Chomper Higgot

You’re trolling. It was you who introduced the observation of a doubling of the infection rate, with your: “Remember that Delta is only about twice as infectious as the previous one. Does that graph look like the work of a virus that is only twice as infectious as the previous one?” I and others have demonstrated that (only) a doubling of the infection rate is not in any sense insignificant. There’s nothing ‘only’ about it. What you failed to address in your observation is all the other ‘real world’ influences on the graph, you might recall these are: lockdowns, social distancing, masks, isolating the infected, reputed public health messaging and vaccines. Now if you think there is something wrong with the graph, first YOU take these other issues into account otherwise the rest of us are quite right to point out your whole argument is based on your over simplistic view and a failure to understand even rudimentary math. Nobody here owes you mathematical modeling catch up classes.

You missed something. The examples of the R0 number series explain why a small change in how infectious a virus has a dramatic effect on the number of people potentially infected. Your simplistic ‘match the math to the graph’ ignores all the other influences on transmission of the virus: Lockdowns, masks, social distancing, isolation of those infected, vaccines and constant public health messaging.

Twice as infectious doesn’t sound like much does it?! So let’s give it a try. For the purpose of illustration let’s assume for COVID#1 R0= 2. Each person infected goes on to infect another 2. 1*2=2, then 2*2=4, then 4*4=8, then 8*2=16, then 16*2=32, then 32*2=64, then 64*2=128, then 128*2=256, then 256*2=512 and by the 10th iteration of transmission COVID#1 has infected 522*2 = 1024 people. Now let’s apply your ‘is only about twice as infectious’ to COVID#2 for ten iterations of transmission. Twice as infections R0 =4. 1*4=4, then 4*4=16, then 16*4=256, then 256*4=1024, then 1024*4=4096, then4096*4=16,384, then 16,384*4=65,536, then 65,536*4=262,144 and by the 20th iteration of transmission COVID#2 has infected 262,144*4=1,048,576 people. The Delta variant has an R0 that may be as high as 8. Do the math.

The truth or otherwise of your ten year prediction will only be revealed to those who live that long, the vaccines raise your chances of doing so. To clarify the points you raise. Nothing in this world is perfect, including vaccines. However, the vaccines significantly reduce the chances of serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID. The vaccines also significantly reduce the opportunity for the virus to spread. So yes, you can still catch COVID after vaccination but you are much less likely to become seriously ill, hospitalized or die than you would be without the vaccines. Yes you can still transmit the disease but you are less likely to spread it to others.

Yes, the vaccine does it’s bit.

The evidence is clear, the Delta Variant is highly contagious and causes a significantly greater incidence of serious illness, hospitalizations and death amongst the non-vaccinated. In the face of such morbid reality the question is not why people choose to take the vaccines, rather why so many do not. And if we are ever to go even near the question of the part altruism plays for some in accepting the vaccine, then surely we ought also examine the motivations of those who spend time and effort trying to discourage others from getting the vaccine. Spreading misinformation, outright falsehoods and repeatedly posting or referring to claims and or data/reports that have been roundly debunked. We know the virus is extremely infectious and often has dire consequences for the infected, up to and including a horrible death. What goes on in the head of people campaigning against the safe and effective vaccines? That’s a question that deserves an answer.

I know it’s difficult for some to even imagine altruism might play a part in the decisions others make.

*Deleted post edited out* The data from Israel has been examined multiple times in this forum. The data clearly demonstrates the significant reduction in serious illness, hospitalizations and deaths amongst those who are vaccinated over those who are not. Also explained many times is the misuse of ‘case numbers’, vaccinated people suffering a mild outcome are not comparable with unvaccinated people suffering severe outcomes, while both have equal weighting in ‘case numbers’. That such glaring discrepancies appear in an un published non peer reviewed ‘draft report’ is not a surprise. Neither is it a surprise that such a clearly suspect report is latched onto and repeated ad nauseam by Anti-Vaxxers.

I’d hazard a guess that the people (adults) acting contrary to the public health advice are predominantly also the people refusing vaccination. It would not be a surprise to see them failing to ensure their children follow public health advice, perhaps screaming and shouting in school board meetings against mask mandates for students. So in a sense you are right, it’s not simply the (by choice) unvaccinated, rather the whole basket of pro-Virus attitudes and behaviors.

Nobody is disputing the definition has been changed. What has been disputed and demonstrated a falsehood is your claim as to why the definition was changed.

Well there’s a shocking surprise.... not!

I tell you what I think. Somebody fed you the falsehood surrounding the change in definition of a vaccine, rather than spending a little time checking* if that were true, it suited your own agenda so you posted the falsehood here. * Had you read and inwardly digested the article you linked to you would have realized you were latched onto this falsehood. Now, unable to defend the falsehood with facts, you resort to implying some kind of conspiracy. As I said earlier: There is no basis for your claim regarding why the definition was modified, you even provided a link to an article that clearly debunks the claim (which I thanked you for). Rather than dreaming up ever more slippery ‘defenses’ I suggest you examine where you get these demonstrable falsehoods from and why it is you don’t check them before reposting them here.

You asserted the definition was changed because the new vaccine(s) could not meet the old definition. Your assertion was a falsehood, which is why it is being criticized. You are not being attacked.

So you make two claims, but at last give us the link: Why would I or anyone else wish to discredit this link? The article clearly outlines the reason for the change in definition, which was not as you asserted because the ‘vaccines didn’t meet the true definition’. The article provides an insight into the ‘with us or gainer us’ behind the ‘conspiracy’ insomuch it’s being promoted by Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky - no surprises that he’s a Republican. What he is not is any kind of medical professional and has no education or experience on the field of virology or vaccines. Not a problem, the article gives an explanation for the definition from the CDC, which is replete with medical professionals and virologists. So: 1. Your assertion that your link would be discredited is unfounded. 2. Your assertion for why the definition was changed is unfounded. Thanks for posting the informative link.

You’d have to provide the link first.

She herself may have been infected and infectious for some days. I would seek medical advice from a doctor but it might be prudent to keep your business closed a day longer while you get all your staff, and yourself, tested,

Or so you assert. However, we do have a string of examples of how anti-vaxxers respond to any basis of their objections being proven wrong - they invent another objection. An endless stream of guff.

I think that is very true.

‘Normalcy’? Far too many people are still getting sick, far too many people are still winding up in hospital and far too many people are still dying of this wretched disease. Or do you seek to ‘normalize’ the almost entirely unnecessary suffering others still face?

A picture tells a thousand words. No defense is perfect, but layers of defense can be extremely effective:

What you are missing Charlie is in your use of language, which I suspect was fed you. Replace ‘Does not stop’ with ‘Significantly reduces’.

COVID is hunting all of us. The unvaccinated are it’s easy prey.

His skills in math didn’t extend to understanding risk. RIP to him and those he convinced to follow his lunacy.

I guess you believe all those people in Congress whining on and on with their ‘vaccines are the chains of slavery’ or some such nonsense have not themselves been vaccinated. As Biden pointed out when he announced his welcome mandate, lots of businesses were already mandating vaccines for those working in their premises - including FOX News. Which explains why Carlson was whiny on about his objections to the mere question of vaccination status.

This has got to be hurting UK colleges and universities. The party of business has lost it’s way.