Delta variant and current vaccines

20,623 Views | 173 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by thirdcoast
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thirdcoast • 5:14p, 8/8/21
AG
No, because that isn't what is happening. They are not collecting the information. The CDC is only collecting information on cases that result in hospitalization or death.

Some states may be collecting the information. The CDC has encouraged them to and asked them to continue reporting it up through the surveillance system that is used for all kinds of diseases. His letter also says they're continuing to do discrete studies. It's like polling a sample size instead of trying to interview every person in a population.

What changed was the CDC used to check every. single. one. Now they are not, they're only doing the severe cases, and doing sampling.
Reply Quote
7
GenericAggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KidDoc • 6:26p, 8/8/21
AG
What happened to 95% efficacy?

I'm really confused on the effectiveness of the vaccine to block the virus.

I'm vaccinated so this isn't me arguing against vaccines.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
cc_ag92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GenericAggie • 6:53p, 8/8/21
AG
Nebraska Medicine:
Efficacy and effectiveness sound similar, but they are not the same. Efficacy refers to how well a vaccine performs under ideal conditions as reflected in a careful clinical trial. For instance, the study participants are carefully chosen and given specific instructions to reduce their risks, the vaccine doses are given at precisely the right time and subjects are monitored closely.
Effectiveness, on the other hand, refers to what happens in the real world when a vaccine is employed to protect a community, and often is discussed in terms of community-wide protection. When you get the yearly influenza shot, for instance, you may still get sick with one of several strains of flu that year. But, being vaccinated means protection against a more severe case. Likewise, if enough of your neighbors also took the flu vaccine, your ICU will not see as many influenza cases. People at higher risk may avoid the disease entirely. Vaccine effectiveness is about how protected everyone is as a whole.
"Vaccine effectiveness is what happens to the community experience with a disease," says Dr. Brett-Major. "So, on a population level, when you have a lot of vaccine uptake, it does change the community experience with a disease. Vaccines with moderate and even low efficacy can have reasonable effectiveness."
Reply Quote
1
GenericAggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cc_ag92 • 7:13p, 8/8/21
AG
Thank you. This is different than the narrative over the past 15 months. The government has said the vaccine will stop people from getting the virus - 95%! The narrative seems to be changing. Agree or no?
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GenericAggie • 7:26p, 8/8/21
AG
No, I don't remember anyone ever saying that the vaccines prevent you from being infected. In fact early on the government saying that you could potentially still infect others after being vaccinated was a big point of ridicule with anti-vaccine people on this site...
Reply Quote
11
Charpie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GenericAggie • 7:27p, 8/8/21
AG
I never understood it like that. I always understood that it would keep me from getting super sick. I distinctly remember that when discussing the vaccine with my doctor back in February
Reply Quote
16
cc_ag92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GenericAggie • 8:54p, 8/8/21
AG
This is from December 2020: Another unanswered question is whether the vaccines, whose trials have shown that they prevent people from getting seriously ill and dying of COVID-19, also prevent people from becoming infected in the first place and, importantly, from passing the virus on to others. It could be the case, Fauci said, that even if the vaccines don't prevent infection, they keep virus levels so low that they do prevent transmission. Those outstanding questions, however, are why masking, distancing, and other public health measures will be needed even by people who have been vaccinated until we know the answers.

"We're going to find out from follow-up studies," Fauci said. "We should not say that vaccines are a substitution for public health measures; [they're] a complement to public health measures." Harvard Gazette December 10, 2020

It was fully acknowledged that we didn't know everything and that vaccines were part of the solution, not the entire solution. My family knew this when we were vaccinated beginning in January. I'm not sure why anyone thought otherwise.
Reply Quote
Cyp0111
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thirdcoast • 9:14p, 8/8/21
What are you driving at and how is it beneficial ?
Reply Quote
KidDoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GenericAggie • 8:24a, 8/9/21
AG
GenericAggie said:
What happened to 95% efficacy?

I'm really confused on the effectiveness of the vaccine to block the virus.

I'm vaccinated so this isn't me arguing against vaccines.
The virus changed (Delta variant)- the data changed. This was not just a random narrative shift. It is how science is supposed to work.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
19
Post removed:
by user
In reply to KidDoc • 9:07a, 8/9/21
Wodanaz
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 10:53a, 8/9/21
AG
Reply Quote
1 edit
FlyRod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:02a, 8/9/21
Quote:
So the selling of the boosters will commence soon.

Good. Can't happen soon enough.
Reply Quote
5
thirdcoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 2:11p, 8/9/21
AG
Zobel said:
No, because that isn't what is happening. They are not collecting the information. The CDC is only collecting information on cases that result in hospitalization or death.


Hmm actually now it appears are looking for tiny patient studies (246), that align with their pro-vax messaging and dispell the larger breakthrough infection data. These particular mild cases ARE of "public health importance".....just not all those other massive numbers of mild cases that make vaccines look ineffective. They are subjectively choosing which reports to put up on their site. As expected.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Wakesurfer817
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thirdcoast • 2:17p, 8/9/21
Wakesurfer817
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thirdcoast • 2:22p, 8/9/21
thirdcoast said:
Zobel said:
No, because that isn't what is happening. They are not collecting the information. The CDC is only collecting information on cases that result in hospitalization or death.


Hmm actually now it appears are looking for tiny patient studies (246), that align with their pro-vax messaging and dispell the larger breakthrough infection data. These particular mild cases ARE of "public health importance".....just not all those other massive numbers of mild cases that make vaccines look ineffective. They are subjectively choosing which reports to put up on their site. As expected.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
What's their motive do you think? Do you think the CDC actually knows that vaccines are ineffective, and perhaps harmful; and continue to push a course of action regardless? Is the motive pure evil in this case? Greed? Incompetence (no motive)? Hubris ("we can't be wrong...")?
Reply Quote
1
thirdcoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wakesurfer817 • 2:28p, 8/9/21
AG
No no. I don't think they are doing a Cuomo.

They are trying to prevent vaccine reluctance and take the focus off of how Delta destroyed the "stop the spread" messaging for vaccination. They want everyone to still know that vaccines DO prevent serious illness and death, and therefore shift focus away from mild breakthrough to severe breakthrough which is very rare.

They saw how the Israel data was leveraged to created vaccine reluctance and mistrust in prior messaging. They don't want that to happen more.

Not evil. Strategic public messaging.
Reply Quote
3
GenericAggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:56p, 8/9/21
AG
Y'all do realize there is no cure for this virus?

Just like there is no cure for the flu.

We will live with this for the next 200 years.

So - the human race will need to learn how to deal with it.
Reply Quote
5
ExpressAg11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:14p, 8/9/21
AG
I have a dumb question. With COVID being a respiratory virus that replicates in the nose/mucus membrane, why did they not focus on a nose spray type vaccine that worked to kill the virus in the nose? Instead of a vaccine that targets the blood.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thirdcoast • 3:51p, 8/9/21
AG
Looking for studies != conducting studies. This matches perfectly with what the guy told you, for what its worth - "However, CDC continues to lead studies in multiple U.S. sites to evaluate vaccine effectiveness and collect information on all COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections regardless of symptoms or illness severity."


Sorry their findings don't match what you think they should be, I guess. You're left with a couple of possibilities

1) Figure out why their study was flawed
2) Revise your opinion or at least be open to updating it as more information comes in
3) Reject any new information that doesn't align with your priors out of hand, and claim it is all a conspiracy

I don't advise 3, but it is your choice after all. Good luck.

PS This "tiny" study (n = 738 including control) is twice as large as any study that found a positive benefit for ivermectin.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
thirdcoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:10p, 8/9/21
AG
You are hopeless.

I didnt attack the study. It's one study and small. My point as they are subjectively choosing what studies and data to put on their website.

It works. People like you are clueless to that strategy and take it at face value, with absolute trust in CDC as an unbiased objective source. The same type of people that believed the virus came from a wet market, because the CDC posted "science" and "expert" consensus that suggested that. We knew how many 10's of thousands of wet markets there were, and that there was one virus lab at outbreak epicenter in Wahun, the CDC didn't want to mention that math. They don't want to mention the rising rate of vaccine breakthrough on national level, so they pick isolated studies that they can post on their site to control the messaging/guidelines.

You probably first thought it was conspiracy a theory that Cuomo admin under reported nursing home deaths too. How could our gov ever interfere in info to the public?!

The CDC isn't an objective information source for unbiased data, it's a public health service that sets safety guidelines. Their strategic shift in reporting after Delta should not surprise anyone.

Even after Fauci was caught red handed via email trying to control the public messaging on origin, many still denied it. Same will happen in this case with CDC.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Cyp0111
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thirdcoast • 4:36p, 8/9/21
TIN FOIL HAT ENGAGED.

I've read about 50 posts from your assault on the keyboard. What is your point ? I've yet to reach that conclusion.
Reply Quote
10
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thirdcoast • 4:43p, 8/9/21
AG

Quote:
I didnt attack the study. It's one study and small. My point as they are subjectively choosing what studies and data to put on their website.
What studies has the CDC performed that they haven't put on their website?
Reply Quote
5
chap
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 4:46p, 8/9/21
AG
Zobel said:

Quote:
I didnt attack the study. It's one study and small. My point as they are subjectively choosing what studies and data to put on their website.
What studies has the CDC performed that they haven't put on their website?
How would we know that?
Reply Quote
4
coolerguy12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chap • 4:53p, 8/9/21
AG
They would tell you on the website of course.
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chap • 4:56p, 8/9/21
AG
You tell me? It's his accusation, so what's he basing it on? He's saying the CDC is hiding evidence, selectively publishing. How would he know that?

It's his accusation, let him prove it. The only evidence he has is that he doesn't agree with the evidence they're presenting.

(You can actually infer this, by the way, by posting a funnel plot of the results of their studies which can suggest publication bias, if it does in fact exist).
Reply Quote
10
thirdcoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 5:44p, 8/9/21
AG
How about recent Cali breakthrough data? Can we expect CDC to publish any of that? Must be too taxed right now.

Quote:

Breakthrough case rates are a sensitive topic, one that some health officials are trying to avoid and which has sparked a lot of handwringing in the media about how to report it.


https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/19-of-california-covid-cases-are-breakthroughs/

I know you are gonna dig for anything that fits your opinion that CDC is completely unbiased and only stopped reporting national breakthrough cases because they became over taxed when Delta data hit the tape.

Even Gottlieb was criticizing the CDC for their decision to stop tracking national breakthrough infection. I'm not an outlier on recognizing what's happening here.

Also- how about CDC update their site with new data on origin, or simple probability theory based on location of lab and breakout? Instead, they still have an old article talking about how the virus likely came from a wet market. God bless their hearts, just too busy.

Quote:
At the minimum, this fact that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.


https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/damning-science-shows-covid-19-likely-engineered-in-lab/
Reply Quote
1
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to thirdcoast • 5:53p, 8/9/21
AG
So the cdc is obligated to publish all research on covid? That's what you're saying?

The CDC publishes the research they do themselves. Other people publish the research they do.

You're saying that by only publishing the research the CDC is performing they're suppressing data. Frankly that's asinine.

The biased one here is you, and this is pointless because your bias is what is driving your opinion. Best of luck to you, there's no point in continuing.
Reply Quote
12
1 edit
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:03p, 8/9/21
AG
Reply Quote
2
FlyRod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:58p, 8/9/21
Citing the New York Post. Absolutely priceless.
Reply Quote
13
BlueTaze
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FlyRod • 10:50p, 8/9/21
Even the NY Post acknowledges the virus came from the Wahun lab. The only explanation I can think of for people still thinking it came from a wet market is that they can't bring themselves put blame on China, simply because Trump blamed China and they have been calling it a conspiracy theory for over a year.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 74OA • 10:59p, 8/9/21
AG
74OA said:
ttha_aggie_09 said:
Color me shocked that they only mention Florida and Texas in this story and I guarantee it has nothing to do with higher case counts. It's almost like they don't like that those states are letting kids chose to wear masks and not mandating them.
That's just this one article. As I said, the growth in pediatric cases is all over the news.


"All over the news" is anecdotal and worthless. Do you have hard statistical data or do you not?
Reply Quote
4
thirdcoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 11:08p, 8/9/21
AG
What I'm saying is that the CDC is obligated to continue tracking vaccine breakthrough infection and natural reinfection amongst the population. Absolutely. Hard to think of any more important thing to monitor in the areas of "Disease Control".

Gottlieb is a hero on this board, and he also agrees with its importance, and even he says the CDC should be tracking breakthrough.

You keep claiming the CDC stopped tracking those cases because of resource constraints with no evidence other than them saying they are shifting focus to more severe cases. Find me a single article or anything in print to support your theory. I provided an article about how it's a "sensitive topic that some public health officials are avoiding". Is that a lie, a conspiracy, that a public health officials would avoid rising breakthrough rates?

FYI- I asked Marc over at CDC directly if there were any resource constraints impacting the decision to stop tracking. He dodged the topic and instead sent me articles on the effectivness of vaccine.

I don't blame you for taking your ball and going home. Defending the CDC on this one is a losing battle and in this modern leaky environment, I wouldn't be surprised if we see some shady details in coming months.
Reply Quote
6
thirdcoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FlyRod • 11:21p, 8/9/21
AG
FlyRod said:
Citing the New York Post. Absolutely priceless.


The NY Post is correct on COVID lab origin, while the CDC is still pushing wet market theory. Let that sink in...
Reply Quote
2
fixer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KidDoc • 7:53a, 8/10/21
KidDoc said:
New data from Israel showing natural immunity is much better than vaccine immunity.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762


Those are insane numbers.

Thanks for sharing.
Reply Quote
1
thirdcoast
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fixer • 9:13a, 8/10/21
AG
fixer said:
KidDoc said:
New data from Israel showing natural immunity is much better than vaccine immunity.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762


Those are insane numbers.

Thanks for sharing.




3.25 mark
Gottlieb talks about how Israel breakthrough data is driving US decisions on potential boosters etc.

4.25 mark
Gottlieb says it's "really discouraging" that CDC is no longer tracking breakthrough infection, and that they "should be". He mentions important specific purposes for tracking breakthrough.


The CDC shift seems to be perfectly aligned with WH shift to severe illness focus. "Yeah breakthrough happens, but vaccines are effective and the data shows they prevent severe illness and death. Those coming into hospital are UNVACCINATED."

All those criticizing me and goal tending for CDC are on the wrong side of the argument. The CDC either became completely inept with emergence of Delta OR they are prioritizing safety guidelines/messaging above unbiased and complete public information sharing. That's un-American. Private FB and Twitter do that, but we should not let our tax payer funded gov agencies do it too. This shouldn't be a political topic. Neither should masks, or COVID origin.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.