Vaccine

Answer the question……
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.
 
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.
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.

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?
 
Its effect on transmission is probably not zero but at best its very poor since infections are raging through the vaccinated.
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.
 
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?
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

We have a better picture of what our vaccines provide now. An infected vaccinated person can transmit disease just as effectively as an unvaccinated person. yes, it's true we "think" viral loads diminish faster in vaccinated people, win for the vaccine, maybe. We also think that it's possible the viability of the virus that is cultivated from an infected vaccinated person is very low...Which is also good news if in fact it's true. Plenty of if and maybe, and might, and should going on right now. What we do know for maybe sure is that Omicron is pretty sneaky but less severe. New data coming out daily, some of it contradictory. Mabye the pharma companies need to synch their messaging a bit better. And cross your fingers for a real FDA approved vaccine, maybe, in the near future.
 
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.
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 population

 
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 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.
 
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.
The hospital collapse theory is a joke and has been for over a year.
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top