Coronavirus thread

[SimonNZ]

I wonder whether I should look for YouTube videos about seatbelts and how people die wearing them... they are probably out there.

Probably not a simple keyword search. It would appear mid-rant in these self-appointed contrarians daily opining.

[Karl Henning]

Youtubers. We've been down this road a few times now.

Some random amateur Youtuber/s will have said "just as transmissible whether vaccinated or not".

And some call this "research." As in "I've done my own research."

[Holden]

And some call this "research." As in "I've done my own research."

There's 'research' and there's 'research'. We should at least let people know where our data/info came from.

[Madiel]

I should perhaps note that the Harvard article, dated early December, wasn't the earliest article I found about vaccinated people shedding less virus, I just picked it because it was fairly readable and, well, because it was Harvard.

I can find one from early September, and more through October and November. And there was even an initial finding published in March pointing in the same direction.

This is from one page of google results. No, I didn't find out about this from google. I found out about this from a whole bunch of sources that I can't necessarily go back to and link (especially not when some of them were audio not text). I googled to find sources that I could post here. Credible sources.

So any notion that this is some super recent finding that overturns the previous "common sense" view that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections would be a higher risk to others... well it's just bunk.

We've certainly known for a long time that vaccination reduces the risk of being infected. We've always known it doesn't reduce the risk to zero. We also have strong evidence that vaccination is less effective with the omicron variant, but also that it still reduces the risk.

We've known for a long time that vaccination reduces the risk of severe disease. Again, it doesn't reduce it to zero. But it reduces it significantly (and this still seems to be holding up pretty well for the omicron variant).

And we know that vaccination reduces the risk of passing the disease on (quite possibly related to it reducing the risk of severe disease).

This stuff works. Most of the arguments against it seem to be of the form of an implied demand to reduce the risks to zero.

[Holden]

Having worked in the past for Harvard as an online tutor for about five years I readily accept them as a credible source because I know how professional and thorough they are. The same would go for most of the universities, especially when work is peer reviewed. The only issue for a lot of people (and I understand this) is that quite a lot of what is published can be technically challenging and often doesn't make for good reading.

I try to use learned articles and also pure but accurate data from reliable sources which I can interpret in my own way. If my interpretation is wrong, I'm happy for someone to challenge me on it and it has happened to me on occasion on this forum. This way I learn something as well. While I am entitled to my opinion, others also have the right to challenge that opinion provided it doesn't become personal.

What I don't want to read is speculation that goes down one specific path and ignores any alternatives (which there will be). This absolutism is the stuff of sensationalist media articles. When I see the word 'might' or 'could', especially in the title of an article or news story, I know that this won't be balanced or unbiased.

[Spotted Horses]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not presenting arguments online as evidence, what exactly do you think I'm saying?
I'm saying what has been argued is that it should be mandated to prevent people from spreading it, months before when this article was published. At that time it was known that vaccinated people could still spread it. I've seen several instances of people arguing in support of mandates online during that time, using that reason. If research has proven otherwise since then, then that's fine, but that point only stands recently.

There was never evidence that the vaccine doesn't prevent spread of Covid-19. The CDC collected data that showed that the vaccine inhibits transmission of Covid-19 in the spring of 2021. CDC director Walensky announced this finding and and some scientists in the CDC and elsewhere protested that her statement was too broad and went beyond what the data proved. This was ammunition for the anti-vax crowd. Then there was an outbreak in Provincetown, MA in the summer of 2021 in which most of the cases were in vaccinated people. The CDC announced that vaccinated people sick with Covid-19 were just as likely to spread the infection. The anti-vax crowd grabbed on to this and it led to a widespread false belief that the vaccine doesn't inhibit the spread of the disease (just reduces the severity of symptoms). That is wrong. Vaccinated people who are infected with Covid-19 are just as likely to spread the virus, but vaccinated people are much likely to get infected. It prevents spread of the virus by reducing the chance you are infected. So by getting vaccinated you are protecting yourself and you are protecting the community by reducing the chance you will infect someone else after becoming infected yourself.

The situation was laid out in an article that appeared in The Atlantic in September.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/the-vaccinated-arent-just-as-likely-to-spread-covid/620161/

The situation is changed due to the omicron variant, which may be so infectious that the current vaccines are not effective enough to achieve "herd immunity" even if everyone is vaccinated. The vaccines still seem to inhibit infection and spread of the virus, but not enough. It seems likely that a reformulated vaccine based on the omicron RNA sequence will result in improved performance against omicron.

[MusicTurner]

Some good news from the UK regarding the booster effect, don't know if it was already mentioned:

"Figures show that around 3 months after they received the third jab, protection against hospitalisation among those aged 65 and over remains at about 90%"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boosters-continue-to-provide-high-levels-of-protection-against-severe-disease-from-omicron-in-older-adults

[Spotted Horses]

Some good news from the UK regarding the booster effect, don't know if it was already mentioned:

"Figures show that around 3 months after they received the third jab, protection against hospitalisation among those aged 65 and over remains at about 90%"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boosters-continue-to-provide-high-levels-of-protection-against-severe-disease-from-omicron-in-older-adults

I've seen other data showing that immunity is more stable after a booster.



Not surprising, almost all vaccines given in childhood are administered as an initial dose followed by a booster months or even years later. This is what was missing due to the "rushed" vaccine release, thorough testing to determine the optimum dose schedule. Safety of the vaccine was adequately established, but we are effectively doing a clinical trial with a billion participants to determine dose schedule.

[Mandryka]

Some good news from the UK regarding the booster effect, don't know if it was already mentioned:

"Figures show that around 3 months after they received the third jab, protection against hospitalisation among those aged 65 and over remains at about 90%"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boosters-continue-to-provide-high-levels-of-protection-against-severe-disease-from-omicron-in-older-adults

That's really good news which in fact I hadn't seen. I was under the impression that it was still very unclear what would happen to older cohorts as more of them became infected with omicron, and in the UK these older people have been well and truly boosted.

[MusicTurner]

The official DK omicron report from January 7th says that boosted constitute 8.4% of identified omicron cases - but boosted also constitute 51% of the DK population; another sign of a good deal of efficiency.

[Karl Henning]

.

[Mandryka]

.

No.

https://www.youtube.com/v/J9_1cdFhPUU&ab_channel=ActivistVideos

[Mandryka]

https://twitter.com/adamjkucharski/status/1479213084824715265?s=21

Interesting thread here on the change of behaviour of ordinary people in the UK since the start of the omicron wave. The reason it's interesting for me is that, apart from WFH, the change came about without legislation. It was effected by Government nudging alone. I'm not saying it was a free choice, by the way -- it was a choice caused by very well controlled media relations.

The result is that today, the UK is starting to see some encouraging data -- a very significant drop in hospital admissions in London, London is leading the wave here.

https://twitter.com/shaunlintern/status/1479852789975203843?s=21

[krummholz]

The real issue is why people resist vaccination in the face of centuries of evidence that vaccination works. That's why we do it. It's a practice driven by science. I'm struggling to understand what the resistance to it is driven by, apart from a short memory about the massive benefits that vaccination has brought.

I'm struggling to understand this, too. And above all, I'm struggling to understand why people with concerns about vaccine safety believe fringe, dark web sources who can provide only anecdotes, over public health experts who have real science behind their statements. I think it takes a certain pre-existing alienation from mainstream news and distrust of doctors, any government-affiliated sources, and even a lack of understanding of how science works to fall down this rabbit hole. Or else personal knowledge of someone who has had an adverse reaction to vaccination. And yet, so few do have such knowledge, and yet so many believe people like Joseph Mercola, Pierre Kory, or even Robert Malone (who did contribute significantly to mRNA science early on) over their own family doctor.

[Karl Henning]

I'm struggling to understand this, too. And above all, I'm struggling to understand why people with concerns about vaccine safety believe fringe, dark web sources who can provide only anecdotes, over public health experts who have real science behind their statements.

Lawd, I know this is so (we see it on this very thread) but I'm jiggered if I can much understand it, either. Part of it (as I know [better] via someone close to me) is that disinformation enjoying free throughput via the pulpits of this great land of ours, inherently a very beliefy (to borrow a useful term of Ernie's) environment.

[Mandryka]

The real issue is why people resist vaccination in the face of centuries of evidence that vaccination works.

1. Young and fit, so don't feel as though COVID concerns them really.
2. Belong to a group with some history of abuse by medics -- some blacks in America maybe. So just no trust.
3. Feel that they can't afford to. Not just the unpaid time off work to get it, but what if they need a few days off because of side effects? They have to feed the kids, and they don't have sick pay.
4. My body is a temple and I only let very natural things go in it, unless I'm really ill, which I'm not. If I get COVID, I'll take a something for it, but I'll get over it in all probability, so it would be neurotic to worry.
5. It's a load of trouble. I have to travel to get it, possibly a log journey, book an appointment, wait in a line. Can't be bothered, better things to do.
6. Yes I may infect others if I catch it, but really so what? If they're so worried let them keep their distance or take a vaccine. Look after Number 1 is what they taught me in The University of Life, and indeed in school. Evey man for himself.

[amw]

The main reason in western countries is that material reality has become so disconnected from people's everyday experience that we are no longer capable of perceiving it. As such, everyone determines what their own reality is, and consensus on facts is not possible. I would argue this is a natural outcome in any society where food comes from a supermarket, no one owns anything, most socialisation is disconnected from human body language/expressions/tone of voice, and most people work in jobs (in offices, etc.) where they do not produce anything tangible. It's also particularly prevalent in places where people live in suburbs but work in cities, further atomising not only the components of their everyday life but also individual people from one another.

There are few anti-vaccine movements outside western countries and where these do exist (as in, e.g., Papua New Guinea) it's a product of governments and social organisations that are perceived as too corrupt and dictatorial to provide anything for their people. (In other countries such as Brazil the most reliable way to get people to take the vaccine proved to be the government adopting an anti-vaccine political stance.)

[greg]

Youtubers. We've been down this road a few times now.

Some random amateur Youtuber/s will have said "just as transmissible whether vaccinated or not".

Wrong. Don't answer for me.
And you seem to have some picture in mind which can't be updated no matter what I say about that. No nuance at all.
This type of thinking seems prevalent here, where credentials come before everything. If someone isn't stamped with a seal of approval from some official organization, then no need to listen to them, what they say is invalid. That's not how things work. Things are far more complex than that.


The information I've heard from everywhere has been "it's transmissable whether you get vaccinated or not." That's it. It's not "from an amateur youtuber."
That's why we're still wearing masks, even vaccinated people.
If I missed the part that it's "less transmissable" then that's my mistake, I've only heard the "also transmissible" part. From everywhere, IRL, here, mainstream media, etc. So if this is common knowledge and I missed it, then entirely my bad.

Your question was based on a proposition (an entirely wrong one) about some extreme action being the only way to solve a problem.

You apparently find vaccine mandates extreme.

This is apparently based in part on seeing vaccination as a personal decision just about your own body. I've already said to you: that's not how infectious diseases work, and nor is personal protection the sole reason for vaccination (same as it isn't for masks). I'm not even sure it's the MAIN reason for vaccination. Certainly not from the perspective of an epidemiologist.

Close.
First of all, would you do it? Would you advocate for installing cameras in everyone's homes in order to prevent gun deaths? Yes or no.

If no, then it's because at some point you aren't willing to trade your freedom (to live unobserved) of your and others' safety (there will be no mass shootings).

Why, if you don't own any guns? Because it would feel super uncomfortable to be observed 24/7. You need to feel free from the watchful eye of the government sometimes, right?

It's about the theme of trading freedom for safety, and people's relative tolerances to it.

The opposite argument being made is about drunk driving or seatbelts- that people who are anti-mandates support these laws- they are giving up some freedom for safety. But it's a fair trade-off to most people. Some people may not, in that case they are quite extreme (or drink all the time).

If you want to understand why people are anti-mandate, you have to understand this spectrum. Some people are more willing, some are less. Vaccine mandates probably fall somewhere in the middle. Everyone falls slightly differently on the spectrum. Just imagine shifting a bit and you can understand anti-mandate people better.

People don't feel right being forced to do something they feel uncomfortable or uncertain about.

And on top of that, is it really worth forcing young people to get a vaccine which has only been out for a year, in order to save mostly older people from dying from it? The uncertainty is about the long term effects. How does that not feel questionable? What if a certain percentage of children develop lifelong health problems ten years from now- was it really worth it to save grandpa, who only had ten more years to live?

(having said that, I'm not so against it that I'd be in the street protesting, but I'm somewhat against it)

[Madiel]

First of all, would you do it? Would you advocate for installing cameras in everyone's homes in order to prevent gun deaths? Yes or no.

If no, then it's because at some point you aren't willing to trade your freedom (to live unobserved) of your and others' safety (there will be no mass shootings).

No, I wouldn't do it because it's NOT NECESSARY. As I said in the post now deleted and in another one above which you seem to have ignored, I live in a country where we don't have mass shootings, without the need for installing cameras. Your claim that installing cameras is necessary in order to prevent mass shootings is bunk. Your whole argument stems from a ridiculous premise. You're apparently offended by me calling it ridiculous, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Go to any other country in the world and you will find we don't have these regular mass shootings, and don't worry about our kids getting shot at school, and yet you'll also find that we don't have government cameras in our houses.

The problem is not a lack of cameras. The problem is that you're the kind of American who is unable to notice that the rest of the planet is not America and is also quite unable to conceive that the rest of the world might be able to teach you something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27No_Way_To_Prevent_This,%27_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens

Meanwhile, when it comes to coronavirus, the USA vaccination rate is reportedly 62.4% with wild variation between different states (the same data gives me 57.4% for Texas). Australia's vaccination rate is at 92.0% for adults (I don't know if the USA data I've found is adults or total population), and here in Canberra it's reportedly 98.5% for adults. So I would argue that yet again we have a situation where methods for dealing with a problem are available and a significant proportion of the American population just doesn't want to use them.

As for it not being younger people dying, tell that to the family of the 23-year-old local who died this week. He was vaccinated (2 shots, not a 3rd booster). He was lower risk on account of age, and did what he could to reduce the risk. He still died. All of this is about risk reduction. You're correct in one sense that it's about a spectrum of things and a cost-benefit analysis, but it's a really, really terrible argument to just point to something with a MASSIVE cost and (contrary to your assertion) no real benefit as if that's relevant to the discussion.

[SimonNZ]

Wrong. Don't answer for me.

I'm repeating what you've said elsewhere as a supposed badge of your freethinking independence.

So what are these sources then? You're still not saying.