People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, ChaiyaTH said:

The abuse of truths whilst spinning the words and measures needed to take is incredible. Similar to governments using the word 'scientific' for so many things that are not. But the worst of them all are people who then claim all that is actual science and absolute truth. 

For example: the best available medical masks contribute to XYZ. Reality: people wearing dirty hand made useless masks for days in a row and claim the full benefits of the high grade medical masks and hide behind the word 'science'. That is even the most innocent example of what is going on.

Misinformation. Totally. Masks work. Science has proven this.

[Longwood50]

18 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Misinformation. Totally. Masks work. Science has proven this.

Well I would say that the devil is in the details. 

Do seat belts and air bags work?  Yes but do they prevent all traffic deaths - No

The same is true of masks, social distancing, vaccines, temperature checking, etc.   They are "effective' but in a limited way. 

If masks were truly effective in preventing the vast majority from catching covid there would not be a pandemic. 



 

[ozimoron]

7 hours ago, codemonkey said:

Insofar as design basis of covid vaccines did not include preventing spreading the virus, 3X "likely" is ok.

But, I think now the real world data is showing a very different outcome and conclusion when one considers the substantial outbreaks in exceptionally well-vaccinated places like Israel, Malta and Vermont, **Singapore, and others make it clear that pushing up vaccination rates does not guarantee control of Covid-19, especially infection rates by anyone regardless of vaccine status.

Breakthrough cases are sky rocketing as we speak and many fear grossly under reported by the CDC to avoid panic response.

Vaccine waning concept is another pressing and very concerning issue.

Tough sledding ahead with or without vaccination. I'm going to hide in the Alaskan wilderness or build an igloo in Tuktoyactuk or whatever it's called.

** Link considers comparison of viral loads, not vaccine rates.

misinformation without attribution aka BS

[codemonkey]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

Apparently not

CDC study: COVID vaccine stronger than natural immunity

 A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that vaccines offer much stronger immunity to COVID-19 than natural immunity.

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 200 hospitals across the country, and concluded that COVID vaccines still offer better protection than a previous COVID infection. Specifically, the CDC report found that unvaccinated adults with previous COVID infection were 5.49 times more likely to be re-infected than fully vaccinated individuals with no previously documented infection.

https://www.wfla.com/community/health/coronavirus/cdc-study-covid-vaccine-stronger-than-natural-immunity/

Yeah, I saw that report.

In Table 1 it shows that out of CDC selected people hospitalized with Covid-19 like illness, in the period of Jan-Sept 2021:
    •    1,020 were unvaccinated with a previous Covid infection
    •    6,328 were vaccinated without previous Covid infection

Totals in the data set group to have 7,348 persons (1,020+6,328). In this group of sick people, 86% of sick hospitalized people are vaccinated without previous Covid, and only 14% are unvaccinated who had Covid before.

 

Vaccinations may have been more effective in suppressing covid spread early on, maybe, with the original covid variants, Alpha, Beta but now it seems Delta is presenting bigger problems and challenges all across the spectrum of covid management efforts.

 

MMRW | OCT29

pdf icon PDF [240K]

[The Cipher]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

You're not thinking clearly.

It always amuses me when members of this board accuse me of not thinking through my positions or assume that they have insight that I hadn't previously considered. I don't have too much else to add on this topic now other than what I've already written on this thread.

 

I could detail the math and logic of my position in the context of the global marco and also break down the fundamental presuppositions behind different Covid viewpoints, but I don't have confidence that doing so would meaningfully aid audience understanding at this point.

 

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

I like to think that if I were in battle, I would behave bravely, too. But I don't know that since I'm not battle tested.

There's no way you could know this, since I'm just an online anon to you, but one thing I take some pride in is that my courage is not in doubt. It's only via the struggle that we overcome our fears, and only by seeking to achieve despite the knowledge that we might fail that we actualize as people.

[Salerno]

2 hours ago, codemonkey said:

Totals in the data set group to have 7,348 persons (1,020+6,328). In this group of sick people, 86% of sick hospitalized people are vaccinated without previous Covid, and only 14% are unvaccinated who had Covid before.

Which ignores the fact 9% of unvaccinated that had already had covid tested positive and only 5% of those vaccinated and never had covid tested positive according to the graphic. So how does that sit in the natural v vaccine debate?

[Scott]

A post with false or misleading information has been reported and removed. 

 

[codemonkey]

12 hours ago, Salerno said:

natural v vaccine debate

Clarify the quoted.

Edited November 2, 2021 by codemonkey

[Scott]

11 hours ago, codemonkey said:

Clarify the quoted.

I am not going to try and clarify the quote, per se,  but we need to be careful in looking at the number of vaccinated people with breakthrough cases versus the number of people who have had Covid and get a 2nd infection. 

 

The data may be correct, but the analysis may need some interpretation.   The earliest groups vaccinated in most places were elderly and immunocompromised.  In most places vaccination rates were high with this group.  As the age groups got younger, vaccinations got fewer and were given later.  

 

We know that older people and immunocompromised have a less robust immune system and waning antibodies earlier on MAY contribute to a higher rate of breakthrough cases.  

 

As far as natural immunity (or innate immunity) and vaccine-related immunity are concerned, this will take some time to find out what is happening and why.   In the end a vaccine only helps to point our immune system in the right direction.  Vaccines, in themselves, do not fight any disease.  

 

Our immune system will mount a response to almost any foreign material.  The immune cells have a very high rate of mutation, and if one of those mutations is particularly good at fighting the virus, it gets selected and reproduces.  If we are lucky, that right combination will happen quickly and we will experience mild symptoms and a fast recovery.  The vaccine simply tells the body what will work, drastically speeding up the process.  

Getting vaccinated is a little like knowing 4 numbers for a 5 number lottery.  Your chances of winning are much better.  

 

 

[Salerno]

13 hours ago, codemonkey said:

Clarify the quoted.

There are people claiming the bodies natural immune system is better than any vaccine and using it as an argument to not get vaccinated, there are people claiming that you'll have better protection if you catch covid (ignoring the small issue it could be terminal or have long lasting detrimental consequences) than if vaccinated and using that as an argument against vaccines.

 

Those people also tend to be members of the same cohort that point to infection rates "in exceptionally well-vaccinated places like Israel, Malta and Vermont, Singapore, and others" to claim vaccines aren't really working to help get on top of the situation and they also tend to quote figures and graphs out of context they believe support their side of the debate.

 

My question to you was, given the figures you chose to highlight from the study "In this group of sick people, 86% of sick hospitalized people are vaccinated without previous Covid, and only 14% are unvaccinated who had Covid before." (which on the face of it looks quite shocking) which side of the natural immunity v vaccines debate do you think those figures support?

[sezze]

17 hours ago, codemonkey said:

Clarify the quoted.

Natural immune system vs vaccine is stupid .

A vaccine is to trigger and learn your natural immune system , in case the real thing comes along . A vaccine does not stay in your body , it shows your body something which is "harmless" but still looks similar enough for your body to respond to it . Vaccinated or not , does not make any difference in that way , since basically both are natural immune system . Only difference is that the vaccinated person's immune system should have encountered a similar thing inside it's cells so it reacts faster and solves it before getting sick .

You could do more or less the same by giving people the actual virus , and hope they do not get sick or die . The vaccine however got a lot larger chance of having no sick/death then the actual virus .

[Oblomov]

On 10/30/2021 at 7:02 AM, The Cipher said:

After having to register for my third vaccine passport in the last month (this time with gov-mandated authenticator app!) I have decided to go on a (probably ill advised) rant.

 

I'm a pro-vaxxer. I got vaccinated and generally encourage other people to do the same. But bluntly, I believe that it's every individual's choice to get or not get the vaccine. We need to just accept that and open up. Like, 100% open up. If they die, they die. If they pass it to a vulnerable person and the vulnerable person dies, they die. If they pass it to me and I die, I die. The ongoing disruption of normal life at this point is ridiculous. Like, it's legit insane.

 

On a percentage basis, Covid has always only killed very small amount of people. As we learned more about the disease, that rate declined. And as vaccines rolled out and continue to roll out across the world, that rate has declined further. At this point we are looking at rates well below 1% mortality in fully vaccinated persons. Please don't @ me with "bUt MiLliOnS oF pEopLe." If you want to say that, all you're really saying is that you don't understand percentages and you're bad at math (among other things).

 

At some point during the pandemic, society seems to have collectively decided that its overriding imperative was to prevent Covid cases at all costs. All other considerations be damned. As far as I'm aware that was never debated at any point, and the logic of the premises underpinning that idea never came under scrutiny. Most people aren't even aware that it's a values judgment rather than a fundamental truth or necessity (if you understand this, try and explain it someone and watch their brains contort in any attempt not to process. You might even see it in responses to this post). People were scared, and that made restrictions politically expedient. The result? This single minded obsession with minimizing case counts regardless of the proportionality of measures taken to that effect.

 

At this point we're still seeing panic of single digit deaths per day. In some parts of the world determined to stick to a zero Covid policy, we see mass restrictions over even a single new case. Like, are you serious? Does it not occur to people at any point how absolutely disproportionate measures are now to risk? Many countries (with vaccine saturaiton 70%+!) are still maintaining abnormal measures affecting day to day life, to say nothing of high barriers to international travel. It's unbelievable.

 

How much inconvenience are we going to have to endure before we just nut up and get on with it? Like, if you're a person who genuinely thinks Covid is still a big deal, what specific rate or number would be the threshold at which you would no longer feel that arduous measures were warranted? Have you even thought about it? Because I'm betting you haven't.

 

Ok rant over. I feel less frustrated now. As you were, lads. Carry on.

Perfectly worded rant buddy 

[Oblomov]

1 minute ago, Oblomov said:

Perfectly worded rant buddy 

Another percentage we should all look at is what percentage of our lives we are going to squander by fixating on this solely, as we approach 2 years of panic and then chaos to lives and livelihoods caused by this panic. And of course of the absence in the dialogue of our own responsibility to our own health -  health services globally are buckling under tremendous extra burdens linked to the global obesity emergency.  

 

It would be illuminating to see accurate data of those having the worst outcomes from this virus - my family members and close friends work in these emergency treatment areas and are quite clear that obesity and pre-existing and serious conditions (as well as old age) elicit the worst outcomes.

 

 

 

 

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.

 

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, Oblomov said:

It would be illuminating to see accurate data of those having the worst outcomes from this virus

I would say death is the worst outcome. 

it is reported over 5 million dead worldwide from the virus. Given that many countries under report , it is argued by many that the number can be three times as high. (15 millions) .

In comparison  the number of dead from World War 2 was about 75 million. 

 

It is safe to say that if the measures that were taken had not been. the deaths from covid 19 could had been close to, if not greater than World War 2, 

 

[Salerno]

[Credo]

I pay precious little attention to anti-vaxxers.  Unless they start spouting nonsense, I give them a pass.  If you want to forego employment because your employer requires it, that's fine with me.  I won't be encountering you working in a store.  If you want to forego the countless other things, like getting on a plane or train or long-distance bus, then fine with me.  You are welcome to sit in your ever-narrowing world and not be vaccinated.   Oh, and if you want to forego being able to get a visa to stay in Thailand or even to visit, it's no skin off my back.

 

Enjoy your ever dwindling world.

[Oblomov]

13 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I would say death is the worst outcome. 

it is reported over 5 million dead worldwide from the virus. Given that many countries under report , it is argued by many that the number can be three times as high. (15 millions) .

In comparison  the number of dead from World War 2 was about 75 million. 

 

It is safe to say that if the measures that were taken had not been. the deaths from covid 19 could had been close to, if not greater than World War 2, 

 

The point missed, being that there are medical reasons a virus is more virulent in a particular host - those that died in wars were mostly healthy younger people, often conscripted, and were undoubtedly killed by a single act of violence.

 

No comparison

 

As a species, to survive this and the next virus, a more robust effort to improve our own chances by our own choices in our own good health.

 

 

 

 

[The Cipher]

43 minutes ago, sirineou said:

it is reported over 5 million dead worldwide from the virus. Given that many countries under report , it is argued by many that the number can be three times as high. (15 millions) .

In comparison  the number of dead from World War 2 was about 75 million. 

 

It is safe to say that if the measures that were taken had not been. the deaths from covid 19 could had been close to, if not greater than World War 2, 

Have said this before. Will say it again. Please, let's get used to looking at large numbers in percentage and trend terms. Just spitting out raw figures is extremely unhelpful.

 

There were roughly 2.5B people at the onset of WW2. There are roughly 7.8B people on Earth now. A population increase of more than 200% from the time of the War. As a result the same number of casualties, which by the way we are nowhere near, would be significantly less severe a shock now than it was then. If we assume that Covid has broad mortality of 1%, which might even be a generous assumption in this case, the disease would need to infect approx 100% of humanity to match WW2's death toll. That 5 million deaths is less than one tenth of one percent of population.

 

The other thing I feel compelled to add relates to the death count. So many people seem to panic that the death count is rising, but of course it is. it is impossible for it to go down. Every year the total number of people lost to cancer, or car accidents, or <insert cause of death here> rises too. Why? Because time is passing. As a result we should be looking at changes in trends and rates over time.

 

Final point. Measures to fight the pandemic are not costless. The cost is time, money, and lost utility. What are we sacrificing to save each incremental life, and is it proportionate to the risk at hand? Perhaps that is a question we should start asking ourselves at some point.

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, The Cipher said:

Have said this before. Will say it again. Please, let's get used to looking at large numbers in percentage and trend terms. Just spitting out raw figures is extremely unhelpful.

 

There were roughly 2.5B people at the onset of WW2. There are roughly 7.8B people on Earth now. A population increase of more than 200% from the time of the War. As a result the same number of casualties, which by the way we are nowhere near, would be significantly less severe a shock now than it was then. If we assume that Covid has broad mortality of 1%, which might even be a generous assumption in this case, the disease would need to infect approx 100% of humanity to match WW2's death toll. That 5 million deaths is less than one tenth of one percent of population.

 

The other thing I feel compelled to add relates to the death count. So many people seem to panic that the death count is rising, but of course it is. it is impossible for it to go down. Every year the total number of people lost to cancer, or car accidents, or <insert cause of death here> rises too. Why? Because time is passing. As a result we should be looking at changes in trends and rates over time.

 

Final point. Measures to fight the pandemic are not costless. The cost is time, money, and lost utility. What are we sacrificing to save each incremental life, and is it proportionate to the risk at hand? Perhaps that is a question we should start asking ourselves at some point.

You fail to get the point. The point is not that covid is not as bad ass World War 2.

[sirineou]

52 minutes ago, Oblomov said:

The point missed, being that there are medical reasons a virus is more virulent in a particular host - those that died in wars were mostly healthy younger people, often conscripted, and were undoubtedly killed by a single act of violence.

 

No comparison

 

As a species, to survive this and the next virus, a more robust effort to improve our own chances by our own choices in our own good health.

 

 

 

 

I am not going to argue WW2 a quick google search will show you who dies during WW2 and how. 

I don't get your point in the second paragraph. are you arguing that we should eliminate the weak a vulnerable e among us? 

[Jeffr2]

26 minutes ago, The Cipher said:

Have said this before. Will say it again. Please, let's get used to looking at large numbers in percentage and trend terms. Just spitting out raw figures is extremely unhelpful.

 

There were roughly 2.5B people at the onset of WW2. There are roughly 7.8B people on Earth now. A population increase of more than 200% from the time of the War. As a result the same number of casualties, which by the way we are nowhere near, would be significantly less severe a shock now than it was then. If we assume that Covid has broad mortality of 1%, which might even be a generous assumption in this case, the disease would need to infect approx 100% of humanity to match WW2's death toll. That 5 million deaths is less than one tenth of one percent of population.

 

The other thing I feel compelled to add relates to the death count. So many people seem to panic that the death count is rising, but of course it is. it is impossible for it to go down. Every year the total number of people lost to cancer, or car accidents, or <insert cause of death here> rises too. Why? Because time is passing. As a result we should be looking at changes in trends and rates over time.

 

Final point. Measures to fight the pandemic are not costless. The cost is time, money, and lost utility. What are we sacrificing to save each incremental life, and is it proportionate to the risk at hand? Perhaps that is a question we should start asking ourselves at some point.

You were just given the large numbers.  Probably 15MM people have died.  Millions more hospitalized. 

 

Nuff said.  No extra justification needed.  Coronavirus is bad and jabs are our only way out.

[The Cipher]

Sometimes I wonder if there are people who are just physically incapable of understanding relative values. It's gotta be like, coded into DNA or something. The 'unable-to-understand-percentages' gene.

[Jeffr2]

39 minutes ago, The Cipher said:

Sometimes I wonder if there are people who are just physically incapable of understanding relative values. It's gotta be like, coded into DNA or something. The 'unable-to-understand-percentages' gene.

I was a statistician for several years.  Many econometric modeling.  I know stats very, very, very well.  But you are discussing this pandemic like you are a covid denier, especially that 1% fallacy.  Raw numbers matter also.

[The Cipher]

32 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I was a statistician for several years.  Many econometric modeling.  I know stats very, very, very well.

I mean this in the most polite way possible, but I don't believe this for a second.

 

Ever talk to a data scientist or quant? If you have, there are telltale signs you can't miss.

Moreover, while you're free to disagree with me, none of your rebuttals have come at me from the perspective that a data guys' would have.

 

32 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

But you are discussing this pandemic like you are a covid denier, especially that 1% fallacy.

I deny absolutely none of the facts about Covid. There's also no fallacy in my writing. I have consistently attempted to put the numbers bandied about on here into context and that's it.

 

My aim is, and always has been, to show that our policy reactions are disproportionate to the threat and to argue that all normalization should occur immediately and without further moving of goal posts.

 

I am aware of where how a person could properly dispute my position, but so far nobody on here has figured out how to actually do it, although I've given hints a few times.

Edited November 4, 2021 by The Cipher
Formatting looked weird and I'm an aspie so I fixed it.

[Jeffr2]

14 minutes ago, The Cipher said:

I mean this in the most polite way possible, but I don't believe this for a second.

 

Ever talk to a data scientist or quant? If you have, there are telltale signs you can't miss.

Moreover, while you're free to disagree with me, none of your rebuttals have come at me from the perspective that a data guys' would have.

 

I deny absolutely none of the facts about Covid. There's also no fallacy in my writing. I have consistently attempted to put the numbers bandied about on here into context and that's it.

 

My aim is, and always has been, to show that our policy reactions are disproportionate to the threat and to argue that all normalization should occur immediately and without further moving of goal posts.

 

I am aware of where how a person could properly dispute my position, but so far nobody on here has figured out how to actually do it, although I've given hints a few times.

Believe it or not.  I got a masters in corporate finance.  Which involves lots of mathematics.  I was in this field for years, and combined with my degrees in economics, accounting and data processing, I did lots of modeling. Forecasting.  Stats.  I'm far from a quant! LOL.  Many who do stats are not quants either.

 

This was my early career.  After that, just sales and marketing for high tech companies.

 

You bash our policy reactions like a covid denier.  Were they perfect?  No.  Is the virus a new and unknown entity?  Yes.  Did politics get in the way?  YES!!!

[Jeffr2]

Only one of many, many articles saying that 1% is an incorrect stat.  Especially considering an under count of cases and deaths by perhaps 3x.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid19-mortality/fact-check-meme-features-outdated-covid-19-fatality-and-case-numbers-idUSL1N2QU1HA

 

VERDICT

False. Contrary to social media claims, COVID-19 death rates for the world and the United States (calculated by recorded fatalities and cases) exceed 1% as of September 2021.

[ozimoron]

26 minutes ago, The Cipher said:

My aim is, and always has been, to show that our policy reactions are disproportionate to the threat and to argue that all normalization should occur immediately and without further moving of goal posts.

Your aim has always been to downplay the virus, simple as that. Most people disagree with you.

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your aim has always been to downplay the virus, simple as that. Most people disagree with you.

Must be coded into his DNA or something.  Can't seem to understand what we're trying to tell him!  Or, doesn't want to believe it.  Who knows.

[The Cipher]

20 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I got a masters in corporate finance.  Which involves lots of mathematics.  I was in this field for years, and combined with my degrees in economics, accounting and data processing, I did lots of modeling. Forecasting.  Stats.  I'm far from a quant! LOL.  Many who do stats are not quants either.

So I'm a private equity investment analyst by trade. I work with some very talented data scientists and we discuss this topic with some regularity. In fact, in that instance I'm the one doing cheerleading for vaccines. And to be honest, the degree of vaccine hesitancy among numerics people surprises me. But I'm pretty confident that there isn't a problem with my math.

 

The broad mortality rate going forward is different than the broad mortality rate looking backwards. Why? Two main reasons. (1) As you've said, cases and deaths are undercounts. But cases are very likely to be more severely undercounted than deaths because it's a lot easier to notice deaths than asymptomatic cases; and (2) vaccine saturation at this point has pushed down severity and vaccines are readily enough available in many places that I don't see any case to protect skeptics that don't want that protection.

 

Besides that, arguing about mortality rate swings of tenths of a percent is irrelevant to my point that measures taken are disproportionate to risk. And at this point they're wildly so.

 

Anyway I'm not going to belabor this point more than I already have. I'm aware that many of you guys are older with backgrounds that make this discussion kinda fruitless for all involved, and it doesn't feel right to me to cause additional anxiety at this stage.