Vaccine

dad4 said:
Mostly, we just disagree with you about whether "4.3% of all deaths" is the same thing as "ZERO!!!".
Click to expand...
It was never going to be ZERO!!!!

The numbers however clearly show that the vast majority of the population have very little to worry about. And that is another problem you seem to always have.

And that is understanding RISK. And based on risk making appropriate decisions.

The media, politicians and people like you talk about covid as a threat to everyone. Implying that the risk is spread equally. And going with that assumption make policies that affect everyone, and some groups more than others (remote learning for kids).

And yet the data tells us where the risk lies.

And the overwhelming majority of our population has little to no risk if they are healthy. If you have serious health issues and are younger than 60, your risk profile goes up. And these are the people that have by and large passed away in this age group.

The reality is a rather small percentage of our population make up the overwhelming number of deaths.

As stated you have been terrible at assessing risk. And terrible at understanding or using any type of cost/benefit analysis. As GraceT points out, this is why we don't let people like you make big decisions. You can add up 2+2, but are not good at applying that to real world data/risk/cost/benefit analysis.
 
Now most people look at headlines. The don't read much. Or at the least question what they are reading or watching.

By that I mean looking at the actual data.

Take the big O. Headlines have been screaming about it.

Yet so far the variant has turned out to be very mild. Typical symptoms are rather cold like.

But daily you see headlines like these from Drudge today.

2021-12-30_1124.png
 
dad4 said:
Mostly, we just disagree with you about whether "4.3% of all deaths" is the same thing as "ZERO!!!".
Click to expand...
Actually that's not the relevant measure. It should be compared to percent of age group population not percent of deaths. In that case its virtually zero for most age groups. Certainly 19 and under.
 
CDC just dropped a hammer on the cruise industry. Is advising because of omicron for everyone regardless of vaccination status to avoid cruising right now

a. It’s another implicit acknowledgement that the vaccines don’t stop transmission/infection
b. Cruising is impossible so long as we care about cases. You can wind up catching it even on a shore excursion and wind up having to spend your cruise quarantined
 
Grace T. said:
Hmmmm…Nyc also hit a record…I seem to recall joe Biden promised he would “shut down the virus, not the country”. Must be the work of the evil Ron de santis.
Click to expand...

Biden said Peace Out to Covid earlier in the week, and left for vacation ....Major BDE from him
 
Kicker 2.0 said:
Answer the question……
Click to expand...
No point. We don't agree on basic questions of fact.

You can explore your counterfactual world where vaccines have no effect on transmission. I find it a waste of time. That's not the world we live in.

Grace raised a reasonable phrasing by asking about R=10 versus R=6. I'm not sure about the numbers, but that's the right style of question.
 
dad4 said:
No point. We don't agree on basic questions of fact.

You can explore your counterfactual world where vaccines have no effect on transmission. I find it a waste of time. That's not the world we live in.

Grace raised a reasonable phrasing by asking about R=10 versus R=6. I'm not sure about the numbers, but that's the right style of question.
Click to expand...
Its effect on transmission is probably not zero but at best its very poor since infections are raging through the vaccinated.
 
dad4 said:
No point. We don't agree on basic questions of fact.

You can explore your counterfactual world where vaccines have no effect on transmission. I find it a waste of time. That's not the world we live in.

Grace raised a reasonable phrasing by asking about R=10 versus R=6. I'm not sure about the numbers, but that's the right style of question.
Click to expand...
When and where did I ever mention an impact on transmission? SCIENCE has show both the Vaxx’d and Unvaxx’d can get and transmit the virus. To what extent, I never argued so your refusal to answer a simple question solely based on what you say we disagree on (but in FACT we do not) comes across as basic avoidance.

In reality, someone’s Vax status has NO impact on someone who is Vax’d. ESPECIALLY if that Unvaxx’d person has already had Covid. Can you prove me wrong?
 
watfly said:
Its effect on transmission is probably not zero but at best its very poor since infections are raging through the vaccinated.
Click to expand...
Certainly nowhere near R=1.

But there is a big difference between R=2 and R=6. 2 leads to a long slow wave of cases, fizzling out at 50%. 6 leads to a sudden crunch that overwhelms your hospital system and catches almost everyone.

I don't have an opinion on which is the better description. You could look to very high vax areas to get a guess.

Kind of moot. Even if the fully vaccinated transmission rate were known, we don't have a fully vaccinated population.
 
Kicker 2.0 said:
When and where did I ever mention an impact on transmission? SCIENCE has show both the Vaxx’d and Unvaxx’d can get and transmit the virus. To what extent, I never argued so your refusal to answer a simple question solely based on what you say we disagree on (but in FACT we do not) comes across as basic avoidance.

In reality, someone’s Vax status has NO impact on someone who is Vax’d. ESPECIALLY if that Unvaxx’d person has already had Covid. Can you prove me wrong?
Click to expand...
If my vaccine changes my probability of transmission, then my vax status is already having an impact on other people. It is lowering the probability that I give them covid.
 
dad4 said:
Certainly nowhere near R=1.

But there is a big difference between R=2 and R=6. 2 leads to a long slow wave of cases, fizzling out at 50%. 6 leads to a sudden crunch that overwhelms your hospital system and catches almost everyone.

I don't have an opinion on which is the better description. You could look to very high vax areas to get a guess.

Kind of moot. Even if the fully vaccinated transmission rate were known, we don't have a fully vaccinated population.
Click to expand...

The US hospital system hasn't collapsed in prior waves...it hasn't in most western countries. The biggest obstacle as the CDC recognized is that we are requiring the quarantine of positive people and they seem to be struggling to define what that end date should be (asymptomatic/no fever/symptomatic but 5 days)...it's going to be staffing as people call in sick, and the demand by idiots testing positive and then rushing off to the ER (because doctors don't want to see symptomatic people). It's a policy problem.

The long slow wave has trade offs. 1) the costs (you'll have to do something more than masks because if omicron really is R10 and the vaccine failure rate for infection really is 80%, vaccines+ poor use of masks is not going to get, 2) dragging out the time period those costs are imposed (e.g. children have already had a year of school taken away...gonna take away another 2-3 months?), 3) possibly creating later waves by leaving some dry tinder susceptible and 4) having a longer disruption not just of health care but all businesses and production because instead of everyone getting it and things collapsing for 2-3 weeks, they collapse over 3 months. Given the lower severity of the omicron, the cost isn't warranted....time to let her rip....those people like you that insist on continued interventions are just selfishly extending the emergency.
 
Grace T. said:
The US hospital system hasn't collapsed in prior waves...it hasn't in most western countries. The biggest obstacle as the CDC recognized is that we are requiring the quarantine of positive people and they seem to be struggling to define what that end date should be (asymptomatic/no fever/symptomatic but 5 days)...it's going to be staffing as people call in sick, and the demand by idiots testing positive and then rushing off to the ER (because doctors don't want to see symptomatic people). It's a policy problem.

The long slow wave has trade offs. 1) the costs (you'll have to do something more than masks because if omicron really is R10 and the vaccine failure rate for infection really is 80%, vaccines+ poor use of masks is not going to get, 2) dragging out the time period those costs are imposed (e.g. children have already had a year of school taken away...gonna take away another 2-3 months?), 3) possibly creating later waves by leaving some dry tinder susceptible and 4) having a longer disruption not just of health care but all businesses and production because instead of everyone getting it and things collapsing for 2-3 weeks, they collapse over 3 months. Given the lower severity of the omicron, the cost isn't warranted....time to let her rip....those people like you that insist on continued interventions are just selfishly extending the emergency.
Click to expand...

Reads like you are panicking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top