Coronavirus COVID-19

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe we should ask the PEOPLE of China and not view it from the standpoint of how their government actually operates.

As I said, I would not want to live under China's system. But to say it has failed as a nation at this point is pretty self evidently wrong. You have people running around repeatedly saying "Socialism has always failed" and it's pretty self-evidently a false statement at this point due to China being pretty much the #2 most dominant country in the world right now with people in the United States pretty obviously worried about it eventually becoming #1. People need to stop with the obviously false talking point.

Hey, Russia was pretty powerful too. Doesn’t mean socialism didn’t fail. It’s the totalitarian part of socialism that holds things together. But, having a couple billion people you can employ for slave labor sure does help an economy, doesn’t it?

[SeattleGriz]

Just a note to let everyone know that over in the UK, the vaccine protection from catching COVID for those over 30 has now gone negative. That means that if you are vaxxed and over 30, you now have a greater chance of catching COVID than someone who is unvaccinated and over 30.

So how exactly were we supposed to vaccinate our way out of the pandemic?

[Gil Dobie]

Just a note to let everyone know that over in the UK, the vaccine protection from catching COVID for those over 30 has now gone negative. That means that if you are vaxxed and over 30, you now have a greater chance of catching COVID than someone who is unvaccinated and over 30.

So how exactly were we supposed to vaccinate our way out of the pandemic?

So if you put 20 people in a room, 10 vaxxed and 10 not, the vaxxed people will get covid? I thought people that are around infected people have a better chance to get covid than those not around infected people.

[SeattleGriz]

Just a note to let everyone know that over in the UK, the vaccine protection from catching COVID for those over 30 has now gone negative. That means that if you are vaxxed and over 30, you now have a greater chance of catching COVID than someone who is unvaccinated and over 30.

So how exactly were we supposed to vaccinate our way out of the pandemic?

So if you put 20 people in a room, 10 vaxxed and 10 not, the vaxxed people will get covid? I thought people that are around infected people have a better chance to get covid than those not around infected people.

They will still contract COVID, but the vaccinated will contract it at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.

Remember, this is for the UK and their data only. If the US would bother to actually releasing some useful data we could see if the same was true here. We track Medicare and Medicaid patients nicely, but for some reason that data isn't available. Wonder why?

[Gil Dobie]

So if you put 20 people in a room, 10 vaxxed and 10 not, the vaxxed people will get covid? I thought people that are around infected people have a better chance to get covid than those not around infected people.

They will still contract COVID, but the vaccinated will contract it at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.

Remember, this is for the UK and their data only. If the US would bother to actually releasing some useful data we could see if the same was true here. We track Medicare and Medicaid patients nicely, but for some reason that data isn't available. Wonder why?

Your statement reads like a blanket statement. Are the vaxxed people in higher density populations than the unvaxxed? Are the unvaxxed staying at home, or attending events? A lot of moving parts that are not accounted for in that blanked statement.

[UNI88]

So if you put 20 people in a room, 10 vaxxed and 10 not, the vaxxed people will get covid? I thought people that are around infected people have a better chance to get covid than those not around infected people.

They will still contract COVID, but the vaccinated will contract it at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.

Remember, this is for the UK and their data only. If the US would bother to actually releasing some useful data we could see if the same was true here. We track Medicare and Medicaid patients nicely, but for some reason that data isn't available. Wonder why?

At how much higher of rate are the vaccinated likely to contact COVID than the unvaccinated? Numbers and links please.

Are there psychological factors that should be considered - i.e. are the vaccinated less cautious than the unvaccinated?

This is a complicated situation and it's irresponsible for people on either side of the debate to throw out numbers like they're definitive when there are so many factors to consider (and so much we still don't seem to know).

[89Hen]

Are there psychological factors that should be considered - i.e. are the vaccinated less cautious than the unvaccinated?

If there are, that doesn't change anything.

[UNI88]

Are there psychological factors that should be considered - i.e. are the vaccinated less cautious than the unvaccinated?

If there are, that doesn't change anything.

You're right it doesn't. We've dug in our heals and have made up or minds based on ideology. Why consider reason when we can scream about freedom and lives while pretending that the government overreach we support is okay.

[SeattleGriz]

They will still contract COVID, but the vaccinated will contract it at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.

Remember, this is for the UK and their data only. If the US would bother to actually releasing some useful data we could see if the same was true here. We track Medicare and Medicaid patients nicely, but for some reason that data isn't available. Wonder why?

Your statement reads like a blanket statement. Are the vaxxed people in higher density populations than the unvaxxed? Are the unvaxxed staying at home, or attending events? A lot of moving parts that are not accounted for in that blanked statement.

This was all released in the UK surveillance data, in which I keep linking to this forum, but nobody other than StOnge bothers to read.

Here is the link.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek_40.pdf

[SeattleGriz]

They will still contract COVID, but the vaccinated will contract it at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.

Remember, this is for the UK and their data only. If the US would bother to actually releasing some useful data we could see if the same was true here. We track Medicare and Medicaid patients nicely, but for some reason that data isn't available. Wonder why?

At how much higher of rate are the vaccinated likely to contact COVID than the unvaccinated? Numbers and links please.

Are there psychological factors that should be considered - i.e. are the vaccinated less cautious than the unvaccinated?

This is a complicated situation and it's irresponsible for people on either side of the debate to throw out numbers like they're definitive when there are so many factors to consider (and so much we still don't seem to know).

Linked it above as well.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek_40.pdf

[89Hen]

If there are, that doesn't change anything.

You're right it doesn't. We've dug in our heals and have made up or minds based on ideology. Why consider reason when we can scream about freedom and lives while pretending that the government overreach we support is okay.

What I mean is that if the vax makes a person more reckless, then it doesn't work. Does it really matter if the vax is ineffective because of medicinal reasons or psychological ones?

[UNI88]

You're right it doesn't. We've dug in our heals and have made up or minds based on ideology. Why consider reason when we can scream about freedom and lives while pretending that the government overreach we support is okay.

What I mean is that if the vax makes a person more reckless, then it doesn't work. Does it really matter if the vax is ineffective because of medicinal reasons or psychological ones?

Even if a vaxxed person is more likely to get COVID, the vax can still be considered effective if they're less likely to need hospitalization or worse.

The argument shouldn't be whether the vaccines are absolutely effective or not, it should be about when they are effective and who should get them.

[89Hen]

Even if a vaxxed person is more likely to get COVID, the vax can still be considered effective if they're less likely to need hospitalization or worse.

I didn't think that was the question. Wasn't this about more people with the vax were catching it?

[SeattleGriz]

Even if a vaxxed person is more likely to get COVID, the vax can still be considered effective if they're less likely to need hospitalization or worse.

I didn't think that was the question. Wasn't this about more people with the vax were catching it?

Yes, AND the fact they are spreading it. It's why I've been saying you can't vax your way out of this pandemic. Yes, the vax saves lives, but unfortunately, it's not able to stop the pandemic like many believe.

[89Hen]

kalm konundrum...

Iceland on Friday suspended the Moderna anti-COVID vaccine, citing the slight increased risks of cardiac inflammation, going further than its Nordic neighbours which simply limited use of the jabs.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-10- ... ation.html

[UNI88]

Even if a vaxxed person is more likely to get COVID, the vax can still be considered effective if they're less likely to need hospitalization or worse.

I didn't think that was the question. Wasn't this about more people with the vax were catching it?

Is that the question or is it whether the vaccines are effective and that is an element being used to argue that they aren't?

From SG's link:

The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 39. In individuals aged greater than 40, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.

The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals.

The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated
individuals.

As someone who is over 40, I would trade an increased chance that I could get COVID for the decreased chance that it would require hospitalization or lead to death.

We're still learning about COVID and the effectiveness of the vaccines, it's far too early to make absolute statements about effectiveness.

[Gil Dobie]

Your statement reads like a blanket statement. Are the vaxxed people in higher density populations than the unvaxxed? Are the unvaxxed staying at home, or attending events? A lot of moving parts that are not accounted for in that blanked statement.

This was all released in the UK surveillance data, in which I keep linking to this forum, but nobody other than StOnge bothers to read.

Here is the link.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek_40.pdf

That's not what the data is saying, is what I'm saying. More cases, does not equal more likely to get covid. It just means more cases.

[SeattleGriz]

This was all released in the UK surveillance data, in which I keep linking to this forum, but nobody other than StOnge bothers to read.

Here is the link.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek_40.pdf

That's not what the data is saying, is what I'm saying. More cases, does not equal more likely to get covid. It just means more cases.

The data was not saying, that according to the UK surveillance report, those over 30 who have been vaccinated, are catching COVID at a higher rate per 100k than the unvaccinated?

I think you might need to look at that report again.

[Gil Dobie]

That's not what the data is saying, is what I'm saying. More cases, does not equal more likely to get covid. It just means more cases.

The data was not saying, that according to the UK surveillance report, those over 30 who have been vaccinated, are catching COVID at a higher rate per 100k than the unvaccinated?

I think you might need to look at that report again.

Are they exposed more often?

[89Hen]

it's far too early to make absolute statements about effectiveness.

Unfortunately, not many people agree with that.

[SeattleGriz]

The data was not saying, that according to the UK surveillance report, those over 30 who have been vaccinated, are catching COVID at a higher rate per 100k than the unvaccinated?

I think you might need to look at that report again.

Are they exposed more often?

Does your question mean you don't understand that people who are vaxxed and over 30 in the UK are now catching COVID at greater rates than the unvaccinated...and spreading it?

[UNI88]

That's not what the data is saying, is what I'm saying. More cases, does not equal more likely to get covid. It just means more cases.

The data was not saying, that according to the UK surveillance report, those over 30 who have been vaccinated, are catching COVID at a higher rate per 100k than the unvaccinated?

I think you might need to look at that report again.

* 40

Is that because of the vaccines or other reasons? The report says it's:

likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.

It's ambiguous, I don't think there's enough data to blame the vaccines themselves for vaccinated people over 40 catching COVID at a higher rate.

[UNI88]

it's far too early to make absolute statements about effectiveness.

Unfortunately, not many people agree with that.

Truth!

[SeattleGriz]

The data was not saying, that according to the UK surveillance report, those over 30 who have been vaccinated, are catching COVID at a higher rate per 100k than the unvaccinated?

I think you might need to look at that report again.

* 40

Is that because of the vaccines or other reasons? The report says it's:

likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.

It's ambiguous, I don't think there's enough data to blame the vaccines themselves for vaccinated people over 40 catching COVID at a higher rate.

I would venture the susceptible unvaccinated got cleaned out awhile ago and now we are seeing those whose vaccine is simply wearing off, but look at the 40-49. It's almost double.

Anyway, the point was never about hospitalizations and deaths, more about this not stopping the pandemic. I've been saying this from the start. You cannot vax your way out of a pandemic with leaky vaccines.

This shoots mandates in the ass. The vaccinated are spreading COVID just as much, if not more than the unvaxxed.

[UNI88]

* 40

Is that because of the vaccines or other reasons? The report says it's:

It's ambiguous, I don't think there's enough data to blame the vaccines themselves for vaccinated people over 40 catching COVID at a higher rate.

I would venture the susceptible unvaccinated got cleaned out awhile ago and now we are seeing those whose vaccine is simply wearing off, but look at the 40-49. It's almost double.

Anyway, the point was never about hospitalizations and deaths, more about this not stopping the pandemic. I've been saying this from the start. You cannot vax your way out of a pandemic with leaky vaccines.

This shoots mandates in the ass. The vaccinated are spreading COVID just as much, if not more than the unvaxxed.

Are mandates only about preventing spread? Or is reducing hospitalizations and deaths also a factor?

I believe an employer has every right to require a vaccine but the federal and state governments should stay the F out of requiring or prohibiting them but I try to be consistent with opposing government overreach.