population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of COVID-19 cases.

But the whole point is that you get vaccinated so that you don't get a case so that you don't spread it... and the vaxxed don't just represent a "larger proportion"... they represent a majority, keeping up with the population level vaccination coverage. Okay let's carry on...

Second, asymptomatic breakthrough infections might be underrepresented because of detection bias.

So there could be more vaxxed people out there spreading it than we know about... great... doesn't help the case for mandates. It does help the case for vaccine related reduction in hospital visits or deaths as it could show higher effectiveness by that measure.

Third, demographics of cases likely reflect those of attendees at the public gatherings, as events were marketed to adult male participants; further study is underway to identify other population characteristics among cases, such as additional demographic characteristics and underlying health conditions including immunocompromising conditions.*** MA DPH, CDC, and affected jurisdictions are collaborating in this response; MA DPH is conducting additional case investigations, obtaining samples for genomic sequencing, and linking case information with laboratory data and vaccination history.

Irrelevant to this discussion. Muddying the waters.

Finally, Ct values obtained with SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR diagnostic tests might provide a crude correlation to the amount of virus present in a sample and can also be affected by factors other than viral load.††† Although the assay used in this investigation was not validated to provide quantitative results, there was no significant difference between the Ct values of samples collected from breakthrough cases and the other cases. This might mean that the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 is also similar. However, microbiological studies are required to confirm these findings."
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm

So the preliminary findings are that viral load is approximately the same for vaxxed and not. This matches up with other studies I've seen. One study actually found about 250x greater viral load in the nasal passages of the vaxxed compared to unvaxxed. But whatever... Again... completely destroys the case for mandates to create herd immunity.

Wrong. The reported research used "infection" as the primary endpoint. And the reported efficacy hitting the news used those numbers. Look at Table 1 in the UK data you linked to for their breakdown of efficacy for different outcomes, including "infection".

I'm not talking about the definitions in the UK data or the Mass. data, I'm talking about Pfizer's definitions which we heard over and over they are "95% effective at reducing serious illness and death", but they never said 95% effective at preventing infection.
 
Regarding Ivermectin:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

Meta analysis: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
 
I'm well aware of how vaccine effectiveness is determined from odds ratio. Every year to get a flu vaccine effectiveness number they do a cohort study on those with ILI (influenza like illness) and those with confirmed flu and with odds ratio calculation they pull out a number which is then presented to the public as marketing (of course no mention of absolute risk reduction which would only be about 1% to be very generous). The problem with this is that it is assumed those with ILI are just as likely to be vaccinated as the general population. If getting the flu vaccine makes you more likely to get ILI, then you could potentially show high vaccine effectiveness even if the only people who are getting sick (with either ILI or Flu) are vaccinated.

I don't know what you're going on about.

ANNNNYway... we could do that in this case to tease out some more specific vaccine effectiveness number, but it isn't necessary.

It is if you are interested in legitimate answers.

Well whoever is writing this obviously is aware of how bad this looks for the vaccine and is afraid that this will be used by anti-vaxxers so they're just putting in a disclaimer to try and aid the propaganda effort.

LOL.

But the whole point is that you get vaccinated so that you don't get a case so that you don't spread it

So there could be more vaxxed people out there spreading it than we know about... great... doesn't help the case for mandates.

Yes. Of the COVID cases, a larger and larger portion will occur among vaccinated people as vaccination increases. But the total number of COVID cases will decrease substantially. The Barnstable outbreak would have consisted of thousands, not hundreds, with a lower vaccination rate.

So the preliminary findings are that viral load is approximately the same for vaxxed and not.... Again... completely destroys the case for mandates to create herd immunity.

I agree the findings can be considered preliminary. But the viral load was measured among people who were largely symptomatic. It doesn't tell us about the viral load among asymptomatic people (which we know from other data is substantially less). And again, the total number of symptomatic people would be substantially reduced with vaccination.

I'm not talking about the definitions in the UK data or the Mass. data, I'm talking about Pfizer's definitions which we heard over and over they are "95% effective at reducing serious illness and death", but they never said 95% effective at preventing infection.

The definitions used by Pfizer were the same as that used in the UK or Mass. data. I don't know what news you were listening to, but they got it wrong. Pfizer reported 95% efficacy at preventing infection.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=RP
 
BartV said:
But even if this was true, the vaccinations do dramatically reduce the risk of severe illness or death, which in itself is the reason enough to get the vaccine.

I think this is something that those who err with the vaccines should try and think about. It's quite clear that the vaccines have made a huge difference to the death and severe illness aspects of COVID.

But I know the argument overall is more over the social/moral/ethical aspects of mandates etc, which is way more of a grey area. I strongly sit on the side of personal choice in this matter. I do not like the caveman like psychology of manipulating and coercing people into getting it one bit.

I also disagree with Bart V on it 'being a war'. I think that is the wrong way to look at it, and is a dodgy route to go down with in terms of language, as it basically tells people that 'yer either with us or against us!'.
 
Last edited:
I think this is something that those who err with the vaccines should try and think about. It's quite clear that the vaccines have made a huge difference to the death and severe illness aspects of COVID.

But I know the argument overall is more over the social/moral/ethical aspects of mandates etc, which is way more of a grey area. I strongly sit on the side of personal choice in this matter. I do not like the caveman like psychology of manipulating and coercing people into getting it one bit.

Putting aside the social/cultural aspects for a moment...

One of the roles of government is to protect the health of its citizens. You might argue about the macro/micromanagement level of that protection, but that's not what this is about. Some health and safety concerns are better dealt with at a macro-management level. And we have been fine with those levels of protection in thousands of instances - speed limits, drivers' tests/licenses, limits on dumping toxins in waterways, proof of safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, building codes, etc., etc., etc. There is a non-controversial level (excluding the most hardened, fundamentalist libertarians) at which it is reasonable and preferable for governments to intervene. And that is the level we are operating at here, when you look at whether or not there should be vaccine mandates. (Note: I'm aware that there are additional levels of government intervention which are highly controversial, but they aren't relevant in this case.)

The scale of the death and harm from not having a high level of vaccination has already shown itself to be higher than many of those areas where we are fine with intervention. And the science of public health has always been clear - if you need a high level of compliance in order to reduce the harm, it has to be mandated/regulated. Leaving vaccination up to personal choice means potentially hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. This would be like eliminating law-enforcement and leaving personal safety and security up to personal choice.

I'm not claiming that's a bad thing. I just want to make it clear that you are asking government to fail in their duty in this particular case.

So, serious question...when is it okay to ask governments to fail in their duty, and is this it?
 
Putting aside the social/cultural aspects for a moment...

One of the roles of government is to protect the health of its citizens. You might argue about the macro/micromanagement level of that protection, but that's not what this is about. Some health and safety concerns are better dealt with at a macro-management level. And we have been fine with those levels of protection in thousands of instances - speed limits, drivers' tests/licenses, limits on dumping toxins in waterways, proof of safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, building codes, etc., etc., etc. There is a non-controversial level (excluding the most hardened, fundamentalist libertarians) at which it is reasonable and preferable for governments to intervene. And that is the level we are operating at here, when you look at whether or not there should be vaccine mandates. (Note: I'm aware that there are additional levels of government intervention which are highly controversial, but they aren't relevant in this case.)

The scale of the death and harm from not having a high level of vaccination has already shown itself to be higher than many of those areas where we are fine with intervention. And the science of public health has always been clear - if you need a high level of compliance in order to reduce the harm, it has to be mandated/regulated. Leaving vaccination up to personal choice means potentially hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. This would be like eliminating law-enforcement and leaving personal safety and security up to personal choice.

I'm not claiming that's a bad thing. I just want to make it clear that you are asking government to fail in their duty in this particular case.

So, serious question...when is it okay to ask governments to fail in their duty, and is this it?

Serious question to you, Ellis.

When should the government step in and do something about obesity? Obesity directly leads to conditions that kill large numbers of people every year (everything from uncontrolled diabetes to cardiovascular issues to renal failure). Fat people account for a highly disproportionate amount of healthcare costs (they even require joint replacements at a significantly higher rate). They are using up valuable medical resources for a controllable condition. It is a huge problem. The scale and harm of obesity is truly Huuuuuuge. In fact obesity and obesity caused conditions make one more susceptible to a serious bout of covid (or death).

So when are certain foods to be banned? When are mandatory body mass tests to be implemented? When are mandatory exercise programs coming into existence? When to do we begin denying fatsos access to social events, airplanes, etc to incentivize their weight loss?

If you aren't down with government doing something about the obesity epidemic, then you can't be taken seriously in your question.
 
Putting aside the social/cultural aspects for a moment...

One of the roles of government is to protect the health of its citizens. You might argue about the macro/micromanagement level of that protection, but that's not what this is about. Some health and safety concerns are better dealt with at a macro-management level. And we have been fine with those levels of protection in thousands of instances - speed limits, drivers' tests/licenses, limits on dumping toxins in waterways, proof of safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals, building codes, etc., etc., etc. There is a non-controversial level (excluding the most hardened, fundamentalist libertarians) at which it is reasonable and preferable for governments to intervene. And that is the level we are operating at here, when you look at whether or not there should be vaccine mandates. (Note: I'm aware that there are additional levels of government intervention which are highly controversial, but they aren't relevant in this case.)

The scale of the death and harm from not having a high level of vaccination has already shown itself to be higher than many of those areas where we are fine with intervention. And the science of public health has always been clear - if you need a high level of compliance in order to reduce the harm, it has to be mandated/regulated. Leaving vaccination up to personal choice means potentially hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. This would be like eliminating law-enforcement and leaving personal safety and security up to personal choice.

I'm not claiming that's a bad thing. I just want to make it clear that you are asking government to fail in their duty in this particular case.

So, serious question...when is it okay to ask governments to fail in their duty, and is this it?

I understand the argument you are making. With how it all turned out, the general public worldwide probably would not have accepted anything other than what has been done already. They would see that any government 'failing to protect their citizens', the definition of which was variable due to media influence, would be unacceptable. The media definitely produced much of the political capital needed to implement all of the things we've seen over the past year which have led to this point (talking about general fear in COVID times).

So I know what you are trying to say. But I just think that when you mandate something on the scale that it is being done, it crosses some kind of line that we haven't really seen before in a western democracy.

For me, it kinda changes the whole idea of a free west, into something just that little bit lesser. And when you cross such a line, it becomes easier to take another step with something else.
 
So I know what you are trying to say. But I just think that when you mandate something on the scale that it is being done, it crosses some kind of line that we haven't really seen before in a western democracy.

For me, it kinda changes the whole idea of a free west, into something just that little bit lesser. And when you cross such a line, it becomes easier to take another step with something else.

Well, my point was that it doesn't cross a line. It is well behind the line with a bunch of other uncontroversial, non-line crossing stuff. There's a whole bunch of stuff nearer to or over the line, like anti-choice legislation and abuse of eminent domain, that are making us less free.

We already have all kinds of vaccine requirements in place, so this isn't something new. And we've also previously had mass vaccination in the setting of a pandemic. And the US Supreme Court ruling on this issue ("one man’s liberty...cannot deprive his neighbors of their own liberty — in this case by allowing the spread of disease") has been in place since 1905.
 
Back
Top