heybruce
Advanced Member-
Posts
18,762 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Everything posted by 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.
-
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.
-
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®i_id=135884956&segment_id=81212&te=1&user_id=7ef4c302f3d7b72eda453d22c70af53e
-
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®i_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®i_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.
-
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