heybruce

Most if not all of these demonstrations are about requirements for unvaccinated people to quarantine or restrictions that prevent unvaccinated people from entering places where Covid can spread easily. These are restrictions designed to prevent the unvaccinated from spreading the disease. People choose to remain unvaccinated have to accept limits on behavior that can promote the spread of the disease. That is not the same as being forced to be vaccinated. Where are people demonstrating because they have a choice between vaccination and prison?

For someone who won't admit you are wrong, you aren't very good at keeping track of your arguments. I was replying to your post on page 9 of this topic: "But people who have no understanding of statistics are surprised when they see a big number, or when someone says "it's 150% more effective." You implied I used "a big number" to mislead people. I pointed out that I used "one and a half". You are the one who routinely used 150. Therefore, you are the one who tried to mislead people by using a big number. You also don't give the readers credit for much intelligence. I'm sure they've noticed that about you. Also, as I have explained many times, describing a 38% infection rate as one and a half times as great as a 25% infection rate is more informative than describing the difference as "only" 13%, which is your preferred approach. Using my logic, I would recognize an investment earning 10% a year as being twice as good as one earning 5% a year, while you would maintain they are essentially the same since there is only a 5% difference. Wrong, yet again. ???? Taxes pay for most of the cost of Covid care for Thai citizens. There are a lot more Thai citizens in Thailand than foreigners. Treatment of Covid and most other diseases is much more expensive than prevention.

Identify the demonstrations you are referring to and I'm sure I'll be able to tell why they are demonstrating. I seriously doubt the demonstrations are about forced vaccinations.

I don't know of anyone who got vaccinated because they were told to. I know that some people (health care workers, first responders, military) have been given the choice of getting vaccinated or finding a new job, but they did have a choice. I very eagerly got vaccinated because I wanted to stay healthy, visit elderly relatives without putting their lives at risk, and do my part to end the pandemic. I assume people who choose not to get vaccinated do so because these reasons mean little to them.

Your link shows nothing about the vaccination status of the people getting infected and dying. Based upon this incomplete information I would speculate that Omicron is taking a toll on the vaccinated in Israel, as it is doing in many countries.

Once again; no vaccine is 100% effective! The Covid vaccine is very good a preventing infection and even better at preventing death, but it is not perfect. Understand?

I meant to write that "prior infection provided slightly greater protection than double vaccinated without a booster against the Delta variant." Is that clear? The Delta variant showed that immunity decreased with time, which is why people are being asked to get booster shots. The CDC has shown that booster shots are very effective at reducing infection and death.

Still many unvaccinated people in Israel, though Omicron appears to be reducing their number. Can you explain the CDC study showing that the unvaccinated are 53 times more likely to die of Covid than the vaccinated with a booster shot? 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

Many seem to feel that a vaccine offering less than 100% protection is not worth considering.

No, the vaccines usefulness is not seriously diminished. You are still many times more likely to be hospitalized or killed by Covid 19 if you are unvaccinated.

Seriously? You don't know? Vaccines don't provide 100% protection. The unvaccinated provide a breeding ground for new variants. Covid restrictions will remain in place for everyone until the disease is brought under control. Etc.

I'm operating under the assumption that uninfected people do not spread the infection, and the vaccinated are far less likely to get infected. "During 2021, averaged weekly, age-standardized case IRRs among unvaccinated persons compared with fully vaccinated persons decreased from 13.9 pre-Delta to 8.7 as Delta emerged, and to 5.1 during the period of Delta predominance. During October–November, unvaccinated persons had 13.9 and 53.2 times the risks for infection and COVID-19–associated death, respectively, compared with fully vaccinated persons who received booster doses, and 4.0 and 12.7 times the risks compared with fully vaccinated persons without booster doses." 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 The CDC study is based on much more data and is more current. Plus, as I've explained repeatedly, the Lancet study does show that vaccination significantly reduces the risk of infection (you know, 38 is bigger than 25, etc.)

I wasn't required to get boosted, I chose to do so after assessing the evidence from reputable sources. I will continue to do so whenever evidence shows it is worthwhile. I also choose to eat when I'm hungry, even though I know I will be hungry again eventually. Some things are worth repeating. Yes, taxes pay for the vaccinations. They also pay for the unvaccinated who are treated in hospital, which is far more expensive than getting vaccinated.

The study shows that the greatest risk by far is being unvaccinated with no prior infection. Prior infection provided greater protection against double vaccination without a booster shot against the Delta variant, which was a reversal from earlier variants of the virus. Prior infection plus vaccination provided the greatest protection, so it is always a good idea to get vaccinated. The study does not show the effectiveness of booster shots, but another CDC study show that they give greatly reduce the risk of infection compared to fully vaccinated without booster shots, and even more so compared to the unvaccinated. 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 "

I routinely described the study as showing that people who were not vaccinated as being one and a half times more likely to get infected. You are the one who keeps going on about 150% more effective. Also, one and a half times more likely to get infected is much less misleading than continually stating 25% and 38% without mentioning the data of which the percentage is based on. Accusing me of being "misleading and disingenuous" for not referring back to the original study while you also failed to do so is misleading and disingenuous.

The stories of healthy athletes dying "on the pitch" following a Covid vaccination are lies put out by fringe anti-vax groups.

The vaccinated are less likely to catch and spread the virus. That's a good thing. Risk reduction in general is a good thing. Don't you agree?

You think a cruise ship owner who insists that passengers and crew have to be vaccinated is an authoritarian? Do you realize that people can choose to not go on cruises? People under authoritarian governments can't choose to go to other countries, at least not without great risk and difficulty.

The sources I trusted made it clear before the approval of any of the vaccines that no vaccine would be 100% effective. Less than two years ago they were hoping for 70% to 80% effectiveness at disease prevention. They also admitted that they did not know how long the effectiveness would last.

I don't mind. It's free, it only takes a short while, and it protects me from a disease that, according to friends and family who have had it, is best avoided.

I don't recall anyone expressing a fear of unvaccinated people, just a desire to bring the pandemic to an end as soon as possible and with a minimum loss of life. Living with a significant portion of the population unvaccinated means living with the pandemic significantly longer.

I posted that the unvaccinated in the study were one and a half times more likely to catch Covid. That is factually correct and informative. It is not misleading in any way.

Let's leave it at this--you maintain that the difference between a 25% infection rate and a 38% infection rates isn't significant. I, the Lancet, and epidemiologists believe the difference is very significant.

What I was saying was that business owners have a right and a responsibility to prevent their businesses from becoming viral hotspots, which is bad for business. Ask the cruise ship companies about it.

38% is slightly more than one and a half times 25%. That is informative and relevant. The difference between the percentages is less informative and less relevant. Using differences in percentages is a common technique for misleading marketing campaigns. As I've explained twice before, the difference between 25% and 38% is very significant when trying to contain the exponential growth of a disease. The Lancet study you cited agrees with me: "The SARs in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% in vaccinated and 38% in unvaccinated contacts. 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." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext