Are we just going to have to live with unvaccinated people across Thailand?

[pedro01]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

So much BS you've shared her. Throw out lots of irrelevant catchphrases. No amount of confetti that you toss at this can undo these hard facts. Not even an entreating  book about which was about economics not biology.  Instead of engaging with hard data you toss out irrelevant chaff.  And then you try to sneak in something personal like claiming you took the vaccine. To make you seem more reasonable. Social engineering? Or maybe you did take the vaccine? Who knows? Who cares? It's irrelevant. Unlike independently existent data.

 

And you don't seem to understand how doubting about data should work. Take your qualms about the vaccines for example. There has never been a vaccine that has been show to result in long term latent effects. But there are plenty of viruses that do just that. Obviously if fear of latent long term consequences was based on rationality, then it would make far more sense to take the vaccine than risk the possible latent consequences of a case of covid. But you say you got vaccinated despite the the long term risk of vaccination rather than because of the long term effects of not being vaccinated. Not rational at all.

 

We know that members of one political party have a far lower vaccination rate than the other. Polls say so. Breakdowns by votes in counties say so. And the numbers say so.  Unless you believe that the vaccines don't dramatically reduce the level of mortality it's inevitable that these poor deluded souls will suffer disproportionately. Do you believe that the vaccines don't make a dramitic difference in mortality rates? Do you have anything in the way of hard facts or data to counter the overwhelming difference in mortality rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated? You think expecting some huge last minute reversal is realistic? Some kind of data jujitsu? Whatever you base your arguments on has nothing to do with rationality.

lol

 

The book freakonomics isn't about economics - it is about people coming to conclusions that in hindsight should have beem obvious. You know - unintended consequences.

 

You know - people who didn't know how doubting about data should work.

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by pedro01

[Old Croc]

Several countries have announced they are opening borders to fully vaccinated visitors only, and Western Australia, for one, has similar restrictions on entry to restaurants and other public places .

 

All very well to bleat on about personal freedoms and choices on a forum, but the real world is legislating to deny such "freedoms" to the trypanophobes.

 

Time to test your resolve if you want to move through society again as before. 

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

22 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Yes it is. Along with big tech and the legacy media. After they pushed misinformation and censored truthful and accurate voices for the last few years all trust is gone. I lost my ability to post on social media for posting an opinion that turned out to be 100% true. Jack Dorsey may have apologized after his site kicked off the mother of all misinformation campaigns that led to censors banning those with common sense, but most media and censors did not.

Look at CNN's viewing figures and you will see the trust for the "liberal" media is gone.

You have the audacity to say it's not politcal and then go on a rant about "big tech' 'legacy media' and CNN. 

I wonder where you got that train of thought from?

[placeholder]

55 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

lol

 

The book freakonomics isn't about economics - it is about people coming to conclusions that in hindsight should have beem obvious. You know - unintended consequences.

 

You know - people who didn't know how doubting about data should work.

 

And you think all these expert medical statisticians and epidemiologists don't know about this stuff? And that somehow, it's all going to reverse somewhere down the line?  

And it isn't just your mention of Freakonomics that impeaches your comments which are basically a word salad.

[Aussie999]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

The article you quoted does not claim that masks don't work. It actually recommends the use of masks. Masks do work and are valuable. I stand by my point that without masks alone there would be many more cases and the health system would be under more pressure. Masks are very important until all the sociopaths get vaccinated and reduce the spread to manageable levels. Hopefully that's soon.

 

Here is an authoritive article on the value of SURGICAL masks

 

"The researchers found that after controlling for other factors, countries with cultural norms or policies that supported mask-wearing saw weekly per capita coronavirus mortality increase 16% during outbreaks, compared with a 62% weekly increase in countries without mask-wearing norms. "

 

https://theconversation.com/evidence-shows-that-yes-masks-prevent-covid-19-and-surgical-masks-are-the-way-to-go-167963

"The article you quoted does not claim that masks don't work," just where did I say they weren't, to a degree, not effective... you made that up.

[ozimoron]

On 2/9/2022 at 1:30 PM, Aussie999 said:

"The article you quoted does not claim that masks don't work," just where did I say they weren't, to a degree, not effective... you made that up..

I see the article you quoted is goneski...

[BKKBike09]

14 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

The CDC also updated their tracking data with similar comparisons for unvaccinated, fully vaccinated and boosted status involving COVID deaths during the early part of Omicron last December:

 

 

 

 

As the CDC noted in posting the graphics above:

 

"--People who were unvaccinated had a greater risk of testing positive for COVID-19 and a greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than people who were fully vaccinated.

 

--Unvaccinated people in all age groups had higher case and death rates than fully vaccinated people in the same age groups.

 

--Case and death rates for people fully vaccinated with any of the three vaccine types (Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen) were much lower than for unvaccinated people."

 

CDC source

So at the moment it looks like the unvaccinated in the US are 100 times more likely to die from Covid than the vaccinated+boosted? 0.1 / 100,000 vs 9.74 / 100,000.

 

Sounds terrifying. But the unvaccinated death rate is actually now lower in the US than the death rate in 2019 and 2020 from flu. Covid WAS really bad but now it isn't. 

 

CDC data in fact shows the average unvaccinated American is now, statistically, 5x more likely to die from an "unintentional injury" than from Covid.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db427.htm

 

At this stage in the pandemic surely it's time to start comparing Covid risk to that of other disease and accidents: time to stop living in fear.

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

15 hours ago, placeholder said:

They are not scientific experts. They are not virologists or epidemilogists. Even if you believe that economists are scientists, being a scientist in one field does not mean you have the knowledge to work in another field. . As critics of their findings pointed out, if they had a little more knowledge of the science, they couldn't have come to the conclusions they drew.

For one thing, as one scientist and critic pointed out, they didn't include those places where the virus never got a foothold. Places where strict lockdown measures were imposed from the start. That was left out of their analysis. Hasta la Vista, Australia! Goodbye New Zealand!  Instead, they looked at places where the viral threat grew and was met with lockdowns. But according to their analysis, that showed that lockdowns didn't work since rates kept rising for a while followed by deaths.  If they were epidemiologists or virologists they would have understood that lag time has to be accounted for. Basically they created a big statistical artefact and called it research.

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's like asking your accountant for advise on how to cure cancer..

 

Far too many people (especially right wing politicians and their groupies) have tried to justify their actions/inaction with the call 'but the economy!'. This has meant that literally millions of people have died for the sake of the economy (see USA, Brazil, Hungary, Montenegro, Bosnia etc)   https://www.movehub.com/blog/best-and-worst-covid-responses/. The article quoted by FarFlungFarng only focused on countries that had already done badly with Covid and tried to justify their thoughts with 'lockdowns made no difference'. Well I'm sure New Zealand, Australia and even Thailand (certainly at the start) would strongly diagree with that.  

I don't like anecdotal stuff but I have personally lost a lot of money because of lockdowns but I would gladly lose all of it if it saved my close friend who died at the age of 54 when the inept Thai government decided it was a good idea to let Songkran go ahead in 2021 (you know for the sake of the economy). Despite having no pre-existing conditions and being generally fit, he caight Covid and 3 weeks later was dead (this was pre-vaccine time). I can make money at any time; he's never coming back.

I don't think I'm alone with this. I'm sure the sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and associates of the 5.7 million people who have died so far would also gladly give it all up to have them back in their lives even for another 6 months/year.

 

So yeah, take your 'lockdowns didn't work' from a couple of econimists and stick it somewhere the sun doesn't shine. Like a coffin.        

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

35 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

So at the moment it looks like the unvaccinated in the US are 100 times more likely to die from Covid than the vaccinated+boosted? 0.1 / 100,000 vs 9.74 / 100,000.

 

I can't tell what exactly you're trying to compare to what in the above post, the way it's composed.

 

But I can offer one of the more recent death cause assessments I've found for the US regarding COVID -- which seems to contradict your claims above.

 

COVID-19 was the 2nd leading cause of death in the U.S. in January 2022

 

 

 

"Over the course of the pandemic, COVID-19 has frequently ranked among the top 3 leading causes of death in the U.S., with the exception of the summer 2021. In January 2022, COVID-19 took the lives of about 1,905 people per day on average. By comparison, heart disease, which is typically the number one cause of death in the U.S. each year, leads to the death of about 2,100 people per day, and cancer claims just over 1,600 lives per day, on average. A majority of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. have been among unvaccinated people."

 

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid-19-leading-cause-of-death-ranking/

 

 

---

Edited February 9, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, BKKBike09 said:

So at the moment it looks like the unvaccinated in the US are 100 times more likely to die from Covid than the vaccinated+boosted? 0.1 / 100,000 vs 9.74 / 100,000.

 

Sounds terrifying. But the unvaccinated death rate is actually now lower in the US than the death rate in 2019 and 2020 from flu. Covid WAS really bad but now it isn't. 

 

CDC data in fact shows the average unvaccinated American is now, statistically, 5x more likely to die from an "unintentional injury" than from Covid.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db427.htm

 

At this stage in the pandemic surely it's time to start comparing Covid risk to that of other disease and accidents: time to stop living in fear.  The

 

 

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.

[Desmondo69]

On 2/4/2022 at 7:47 AM, JayBird said:

Natural immunity helps you survive, but does not stop you from spreading the virus to someone else.

 

That someone else might have a weak or compromised immune system.

 

Same as how the flu travels everywhere, despite our natural immunity.  except covid travels much easier and hits a lot harder.

Are you suggesting the vaccine halts the spread,? 

[ozimoron]

42 minutes ago, Desmondo69 said:

Are you suggesting the vaccine halts the spread,? 

I'm pretty sure he's saying that vaccines reduce the spread dramatically in the case of delta and about half for omicron. Links to data have been posted many times.

 

[pomchop]

14 hours ago, MSMU1993 said:

You took my point and whitewashed it as your own--thanks.  But reducing spread and elimitating spread are not the same, and with the exceptionally higher transmissability, and lesser symptom of Omicron, it will work its way through the vaccinated population just as quickly as unvaccinated.  And that is my point - vaccines have been around long enough that most (if not all) have had the opportunity to get them.  Its time to open the country back up (while still taking precautions for those who are at risk (the very old, the very fat, the very young) so that our hard working population that is not at risk doesn't die from economic collapse and despair. We can do both and should.  

 

From John Hopkins

 

An effective vaccine will protect someone who receives it by lowering the chance of getting COVID-19 if the person encounters the coronavirus.

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, pomchop said:

From John Hopkins

 

An effective vaccine will protect someone who receives it by lowering the chance of getting COVID-19 if the person encounters the coronavirus.

I don't know whether you purposely misleadingly quoted this or were misled by some dishonest website. Given that you didn't provide a link, I suspect the former.  But here is the sentence you cited and the 2 sentences that follow that quote

"An effective vaccine will protect someone who receives it by lowering the chance of getting COVID-19 if the person encounters the coronavirus. More important is whether the vaccine prevents serious illness, hospitalization and death.  At this time, all three vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19."

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know

 

What does "more important" mean to you?

[pedro01]

22 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

True but we still also know that the majority are old, obese or otherwise ill already.

 

So should an 18 year old whonis healthy be forced to have a jab if they dont want to?

 

Naaaaaa

[Bkk Brian]

3 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

This OP is about vaccines not drugs

[pedro01]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

This OP is about vaccines not drugs

Not according the FDA that approve them

 

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/vaccine-development-101

 

"It is important to note that a vaccine is a drug. Like any drug, vaccines have benefits and risks"

 

"there is still a need for ongoing surveillance of vaccines after FDA-approval to identify uncommon adverse events or long-term complications that may occur"

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

Not according the FDA that approve them

 

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/vaccine-development-101

 

"It is important to note that a vaccine is a drug. Like any drug, vaccines have benefits and risks"

 

"there is still a need for ongoing surveillance of vaccines after FDA-approval to identify uncommon adverse events or long-term complications that may occur"

 

 

Totally different approval process for vaccines and drugs...

 

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html

 

[pedro01]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Totally different approval process for vaccines and drugs...

So what?

 

As the FDA says - there is still risks with vaccines  - even after approval. That is my point. I backed that up 

 

Why would drugs and vaccines need to be approved in the same way for that to be true? 

 

You guys are preaching the science as if it's final - I have show you why it isn't.  The FDA says it isn't. 

 

But just for you - here's a list of vaccines that have been withdrawn from the market - some for safety reasons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/

 

Science.

 

[onthedarkside]

A series of off-topic posts and replies on medications unrelated to COVID vaccines has been removed.

 

Also a post that mischaracterized past COVID vaccine comments by the current U.S. vice president, and ensuing replies.

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

So what?

 

As the FDA says - there is still risks with vaccines  - even after approval. That is my point. I backed that up 

 

Why would drugs and vaccines need to be approved in the same way for that to be true? 

 

You guys are preaching the science as if it's final - I have show you why it isn't.  The FDA says it isn't. 

 

But just for you - here's a list of vaccines that have been withdrawn from the market - some for safety reasons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/

 

Science.

 

So what you say...........lol. There are risks with every drug or vaccine taken even paracetamol, its  risk/benefit ratio that is important, approved covid vaccines have a far better benefit than the minute amount of risk associated per million people.

 

That list of a handful of vaccines you provided shows just how vigorous the follow up has been in any concerns even when unsubstantiated, within the first year of use. I see many of them were also withdrawn because they were no longer needed ie they had eradicated the disease or were no longer economically viable.

 

With more than 10.3 billion covid doses having been administered already across 184 countries, you would think that any concerns that the risks outweigh the benefit would have already been highlighted.

 

Never before have so many scientists got together to produce this feet with a mountain of scientific evidence to support their excellent achievements.

 

You say: "You guys are preaching the science as if it's final" Nobody is doing that, as variants move on so does the science behind the new vaccine developments and effectiveness of vaccines can always be improved. There are over 40 in human trials now, testing the science behind them. New vaccines on the horizon 

 

Thats in addition to those being developed that will be Omicron specific

 

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[pomchop]

On 2/9/2022 at 7:38 PM, placeholder said:

I don't know whether you purposely misleadingly quoted this or were misled by some dishonest website. Given that you didn't provide a link, I suspect the former.  But here is the sentence you cited and the 2 sentences that follow that quote

"An effective vaccine will protect someone who receives it by lowering the chance of getting COVID-19 if the person encounters the coronavirus. More important is whether the vaccine prevents serious illness, hospitalization and death.  At this time, all three vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19."

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know

 

What does "more important" mean to you?

IF you will go back and read the quote i was responding to it was..."...Being vaccinated keeps you from getting sicker.  It doesn't keep you from getting the virus, and doesn't keep you from passing the virus on."

 

this is MISINFORMATION....vaccinations have been proven to reduce transmissions.....and yes i did include the "more important" part....

[bkk_bwana]

On 2/4/2022 at 2:23 AM, webfact said:

For example, in Thailand, it became difficult to enter a restaurant or hotel without showing your full vaccination information on a government app

"Become difficult".  Really?  Where? I have eaten out dozens of times since restaurants reopened and never once had to show anything. I have visited several hotels and only once been asked to show proof of vaccination.

[johnnybangkok]

22 hours ago, pedro01 said:

So what?

 

As the FDA says - there is still risks with vaccines  - even after approval. That is my point. I backed that up 

 

Why would drugs and vaccines need to be approved in the same way for that to be true? 

 

You guys are preaching the science as if it's final - I have show you why it isn't.  The FDA says it isn't. 

 

But just for you - here's a list of vaccines that have been withdrawn from the market - some for safety reasons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/

 

Science.

 

As Bkk Brian has so eloquently pointed out to you, the science IS pretty final. We are talking over 10 billion doese WORLDWIDE! If there were any major problems (which you guys keep eluding to), we would have heard about it by now. For sure.

This idea that 'you just don't know", not 'all the science is in yet" debate really falls down by what you are literally seeing before your eyes. Countries are opening up, there's WORLDWIDE talk of 'living with Covid' business is getting back to sort some of normality and it's all thanks to the confidence the vaccines have brought. The numbers are huge; 

 

"In the period July to December 2021, the age-adjusted risk of death involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 93.4% lower for people who had received a third dose, or booster, at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people. 

In the period July to December 2021, the age-adjusted risk of death involving COVID-19 was 81.2% lower for people who had received a second dose at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people; for January to June 2021, this was 99.5% lower" 

 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31december2021

 

If I was one of the scientists involved in this huge success story, I think I'd be feeling a little bit underappreciated. right now when I read posts like yours.

 

 
 

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, pomchop said:

IF you will go back and read the quote i was responding to it was..."...Being vaccinated keeps you from getting sicker.  It doesn't keep you from getting the virus, and doesn't keep you from passing the virus on."

 

this is MISINFORMATION....vaccinations have been proven to reduce transmissions.....and yes i did include the "more important" part....

Absolutely my mistake. Sorry.

[rabang]

On 2/9/2022 at 6:38 AM, Old Croc said:

Several countries have announced they are opening borders to fully vaccinated visitors only, and Western Australia, for one, has similar restrictions on entry to restaurants and other public places .

 

All very well to bleat on about personal freedoms and choices on a forum, but the real world is legislating to deny such "freedoms" to the trypanophobes.

 

Time to test your resolve if you want to move through society again as before. 

 

 

The EU covid passport is at the moment valid until July and likely to be scrapped after that. Several countries have already stopped using it nationally.

 

Masks in the omicron era are probably useless and contribute only to the global pollution problem.

[pedro01]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

As Bkk Brian has so eloquently pointed out to you, the science IS pretty final. We are talking over 10 billion doese WORLDWIDE! If there were any major problems (which you guys keep eluding to), we would have heard about it by now. For sure.

This idea that 'you just don't know", not 'all the science is in yet" debate really falls down by what you are literally seeing before your eyes. Countries are opening up, there's WORLDWIDE talk of 'living with Covid' business is getting back to sort some of normality and it's all thanks to the confidence the vaccines have brought. The numbers are huge; 

 

"In the period July to December 2021, the age-adjusted risk of death involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 93.4% lower for people who had received a third dose, or booster, at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people. 

In the period July to December 2021, the age-adjusted risk of death involving COVID-19 was 81.2% lower for people who had received a second dose at least 21 days ago compared with unvaccinated people; for January to June 2021, this was 99.5% lower" 

 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31december2021

 

If I was one of the scientists involved in this huge success story, I think I'd be feeling a little bit underappreciated. right now when I read posts like yours.

 

 
 

Long-Term side effects would not be known at this point.

 

Or maybe you know something the FDA doesn't

[placeholder]

 

5 hours ago, pedro01 said:

Long-Term side effects would not be known at this point.

 

Or maybe you know something the FDA doesn't

What we do know is that no vaccine has ever been found to result in long term latent side effects. Whereas we do know that many viruses do. In fact, here's the latest news about covid's long term effects and it ain't good:

COVID-19 takes serious toll on heart health—a full year after recovery

https://www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-takes-serious-toll-heart-health-full-year-after-recovery

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, pedro01 said:

So what?

 

As the FDA says - there is still risks with vaccines  - even after approval. That is my point. I backed that up 

 

Why would drugs and vaccines need to be approved in the same way for that to be true? 

 

You guys are preaching the science as if it's final - I have show you why it isn't.  The FDA says it isn't. 

 

But just for you - here's a list of vaccines that have been withdrawn from the market - some for safety reasons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/

 

Science.

 

The only vaccine in that lists that was suspected of having a latent, long term effect was the HBV vaccine. And subsequent research showed that to be unfounded.

"In 1998, some research caused concern that hepatitis B vaccination might be linked with multiple sclerosis (MS), a progressive nerve disease. Numerous studies have evaluated a possible relationship between hepatitis B vaccination and MS. A large body of scientific evidence now shows that hepatitis B vaccination does not cause or worsen MS."

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/hepb-faqs.html

You've got nothing.

Clearly, your comments are clueless about probability.

[Danderman123]

14 hours ago, pedro01 said:

So what?

 

As the FDA says - there is still risks with vaccines  - even after approval. That is my point. I backed that up 

 

Why would drugs and vaccines need to be approved in the same way for that to be true? 

 

You guys are preaching the science as if it's final - I have show you why it isn't.  The FDA says it isn't. 

 

But just for you - here's a list of vaccines that have been withdrawn from the market - some for safety reasons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/

 

Science.

 

How about a list of viruses which have killed more people than vaccines?