You are assuming that scientific studies will allow you to convince your BIL to take back his statement. What I'm telling you is his reasons for saying what he did may not be solely based in statistics.
Data overwhelmingly shows that the risk of complications from vaccination is significantly less than the risk of complications from actual infection.
Maybe your wife is one of the majority who, if infected, will only have minor symptoms. But there is no way to know that with any certainty. I suspect that's where your BIL is coming from.
I'm not going to convince him of anything. He lacks the empathy gene, but that's besides the point.
Show me ANY study that discusses the spread of the virus as it pertains to vaccinated cats unvaccinated. I'm still looking and I promise I've scoured the CDC.
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.
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.
Vaccinated people still can get the disease and can still spread it, but their likelihood of doing so is much less. Pfizer vaccine seems to be the worst of the vaccines against prevention of getting the Delta variant and it is 50% effective. So if person A and person B have Pfizer vaccine they are a combined 75% lass likely to spread virus if vaccinated. That rate of transmission would basically make virus non-existent.
95-96% of those in hospital are not vaccinated, so those that won't get vaccinated are filling up hospitals and using medical resources that could be used for other procedures and medical issues.
So I don't call anyone names and if you and your wife don't want a safe and effective vaccine then so be it, but yes, you do put others more at risk when you don't have vaccine.
"Vaccinated people still can get the disease and can still spread it, but their likelihood of doing so is much less."
Based on what research, study? Please provide a link. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm not being an ass to you, but these statements are not scientific.
I am not being an ass but a simple Google search will show you effective rates for the vaccines:
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.
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.
OP: I been struggling, but think I've got it figured out:
Buy your wife a motorcycle and your dad a 22 oz Estwing, tell your scientist to **** off, say "blah, blah" to your brother-in-law and put a cat with scours in his jeans. Then go to the game this weekend to yell for the Ags.
While you're there ask them to show you the links. Apparently they do that there.
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.
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.
Your wife is not putting anyone at risk... as long as; (a) she is not around other people - ever. (b) she is only around people that do not have an active COVID19 infection status. (c) she is only around people that DO have an active COVID19 infection status.
This is going on the assumption that your wife is COVID19 negative AND has not contracted the virus at any time in the past.
Your wife WILL be putting people at risk when; (a) she is an active carrier of the COVID19 virus and comes within close contact with others that may or may not have been vaccinated or previously contracted the virus themselves. (b) [keep the "what-if's" going].
Here is the problem. In most research scenarios, your wife would be in the control group... which is of very little interest to the variable being tested against that control simply because the control is, in this instance, how the virus (or any vector) spreads throughout a population unchecked.
Honestly, I believe you are asking the wrong question and seeking confirmation [bias] that you call research to support your opinion. Generally, empirical research doesn't get the "answer" the first time around, but it is on the correct pathway to find the "answer" eventually. I'm glad that you have a healthy dose of skepticism - which is always needed in scientific research. You should question the results until their hypothesis is confirmed... but when confirmation of the hypothesis happens and is supported by other studies that have done the same research, you should listen to that advice based upon that research.
So what is the right question? Others here have asked the correct question - it's all about the endgame - which is that once you contract the virus, will your body be in a position to survive the virus? There are multiple survival pathways - some are documented to generally be better than others, and you as an American should have the right to make that medical decision in your best interest.
I support your wife's decision to jab or not... However, I hope that one day we can put our distrust of science aside and hold those accountable that have agendas other than our general health and wellbeing at the forefront. My fear is not the variants of COVID19, but of the virus that WILL be a significant threat in our future, where some will point back to COVID19 as the example of "I survived that one, this one won't be any different."
It's like the old salt down on the coast that has survived the last fifty years of hurricanes... only to have a CAT5 come directly over his location, wiping him from the face of the planet. Sixty miles to the south, another old salt says, "see... nothing to worry about." One was dead wrong; the other proved to be correct - this time.
Yeah, that is incorrect. It correlates perfectly. The vaccinated carry higher viral loads AND - here was the part to focus on from the article - are showing higher rates of infection, particularly as the effects of ADE arrive as the efficacy of the jab wanes, in the presence of Delta. Hospitalization of the jabbed are taking off. Pure bloods are at higher risk now thanks to the vaxxed. Wasn't that the original question? Yes, it was.
You moved the goal posts all over the place with your responses.
Quote: 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.
Incorrect, we do. #1 Elderly, #2 obese, #3 diabetic...... The people that are dying on average have over 3 co-morbidities. This is pretty well documented, even with the evolution of Delta, who is at a higher risk and who isn't. At this point in your responses, I am certain you haven't kept up with real data. Ex: Jabbing children, is criminal. More children died of drowning in 2020 than Covid. Did you want to fill in swimming pools last Summer? Lots and lots of early intervention / prophylaxis that can help keep people safe, that is in expensive. Nah - all jab, all the time. NEVER, in the history of infectious disease has an approach been taken like this. NEVER. THIS is where our medical community has failed us. Protocols and money.
Quote: So, the rationale for getting vaccinated, particularly if you are above a certain age and/or if you have certain comorbidities or preexisting conditions is to prevent that severe infection.
Israel is experiencing deaths per hospitalisation at rates that are perfectly consistent throughout the pandemic - how can that be? Their vaccination rates are around 90%. Tell me again what the rationale is.
Quote: That conclusion quoted at the end of your post is about the vaccines causing more serious illness in those vaccinated is comparing the vaccinated to people with natural immunity NOT people with no immunity at all. The statement as it is presented in the context above is very misleading.
First off, that study has nothing to do with the unvaxxed and there is no comparison made. You didn't read it. The OP asked about the risk of the vaxxed to the unvaxxed. ADE is not a new concept, invented to describe a Covid vaccine phenomenon. The vaxxed are going to get sicker, pharma knew about it, they knew about transmission and it's going to be a risk for everyone. How is that misleading?
Quote: Obviously, if you've been infected, you have some immunity. But just like the vaccines, that immunity may wane over time and/or it may not be effective against variants. Only time will tell with that.
Some? This is laughable. You're just making stuff up at this point, hoping that you aren't stuck getting boosters shots every 6 months via a WEF subscription health service. With the jab, you've created a single point of immune response, the spike antigen, for a 2019 virus that is gone. Are the current vaccines covering the Delta? And in doing so, altered the behavior of your immune system (perhaps your DNA, via reverse transcriptase). Natural immunity from our God given immune system keys in on multiple aspects of an invader providing an ability for broad identification and response. 29 studies to put this to bed: https://brownstone.org/articles/natural-immunity-and-covid-19-twenty-nine-scientific-studies-to-share-with-employers-health-officials-and-politicians/. See that word persistent and natural immunity repeated together?
Quote: And the variant that has caused us the most problems is Delta. That was NOT caused by vaccines. Delta originated in India, and at the time very few people there had been vaccinated.
How many hosts/vaccinated does it take to create a mutation? One. India mass vaccination started in January - trials before that. Has the Delta mutated since late 2020? Immune escape is real, ongoing and the current vaccines/boosters are shooting at the 2019 target. How does that make sense?
Quote: If people want to wait around for natural immunity, that's their prerogative. But, we've seen a lot of poor outcomes when it comes to people who have made that decision over the last 6 months or so. There is no doubt the vaccine is highly effective in preventing severe disease (hospitalization) and death.
What is the long term impact of mRNA technology on the human body? A technology that has never been used before, that did not go through the appropriate lengthy trials and was developed faster than any previous vaccine in history? Was there informed consent between you and your doctor? If so, where did they get their safety data from? Did he/she show you the blank warning insert? The gene therapy has killed more recipients than all other vaccines combined in history, is not highly effective because it is short lived and if you receive it, you are left with an altered immune system that can never be put back together.
I hope you are right TXTransplant. I fear you aren't.
This is an insightful, diverse panel discussion published on 10/2.
I can't believe I'm actually responding to the nonsense that's posted above ("pure blood"...is that a medical term???)
But, I'm tired of having that article and my words twisted. It's a pretty short, succinct article, so I'll post the summary here.
The study followed a cohort of frontline workers. Presumably, frontline workers are exposed to covid more often than your average person, which is why this cohort was a good choice for an evaluation of vaccine efficacy.
For a period of 35 weeks, participants were tested weekly to for covid infection by PCR, and they were also additionally tested if they had any covid-like symptoms.
There were 4136 participants, none of whom had had a previously documented covid infection. Of those, 2976 were vaccinated. Based on the number of vaccinated participants who became infected with covid, the authors calculated a vaccine efficacy of 80% in the vaccinated cohort. Meaning the vaccine was 80% effective in preventing infection in vaccinated subjects.
Because the study dates overlapped with the emergence of delta, the authors also evaluated 2352 vaccinated participants and 433 unvaccinated participants during delta-predominant weeks of the study. They calculated a vaccine efficacy of 66%.
When they further evaluated all of the data and removed data from the weeks when delta was predominant, the vaccine was 91% effective in preventing infection among the vaccinated.
This study did not evaluate transmission of covid by vaccinated subjects that tested positive.
However, if the vaccine is as effective as this paper states, then the majority of the vaccinated people are NOT getting covid infections. If you are not infected, you cannot spread the virus.
Also, I posted this article not in response to the original post in the thread, but in response to a subsequent post where the OP asked "Do vaccinated people spread the virus less than unvaccinated people."
While the study doesn't address this directly, vaccinated people who do are not infected with covid cannot spread covid. Therefore, if the vaccine is preventing infections in vaccinated people, those vaccinated people are not spreading the virus.
I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm using the transitive law of logic which says if a=b and b=c then a=c.
if vaccinated people are not infected (a) then they cannot spread covid (b). If you cannot spread covid (b) then other people (vaccinated or not) cannot get covid from you (c). If vaccinated people are not infected (a) then other people cannot get covid from them (c).
We know this is not true 100% of the time. But we also know vaccination reduces the rate of infection among the vaccinated. The vaccine will prevent infection in SOME people. Those people who are not infected are not going to spread the virus, which means there are fewer people in the population who are able to spread the virus. That is a good thing.
Absolutely NO WHERE in that article does it conclude that the unvaccinated (or "pure bloods") are at higher risk of infection from the vaccinated. And the data doesn't support that.
The data does say, and the authors acknowledge, that the vaccine is less effective for the delta variant. However, even when the delta variant was predominant, the vaccine was still 66% effective! The authors also acknowledge that the efficacy of the vaccine may decline as time from vaccination increases. That's already known. That's why we are having discussions about boosters. The same can be said for natural immunity.
As far as the other comments above, while obesity, age, and diabetes is known to make people more susceptible to severe covid infection, that does not make up 100% of covid infections. There have been plenty of healthy, not obese, and not diabetic patients who have gotten very sick and dies or almost died from covid. Just go read the thread by the other poster who said he was 38 and in good health but nearly died from covid. Those types of reactions cannot be predicted.
The article I replied to on the previous page doesn't address the unvaxxed. I understood that 100%, and my post reflects that. It's the unvaccinated who are at most risk for disease and severe illness. Comparing rates of infection among the vaccinated to rates of infection among those with natural immunity has nothing to do with the OP's question if his wife has never had covid (which the OP doesn't specify).
Even natural immunity can wane over time. Just go ask the people who had covid more than one time, particularly those who had the early strain and subsequently contracted delta.
I have no idea if delta has mutated. I didn't comment on that. My only point was to clarify that delta is/was not a mutation caused by vaccination because it originated in a place that did not have significant vaccination rates.
I'm not even going to get into the nonsense about rushed vaccines, the "long-term effects" of mRNA (there are none, because it degrades fully within a few days), or the ridiculous notion that the vaccine has killed more people than all other vaccines combined. It's widely known that the VAERS reporting system is badly flawed and full of false reports. Out of curiosity, I went to the site and read many of them with my own eyes. Come back when there are peer-reviewed studies, or even medical evidence, supporting claim of the thousands of vaccine-induced deaths.
Also, the fear-mongering around mutations, whether as an argument for or against at vaccination, needs to stop. Anytime I see or hear someone on either side use that as a primary reason to support their position, I know they do not understand microbiology or mutations.
Viruses mutate every copying cycle, and these cycles occur on the order of every few hours. Vaccines are not the predominant cause of mutations, and vaccines do not induce mutations in the same physiological way that antibiotics (or other physical or chemical mutagens) do.
Any doctor who claims that the dangers of mutations due to vaccines is the same or as dangerous as antibiotic resistance (like the doctor in the first few minutes of that video does) either doesn't understand fundamental principles of microbiology or is a fear-mongerer with a personal agenda.
Vaccinated people still can get the disease and can still spread it, but their likelihood of doing so is much less. Pfizer vaccine seems to be the worst of the vaccines against prevention of getting the Delta variant and it is 50% effective. So if person A and person B have Pfizer vaccine they are a combined 75% lass likely to spread virus if vaccinated. That rate of transmission would basically make virus non-existent.
95-96% of those in hospital are not vaccinated, so those that won't get vaccinated are filling up hospitals and using medical resources that could be used for other procedures and medical issues.
So I don't call anyone names and if you and your wife don't want a safe and effective vaccine then so be it, but yes, you do put others more at risk when you don't have vaccine.
"Vaccinated people still can get the disease and can still spread it, but their likelihood of doing so is much less."
Based on what research, study? Please provide a link. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm not being an ass to you, but these statements are not scientific.
I am not being an ass but a simple Google search will show you effective rates for the vaccines:
once the outbreak was discovered they did a full set of contact tracing and identified 248 exposures (151 staff and 97 patients) with a much higher attack rate in the patient group as noted in the OP. this makes sense since as noted in the study "The patient population was considerably older than staff and all patients had comorbidities:" this just reaffirms what we all know, comorbidities are a big deal. we also know that older and more comorbidities has seen the vaccine be less effective than healthier groups (hence the booster recommendations)
Of the 248 exposures, 238 were fully vaccinated and 10 were not. of the diagnosed cases, 38 were in the fully vaccinated group, and 4 were in the not fully vaccinated group. This means there was a 40% attack rate in group not fully vaccinated and 16% in the group that was. this is still higher that the medical staff average, so a lot of that elevated attack level in the vaccinated group is likely due to age and health risks.
This all boils down to the vaccine having a 60% efficacy against infection in a population where 40% were already highly at risk of getting severe covid due to medical conditions and age.
there you go. scientific study demonstrating the vaccine lowering the overall risk of becoming infected with COVID. everyone who was identified as a contact underwent PCR testing (multiple times if negative), so this is not simply a function of reduced illness severity masking the infection.
[side rant] people keep conflating and confusing risk of being contagious and risk of getting the virus.
When our visibile medical leaders (who so far have been pretty terrible at communicating), say that vaccinated can spread it too and are not necessarily less likely to do so, what they mean is that a breakthrough infection in a vaccinated person is likely just as contagious as an original infection in a fully naive immune system. you can fact check this by reading the full scientific discussions the CDC publishes along side their guidance. but be prepared for some dry reading as it is all the underlying studies they based their recommendations on, written by the scientists doing the studies.
when most informed lay people say vaccinated are less likely to spread it, that is based on the fact that they are less likely to get the virus to begin with. If you have the same spreading risk while infected, but a lower risk of becoming infected, that results in an aggregate risk of spreading the virus that is lower.
but in general people are bad at communicating when it comes to hot button issues (or some times any issue) and so this gets lost in people who cant coherently communicate a complicated point [/rant]
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.
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.
The data is conclusive. Vaccination rates don't impact cases.
I know, not the words you are looking for, but to each their own. Serious covid cases do decrease with more people having had it and/or being vaccinated though. It's a seasonal illness, like all coronaviruses (historically tracked with ILI):
Locations/healthcare providers who refuse to provide/support ivermectin to the ill are the ones where…people are getting killed by the disease more. These are facts supported by data;
Sounds like your wife has made an intelligent, rational decision about her own health. She is to be congratulated.
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.
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.
The data is conclusive. Vaccination rates don't impact cases.
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.
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.
The data is conclusive. Vaccination rates don't impact cases.
Yet you don't provide conclusive data.....
That's because, and please read this next part slowly (maybe twice or three times); there is no data to support the claim/assertion that the unvaccinated present a risk to the vaccinated. HTH!
(BTW, that's also why our public health overlords don't promise any longer to open everything back up permanently/do away with masks when a certain threshold of the population (was 65%?) is vaccinated).
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.
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.
The data is conclusive. Vaccination rates don't impact cases.
Yet you don't provide conclusive data.....
That's because, and please read this next part slowly (maybe twice or three times); there is no data to support the claim/assertion that the unvaccinated present a risk to the vaccinated. HTH!
(BTW, that's also why our public health overlords don't promise any longer to open everything back up permanently/do away with masks when a certain threshold of the population (was 65%?) is vaccinated).
There is plenty of evidence that vaccination rates decrease cases, which is what you claimed. It's posted all over in this thread.
Being a risk is different. There is likely some risk, but if vaccinated, that risk is so small I'd never worry about it and hope others don't. But, that's completely different than what you stated was "conclusive".
But the city's high vaccination rate is keeping people from suffering the worst effects of the virus. Authorities said on Sunday that 98% of people infected in the last 28 days have recorded mild or no symptoms of COVID-19. Singapore is discovering asymptomatic cases by testing close contacts of infected individuals. Kenneth Mak, Singapore's director of medical services, told Singapore's Straits Times last week that the vaccinated in Singapore have been 12 times less likely to die or require hospitalization than the unvaccinated.
In Singapore, and elsewhere, Delta-driven outbreaks are leading to higher rates of breakthrough infections among the vaccinated. But such infections are not necessarily a cause for concern due to the protection from severe disease and death that vaccines offer.
This is what the mass political people leave out when making a point.
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.
Locations/healthcare providers who refuse to provide/support ivermectin to the ill are the ones where…people are getting killed by the disease more. These are facts supported by data;
Sounds like your wife has made an intelligent, rational decision about her own health. She is to be congratulated.
Also, that 'Johns Hopkins' data is 100% fake. This is the 10th time someone pasted that off twitter clickbait scammers, and nobody has provided the raw data. It's not on Johns Hopkins website, their git, and the links in that graph don't have that data either.
Sounds like you're the 100 million'th victim victim of fake news.
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.
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.
The data is conclusive. Vaccination rates don't impact cases.
Yet you don't provide conclusive data.....
That's because, and please read this next part slowly (maybe twice or three times); there is no data to support the claim/assertion that the unvaccinated present a risk to the vaccinated. HTH!
(BTW, that's also why our public health overlords don't promise any longer to open everything back up permanently/do away with masks when a certain threshold of the population (was 65%?) is vaccinated).
There is plenty of evidence that vaccination rates decrease cases, which is what you claimed. It's posted all over in this thread.
Being a risk is different. There is likely some risk, but if vaccinated, that risk is so small I'd never worry about it and hope others don't. But, that's completely different than what you stated was "conclusive".
There's no real evidence the vaccinated won't contract the virus (hence, a case, just not a serious one, likely), but no evidence that the vaccinated are at risk of hospitalization/death from the unvaccinated. Again, there seems to be a lot of ad hominem attacks on this forum, but whatever, I guess it is what it is now. Charts showing other countries (in other hemispheres, let alone vaccination rates/climates?) going up when Singapore did, dramatically, are just...distractions. I can play the same game too, for fun.
The point is, regardless of what you think of my post/data/opinion (and by the way I am vaccinated, have no issue with the vaccine), the OP is correct to support his wife's opinion that she isn't threatening me/other vaccinated folks via her decision.
I do wish some would be less emotional here, and support a rational discussion. Has nothing to do with the 'politics' bogey man. Covid is here, and it is impossible, likely, to eliminate it entirely.
It was originally supposed to happen by March or April of...2020 (again, per Fauci). Herd immunity; if it takes into account those who have natural immunity, we should be there, and celebrating those willing to get sick from it without the vaccine.
Now, we are promised unending needs for paper masks/everyone to be vaccinated, whether they have the natural antibodies or not. It's absurd, on its face. I actually thank those I know who are healthy and have elected, bravely, not to get the vaccines.
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.
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.
The data is conclusive. Vaccination rates don't impact cases.
Yet you don't provide conclusive data.....
That's because, and please read this next part slowly (maybe twice or three times); there is no data to support the claim/assertion that the unvaccinated present a risk to the vaccinated. HTH!
(BTW, that's also why our public health overlords don't promise any longer to open everything back up permanently/do away with masks when a certain threshold of the population (was 65%?) is vaccinated).
There is plenty of evidence that vaccination rates decrease cases, which is what you claimed. It's posted all over in this thread.
Being a risk is different. There is likely some risk, but if vaccinated, that risk is so small I'd never worry about it and hope others don't. But, that's completely different than what you stated was "conclusive".
There's no real evidence the vaccinated won't contract the virus (hence, a case, just not a serious one, likely),
This is just flat out wrong, yet again. At some point, the vaccinated will get it, but they are less likely at any given time to get it. Eventually, everyone will have immunity in some form, natural or via vaccine (and many both) and it will all even out. That's probably 2-3 years out.
Also, the OP didn't ask about risk to vaccinated, he asked about risks to others. Either way, if someone is sick (and contagious) they are more a risk to others. That risk can be extremely small, but it's far higher than not being sick. Outside of being 80+ or extremely unhealthy, I couldn't imagine being vaccinated and having a worry.
I'm completely against mandates and for individual choice. I just want these choices to be based on science, not the false narratives all over.
There's no real evidence the vaccinated won't contract the virus (hence, a case, just not a serious one, likely), but no evidence that the vaccinated are at risk of hospitalization/death from the unvaccinated. Again, there seems to be a lot of ad hominem attacks on this forum, but whatever, I guess it is what it is now. Charts showing other countries (in other hemispheres, let alone vaccination rates/climates?) going up when Singapore did, dramatically, are just...distractions. I can play the same game too, for fun.
The ad hominem attacks are because you claim there's no real evidence that the vaccine doesn't reduce the risk of an infection/case, despite the fact scientific papers showing evidence of exactly that have been posted on this very thread. at this point they are becoming deserved
We also focus our discussion on hospitals/death. I got vaccinated because I don't like being sick. It sucks. Even though I'm less likely to get it because I'm vaccinated, it could happen and I don't want to be sick. Now, who knows, I could have had it already. I could be one of the many that have minimal symptoms. But, I could also be like many I know and they were knocked out pretty good for 1-2 weeks. I've got stuff to do and really don't want that.
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.
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.
The data is conclusive. Vaccination rates don't impact cases.
Yet you don't provide conclusive data.....
That's because, and please read this next part slowly (maybe twice or three times); there is no data to support the claim/assertion that the unvaccinated present a risk to the vaccinated. HTH!
(BTW, that's also why our public health overlords don't promise any longer to open everything back up permanently/do away with masks when a certain threshold of the population (was 65%?) is vaccinated).
There is plenty of evidence that vaccination rates decrease cases, which is what you claimed. It's posted all over in this thread.
Being a risk is different. There is likely some risk, but if vaccinated, that risk is so small I'd never worry about it and hope others don't. But, that's completely different than what you stated was "conclusive".
There's no real evidence the vaccinated won't contract the virus (hence, a case, just not a serious one, likely),
This is just flat out wrong, yet again. At some point, the vaccinated will get it, but they are less likely at any given time to get it. Eventually, everyone will have immunity in some form, natural or via vaccine (and many both) and it will all even out. That's probably 2-3 years out.
Also, the OP didn't ask about risk to vaccinated, he asked about risks to others. Either way, if someone is sick (and contagious) they are more a risk to others. That risk can be extremely small, but it's far higher than not being sick. Outside of being 80+ or extremely unhealthy, I couldn't imagine being vaccinated and having a worry.
I'm completely against mandates and for individual choice. I just want these choices to be based on science, not the false narratives all over.
Well, sure, but…Fauci said we'd be at that point over a year ago. Yes, sick people should isolate. Also, we should thank those who skip vaccination and are promoting (willingly or not) the natural antibodies/immunities but don't take my word for it, take Fauci's:
Quote:
FAUCI: We don't know that for 100% certain 'cause we haven't done the study to see rechallenges, whether they've been protected. But I feel really confident that if this virus acts like every other virus that we know, once you get infected, get better, clear the virus, that you'll have immunity that will protect you against reinfection. So it's never a hundred percent, but I'd be willing to bet anything that people who recover are really protected against reinfection.
Sen. Rand Paul: Hey, this guy Fauci has an opinion on baseball, hockey, tinder, and Christmas, but he was asked the other day about natural immunity that you acquire after the disease, he is like, "Oh, that is really interesting thought, I never thought about that. I don't have an opinion because I haven't thought about naturally acquired immunity." He has and he is lying to you.
The reason he Fauci won't bring up natural immunity is because it foils his plans to get everybody possible vaccinated. He thinks it might slow down vaccination. And I'm for people getting vaccinated particularly people at risk, but the thing is, if you ignore naturally acquired immunity then you're saying we don't have enough people, you have to force it on younger people. There was a statistic that came out that somebody put together today. If you're 85, your chances of dying are 10,000 times greater than if you're 10. Should we treat a 10-year-old the same we treat an 85-year-old? It is nonsense.
Well I've been accused of plenty of false arguments here, and hatred, demagoguery/ad hominem/harassment stuff.
Just silly emotional things, really (including I presume from a foggy poster I ignore). Meanwhile, the truth is the vaccines don't prevent 'infection' (or cases) but rather severe cases.
“Harvard research notes: At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days. In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association.”https://t.co/lP1AeJTMk5
Again, we as a society/people benefit from both types of immunity. I salute/thank those who have opted, based on their research/strength of conviction, to pursue natural immunity.
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.
I tend to think there is a genetic component/connection among those exception cases where people really did appear to be perfectly healthy and still got very sick and died. Or maybe those people were ticking time bombs with completely hidden and undiagnosed pre-existing conditions and covid was the trigger.
But, yeah, we should all probably get our vitamin D levels checked as a part of our annual blood work.
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.
I tend to think there is a genetic component/connection among those exception cases where people really did appear to be perfectly healthy and still got very sick and died. Or maybe those people were ticking time bombs with completely hidden and undiagnosed pre-existing conditions and covid was the trigger.
But, yeah, we should all probably get our vitamin D levels checked as a part of our annual blood work.
Early on, there was a doctor in the Philippines who wrote to a medical journal (I think the British Medical Journal) that their patients with the worst outcomes were nearly all low in Vitamin D and their patients with the best outcomes were nearly all high in Vitamin D.
Also, a letter to the editor of the British Medial Journal:
Quote:
There are now close to 30 or so studies demonstrating that having optimal blood levels of 25(OH)-vitamin D (75-150 nmol/L) reduces covid-19 risks: reduced risk of infection; reduced risk of severe disease; reduced risk of dying. Many researchers now regard the evidence as 'overwhelming'. Despite this, there still will be those who say that we need 'more research', but in the meantime, there is little to be lost (vitamin D supplements are inexpensive and have low risk of toxicity) and a huge amount to gain by recommending a decent daily dose of vitamin D3 (say 1-2,000 IU for children and 4-5,000 IU for adults).
The main findings of our study suggest that older patients with lower serum concentrations of 25(OH)D, when compared with aged-matched vitamin D-replete patients, may demonstrate worse outcomes from COVID-19. Markers of cytokine release syndrome were raised in these patients and they were more likely to become hypoxic and require ventilatory support in HDU. There was no difference in mortality between groups.
Evidence of an association between vitamin D deficiency and adverse outcome in COVID-19 is provided by Alipio (2020) and D'Avolio and colleagues.13 The former study (preprint) observed an increased disease severity for patients with vitamin D deficiency, while the latter noted a decreased serum vitamin D concentration between COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. These were both retrospective cohort studies encompassing a sample size of 212 and 120, respectively.
...
In non-communicable diseases, both viral and bacterial, vitamin D deficiency has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality as well as a higher incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome in critically unwell patients.
