Rex Racer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

If we had a crystal ball and could predict who is going to have a severe reaction to Covid compared to those who have mild symptoms, we'd be in a great position. But we don't.

---

I wonder if Vitamin D levels might come as close as anything.

---

Nope. At least not for me. I have been taking between 5,000 and 15,000 IU of Vitamin D daily for several years, and I was hospitalized with COVID pneumonia for 16 days. Granted, I'm 52 years old but in very good health. I was doing two 3 mile walks a day and/or going to gym several days a week for the last several years prior to catching COVID, and I'm 5' 10" and 165 lbs.

---

D3 or D2? I don't know if it makes any difference which one, but I have read that D3 is more readily taken up by the body.

I take 5,000 IU of D3 daily. Since Vitamin D is fat soluble and I take it just before going to bed, long after I ate, I typically eat a brownie or something similar (Hostess Cupcake) to help absorb the Vitamin D.

In spite of being over 65 and overweight, I had such a mild case of covid that when I had it, I stayed at work and gave everyone else a two week paid vacation.

texan12 said:

---

.3% chance of hospitalization for 18-49 year olds.


https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/COVID19_5.html

62558 18-49 year olds have been hospitalized from 2020-21.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254271/us-total-number-of-covid-cases-by-age-group/

~18 million 18-49 total cases as of October '21

---

And that doesn't even break out co-morbidities.

eric76 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

If we had a crystal ball and could predict who is going to have a severe reaction to Covid compared to those who have mild symptoms, we'd be in a great position. But we don't.

---

I wonder if Vitamin D levels might come as close as anything.

---

Nope. At least not for me. I have been taking between 5,000 and 15,000 IU of Vitamin D daily for several years, and I was hospitalized with COVID pneumonia for 16 days. Granted, I'm 52 years old but in very good health. I was doing two 3 mile walks a day and/or going to gym several days a week for the last several years prior to catching COVID, and I'm 5' 10" and 165 lbs.

---

D3 or D2? I don't know if it makes any difference which one, but I have read that D3 is more readily taken up by the body.

I take 5,000 IU of D3 daily. Since Vitamin D is fat soluble and I take it just before going to bed, long after I ate, I typically eat a brownie or something similar (Hostess Cupcake) to help absorb the Vitamin D.

In spite of being over 65 and overweight, I had such a mild case of covid that when I had it, I stayed at work and gave everyone else a two week paid vacation.

---

One is plant and one is animal based, but basically all pills nowadays are D3 (plant). For positive health outcomes, there was a debate on which is better 10-15 years ago, but the data basically was settled that it didn't matter which one (or natural; sunlight). I'd assume the same is true for covid.

eric76 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

eric76 said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

If we had a crystal ball and could predict who is going to have a severe reaction to Covid compared to those who have mild symptoms, we'd be in a great position. But we don't.

---

I wonder if Vitamin D levels might come as close as anything.

---

Nope. At least not for me. I have been taking between 5,000 and 15,000 IU of Vitamin D daily for several years, and I was hospitalized with COVID pneumonia for 16 days. Granted, I'm 52 years old but in very good health. I was doing two 3 mile walks a day and/or going to gym several days a week for the last several years prior to catching COVID, and I'm 5' 10" and 165 lbs.

---

D3 or D2? I don't know if it makes any difference which one, but I have read that D3 is more readily taken up by the body.

I take 5,000 IU of D3 daily. Since Vitamin D is fat soluble and I take it just before going to bed, long after I ate, I typically eat a brownie or something similar (Hostess Cupcake) to help absorb the Vitamin D.

In spite of being over 65 and overweight, I had such a mild case of covid that when I had it, I stayed at work and gave everyone else a two week paid vacation.

---

I take D3.

ORAggieFan said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

The data is out there. It is not hard to find. This is just one article that examines vaccine efficacy in preventing infection. There are plenty more linked at the bottom of the page.

The original studies showed 90%+ prevention. Unfortunately, that didn't hold for Delta, and I believe it dropped as low as 50%, depending on what specific vaccine you got.

So, while breakthrough infection is possible, it's also true that at least 50% of people who are vaccinated end up being protected from infection. If you're not infected you can't spread it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34437521/

---

The data I've seen shows that the vaccine does not stop you from being infected. It helps with sickness.

Are you saying that link shows that the spread is reduced if you have the vaccine?

That's the question I'm asking.

I'm not asking about the efficacy (as defined by the CDC - level of sickness). This is about the spread.

---

There is data all over showing that massively more people infected are non vaccinated.

I'll give you real data for where I live in San Diego County.

Currently, we have 33.4 cases per 100k for non vaccinated, 8.8 for the vaccinated. That's with a county vaccination rate of 79.4% for fully vaccinated (eligible). So, despite being 20% of the population, the non vaccinated are making up 80% of the cases. It is very obvious that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of contracting the virus. If you are less likely to contract it, you're less likely to spread it.

I'm all for individual choice here and calling someone selfish is a bit extreme, but there is not question that spread will be less if one is vaccinated.

---

Wrong conclusion. Correlation can causation.

I could argue that people with the vaccine are getting the disease but may not have symptoms or may experience allergy like symptoms. That doesn't mean they're not spreading the virus.

Show me any study. I'll just keep asking.

---

You really suck at both arguing and googling.

Quote:

---

Conclusions Vaccination reduces transmission of Delta, but by less than the Alpha variant.

---

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1

---

You were the first person to actually post a link to a study, and yet, you still needed to be a effing rickhead. Thank you for posting the link. Reading now.

TXTransplant said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

The data is out there. It is not hard to find. This is just one article that examines vaccine efficacy in preventing infection. There are plenty more linked at the bottom of the page.

The original studies showed 90%+ prevention. Unfortunately, that didn't hold for Delta, and I believe it dropped as low as 50%, depending on what specific vaccine you got.

So, while breakthrough infection is possible, it's also true that at least 50% of people who are vaccinated end up being protected from infection. If you're not infected you can't spread it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34437521/

---

The data I've seen shows that the vaccine does not stop you from being infected. It helps with sickness.

Are you saying that link shows that the spread is reduced if you have the vaccine?

That's the question I'm asking.

I'm not asking about the efficacy (as defined by the CDC - level of sickness). This is about the spread.

---

I posted that article in direct response to your question about infection and spread. Why don't you read it for yourself. Or better yet, do your own search for the dozens of other articles like it. They are not hard to find.

---

Show me the actual text discussing the spread differences. I've read a lot of actual studies and they all use words like "may". They are unclear. I have yet to see any study that specifically discussed the spread of the virus as it pertains to vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Show me where on that link it discusses it with data.

---

I have no idea what you mean by "show me the spread differences". That article I posted clearly explains that rates of covid infection were measured among cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Pre-delta the vaccines were 90%+ effective in preventing covid infections. For delta, the effectiveness declined to 66%.

If a vaccine is 66% effective that means it's preventing infection in the majority of vaccinated people. Maybe not all people but some/most. There is no "may" about it. The data is right there in the article. Even the title says "Effectiveness in Preventing Covid Infection".

And this is but one example of studies showing similar data that can easily be found with a Google search.

At this point, you have to be trolling.

---

You're assuming those with the vaccine don't spread the virus?

GenericAggie said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

The data is out there. It is not hard to find. This is just one article that examines vaccine efficacy in preventing infection. There are plenty more linked at the bottom of the page.

The original studies showed 90%+ prevention. Unfortunately, that didn't hold for Delta, and I believe it dropped as low as 50%, depending on what specific vaccine you got.

So, while breakthrough infection is possible, it's also true that at least 50% of people who are vaccinated end up being protected from infection. If you're not infected you can't spread it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34437521/

---

The data I've seen shows that the vaccine does not stop you from being infected. It helps with sickness.

Are you saying that link shows that the spread is reduced if you have the vaccine?

That's the question I'm asking.

I'm not asking about the efficacy (as defined by the CDC - level of sickness). This is about the spread.

---

I posted that article in direct response to your question about infection and spread. Why don't you read it for yourself. Or better yet, do your own search for the dozens of other articles like it. They are not hard to find.

---

Show me the actual text discussing the spread differences. I've read a lot of actual studies and they all use words like "may". They are unclear. I have yet to see any study that specifically discussed the spread of the virus as it pertains to vaccinated vs unvaccinated. Show me where on that link it discusses it with data.

---

I have no idea what you mean by "show me the spread differences". That article I posted clearly explains that rates of covid infection were measured among cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Pre-delta the vaccines were 90%+ effective in preventing covid infections. For delta, the effectiveness declined to 66%.

If a vaccine is 66% effective that means it's preventing infection in the majority of vaccinated people. Maybe not all people but some/most. There is no "may" about it. The data is right there in the article. Even the title says "Effectiveness in Preventing Covid Infection".

And this is but one example of studies showing similar data that can easily be found with a Google search.

At this point, you have to be trolling.

---

You're assuming those with the vaccine don't spread the virus?

---

No one is saying that.

I literally did not know a single soul who caught covid, let alone was hospitalized or died from it, until 12 months into this thing. Since then, my kids go to summer camp with my wife and come home with it, as did all the vaccinated counselors

I 100% believe the leaky vaccine made covid worse. I also 100% believe its a feature, not a glitch.

ORAggieFan said:

---

notex said:

---

What, exactly, does the long term state death rate have to do with a discussion about cases and vaccination rates as illustrated in the chart he/she posted? If Vermont is functionally 'fully vaccinated' (over 95%) as of June then why are cases skyrocketing? Wouldn't that be a more temperate issue to address?

OP has a spouse asking about the rationale for getting the vaccine and…the past 4 months of data from Vermont cases seems to throw some of the dogma on this thread into question.

---

They aren't over 95% vaccinated. Total positives doesn't matter and really proves little here. Vermont had many things working for them and part of that was fear that caused a change in lifestyle that they didn't maintain after vaccination. This is evident in both how few cases they had as well as hospitalizations and death.

If an entire population was secluded until vaccinated, then lived life normally, cases would be higher after vaccination. It proves nothing.

Personally, I'd say they likely over did it before, but I enjoy living my life and refuse to alter it for a virus. If I was at risk, I'd probably behave differently.

---

Well they sure have a lot of cases and are comparatively highly vaccinated. As was Israel this summer. And many other places (states/countries). Delaware and Florida have very similar vax rates, but have had different case rate patterns.

On what basis, other than anecdotal beliefs/perceptions about NPI's, are some states/country's case surges to be discarded as non evidentiary in the 'do the vaccines prevent cases or not' debate? I don't think this has been clearly delineated by the "vaccines are the key" crowd any more than the "vaccines are poisonous/deadly" faith/doctrine has on the other side.

notex said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

notex said:

---

What, exactly, does the long term state death rate have to do with a discussion about cases and vaccination rates as illustrated in the chart he/she posted? If Vermont is functionally 'fully vaccinated' (over 95%) as of June then why are cases skyrocketing? Wouldn't that be a more temperate issue to address?

OP has a spouse asking about the rationale for getting the vaccine and…the past 4 months of data from Vermont cases seems to throw some of the dogma on this thread into question.

---

They aren't over 95% vaccinated. Total positives doesn't matter and really proves little here. Vermont had many things working for them and part of that was fear that caused a change in lifestyle that they didn't maintain after vaccination. This is evident in both how few cases they had as well as hospitalizations and death.

If an entire population was secluded until vaccinated, then lived life normally, cases would be higher after vaccination. It proves nothing.

Personally, I'd say they likely over did it before, but I enjoy living my life and refuse to alter it for a virus. If I was at risk, I'd probably behave differently.

---

Well they sure have a lot of cases and are comparatively highly vaccinated. As was Israel this summer. And many other places (states/countries). Delaware and Florida have very similar vax rates, but have had different case rate patterns.

On what basis, other than anecdotal beliefs/perceptions about NPI's, are some states/country's case surges to be discarded as non evidentiary in the 'do the vaccines prevent cases or not' debate? I don't think this has been clearly delineated by the "vaccines are the key" crowd any more than the "vaccines are poisonous/deadly" faith/doctrine has on the other side.

---

I only accept RCT's for this.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v4.full

This study has a small sample size so there is room for error in a larger sample size.

It shows a higher viral load among vaccinated individuals vs those unvaccinated.

Capitol Ag said:

---

Your BIL needs to mind is own business. This goes way beyond trying to prove anything to him. This is a subject that honestly most people, on either side, have made up their minds about. I won't even go into it with my friends who are against vaccination that I am vaccinated b/c it was MY CHOICE. But I believe the absolute same about not vaccinating. It her choice. In the end, she just needs to tell her brother to mind his own business.

---

I suppose the brother feels his sister's well-being is his business. Could be coming from a place of love. Is that so bad?

TXTransplant said:

---

farmrag said:

---

The vaccinated that don't get covid won't spread it. How do you not understand that. Your also less likely to get it and spread it if you've been vaccinated. More people vaccinated then there is less chance of covid spreading.

---

THIS!!! If an unvaccinated person is NOT infected with covid, they CAN'T spread covid. The is scientific evidence that the vaccine prevents infection. Maybe not 100% of the time and and maybe not forever, but it can and does happen. Just because the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing transmission and effective does not mean that it is a failure or useless.

Just like the severity of covid infections is distributed over a spectrum (some people have no symptoms or very mild symptoms, some people get very sick/die, some people who have comorbidities get very sick/die, some people with comorbidities have mild symptoms, some people who appear to be extremely healthy and have no diagnosed comorbidies get very sick/die), the vaccine works over a spectrum.

Some people who are vaccinated will not get covid at all, some will get covid and have minor symptoms, and some will even get covid and be very sick and die.

If you think you are perfectly healthy and the statistics say someone of your age/BMI/relative health won't get very sick and/or die from covid, fine, don't take the vaccine.

But, if you don't want to take that risk, the absolute best thing you can do to minimize the risk of severe illness and death from covid is to take the vaccine.

To use the excuse that "vaccines don't work" as a reason to not get vaccinated is a flat out incorrect conclusion.

---

This? This what? Show me the science that shows the vaccinated don't get the virus. The government for a year have talked about people getting it without symptoms. You know - that whole a-symptomatic thing they talked about for months. Show me data that shows any numbers of people who are vaccinated and tested positive for the virus and their viral load being less and shorter time frame.

You are mixing getting the virus and not getting sick.

I am fully aware that having the vaccine decreases chances of hospitalization and death. That's not the discussion point.

Someone above posted some viral load data. Will read it. Man, you are stuck on a narrative. You argue without acknowledging data like Israel or VT. Why can't you acknowledge that the data creates ambiguity? This virus still isn't fully understood, especially with variants popping up that still need to be studied.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext

This study has a very large sample set (n = 3,436,957) and the study ran from Dec 14, 2020 to Aug 8, 2021, so it does attempt to measure vaccine effectiveness over time.

From the data/results: 184,041 participants contracted covid and 12,130 ended up in the hospital.

Over the entire study period, fully vaccinated individuals had an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 73% (95% CI 7274) against SARS-CoV-2 infections and 90% (8992) against COVID-19-related hospital admissions (appendix pp 67). Stratified by age group, the vaccine effectiveness against infection of those who were fully vaccinated was 91% (95% CI 8893) for those aged 1215 years and 61% (5765) for those aged 65 years and older (appendix p 6). The age stratified vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions was 92% (95% CI 8895) for those aged 1644 years, and 86% (8288) for those aged 65 years and older (appendix p 6).

Vaccine effectiveness against infection for the fully vaccinated decreased with increasing time since vaccination, declining from 88% (95% CI 8689) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (4351) after 5 months (157 days after second dose, p<00001; figure 2A; appendix p 9). Individuals aged 65 years and older had a vaccine effectiveness of 80% (95% CI 7385) within 1 month after being fully vaccinated, decreasing to 43% (3054; p<00001) at 5 months after full vaccination (figure 2A; appendix p 9). Among fully vaccinated individuals of all ages, overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates for COVID-19 hospital admissions were 87% (95% CI 8291) within 1 month after being fully vaccinated, and 88% (8292) at 5 months after full vaccination, showing no significant waning (p=080; figure 2B; appendix pp 910).

Overall vaccine effectiveness against infection with the delta variant for the fully vaccinated was 75% (95% CI 7178), while overall vaccine effectiveness for other variants was 91% (8892; appendix pp 910). Estimates against both delta and other variants were high within 1 month after full vaccination (vaccine effectiveness against delta 93% [95% CI 8597] vs other variants 97% [9599]; p=029). At 4 months after full vaccination, vaccine effectiveness against delta infections declined to 53% (95% CI 3965) and vaccine effectiveness against other variants declined to 67% (4580; p=025).

Bold emphasis added. Vaccines are not 100% effective but they do prevent some infections. Effectiveness is not 0. As I've said multiple times, it's on a spectrum.

This was well put/stated. Curious if any update on thoughts on this thread from a couple of months ago as obviously now we are only getting more and more data.

waco_aggie05 said:

---

I literally did not know a single soul who caught covid, let alone was hospitalized or died from it, until 12 months into this thing. Since then, my kids go to summer camp with my wife and come home with it, as did all the vaccinated counselors

I 100% believe the leaky vaccine made covid worse. I also 100% believe its a feature, not a glitch.

---

Christ. Now this is downright ****in asinine, innit?

Anecdotal evidence, the ally of the conspiracy theorist.

It's not a binary (either/or) choice of the jab vs doing nothing. There are some great prevention regimens that work very well. Have your treatment regimens available if needed.