heybruce

Covid was the third leading cause of death in the US in 2020. Since the vast majority of deaths now occurring are of the one third of the population that are unvaccinated, then Covid is probably the leading cause of death for the unvaccinated. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm If there were vaccinations that prevented to two leading causes of death, heart disease and cancer, I would eagerly get them.

Has anyone been forced to get vaccinated at gunpoint? People responsible for the health and safety of others are required to do things that minimize risks to others. Do you consider a doctor who required to go through onerous hygiene requirements before performing surgery or he will be fired as being under duress? Treatment is far more dangerous, expensive, and risky than prevention.

Perceived safety reasons and safety concerns. A short list considering how long vaccines have been in use and the number of different types of vaccines.

Catching Covid also has risks, most notably death. Millions have died of Covid. How many have died from vaccines? Ongoing surveillance of vaccines is standard practice. However before release they are tested sufficiently to ensure the risks of adverse events or long-term consequences are very low. I am not aware of any serious long-term consequences from any kind of common vaccine. There is also ongoing surveillance of Covid to identify long-term complications. The complications identified are many and scary. "A growing number of studies suggest many COVID-19 survivors experience some type of heart damage, even if they didn't have underlying heart disease and weren't sick enough to be hospitalized. This latest twist has health care experts worried about a potential increase in heart failure." https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

What graph are you looking at? The graph you posted shows Covid 19 as the third leading cause of death in the US in 2020. That was before Covid vaccinations were available. If your claim that the unvaccinated are 100 times more likely to die of Covid than the vaccinated is correct, that means in 2021 almost all of the Covid deaths came from the 34% of the US population that are unvaccinated. More people in the US died of Covid in 2021 than in 2020, so that is a lot of unnecessary deaths.

Finally had time to look at the study. The numbers on waning booster effectiveness are based on a total of 68,489 Omicron cases between 27 November 2021 and 17 December 2021. It does not say how many of those occurred in people who had received boosters, however ten weeks before 17 December would be early October, when only a small fraction of the population had received boosters. The NHS staff didn't begin receiving boosters until mid-September. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58583610 That means the numbers used to assess the decline in effectiveness of boosters with time were too small to have confidence in the results. That is why the study has the warning: "These results should be interpreted with caution due to the low counts and the possible biases related to the populations with highest exposure to Omicron (including travellers and their close contacts) which cannot fully be accounted for." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf

Right. It's not like Thailand's military government supports or sympathizes with Myanmar's military government. Oh wait...it does: SOON AFTER General Min Aung Hlaing mounted a coup against Myanmar’s elected government, a year ago this month, the army chief wrote to the prime minister of next-door Thailand for advice. How, he asked Prayuth Chan-ocha, to build a flourishing democracy? https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/02/03/myanmars-generals-have-a-dubious-role-model-in-thailand The general was serious. As far as he and Prayuth are concerned, only "democracy" completely subservient to the military is acceptable. The governments of Thailand (military rule pretending to be a democracy) and Myanmar (not even pretending) are mutually supporting and have no intention of letting democracy interfere with their rule. The Bamar majority, during the brief period of quasi-democracy, made a major mistake in trying to structure government in a manner that kept all power with the Bamar. Hopefully they've learned better and will work with the ethnic regions to develop a system of democracy that allows some autonomy for the people who have lived in their regions for centuries .These ethnic states, understandably, do not want to be ruled by a far away central government with no concerns for the customs and traditions of any ethnic group other than the Bamar. First, of course, they must work together to completely eliminate the Tatmadaw. Thailand certainly won't help in that.

That is like asking "How did defeating Hitler benefit the world?". One can speculate on how bad things might be if Hitler had won or if there were no vaccines, but we can never know for sure. Do you think Australia is better off for not being invaded and occupied by Japan? Can you prove it? BTW: The yellow region represents the areas where the death count is most uncertain, though certainly much higher than indicated. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00104-8

It is the owners and managers responsibility to not expose customers and employees to unnecessary risks. If it is the opinion of the owners/managers that only allowing vaccinated customers onto the premises best fulfills this responsibility, then they should not allow the unvaccinated into the business. You do agree that "it's a free country" applies to people running private businesses, don't you?

1st generation vaccines were effective against the variants they were designed to. They are less effective against later variants, but still provide excellent protection against serious illness and death. New vaccines are being developed because the response to the virus must evolve as the virus evolves.

The goal has always been to get the R-value of the virus below 1 by getting a large portion of the population vaccinated with a vaccine that is effective enough to accomplish this. This would cause the pandemic to end. I'd explain further, but it gets kind of mathematical.

A short while ago you posted: "Regarding COVID vaccines, which is the topic being discussed, after a certain point, getting COVID boosters could have little benefit—and even might be detrimental. You do know that, right?" Where did you get that information? What are your sources? I provided a credible current source stating that fully vaccinated with a booster is 82% effective against Omicron infections. You have not presented any information regarding the effectiveness of vaccination with a booster. I assume you are conceding the 82% effectiveness is correct.

I'll try this once more. Omicron has repeatedly demonstrated a pattern of racing through populations with unvaccinated or unboosted populations. The infection rate shoots up rapidly than falls rapidly. That is what is happening in Portugal. The 10% who are not fully vaccinated and the 50% who are unboosted provide easy pickings for Omicron, but the infection rate will drop quickly once the easy pickings are exhausted.

Where did you get the idea that I don't know what a breakthrough infection is? I am pointing out that your own source starts with the CDC Director stating that breakthrough infections are rare. No, I mean the post that you have already replied to, the one that states: "Vaccines are 51% effective in preventing infection against Omicron, 38% effective if the final vaccination was more than six months ago, and 82% effective at preventing illness among those who are vaccinated and have a booster. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndrake/2022/02/01/vaccine-effectiveness-in-the-omicron-wave/?sh=63bbacd34ee6"

You stated earlier that boosters may lose effectiveness, but you have not provided a source for this claim. "Just as important, there are no data to support the effectiveness of a fourth dose of the current vaccines. " That's a statement of the obvious, very few people have received a fourth booster and it is too soon to judge the effectiveness. There is also no data showing a need for a fourth booster for people with a healthy immune system, but here to it is too early to say. Vaccinations and boosters provide a solution. Do you have an alternative?

OMG, you can't get this through your head: breakthrough infections are very rare. Your own source, the CDC Director interview from August 2021, began with the Director stating so. In her statement in which she said that vaccines don't prevent infection she was stating that in the rare cases of breakthrough infections the vaccinated people with these infections could infect others. She had already stated that vaccines greatly reduce the risk of infection. As indicated in an earlier post, vaccination with a booster are 82% effective in preventing infection against Omicron. Even if Omicron has an R-value between 3 and 5 https://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/12/17/22841186/omicron-variant-r-value-number-cases-double, 82% effectiveness will drive the R-value below 1 and stop the spread. However this will only work if almost everyone gets fully vaccinated and boosted.

Vaccines are 51% effective in preventing infection against Omicron, 38% effective if the final vaccination was more than six months ago, and 82% effective at preventing illness among those who are vaccinated and have a booster. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndrake/2022/02/01/vaccine-effectiveness-in-the-omicron-wave/?sh=63bbacd34ee6 I don't mind getting another vaccination/booster every six months. I get a flu vaccination every year and will get my second Shingles vaccination and the once every ten years hepatitis vaccination tomorrow. It's better than getting sick, infecting friends and family, and possibly dying.

Evidently I can not provide a link to the actual CNN Wolf Blitzer-CDC Director Walensky interview on Youtube, but you can find it easily. From the very beginning they make it clear that they are only talking about breakthrough infections. Director Walensky makes it clear that breakthrough infections are rare. Obviously that means vaccines greatly reduce infections. Walensky then explains that a person who has one of these rare breakthrough infections can infect others. That's no surprise. That is what she is talking about in your out of context quote.

That's the argument for vaccinations.

Portugal has 10% of its population not fully vaccinated and 50% haven't received boosters. The graph shows that about to 1/2% of the populations is getting infected daily. Once the partially vaccinated have been infected the rate of infection will probably drop quickly, as it has in other countries. Your charts do not distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated, but there is this: "People who are not vaccinated against Covid-19 have a mortality rate four times higher than those who are vaccinated, according to pulmonologist Filipe Froes." https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2021-12-25/unvaccinated-four-more-times-likely-to-die/64320

As has been repeatedly explained: Vaccines greatly reduce infections. They don't prevent all infections. There are a small number of breakthrough infections. People who have a breakthrough infection can infect others. That is what Director Walensky said. Did you listen to the interview so you could here her words in context? It's not that difficult. However if you are determined to prove the exception is the rule, I suggest you buy lottery tickets. By your logic, since some people who buy lottery tickets get rich it must be a common thing.

Listen to the interview: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=CDC+Director+Rochelle+Walensky+interview+wolf+blitzer&t=ffab&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTKFWGvvlVLI She says that vaccinated people who have a break through infection can infect others. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. She never said vaccinations don't reduce infections. "So if you're going home to somebody who has not been vaccinated, somebody who can't get vaccinated... I would suggest you wear a mask in a public indoor setting," Walensky stated."

The Lancet study used a limited time frame and a limited study population to show that people who were directly exposed to a person infected with Covid during the Delta surge had a 25% chance of infection if they are fully vaccinated and a 38% chance of infection if they are unvaccinated. I disagree with the study conclusion that the significant reduction in infection rates shows vaccination as ineffective at reducing transmission, but agree with its conclusion: "These results underpin the key message that vaccinated contacts are better protected than the unvaccinated. All breakthrough infections were mild, and no hospitalisations and deaths were observed." The study does present a strong argument for continued vaccination, social distancing, masking, exclusion of the unvaccinated from environments where transmission is likely (bars, theaters, cruise ships, etc.) and all the things the anti-vaxxers are protesting against. If your goal in presenting the study was to support an argument for vaccination, masking, and restrictions on activities of the infected and unvaccinated then we are in agreement. However I stand by my statement of the fact that, in this one, limited, dated study, the unvaccinated were one and a half times more likely to get infected. This is a significant difference, especially when considering the exponential nature of infection transmission. A more current, larger CDC study shows the tremendous advantage of being vaccinated with a booster. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220131&instance_id=51759&nl=the-morning&regi_id=135884956&segment_id=81212&te=1&user_id=7ef4c302f3d7b72eda453d22c70af53e

Actually I was correcting you when you twisted the study results in an attempt to make vaccines appear less effective than they are. Remember the study you are referring to? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext The 25% and 38% numbers come from a small Lancet study conducted over a limited time frame. A much bigger study by the CDC shows unvaccinated people to be 14 times more likely to catch Covid and 53 times more likely to die from Covid as vaccinated people with booster shots. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220131&instance_id=51759&nl=the-morning&regi_id=135884956&segment_id=81212&te=1&user_id=7ef4c302f3d7b72eda453d22c70af53e Vaccination with booster is not perfect, but it improves your odds of staying healthy and surviving tremendously. So yes, vaccines are absolutely awesome at protection.

As I explained earlier, the "natural immunity is better" claim was demonstrated to be true only for the Delta variant surge. It was not true for variants before Delta, has not been demonstrated for the Omicron surge, and has not been shown for vaccinated people with booster shots. However I believe most places with restrictions for the unvaccinated make exceptions for people who can prove that they have had and recovered from Covid. However claiming you've had Covid is not good enough, you must show medical proof.