Coronavirus COVID-19

[SeattleGriz]

I've stated from the beginning, those at risk and those wanting a shot are free to take as many as they like. I'll wait until it's actually needed, like when I'm older than 65 to get mine.

My body, my choice. Right?

WTF? Where did you ever get THAT ridiculous concept?

It's been glorious watching the mental gymnastics coupled with an extreme lack of awareness play out over the last two weeks.

[AZGrizFan]

WTF? Where did you ever get THAT ridiculous concept?

It's been glorious watching the mental gymnastics coupled with an extreme lack of awareness play out over the last two weeks.

But they don’t view it as “mental gymnastics”, and in fact see zero irony in the fact that a mere month ago they were INSISTING that everyone must do the government’s bidding and get the vaccine “for the good of all”….

In fact, they see zero irony in ANY of their fallacious logic.

[SeattleGriz]

It's been glorious watching the mental gymnastics coupled with an extreme lack of awareness play out over the last two weeks.

But they don’t view it as “mental gymnastics”, and in fact see zero irony in the fact that a mere month ago they were INSISTING that everyone must do the government’s bidding and get the vaccine “for the good of all”….

In fact, they see zero irony in ANY of their fallacious logic.

Meh, I'm used to it. It's been playing out more and more as America's scientific illiteracy gets worse. The part I really like is the "quoting of experts", but no underlying education to fully understand what they are saying.

[UNI88]

Don't get vaccinated. You know your rights - don't let the libtards sucker you into getting injected with Bill Gates' zombie vaccine.

I've stated from the beginning, those at risk and those wanting a shot are free to take as many as they like. I'll wait until it's actually needed, like when I'm older than 65 to get mine.

My body, my choice. Right?

Shouldn't it be applied consistently?

Your body, your choice. Her body, her choice.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

I've stated from the beginning, those at risk and those wanting a shot are free to take as many as they like. I'll wait until it's actually needed, like when I'm older than 65 to get mine.

My body, my choice. Right?

Shouldn't it be applied consistently?

Your body, your choice. Her body, her choice.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

In order for that choice to be consistent, the outcomes should be equal? Are they? Terminating a life vs the very, very slim chance a person would contract Covid, spread it to someone vulnerable, who most likely is vaxxed and that person dies. They don't sound equal. One sounds like most certain death and the other a very slim chance.

What I see at play is the absolving of the consequence of their choices. On the vax side, we have a slew of people that made very poor lifestyle choices (42% of Americans obese) and now they want everyone to be vaxxed to protect them from their lifestyle choices. On the other, you have two adults that chose not to use readily available and cheap contraception and absolve them of that poor choice. Once again. Choices.

[AZGrizFan]

Shouldn't it be applied consistently?

Your body, your choice. Her body, her choice.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

In order for that choice to be consistent, the outcomes should be equal? Are they? Terminating a life vs the very, very slim chance a person would contract Covid, spread it to someone vulnerable, who most likely is vaxxed and that person dies. They don't sound equal. One sounds like most certain death and the other a very slim chance.

What I see at play is the absolving of the consequence of their choices. On the vax side, we have a slew of people that made very poor lifestyle choices (42% of Americans obese) and now they want everyone to be vaxxed to protect them from their lifestyle choices. On the other, you have two adults that chose not to use readily available and cheap contraception and absolve them of that poor choice. Once again. Choices.

I actually disagree. it’s either “my body, my choice” or it’s not. Doesn’t matter what the issue is, nor does it matter what the potential outcome should/could be.

[SeattleGriz]

In order for that choice to be consistent, the outcomes should be equal? Are they? Terminating a life vs the very, very slim chance a person would contract Covid, spread it to someone vulnerable, who most likely is vaxxed and that person dies. They don't sound equal. One sounds like most certain death and the other a very slim chance.

What I see at play is the absolving of the consequence of their choices. On the vax side, we have a slew of people that made very poor lifestyle choices (42% of Americans obese) and now they want everyone to be vaxxed to protect them from their lifestyle choices. On the other, you have two adults that chose not to use readily available and cheap contraception and absolve them of that poor choice. Once again. Choices.

I actually disagree. it’s either “my body, my choice” or it’s not. Doesn’t matter what the issue is, nor does it matter what the potential outcome should/could be.

Dang you! Was hoping to reel in a fish or two.

As long as abortions are done early, I'm pretty much in agreement.

[JohnStOnge]

This post is based on the Worldometer State by State death rates (deaths per million population) as of the end of yesterday, the USA Facts vaccination rate data as of 10:27 am CDT this morning at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... er-states/, and the 2020 percentages of each State's population >=65 reported at https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us- ... he-oldest/. It's pretty easy to do because you can copy the data and paste them into Excel then use Excel functions to analyze.

The image below shows a graph of cumulative death rate by State vs. proportion of population boosted in each State. The y (vertical) axis is deaths per million population and the x (horizontal) axis is proportion of State population vaccinated. The correlation coefficient for the association is -0.558. It is significant at >99.99 percent confidence. If you use a simple linear regression, you can estimate that, for each 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate, there is a 2.0 percent decrease, on average, in cumulative death rate. If you use regression to control for percent population >=65, you can estimate that, for each 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate, there is a 2.2 percent decrease, on average, in cumulative death rate.

One could also use fully vaccinated rate instead of boosted rate. The correlation coefficient for that association, at 0.526, is also significant at >99.99 percent confidence. But I think using boosted rate is better. I think it is an indicator of of the extent to which people in a State have followed vaccination recommendations in place at a given time. A year ago the recommendation was to have two doses. Now the recommendation is to have two doses plus boosters as necessary. Also, the correlation coefficient between percent fully vaccinated and percent boosted is 0.902.

[SeattleGriz]

This post is based on the Worldometer State by State death rates (deaths per million population) as of the end of yesterday, the USA Facts vaccination rate data as of 10:27 am CDT this morning at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... er-states/, and the 2020 percentages of each State's population >=65 reported at https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us- ... he-oldest/. It's pretty easy to do because you can copy the data and paste them into Excel then use Excel functions to analyze.

The image below shows a graph of cumulative death rate by State vs. proportion of population boosted in each State. The y (vertical) axis is deaths per million population and the x (horizontal) axis is proportion of State population vaccinated. The correlation coefficient for the association is -0.558. It is significant at >99.99 percent confidence. If you use a simple linear regression, you can estimate that, for each 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate, there is a 2.0 percent decrease, on average, in cumulative death rate. If you use regression to control for percent population >=65, you can estimate that, for each 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate, there is a 2.2 percent decrease, on average, in cumulative death rate.

One could also use fully vaccinated rate instead of boosted rate. The correlation coefficient for that association, at 0.526, is also significant at >99.99 percent confidence. But I think using boosted rate is better. I think it is an indicator of of the extent to which people in a State have followed vaccination recommendations in place at a given time. A year ago the recommendation was to have two doses. Now the recommendation is to have two doses plus boosters as necessary. Also, the correlation coefficient between percent fully vaccinated and percent boosted is 0.902.

Did you pull out those that died before their second shot + 14 days from the unvaccinated and place them in their proper vaccinated group? We all know how that absurd definition manipulates the data to make the vaccine look much better.

[JohnStOnge]

The data upon which this post is based is cited in my previous post. The image below shows the association between proportion of each State's population boosted and cumulative COVID-19 case rate (cases per million population). The vertical (y) axis is case rates. The horizontal (x) axis it proportion of each State's population boosted. Boosted is used as an indicator of the extent to which each State's population has followed vaccination recommendations. A rationale for that is in my previous post.

The correlation coefficient is -0.360. The association such that States with higher boosted rates tend to have lower cumulative case rates is significant at 98.98 percent. I think the graph is related so something I heard on the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show that is an example of looking at a tree that you think supports your narrative while ignoring the forrest.

The tree is Rhode Island. You can see its case rate indicated as the highest over to the right of the graph. It has the highest case rate and also has the third highest boosted rate. So someone can point to the tree where a State with one of the highest vaccination rates has the highest case rate.

But when one looks at the forrest, it's clear that the general trend is one where States with higher vaccination rates tend to have lower case rates. If you use regression to estimate how it works, a 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate corresponds, on average, to a 0.7 percent lower case rate. Not as strong an association as the one involving death rates. But that is consistent with what public health officials have been saying.

[SeattleGriz]

The data upon which this post is based is cited in my previous post. The image below shows the association between proportion of each State's population boosted and cumulative COVID-19 case rate (cases per million population). The vertical (y) axis is case rates. The horizontal (x) axis it proportion of each State's population boosted. Boosted is used as an indicator of the extent to which each State's population has followed vaccination recommendations. A rationale for that is in my previous post.

The correlation coefficient is -0.360. The association such that States with higher boosted rates tend to have lower cumulative case rates is significant at 98.98 percent. I think the graph is related so something I heard on the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show that is an example of looking at a tree that you think supports your narrative while ignoring the forrest.

The tree is Rhode Island. You can see its case rate indicated as the highest over to the right of the graph. It has the highest case rate and also has the third highest boosted rate. So someone can point to the tree where a State with one of the highest vaccination rates has the highest case rate.

But when one looks at the forrest, it's clear that the general trend is one where States with higher vaccination rates tend to have lower case rates. If you use regression to estimate how it works, a 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate corresponds, on average, to a 0.7 percent lower case rate. Not as strong an association as the one involving death rates. But that is consistent with what public health officials have been saying.

How can you make that claim when it's been shown that roughly 40% of all cases that are in the unvaccinated pool, actually were vaccinated. They just didn't meet the data crime rules of waiting until immunity recovers from the initial shots.

[JohnStOnge]

This post is based on the Worldometer State by State death rates (deaths per million population) as of the end of yesterday, the USA Facts vaccination rate data as of 10:27 am CDT this morning at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... er-states/, and the 2020 percentages of each State's population >=65 reported at https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us- ... he-oldest/. It's pretty easy to do because you can copy the data and paste them into Excel then use Excel functions to analyze.

The image below shows a graph of cumulative death rate by State vs. proportion of population boosted in each State. The y (vertical) axis is deaths per million population and the x (horizontal) axis is proportion of State population vaccinated. The correlation coefficient for the association is -0.558. It is significant at >99.99 percent confidence. If you use a simple linear regression, you can estimate that, for each 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate, there is a 2.0 percent decrease, on average, in cumulative death rate. If you use regression to control for percent population >=65, you can estimate that, for each 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate, there is a 2.2 percent decrease, on average, in cumulative death rate.

One could also use fully vaccinated rate instead of boosted rate. The correlation coefficient for that association, at 0.526, is also significant at >99.99 percent confidence. But I think using boosted rate is better. I think it is an indicator of of the extent to which people in a State have followed vaccination recommendations in place at a given time. A year ago the recommendation was to have two doses. Now the recommendation is to have two doses plus boosters as necessary. Also, the correlation coefficient between percent fully vaccinated and percent boosted is 0.902.

Did you pull out those that died before their second shot + 14 days from the unvaccinated and place them in their proper vaccinated group? We all know how that absurd definition manipulates the data to make the vaccine look much better.

No because all I'm looking at is whether there is an association between increased tendency of a State population to follow vaccine recommendations and lower death rate. And there clearly is one. A very strong one actually to someone who is familiar with dealing with uncontrolled environmental data. You're talking about State boosted rate accounting for 31 percent of the variation in State by State death rates when taken alone and State boosted rate plus percent population >=65 accounting for 37 percent of it. That is a lot.

There are many studies looking directly at vaccination status vs. death rate and they clearly show associations such that people who are up to date according to contemporaneous vaccination recommendations are less likely to be a COVID-19 death.

What I did is just use readily available data to do an analysis that yielded results consistent with expectations based on what we already know: Following vaccination recommendations reduces risk of COVID-19 death.

BTW I don't think leaving people such that 14 days have not elapsed since their second shot out of the fully vaccinated group is wrong. I could see an argument for excluding them from the unvaccinated group and comparing those who had both shots and finished at least 14 days ago to those who hadn't had any shots. Just leave those in the grey area out. Same thing with the boosted thing. Compare those who are least two weeks out from their booster to those who have not been vaccinated at all. But I doubt that it would make any bottom line difference in the results that have been generated.

[JohnStOnge]

The data upon which this post is based is cited in my previous post. The image below shows the association between proportion of each State's population boosted and cumulative COVID-19 case rate (cases per million population). The vertical (y) axis is case rates. The horizontal (x) axis it proportion of each State's population boosted. Boosted is used as an indicator of the extent to which each State's population has followed vaccination recommendations. A rationale for that is in my previous post.

The correlation coefficient is -0.360. The association such that States with higher boosted rates tend to have lower cumulative case rates is significant at 98.98 percent. I think the graph is related so something I heard on the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show that is an example of looking at a tree that you think supports your narrative while ignoring the forrest.

The tree is Rhode Island. You can see its case rate indicated as the highest over to the right of the graph. It has the highest case rate and also has the third highest boosted rate. So someone can point to the tree where a State with one of the highest vaccination rates has the highest case rate.

But when one looks at the forrest, it's clear that the general trend is one where States with higher vaccination rates tend to have lower case rates. If you use regression to estimate how it works, a 1 percentage point increase in vaccination rate corresponds, on average, to a 0.7 percent lower case rate. Not as strong an association as the one involving death rates. But that is consistent with what public health officials have been saying.

How can you make that claim when it's been shown that roughly 40% of all cases that are in the unvaccinated pool, actually were vaccinated. They just didn't meet the data crime rules of waiting until immunity recovers from the initial shots.

Because, again, I am just looking at the extent to which each State tended to follow vaccination recommendations. There is no effort at all to consider when cases occurred, etc. The independent variable is simply the proportion of that State's population that has been boosted. If they are boosted they had to have had the two doses first. They were following vaccine recommendation when they got those two doses. When they got boosted they were also following vaccine recommendations.

The association is tendency to follow vaccine recommendations vs. case rate. And it is a highly significant association. Not as strong as the one involving death rate. But it still can't reasonably accounted for by chance.

[houndawg]

In order for that choice to be consistent, the outcomes should be equal? Are they? Terminating a life vs the very, very slim chance a person would contract Covid, spread it to someone vulnerable, who most likely is vaxxed and that person dies. They don't sound equal. One sounds like most certain death and the other a very slim chance.

What I see at play is the absolving of the consequence of their choices. On the vax side, we have a slew of people that made very poor lifestyle choices (42% of Americans obese) and now they want everyone to be vaxxed to protect them from their lifestyle choices. On the other, you have two adults that chose not to use readily available and cheap contraception and absolve them of that poor choice. Once again. Choices.

I actually disagree. it’s either “my body, my choice” or it’s not. Doesn’t matter what the issue is, nor does it matter what the potential outcome should/could be.

If you don't have the final say then you are property

[houndawg]

I actually disagree. it’s either “my body, my choice” or it’s not. Doesn’t matter what the issue is, nor does it matter what the potential outcome should/could be.

Dang you! Was hoping to reel in a fish or two.

As long as abortions are done early, I'm pretty much in agreement.

Nobody wants an abortion, its a last resort.

And the "pro life" crowd doesn't give a fuck about unborn babies, especially ones that aren't white, see "The Great Replacement". The unborn are convenient to claim to represent because they don't clap back at the wackadoodle nonsense being spewed supposedly on their behalf by halfwits that need some preacher to read the Bible to them. Once they're born the game becomes "Jews, will not replace us.

If life begins at conception how come the "child" can't be claimed as a dependent on taxes?

[JohnStOnge]

You are not parroting the current State of knowledge with respect to those things. I interpret what you are doing as questioning the wisdom of everybody getting vaccinated per current recommendations. If you are not, I misinterpreted you. But, if you are, you are disagreeing with the American Medical Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, etc. Basically the consensus of the national and world public health community.

Yes. We've seen how well the vaccination, masking and isolation has gone. About the same as those who didn't care.

That is false. It is not the same at all.

Your consensus has been proven catastrophically wrong. Went against history and experience.

False again. The staff at CDC understand the history and experience associated with disease control and pandemic management a lot better than you or I do.

You're at step 2 of the process. The next step will be switching jerseys. "I was always for targeted isolation and vaccination".

You will not see me switch jerseys because there is no reason to. The data continue to indicate that we would have had significantly fewer COVID-19 cases, less stress on health systems, and far fewer COVID-19 deaths to this point if everyone had followed public health guidance without constantly pushing back, refusing, etc. Here is one recent article on estimates of how it could have been had everybody followed vaccine recommendations:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... n-each-sta

There have been others and there will be more. As I wrote earlier: I have no doubt that, years from now when all of this is history people are looking at, the view will be that people on my side of this argument were correct while those on your side of it were wrong.

[SeattleGriz]

Yes. We've seen how well the vaccination, masking and isolation has gone. About the same as those who didn't care.

That is false. It is not the same at all.

Your consensus has been proven catastrophically wrong. Went against history and experience.

False again. The staff at CDC understand the history and experience associated with disease control and pandemic management a lot better than you or I do.

You're at step 2 of the process. The next step will be switching jerseys. "I was always for targeted isolation and vaccination".

You will not see me switch jerseys because there is no reason to. The data continue to indicate that we would have had significantly fewer COVID-19 cases, less stress on health systems, and far fewer COVID-19 deaths to this point if everyone had followed public health guidance without constantly pushing back, refusing, etc. Here is one recent article on estimates of how it could have been had everybody followed vaccine recommendations:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... n-each-sta

There have been others and there will be more. As I wrote earlier: I have no doubt that, years from now when all of this is history people are looking at, the view will be that people on my side of this argument were correct while those on your side of it were wrong.

So you're going against more than 100 years of experience and data. Good for you.

Do you believe if we vaccinated hard enough, we could get rid of COVID?

[houndawg]

That is false. It is not the same at all.



False again. The staff at CDC understand the history and experience associated with disease control and pandemic management a lot better than you or I do.



You will not see me switch jerseys because there is no reason to. The data continue to indicate that we would have had significantly fewer COVID-19 cases, less stress on health systems, and far fewer COVID-19 deaths to this point if everyone had followed public health guidance without constantly pushing back, refusing, etc. Here is one recent article on estimates of how it could have been had everybody followed vaccine recommendations:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... n-each-sta

There have been others and there will be more. As I wrote earlier: I have no doubt that, years from now when all of this is history people are looking at, the view will be that people on my side of this argument were correct while those on your side of it were wrong.

So you're going against more than 100 years of experience and data. Good for you.

Do you believe if we vaccinated hard enough, we could get rid of COVID?

Desperate for any sort of point he changes the subject......how many million times do you have to be told that that no vaccine is 100% effective?

[SeattleGriz]

So you're going against more than 100 years of experience and data. Good for you.

Do you believe if we vaccinated hard enough, we could get rid of COVID?

Desperate for any sort of point he changes the subject......how many million times do you have to be told that that no vaccine is 100% effective?

Bro, please.

What I'm trying to ask is if he thinks we can push around Mother Nature. I do not. I believe we need to learn how to coexist with COVID and leaky vaccines aren't helping shit.

Zero Covid vs living with it.

[JohnStOnge]

Some thoughts about things to remember when looking at numbers using what's up at the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) COVID-19 dashboard (dashboard) at https://ldh.la.gov/Coronavirus/ as I type this to illustrate (they will be updated at some point so the numbers below will be dated):

As I type, the LDH indicates that 50% of the COVID-19 deaths during April 8 through May 4 were among individuals who were not fully vaccinated. The overall percentage of Louisiana people not fully vaccinated during that week was 46%. So you might think the 50% of deaths number means little impact by vaccines. The overall percent of deaths accounted for by those not fully vaccinated is close to the percent of the population not fully vaccinated.

But there is virtually no doubt that simply adjusting for age would reveal a substantial vaccine effect. LDH doesn't break things down by over and under 65. But you can use their dashboard data to calculate that 81% of their deaths over the course of the pandemic have been among people over 60. You can also see that people in that group are vaccinated at a much higher rate than that of the State population overall (54%). The over 60 fully vaccinated rate 88%. So, in an age group that has accounted for 81% of the deaths, only 12% are in the in the "not fully vaccinated" population.

You can tweak the age group a little to account for more of the deaths. Those over 50 have accounted for 92% of the deaths over the course of the pandemic and only 22% of them are in the "not fully vaccinated" group.

The same kind of thing goes on nationally. The most high risk age groups are vaccinated at higher rates. For example: As of now, about 74% of USA COVID-19 deaths have been among those 65 and older. According to the web page at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... er-states/, 93% of those age 65 through 74 and 87% of those 75 and up are fully vaccinated. Only 66% of the population overall is fully vaccinated. Those most at risk of dying due to the age risk factor are disproportionately vaccinated. You can't make a judgement about what it means to say something like "40% of the deaths were among the vaccinated" without taking that into account.

And of course there are other risk factors as well.

[JohnStOnge]

That is false. It is not the same at all.



False again. The staff at CDC understand the history and experience associated with disease control and pandemic management a lot better than you or I do.



You will not see me switch jerseys because there is no reason to. The data continue to indicate that we would have had significantly fewer COVID-19 cases, less stress on health systems, and far fewer COVID-19 deaths to this point if everyone had followed public health guidance without constantly pushing back, refusing, etc. Here is one recent article on estimates of how it could have been had everybody followed vaccine recommendations:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... n-each-sta

There have been others and there will be more. As I wrote earlier: I have no doubt that, years from now when all of this is history people are looking at, the view will be that people on my side of this argument were correct while those on your side of it were wrong.

So you're going against more than 100 years of experience and data. Good for you.

Do you believe if we vaccinated hard enough, we could get rid of COVID?

No, I am not. I am going against someone who apparently has some misunderstandings about what historical experience and data tell us. I can't even remember the actual issue right now but I remember one time where you went through a bunch of stuff about some principle of viral evolution. Then I looked it up and found that it was something that was the conventional wisdom during the 19th century (I think) but is no longer the view. At least I think it was the 19th century. For sure it was prior to the 20th.

You're just wrong in your interpretation of things.

[JohnStOnge]

That is false. It is not the same at all.



False again. The staff at CDC understand the history and experience associated with disease control and pandemic management a lot better than you or I do.



You will not see me switch jerseys because there is no reason to. The data continue to indicate that we would have had significantly fewer COVID-19 cases, less stress on health systems, and far fewer COVID-19 deaths to this point if everyone had followed public health guidance without constantly pushing back, refusing, etc. Here is one recent article on estimates of how it could have been had everybody followed vaccine recommendations:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... n-each-sta

There have been others and there will be more. As I wrote earlier: I have no doubt that, years from now when all of this is history people are looking at, the view will be that people on my side of this argument were correct while those on your side of it were wrong.

So you're going against more than 100 years of experience and data. Good for you.

Do you believe if we vaccinated hard enough, we could get rid of COVID?

We can never know because there is no way to go back in time, do it, and see what would happen. But I do believe it is possible that we would no longer be in a pandemic (and, no, we are not in the endemic phase yest) anymore if we could have somehow gotten everybody vaccinated and also gotten everybody to follow all other recommended precautions. I do not believe we could eliminate COVID-19 in terms of having the virus no longer exist in nature at all like we did with smallpox with the current types of vaccines and the R naught values of the current variants. I did think it was possible when the variant we were dealing with has R naught around 2 or 3.

But to really succeed back then we would have needed to have gotten a very high vaccination rate all over the world in order to have a chance minimize the risk of new variants (and, yes, it is the consensus of virologists that the best way to minimize risk of new variants is to get a very high vaccination rate quickly).

I also do not rule out development of new types of vaccines that are more effective and/or persistent.

[SeattleGriz]

So you're going against more than 100 years of experience and data. Good for you.

Do you believe if we vaccinated hard enough, we could get rid of COVID?

We can never know because there is no way to go back in time, do it, and see what would happen. But I do believe it is possible that we would no longer be in a pandemic (and, no, we are not in the endemic phase yest) anymore if we could have somehow gotten everybody vaccinated and also gotten everybody to follow all other recommended precautions. I do not believe we could eliminate COVID-19 in terms of having the virus no longer exist in nature at all like we did with smallpox with the current types of vaccines and the R naught values of the current variants. I did think it was possible when the variant we were dealing with has R naught around 2 or 3.

But to really succeed back then we would have needed to have gotten a very high vaccination rate all over the world in order to have a chance minimize the risk of new variants (and, yes, it is the consensus of virologists that the best way to minimize risk of new variants is to get a very high vaccination rate quickly).

I also do not rule out development of new types of vaccines that are more effective and/or persistent.

So, if we got shots into everyone in one months time, you believe Covid would be gone?

If not this scenario, then under what conditions do you believe we could reach zero Covid or even "have it under control"?

[kalm]

Desperate for any sort of point he changes the subject......how many million times do you have to be told that that no vaccine is 100% effective?

Bro, please.

What I'm trying to ask is if he thinks we can push around Mother Nature. I do not. I believe we need to learn how to coexist with COVID and leaky vaccines aren't helping shit.

Zero Covid vs living with it.

Welcome to the club!

[SeattleGriz]

Bro, please.

What I'm trying to ask is if he thinks we can push around Mother Nature. I do not. I believe we need to learn how to coexist with COVID and leaky vaccines aren't helping shit.

Zero Covid vs living with it.

Welcome to the club!

Thanks bro! I've been on Team Earth for a long time. Said before that my biggest fear is that we are unknowingly poisoning the planet. As such, I've maintained a pretty small footprint.