No point. We don't agree on basic questions of fact.Answer the question……
Nope. My dog wears an N95 whenever he leaves the house.
Nope. My dog wears an N95 whenever he leaves the house.
Its effect on transmission is probably not zero but at best its very poor since infections are raging through the vaccinated.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.
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.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.
Merry Christmas Bruddah IZ and Happy News Years bro. I will be out tomorrow and will be back to debate more later next year. I messed you man.I see the same religious clowns practicing their Fauciism.
Certainly nowhere near R=1.Its effect on transmission is probably not zero but at best its very poor since infections are raging through the vaccinated.
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.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?
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.
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.
Reads like you are panicking.
Here is what I will tell you, don't worship at the alter of evolving science. What was known 6-8 months ago is no longer true. What we knew last week isn't neccessarily still the case. I don't have to remind you how positive sciency people were about the slam dunk effectiveness of vaccines and how they were going to end transmission and provide immunity. Obviousy that idea has eroded/changed over time.Your understanding of the science on vaccinated transmission is in error. And you are still in error, even if you put it in all caps.
Reread whichever article you believe shows vax transmission is equal to unvax. Most likely, it tells you that peak viral load is the same, which it is.
But the duration is different, and the probability of infection is different. The total effect is not the same at all. Unvax end up being more transmissive.
In omicron Europe, there isn't an increased danger of hospital collapse. Most people counted as hospitalized are with omicron instead of because omicron. the number has to rise as the incidence rises in the populationThe 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.
The hospital narrative has always been overplayed. Think back to the early days of no vaccines, ventilators, NYC, old people, ships and field hospitals and conference centers with open beds. Are there issues with staffing right now..yep. Nurses are in fact leaving, in large numbers. Many reasons: mandates, better paying jobs, etc. And by the way, they've always skirted the 14 day quarantine rule. No symptoms, back to work. Has been this way since the beginning. Has it been stressfull, yep, many different reasons why. But the idea that we were ever on the verge of a national collapse is silly.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.
The hospital collapse theory is a joke and has been for over a year.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.
Whats moot are speculative R values. Covid is highly contagious among the vaccinated. To use my NHL example...100% vaccinated yet just at one point a week or so ago 1 in 5 players had covid. They continue to add dozens of players everday. Its not inconceivable that more than half will get Covid.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.