Coronavirus, now treatable with ForXthia!

[tjs282]

So I think that diseases that were basically defeated, are going to start bubbling up in red states and rural areas. Just laying my prediction here, I bet it's going to warrant revisiting in a year or two.

This basically a foregone conclusion.

Just look at what happened in the UK after Andrew Wakefield's scaremongering that the MMR triple-vaccine* 'might' cause autism**.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud

Years down the line, measles, mumps and rubella cases were/are way up in the toddler-cohort who would otherwise have been vaccinated in those years (mainly 2002, when the tabloids started using it to attack Blair), because too many parents believed the BS, and refused to get their kids jabbed.

Spoiler Footnotes :

*MMR was/is supplied by the NHS, as an efficient way to deliver those immunities with minimal invasiveness/ bureaucracy
**It doesn't. Wakefield's conclusions relied on dodgy correlations within a relatively small, non-random sample group, and it turned out that he also had [undisclosed?] financial links to a manufacturer of single-disease vaccines, i.e. potentially a vested interest in discrediting MMR. His paper was eventually retracted by the Lancet, and his medical license was revoked — but too late to fix the damage he'd already done

 

[TheMeInTeam]

How much does the vaccine protect those around you?

Two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccines in Alpha variant index cases independently reduced PCR-positivity in contacts (aOR, adjusted odds ratio vs. unvaccinated=0.18[95%CI 0.12-0.29] and 0.37[0.22-0.63] respectively). The Delta variant attenuated vaccine-associated reductions in transmission: two BNT162b2 doses reduced Delta transmission (aOR=0.35[0.26-0.48]), more than ChAdOx1 (aOR=0.64[0.57-0.72]; heterogeneity p<0.001).
​

My understanding is that this means if you had 100 people who got alpha COVID from infected unvaccinated people, that would only be 18 if they were all vaccinated with Pfizer or 37 if with Astrazeneca (but still infected). If that was the delta variant it would be 35 with Pfizer or 64 with Astrazeneca. It is not as much of a reduction as I would have thought. Of course you have to include how much less likely the vaccinated are to get infected, which is quite a lot.

Isn't asymptomatic spread significantly higher for delta? I wonder what the data says about transmission rate of delta for vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations, given:

• Unvaccinated are significantly more likely to spread it when they have it near people
• Vaccinated are significantly more likely to be in public for longer with the disease, since their symptoms are (at least in most cases) a lot more mild. ~35-65% is still a lot.

It could go either way. If transmission rate is reduced enough, vaccinations would still reduce spread rate. But if it isn't, then we'd expect quarantine of the sick to outperform it. I'm not sure where the break point is in this regard. It could be that the vaccine is far from that break point, and that even though people with it can spread the virus it's still the mathematically obvious move to take it. But I'd at least like to see numbers.

 

[Arwon]

Sorry for the ongoing Canberraposting

Canberra set to become the most Covid vaccinated city in the world

My guess is the figures are a couple of % off due to population estimates error in the denominator and Medicare address issues in the numerator but yeah. Will likely hit officially 99% of over 12s jabbed, and then I assume just call it <99% when it gets there.

 

[Drakle]

This basically a foregone conclusion.

Just look at what happened in the UK after Andrew Wakefield's scaremongering that the MMR triple-vaccine* 'might' cause autism**.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud

Years down the line, measles, mumps and rubella cases were/are way up in the toddler-cohort who would otherwise have been vaccinated in those years (mainly 2002, when the tabloids started using it to attack Blair), because too many parents believed the BS, and refused to get their kids jabbed.

Spoiler Footnotes :

*MMR was/is supplied by the NHS, as an efficient way to deliver those immunities with minimal invasiveness/ bureaucracy
**It doesn't. Wakefield's conclusions relied on dodgy correlations within a relatively small, non-random sample group, and it turned out that he also had [undisclosed?] financial links to a manufacturer of single-disease vaccines, i.e. potentially a vested interest in discrediting MMR. His paper was eventually retracted by the Lancet, and his medical license was revoked — but too late to fix the damage he'd already done

It's happening


The Plague States of America.

 

[Berzerker]

What evidence? The YouTube videos you've just provided? You've only just provided them!

Links to Israeli data posted in the last thread showing people who got covid do better vs delta than the vaccinated population.

Let's get this very clear. You repeatedly claim that the vaccine can hurt people (you did it again here, with your reply to Zelig by describing vaccinations as "medically unnecessary procedures that can hurt them").

People have been hurt by the vaccine or the manner it was delivered. Why is that misinformation?

You do so without any actual evidence of the dangers of the vaccine. You do not, ever, compare the theoretical dangers of any vaccine to the dangers of actually contracting Covid. You do not recognise long Covid in any of your use cases where you object to a vaccine mandate (of any description). You completely ignore the necessity for a high level of vaccinated individuals in order for the infection rate to come down.

And you ask me why I call your posts misinformation?

You need evidence people have been hurt by the vaccines? I thought that was well known, established science, fact. I've repeatedly said I got vaccinated based on comparing the relative dangers of covid to the vaccine. The vaccine will make it safer if I get covid. I dont see the necessity of vaccinating people who got covid, here's why -

The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.

https://www.science.org/content/art...er-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

You don't care about natural immunity. You got the vaccine yourself.

I didn't get covid so I cant depend on having natural immunity, thats why I got the vaccine.

Naturally immunity, to you, is just another tool in your ideological war against something that someone has "mandated". That's your objection. To a "mandate". It could be a mandate to eat breakfast as a part of a healthy daily routine and you'd object to it, because the problem is that it was mandated, not specifically what it was about (even if it's good for you). That's why you go down these rabbitholes of trying to twist available information into a use case to avoid having to take the vaccine.

Please stop dragging me into your crusade against the antivaxxers. Natural immunity is just science, Israeli studies showing covid survivors are better protected than vaccinated people is just science. Requiring them to get vaccinated is not science, its a medically unnecessary risk. I wonder what big pharma has to say on the subject.

"If you agree why require people with great immunity to take a vaccine they dont need?"

Because we don't know how long immunity lasts for, and the pandemic has been going for 18 months. I contracted Covid-19 near the very start of the UK pandemic, back in March 2020. I received the vaccine (both doses) by late August 2021. Do you know what natural immunity I still had at that stage? No, you don't. So it can't be used as an argument to avoid being vaccinated.

Longer than the vaccine apparently. I think you're fine, the study I saw said there was a robust response to 1 shot following covid and the 2nd didn't have much effect. My sister had covid followed by 2 shots. I think thats overdoing it but to each his own. I know you had natural immunity, how much aint really that important if its enough.

"How do you know anti-vaxxers didn't get covid already?"

Because nobody knows if all anti-vaxxers, everywhere, had Covid already or not. You don't know. Nobody knows. So it can't be used as an assumption that they have natural immunity and thus don't need the vaccine. It can be used, on an individual basis, to perhaps investigate what level of natural immunity your body still holds, but you cannot assume it protects an individual. Plus, you already got the vaccine, so you evidently don't actually believe it does. Otherwise why get the vaccine at all?

I wouldn't have gotten the vaccine if I got covid, but I didn't so the vaccine is better than nothing. Ofc I believe in natural immunity, I keep citing evidence its better than what I got with 2 shots. Most people will be honest about getting covid, I dont see why we should subject 100 million people to an unnecessary vaccine to convince somebody to take it.

The entire point of a vaccine is it's not just for you. Even if it doesn't eliminate transmission, the entire point is to make sure people don't suffer as much with Covid-19. Ideally, people would suffer far less. This would result in less disruption to medical services (both emergency and non-emergency). If people are still letting themselves get Covid, and are then going to hospital or wherever, that is something that could've been prevented with a vaccine.

tl;dr: you're full of nonsense.

You rely on absolutely no science, except whatever tidbits align with your anti-mandate crusade. This is why I call your posts misinformation, and it looks like I don't have to change that attitude anytime soon.

People who got covid are better protected vs delta than 2 shots of Pfizer. From your article:

A CDC report released in August found that unvaccinated people who previously had COVID-19 were about 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than vaccinated people who've had it.

Yes, getting covid followed by the vaccine will produce a more robust response than covid alone.

From my link:

The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.

I already mentioned a few times 1 shot following covid provided a robust response. If this study was done on people who got covid over a year ago with other covid survivors who then got vaccinated I'd expect better protection with both.

Your article compares covid to covid + vaccine. No one is arguing that. The comparison is between people who got covid and vaccinated people who didn't. The vaccinated people with less protection are attacking the people with more protection and they do it while wearing a halo.

 

[Berzerker]

Not a good reason, I explained why, and you didn't address it.

its a good reason to them, your good reason makes them take an unnecessary vaccine so antivaxxers wont try to get covid. Why would they try to get covid, to avoid a mandate? Hmm...

What were the drawbacks of Asperating that lead to its discontinuation ?

Was it because the wastage of vaccine and the design of new syringes that didnt require asperating ????

No, as the doc explains in the video the practice was discontinued because of greater arm discomfort.

 

[Zelig]

its a good reason to them, your good reason makes them take an unnecessary vaccine so antivaxxers wont try to get covid. Why would they try to get covid, to avoid a mandate? Hmm...

What?

 

[amadeus]

Why would they try to get covid, to avoid a mandate?

It’s because they’re morons. We’ve established this already.

 

[Ferocitus]

The pandemic still feels completely unreal here - 4 deaths out of a population of 1.2 million over the last 20 months.

 

[FriendlyFire]

No, as the doc explains in the video the practice was discontinued because of greater arm discomfort.

I didnt dismiss Doc argument out of hand
But again as I have pointed out the syringes used have changed, the waste of vaccine was the reason it was discontinued. It might be worthwhile looking into this issue but so far its a very minor one as any heart issues naturally goes away.
I guess the vaccine wastage issue isnt that big a deal. But the discontinuation since the new syringes and use over many decades shows its overall very safe.

 

[Gorbles]

People have been hurt by the vaccine or the manner it was delivered. Why is that misinformation?

I've been "hurt" by reading some of the more inane posts on this forum, doesn't mean I get to nuke the forum from orbit. Recognising that there is an incredibly minimal risk from having the vaccine administered is in no way comparable to the risk from not getting the vaccine.

You keep raising dangers with the vaccine without recogninsing the danger from having Covid. That's your shtick. You're in the "anti-vaxxer" group because - despite having the vaccine yourself, and not being a classic "anti-vaxxer" - you are propagating misinformation that would lead people to reconsider getting the vaccine. You are harming efforts to increase the vaccination rate.

I didn't get covid so I cant depend on having natural immunity, thats why I got the vaccine.

But according to you, you should've gotten Covid, because it's better than having the vaccine. So why didn't you?

Yes, getting covid followed by the vaccine will produce a more robust response than covid alone.

But I thought natural immunity was enough to not require the vaccine? It's amazing that you can't see how you're contradicting yourself.

If being vaccinated after having Covid creates a better response, then that is justification for people who have had Covid to have the vaccine. Your argument defeats itself.

 

[El_Machinae]

We have to remember when we're switching between 'should' and 'mandate'. People should get a booster just before a new wave is about to hit.

The mandate is to set a minimum safety standard. Then it becomes a balance. Forcing someone to get an injection has to be done with the eye remaining on a minimum standard balanced with not creating perverse incentives. And there's the risk of authoritarian urges dismissing good arguments just like a pro-antisocial stance will dismiss good arguments. Or good science.

We've been underserved on the science.

There's a separate conversation about how to be protected against the next variant. It should be more infectious but less dangerous. So, getting infected now makes little sense unless you have reason to believe that something will compromise your future immunity to below where it is now. With covid-19, that would be if the original vaccine was too dissimilar from the variant and poorly matched boosters compound the problem.

 

[Gorbles]

We have to remember when we're switching between 'should' and 'mandate'. People should get a booster just before a new wave is about to hit.

The problem is, we're not even at boosters are (some countries are, but bear with me). We're still at the stage where folks don't have two doses of the vaccine to fight off the original variants. And don't get me started on other countries deprived by the economics of developed nation stockpiling. Or the "travel for me, but not for thee" also of the developed nations in refusing vaccine passports from developing countries / non-Western countries.

So there are a lot of problems. Perverse incentives, but not specifically related to even getting the vaccine, funnily enough. When it comes to the "get vaccinated", you should (unless you are legitimately exempt for the handful of conditions that require exemption), and this "should" needs to be enforced. Otherwise vaccination rates slow, and the virus keeps getting through. Keeps getting chances to mutate. I like to trot this out because it's become a conservative catchphrase in the whole "culture war" thing: the facts don't care about their feelings. Whatever their ideology (though, I don't think I need to point out the obvious overlap).

When I talk about Covid, I'm talking about the past eighteen months. I'm not even at boosters yet. I'm arguing with people that mention "Fauci" and other now-historical soundbites, in the context of the original set of vaccinations against the original strain(s).

It'd be nice to think about the future like you are. But that's not the argument I'm having yet.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, hmmmmn, I think of the 2nd dose as the booster. Or the first dose after fighting off covid-19 itself. I timed my 2nd dose for the delta wave in my region. It's the dose timed to maximize antibodies, to be the tool to blunt the actual wave in the necessary time frame.

But we're going to need proper booster infrastructure, regardless. And we're praying that the current tactics don't screw us in the long run.

I don't think that mutation rate in our populations is really part of the conversation. Or, it is, but it doesn't matter.

Forcing the fraction of previously infected people to get vaccinated just isn't the same number as billions of unvaccinated people in poorer nations. Our 20% hesitant is a big number, but orders of magnitude smaller than the reservoir. For all practical purposes, it's an outside threat.

We're being underserved by the science. I get weirded out that the solution to hesitancy is mandated acceptance of poor standards without concomitantly demanding higher standards.

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, hmmmmn, I think of the 2nd dose as the booster. Or the first dose after fighting off covid-19 itself. I timed my 2nd dose for the delta wave in my region. It's the dose timed to maximize antibodies, to be the tool to blunt the actual wave in the necessary time frame.

But we're going to need proper booster infrastructure, regardless. And we're praying that the current tactics don't screw us in the long run.

I don't think that mutation rate in our populations is really part of the conversation. Or, it is, but it doesn't matter.

Forcing the fraction of previously infected people to get vaccinated just isn't the same number as billions of unvaccinated people in poorer nations. Our 20% hesitant is a big number, but orders of magnitude smaller than the reservoir. For all practical purposes, it's an outside threat.

We're being underserved by the science. I get weirded out that the solution to hesitancy is mandated acceptance of poor standards without concomitantly demanding higher standards.

I saw the data on two shots being required for efficacy and since then my brain's been locked at "two is required". Laying aside natural immunity for a second. I got them somewhat late (our age range was "lowest risk", so we were among the last, but a relatively short gap between both doses thankfully - our government had been pushing very long gaps between them before they were publicly embarrassed on the science).

I agree that there are bigger problems elsewhere in the world, but I also think that the ones not being vaccinated here are also a problem. It's not an us-or-them thing (though in terms of priorities, if it had to be, sure, I'd agree the greater number of unvaccinated folk in poorer nations should come first). We have the reserves, we bought the stockpiles. It doesn't look like we're sharing very much of them. So to me, forcing their use seems to be the path of political expediency. It might not be optimal, internationally, but that's also not something I can solve.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I don't think that we can solve the lack of 3rd world vaccination. But I think that it creates the scale against which I'm going to measure the risk of new evolution. If my concern is evolving new variants, then it's not my local hesitant crowd that is the risk factor, but lack of actual political or charitable motivation on our end. Or, they are a risk, but it's a rounding error. For me, mandates are about preventing the healthcare system from collapsing

I recently pointed out elsewhere that my government is matching donations to UNICEF to distribute vaccines elsewhere. If I wasn't all-in on polio (which I think is a more important use of my money), I'd be donating there. We definitely can't afford to lose the plot on polio, especially since we decided to abandon Afghanistan. My mantra of 'all successfully prevented pandemics look like overreaction in retrospect" applies there.

And my complaints here about the locked IP (and resulting lack of necessary science) is part of the story as to why we're not getting actual vaccine coverage in the world. Though I'm not smart enough to know solutions, just problems, when discussing that.

 

[Hrothbern]

In NL, in the period Sept 1 to Oct 3, 75% of the hospitalisations was from non-vaccinated people and 80% of the ICU beds was for non-vaccinated people.
We have big issues in NL with exhausted hospital employees with a decreased retention rate, increased sick leave.

Regular health care by hospitals does not take place as normal.

In short:
We let our total health care getting overwhelmed by a very small minority of anti-vaxxers (10-15% of 18+ age).

When we come to the nasty choices of helping someone with for example cancer or a heart surgery or helping a, from principled choice, not vaccinated patient... why help that not vaccinated patient ?

EDIT
To consider as well is that the number of bed days of a Covid patient is 3-5 times as long as the average of other hospitalisations.

So the balance is 1 (principled) non-vaccinated Covid patient versus 3-5 other patients.

 

[stfoskey12]

The pandemic still feels completely unreal here - 4 deaths out of a population of 1.2 million over the last 20 months.

We have 9,438 deaths out of a population of 3.96 million. Yet I still don't personally know anyone who's died of it. I do know of a few people who were older or had serious underlying conditions and got hospitalized, however. And some of my otherwise young and healthy friends are still dealing with or dealt with long covid symptoms.

21.6% of people in my age group (18-24) have gotten Covid, and 0.0045% of people in my age group have died of it.

 

[Hrothbern]

We have 9,438 deaths out of a population of 3.96 million. Yet I still don't personally know anyone who's died of it. I do know of a few people who were older or had serious underlying conditions and got hospitalized, however. And some of my otherwise young and healthy friends are still dealing with or dealt with long covid symptoms.

21.6% of people in my age group (18-24) have gotten Covid, and 0.0045% of people in my age group have died of it.

My GP lost his wife and a daughter early 2020

 

[stfoskey12]

My GP lost his wife and a daughter early 2020

That's tragic.

I definitely consider myself thankful that I don't know anyone who's died of it.