Vaccine

Mile High Dad said:
Even Starbucks
www.ny1.com

Starbucks reverses course on vaccine mandate after Supreme Court ruling

Starbucks said 90% of employees reported vaccination status
www.ny1.com www.ny1.com
Click to expand...
I have to wonder if it’s not because they are having trouble staffing their stores. The last week or so I have been to 3 different Starbucks that closed earlier than normally posted hours. I’m thinking that my idea of mandate support and income loss being negatively correlated may be more than coincidental correlation.
 
NorCalDad said:
People who are vaccinated are less likely to contract the virus than those who are unvaccinated. On top of this, people who are vaccinated are much less likely to end up in the hospital or dead.

I understand your coming at this from an anti-mandate perspective, but it's unclear to me how the above sentences are incorrect when there's so much data supporting those points. I will take data over anecdotes any day of the week.

Are more vaccinated people getting the big O than unvaccinated people? In our county for sure, but that's because we have an incredibly high vaccination rate and it's just a numbers game, but if you look at rates it's not even close. You are significantly more likely get covid if you're unvaccinated....of course, unless, you isolate 100%.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I'm not making a case for mandates. I'm making the case that the vaccine is indeed helpful.
 
what-happened said:
Now you are putting words in my mounth. Stark difference in prevention of transmission VS prevention of severe disease. Cases mean nothing amongst the healthy population. The vaccines do not prevent transmission...Plenty of data suggests this , just look around. It's here, it's circulating, it may or may not become seasonal. Vaccines aren't going to stop transmission. They will help you survive infection and develop deeper, better immunity for the next time. Maybe next time you may not even know you had it.

The mandate gig is nearly up. If people continue to feel threatened, N95s are on the way.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how you get a 4:1 difference in positive tests without some a significant impact on infection and transmission. Are you arguing that unvaccinated people are equally infected, but 75% less likely to get tested?

If you have an argument, make it. If vaccinated people are equally infected and equally infectious, then why are they not testing positive at the same rate as unvaccinated people?
 
NorCalDad said:
People who are vaccinated are less likely to contract the virus than those who are unvaccinated. On top of this, people who are vaccinated are much less likely to end up in the hospital or dead.

I understand your coming at this from an anti-mandate perspective, but it's unclear to me how the above sentences are incorrect when there's so much data supporting those points. I will take data over anecdotes any day of the week.

Are more vaccinated people getting the big O than unvaccinated people? In our county for sure, but that's because we have an incredibly high vaccination rate and it's just a numbers game, but if you look at rates it's not even close. You are significantly more likely get covid if you're unvaccinated....of course, unless, you isolate 100%.
Click to expand...

We look at this from completely different perspectives and likley are in agreement when it comes to deployment of the vaccine. Omicron deaths remain very, very low, 91% lower than delta. The "data" being generated by omicron points to mild disease for both unvaccinated and vaccinated.

In the context of treating the disease, if you are high risk, get vaccinated. Be prepared for reinfection and be prepared for a somewhat rough ride if you have comorbidities. The term "mild" is misleading. For clinical purposes, mild generally means you won't be hospitalized, doesn't mean it's not going to suck.

The bottom line is that the data you are seeking to answer your questions remains forthcoming. Data coming out of Europe suggests the opposite of what you are saying. Everyone and their mother is running studies trying to decipher what to do next. An example is a report from the U.K. Health Security Agency’s (UKHSA) ending DEC 2021 that suggests the unvaccinated have the lowest rates of COVID-19 infection across all age groups over 18 years. Not what pfizer and crew want to hear.

It's easy to become your own echo chamber. The science, right now, shows that omicron doesn't care. The disease is mild in the healthy unvaccinated and the vaccinated, for the most part. Will that change in a month or so? Maybe. The data coming out of SA suggests that we are on track to mirror their results. We will see. We are fatter and older than they are. The UK appears to have weathered the storm. Austrailia has chosen to let omicron ride. We will see.

The SARS-COV-2 story hasn't been fully told yet.
 
soccersc said:
What? That's because most who are vaxxed and have mild symptoms don't get tested...then they go around like nothing is wrong and pass it on... for a long time there was a large group of vaxxed that really believed they couldn't get it. Then, when they got sick, all I heard was it's just a little cough or my throat is a little sore and they kept on going out and spreading it all over.
Click to expand...
These days, there is quite a bit of mandatory testing of people with no symptoms. If vaccinated people were getting covid in large numbers, you’d see it in the mandatory weekly tests at schools and work.

The simpler explanation works better. Vaccinated people get fewer positive tests because fewer of them are catching covid.
 
dad4 said:
I don’t see how you get a 4:1 difference in positive tests without some a significant impact on infection and transmission. Are you arguing that unvaccinated people are equally infected, but 75% less likely to get tested?

If you have an argument, make it. If vaccinated people are equally infected and equally infectious, then why are they not testing positive at the same rate as unvaccinated people?
Click to expand...

There's a ton of reasons why the positivity might be disbursed. You really don't know how much of it is attributed to the vaccine. For example, we know that immunity effects reduce with time, so (you always miss the time factor don't you) the immunity profile is changing over time which might get a temporary boost from the booster. We know also the unvaccinated are more susceptible to the delta, so what portion of the positive tests are due to delta which is circulating and over what time period. Part of it is probably a selection bias in the testing as the unvaccinated will be required in school and in jobs to test more frequently. Part of it is the vaccinated may very well be more careful. The truth is that the vaccinated probably do spread the virus less (most likely by having a more milder form of the disease), but it's equally true that if the R for the virus is somewhere in the neighborhood of six or over, mandating vaccines isn't going to make a dent in community transmissions (which means from a cost/benefit point of view there's zero justification in mandating it, at least with the soft mandates you are talking about where it's perfectly acceptable for a triple boosted but symptomatic COVID infected individual to be eating indoors at a restaurant, while the uninfected not ill unvaccinated person is segregated out).
 
dad4 said:
These days, there is quite a bit of mandatory testing of people with no symptoms.
Click to expand...
The trend however is now moving away from that.

You have a mild variant that blows through vaxxed and unvaxxed.

NHL for instance last night is not going to test everyone anymore. It is a waste of time and resources at this point.

And with the virus being endemic and rather mild that is the calculation most will end up with. Some will be slower vs others to bow to reality. But bank on reduced testing as we go forward.
 
dad4 said:
These days, there is quite a bit of mandatory testing of people with no symptoms. If vaccinated people were getting covid in large numbers, you’d see it in the mandatory weekly tests at schools and work.

The simpler explanation works better. Vaccinated people get fewer positive tests because fewer of them are catching covid.
Click to expand...

You can see it. Look at the curves in the United Arab Emirates (92 percent vaxxed), Portugal (89 percent vaxxed), South Korea (87 percent vaxxed) or Gibraltar (94 percent vaxxed). All had omicron waves.
 
Ouch the reviews both home and abroad of the Biden press conference! Damage control in process as he seemingly gave Russia the greenlight to attack the Ukraine provided it was only a minor incursion. White House dialing it back now saying that's not what he meant.
 
what-happened said:
We look at this from completely different perspectives and likley are in agreement when it comes to deployment of the vaccine. Omicron deaths remain very, very low, 91% lower than delta. The "data" being generated by omicron points to mild disease for both unvaccinated and vaccinated.

In the context of treating the disease, if you are high risk, get vaccinated. Be prepared for reinfection and be prepared for a somewhat rough ride if you have comorbidities. The term "mild" is misleading. For clinical purposes, mild generally means you won't be hospitalized, doesn't mean it's not going to suck.

The bottom line is that the data you are seeking to answer your questions remains forthcoming. Data coming out of Europe suggests the opposite of what you are saying. Everyone and their mother is running studies trying to decipher what to do next. An example is a report from the U.K. Health Security Agency’s (UKHSA) ending DEC 2021 that suggests the unvaccinated have the lowest rates of COVID-19 infection across all age groups over 18 years. Not what pfizer and crew want to hear.

It's easy to become your own echo chamber. The science, right now, shows that omicron doesn't care. The disease is mild in the healthy unvaccinated and the vaccinated, for the most part. Will that change in a month or so? Maybe. The data coming out of SA suggests that we are on track to mirror their results. We will see. We are fatter and older than they are. The UK appears to have weathered the storm. Austrailia has chosen to let omicron ride. We will see.

The SARS-COV-2 story hasn't been fully told yet.
Click to expand...

When I look at Bay Area data it's pretty dang clear. As @dad4 already pointed out we've already peaked and are on our way down. Of course the bay area has a pretty high vaccination rate altogether. But this is also why things are still open up here. It's why my kids got to play indoor futsal this weekend, which, by the way was a blast. The data seems to be pretty conclusive in our neck of the woods.
 
dad4 said:
I don’t see how you get a 4:1 difference in positive tests without some a significant impact on infection and transmission. Are you arguing that unvaccinated people are equally infected, but 75% less likely to get tested?

If you have an argument, make it. If vaccinated people are equally infected and equally infectious, then why are they not testing positive at the same rate as unvaccinated people?
Click to expand...

I don't have an argument to make. Transmission will continue to remain reasonably high, vaxxed or unvaxxed. Throw around as many numbers as you'd like. You crack me up. zero covid isn't possible, was never possible. Cases don't mean anything anymore, completely decoupled. Your numbers game doesn't translate to the real world.
 
NorCalDad said:
When I look at Bay Area data it's pretty dang clear. As @dad4 already pointed out we've already peaked and are on our way down. Of course the bay area has a pretty high vaccination rate altogether. But this is also why things are still open up here. It's why my kids got to play indoor futsal this weekend, which, by the way was a blast. The data seems to be pretty conclusive in our neck of the woods.
Click to expand...
Congratulations - There are many reasons why the Bay area has done better than most. Vaccination rates, good socio economic conditions, healthy population, etc. Most areas that have this combination have fared well. You should feel great that your circumstances are favorable.

I've traveled the lenght of your state but I don't have a firm enough grasp of the situation to compare notes from north to south.
 
NorCalDad said:
When I look at Bay Area data it's pretty dang clear. As @dad4 already pointed out we've already peaked and are on our way down. Of course the bay area has a pretty high vaccination rate altogether. But this is also why things are still open up here. It's why my kids got to play indoor futsal this weekend, which, by the way was a blast. The data seems to be pretty conclusive in our neck of the woods.
Click to expand...
All I know is that in my neck of the woods, SD, and my sister's town, Denver, the virus is spreading like wildfire among the vaccinated and boosted. In the last 3 weeks I probably know 20x more people that have gotten it than in the prior 18 months. You can talk about studies and "data" all you want but my eyes and ears tell me that the vaccine is not effective, or very nominally effective, against infection. Fortunately, protection against serious illness seems to be a different story. We need to be honest about the actual benefits of the vaccine. Without credibility you undermine the adoption of health policy. You think compliance is low this pandemic? Wait until the next. Has anyone heard the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?
 
what-happened said:
Congratulations - There are many reasons why the Bay area has done better than most. Vaccination rates, good socio economic conditions, healthy population, etc. Most areas that have this combination have fared well. You should feel great that your circumstances are favorable.

I've traveled the lenght of your state but I don't have a firm enough grasp of the situation to compare notes from north to south.
Click to expand...
I'll help you out. Here's a little documentary made in 2006. Since then, SoCal - well, LA specifically - has made some inroads into the lead the SF Bay Area had on them with their unrelenting commitment. To make it applicable for our present situation simply replace "drive a hybrid" with "vaccinated and boosted".

 
watfly said:
All I know is that in my neck of the woods, SD, and my sister's town, Denver, the virus is spreading like wildfire among the vaccinated and boosted. In the last 3 weeks I probably know 20x more people that have gotten it than in the prior 18 months. You can talk about studies and "data" all you want but my eyes and ears tell me that the vaccine is not effective, or very nominally effective, against infection. Fortunately, protection against serious illness seems to be a different story. We need to be honest about the actual benefits of the vaccine. Without credibility you undermine the adoption of health policy. You think compliance is low this pandemic? Wait until the next. Has anyone heard the story of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?
Click to expand...
That’s why you need data. How do you compare “spreads like wildfire #1” and ”spreads like wildfire #2”?

Without actual numbers, you’re stuck saying “both are fast, so they must be equal”. By that logic, I drive a Formula One race car.
 
dad4 said:
That’s why you need data. How do you compare “spreads like wildfire #1” and ”spreads like wildfire #2”?

Without actual numbers, you’re stuck saying “both are fast, so they must be equal”. By that logic, I drive a Formula One race car.
Click to expand...

If both are fast, the assumption is that both are unrestrainable (or in your speak that the R is high enough that it can't be contained). It's irrelevant if its a six or nine. Both are fast so the exact speeds are irrelevant.

Or to take your car analogy, if driving over 70 miles per hour is inherently dangerous, it doesn't really matter if you are driving a formula once race car or flooring the engine on your Prius. Both are enough to produce a stunning multicar crash.
 
Grace T. said:
If both are fast, the assumption is that both are unrestrainable (or in your speak that the R is high enough that it can't be contained). It's irrelevant if its a six or nine. Both are fast so the exact speeds are irrelevant.

Or to take your car analogy, if driving over 70 miles per hour is inherently dangerous, it doesn't really matter if you are driving a formula once race car or flooring the engine on your Prius. Both are enough to produce a stunning multicar crash.
Click to expand...
It’s not a question of containment, or really a question of total case count. It‘s a question of into how small a time you compress those cases.

To keep the car analogy, let’s not all get into a car crash the same day. The hospital will run out of trauma surgeons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top