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

[Aussie999]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Hang on, didn't you say that vaccines don't stop people from getting infected?

Absolutely... what vaccines do is boost your immune system, to enable it to fight the virus, so the effect, of the virus, is reduced, to, in most cases, not much more than a mild flu.... if that, we all mix, on buses, trains etc... so why worry about a cafe, restaurant, bar etc, let's face it, we will ALL get a dose of covid, it's unavoidable.

[Aussie999]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Well great we both agree that there is a higher risk of the unvaccinated transmitting the virus. 

 

Now, do you understand why some business owners deny entry to the non vaccinated? Do you think some vaccinated customers who like to keep themselves safe by not mixing in crowded buses/trains etc and instead apply sensible measures due to concerns for their own health would welcome an environment like that, where everyone is vaccinated so reducing the risk a little?

I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining myself clearly, or you're deliberately not understanding, vaccinated people have "protected" themselves as much as they can, eventually, if they already haven't, they will get the virus, and hopefully they will no be severely affected.. so why not mix with the "unclean," unvaccinated, why get vaccinated, if you have to worry about the unvaccinated... do you suggest the unvaccinated should be made to wear a label... mm, a big syringe, with a line through it, or walk down the street, ring a bell.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining myself clearly, or you're deliberately not understanding, vaccinated people have "protected" themselves as much as they can, eventually, if they already haven't, they will get the virus, and hopefully they will no be severely affected.. so why not mix with the "unclean," unvaccinated, why get vaccinated, if you have to worry about the unvaccinated... do you suggest the unvaccinated should be made to wear a label... mm, a big syringe, with a line through it, or walk down the street, ring a bell.

There is still protection from the virus afforded by mask mandates and vaccine mandates. Why play russian roulette with any live bullets in the gun?

[Aussie999]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

It is the owners and managers responsibility to not expose customers and employees to unnecessary risks.  If it is the opinion of the owners/managers that only allowing vaccinated customers onto the premises best fulfills this responsibility, then they should not allow the unvaccinated into the business.

 

You do agree that "it's a free country" applies to people running private businesses, don't you?

I think you are trying, hard, not to understand what I am saying, but OK, believe what you want, but remember this fact, we are ALL going to get the virus, there is NO way to avoid it, whether you are in a restaurant, bar, etc, with unvaccinated  people, or not, so, banning anyone, is a waste of time, and, for a business, a loss of income... get vaccinated, that's all you can really do... or go live, on the moon.

[Aussie999]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

There is still protection from the virus afforded by mask mandates and vaccine mandates. Why play russian roulette with any live bullets in the gun?

Look around mate, in countries where there are mask mandates, the virus is still spreading, and quickly, as for vaccine mandates, I don't know any country that does.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

I'm not sure whether I'm not explaining myself clearly, or you're deliberately not understanding, vaccinated people have "protected" themselves as much as they can, eventually, if they already haven't, they will get the virus, and hopefully they will no be severely affected.. so why not mix with the "unclean," unvaccinated, why get vaccinated, if you have to worry about the unvaccinated... do you suggest the unvaccinated should be made to wear a label... mm, a big syringe, with a line through it, or walk down the street, ring a bell.

I understand you perfectly thank you. You agreed that the risk from transmission is more so in the unvaccinated than the vaccinated, this is already evidenced. 

 

As for the unvaccinated wearing a label, that seems to be a suggestion your putting forward and asking my opinion about which is nothing to do with my point.

[placeholder]

1 hour 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.

Thanks for the non answer.

And it's a really good indication of ridiculousness when someone cites a factoid like Jack Dorsey kicking his mother off of Twitter. That is is truly spectacular example of cherry picking.

As for cable news viewership, it skews far older and whiter than the average in the USA. What does that tell you?

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Saanim said:

But why is it so?  Does it mean that the people have always the same opinion as per their favorite party directives, not as per their common sense and/or a scientific knowledge?  

There's an extremely strong correlation on the US county level between counties that voted strongly for one party  or the other. The more strongly a county voted for one particular party the higher the rate of covid mortality. This divergence began after vaccines were introduced. What does that tell you about the relationship between party affiliation and common sense/scientific knowledge.

[ozimoron]

28 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

Look around mate, in countries where there are mask mandates, the virus is still spreading, and quickly, as for vaccine mandates, I don't know any country that does.

There are plenty of industries and professions which require vaccines in high risk environments. The virus is still spreading but it isn't logical to conclude that masks don't work because it's still spreading. In fact we know they do and the medical advice is to wear them near people. Obviously, if those mask requirements were not there the virus would spread much more than it already is.

[ozimoron]

18 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Past history is an indicator and past history is telling us we have built up immunity from the three shots most of us have already had. There's no reason to assume it's groundhog day just because there's a new vaccine. We already know each vaccine supplements the last.

[Bkk Brian]

18 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

Actually the US have given full approval for Pfizer back in August and recently also gave full FDA approval for moderna. However just for an explanation as to why these vaccines were developed in a shorter space of time then I suggest you read this as it covers just about all points that could be raised.

 

How did we develop a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/how-did-we-develop-a-covid-19-vaccine-so-quickly

 

18 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

No I did not contend that the potential new Omicron specific vaccine was a one shot deal at all. All I did was show you that when you said "This Pfizer vaccine may take that up to 7." this is totally incorrect. The first trial for it is with one additional dose to people with previous 2 shots of Pfizer. The second trial is for people who have already had 3 doses of Pfizer and have this as an additional shot. The third trial is for unvaccinated people to have 2 doses of the new vaccine with no additional shot.

 

 

 

 

[pedro01]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

Really? We know that opposition to vaccinations and such is highly correlated with the the political opinions of voters. Yet, it's somehow the fault of governments? 

This is true and it's a complex issue.

 

Me personally - I do not believe in politics or politicians. Every time they want your vote, they say what they will do - and then don't do it. By any measure, voting more than twice is being a putz. So it comes down to your "team".

 

I think politics and politicians will become obsolete one day - the system will be improved and surpassed by tech.

 

But you are bang on - but you seem to be on one side. Which means you are part of the problem. Look at CNN and FOX - half their shows are about how bad the other network is. Is that news. 

 

Some anti-vaxxers, I don't get. I don't understand religious excemptions.  I thought the fringe religions that don't accept blood transfusions were a tiny percentage. I do get people that already got covid not wanting a jab - I've just got over what was probably Omicron - so I don't want that one particularly. It seems pointless, wasteful - but I'd do an antibody test first (like my TB jab and hep b jabs) to see if I needed them.

 

But this nonsense about left/right and vilifying each other for taking the other side of a binary decision - that's the extreme of both sides. I don't listen to any of those people. 

 

But this is the fault of government and the other side that wants to be in government. It is a dividing tool and is being used as such. I don't want to play that game.

 

For me - just like the way people fall for politicians lies each election - I only need to be lied to a couple of times before I treat everything with suspicion - and so I am not buying this push for vaccines aside an incredible lack of discussion on therapy. 

 

Interestingly - a friend was telling me he'd read some research about approaches to hit the virus from a different angle and that this may lead to us being able to finally "cure" virii - don't have a link, it's hearsay - but something to look forward to.

 

But - if you think those with opposing views are idiots - then you are part of the problem. Debate isn't about "winning" - it's about understanding differnt perspectives. When there's only 2 choices - you gotta accept that others may go for the one you didn't. 

[pedro01]

On 2/7/2022 at 7:52 PM, chalawaan said:

No we are not going to have to live with them. Because if the eventual wave that gets them doesn't kill them the fifth wave or the next variant will. 

It just beggars belief there are still hold-outs who deny the data, who surely have to know that about five (FIVE!) anti-vax right wing shock-jocks are DEAD in the USA, yet still they dig in. I'll give them this, being willing to die for their beliefs is impressive. Not smart, but impressive all the same.

What about the people that had it already and got over it?

 

Shouldn't there be an antibody test people take and then get a pass if they have natural immunity?

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

This is true and it's a complex issue.

 

Me personally - I do not believe in politics or politicians. Every time they want your vote, they say what they will do - and then don't do it. By any measure, voting more than twice is being a putz. So it comes down to your "team".

 

I think politics and politicians will become obsolete one day - the system will be improved and surpassed by tech.

 

But you are bang on - but you seem to be on one side. Which means you are part of the problem. Look at CNN and FOX - half their shows are about how bad the other network is. Is that news. 

 

Some anti-vaxxers, I don't get. I don't understand religious excemptions.  I thought the fringe religions that don't accept blood transfusions were a tiny percentage. I do get people that already got covid not wanting a jab - I've just got over what was probably Omicron - so I don't want that one particularly. It seems pointless, wasteful - but I'd do an antibody test first (like my TB jab and hep b jabs) to see if I needed them.

 

But this nonsense about left/right and vilifying each other for taking the other side of a binary decision - that's the extreme of both sides. I don't listen to any of those people. 

 

But this is the fault of government and the other side that wants to be in government. It is a dividing tool and is being used as such. I don't want to play that game.

 

For me - just like the way people fall for politicians lies each election - I only need to be lied to a couple of times before I treat everything with suspicion - and so I am not buying this push for vaccines aside an incredible lack of discussion on therapy. 

 

Interestingly - a friend was telling me he'd read some research about approaches to hit the virus from a different angle and that this may lead to us being able to finally "cure" virii - don't have a link, it's hearsay - but something to look forward to.

 

But - if you think those with opposing views are idiots - then you are part of the problem. Debate isn't about "winning" - it's about understanding differnt perspectives. When there's only 2 choices - you gotta accept that others may go for the one you didn't. 

Stop pretending to be objective via the "both sides are wrong" gambit. Objective reality shows that people aligned with one political stance are dying at a greater rate. Their beliefs, in defiance of science, are killing them. So who are the idiots? Not surprisingly, these people are also far more likely to believe that human caused climate change is fake too. Those folks have long since turned their backs on science and rationality. They explain away uncomforable science as being the product of some sort of conspiracy. If only they suffered the consequences of their foolishness, I guess that would be fair. Sad, but fair. But their irrationality hurts everyone.

[pomchop]

15 hours ago, MSMU1993 said:

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. (the reason why mandates and restrictions should be lifted at this point) Everyone in Thailand at this point has had the chance to get vaccinated.  Those who haven't are taking a risk, and it is their risk to take - but I do think the health insurance companies (or the state) would be in line to charge those who refuse vaccination for the treatment costs - since they are essentially victims of a self inflicted wound. 

i'll trust john hopkins who clearly state that the vaccines LOWER the chance of getting covid 19.

 

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. 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.  Widespread vaccination means the coronavirus will not infect as many people. This will limit spread through communities and will restrict the virus’s opportunity to continue to mutate into new variants.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The U.S. CDC has recently updated their tracking info on vaccine effectiveness during the Omicron era, with some pretty interesting results (these results being based on the mRNA vaccines used in the U.S.):

 

Rates of Infection: unvaxed vs. fully vaxed:

 

 

 

Rates of Infection: unvaxed vs. fully vaxed with booster dose:

 

 

CDC website source

[onthedarkside]

A number of posts have been removed for being off-topic, conspiracy theory, misinformation, non-English language news source, trolling, etc., along with ensuing replies.

[pedro01]

54 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Stop pretending to be objective via the "both sides are wrong" gambit. Objective reality shows that people aligned with one political stance are dying at a greater rate. Their beliefs, in defiance of science, are killing them. So who are the idiots? Not surprisingly, these people are also far more likely to believe that human caused climate change is fake too. Those folks have long since turned their backs on science and rationality. They explain away uncomforable science as being the product of some sort of conspiracy. If only they suffered the consequences of their foolishness, I guess that would be fair. Sad, but fair. But their irrationality hurts everyone

You should read De Bono.

 

But you made a great iillustration of my point.

 

We are with you or against you, right. You have facts, others have opinions.

Edited February 8, 2022 by pedro01

[FarFlungFalang]

7 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Absolute nonsense. 

 

When trying to unjustify lockdowns, perhaps don't quote 2 economists who are only looking at the impact from a predominately financial perspective or who have a VERY biased viewpoint - 'Unlike much of the media-cited research on COVID-19 thus far, the new Johns Hopkins paper is by economists rather than by epidemiologists. Lead author Steve Hanke is a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and a contributor to the right-leaning National Review. 

 

There are many studies out there that have extrapolated out the numbers for Covid deaths and the general consensus is that instead of the 5.75 million who have died so far, the number of deaths would have been more like 20, 30, 40 million. That's Spanish flu numbers.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/09/872441984/modelers-suggest-pandemic-lockdowns-saved-millions-from-dying-of-covid-19

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52968523

 

And in direct rebuttal to the study you have posted -'Researchers excluded nearly 83 studies for consideration — including some that supported the efficacy of lockdowns. The most notable of which is a 2020 study published in the journal Nature that concluded that European lockdowns helped avert between 2.8 and 3.5 million deaths in the first months of the pandemic'.   https://nationalpost.com/news/world/johns-hopkins-university-study-covid-19-lockdowns

 

I do howver agree with Jennifer Grant, an infectious diseases physician at the University of British Columbia, who said “It made little sense to prevent young people from living normally because they are at very low risk of getting very sick, but have been very, very heavily hit by the impacts of lockdown,” she said.

 

Everything is easier with the benefit of hindsight but there wasn't much of that around at the beginning of the pandemic with countries 'damned if they did, damned if they didn't'. In future, the ones at risk should be isolated and looked after and yes, those at low risk allowed to get on with their normal lives. Easy to say now but much harder to impliment with much confidence back then.

 

 

 

Perhaps you would prefer I only post studies and opinions with which you agree so we can have a one sided debate?In case you haven't realised economics is pretty much imbedded in the fabric of our society and it's survival so viewpoints from this perspective would be foolish to ignore in my opinion.With hindsight we can better prepare for the future as in learning from our mistakes or would you prefer the blind leading the blind approach to problem solving or even a ship of fools following their train of thought?You seem to think you know what I'm trying to do but that would be a misguided thing to do as you don't and can't really know what I'm trying to do, what you are really doing is guessing or believe you know just like many who think they know about this pandemic and this virus and what they see on the screens we spend so much time looking at and forming beliefs which they mistakenly take for facts or knowledge which we don't really know but we can believe which is much easier to do than actually knowing.The best we do is take a guess.The study is from a well respected centre of learning and trusted information and scientific experts therefore should at least be considered in the debate, but if you don't want to listen to the experts that entirely up to you as you are the one in charge of your beliefs or you can always choose which experts to believe.Where do most of the experts get their knowledge from?Mostly they get their knowledge from other experts, kind of like a Chinese whispers of experts.   

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, pedro01 said:

You should read De Bono.

 

But you made a great iillustration of my point.

 

We are with you rr against you, right. You have facts, others have opinions.

There was a very wise comment once from Gary Kasparov once about disinformation. He pointed out that the purpose of disinformation is not to persuade you that their version of reality is correct, but that no version is correct. That you can't trust anybody. People are actually dying in disproportionate numbers because they refuse to accept the overwhelming consensus of scientists. How much more conclusive can you get than that? This isn't about debating some political proposition. This is not some disagreement about values. Are you seriously contending that the beliefs of people who are not scientists, not statisticians, not clinicians are just as valid about a scientific issue as those who are scientists, statisticians, and clinicians? If so, how do you explain why these people are dying in disproportionate numbers?

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Perhaps you would prefer I only post studies and opinions with which you agree so we can have a one sided debate?In case you haven't realised economics is pretty much imbedded in the fabric of our society and it's survival so viewpoints from this perspective would be foolish to ignore in my opinion.With hindsight we can better prepare for the future as in learning from our mistakes or would you prefer the blind leading the blind approach to problem solving or even a ship of fools following their train of thought?You seem to think you know what I'm trying to do but that would be a misguided thing to do as you don't and can't really know what I'm trying to do, what you are really doing is guessing or believe you know just like many who think they know about this pandemic and this virus and what they see on the screens we spend so much time looking at and forming beliefs which they mistakenly take for facts or knowledge which we don't really know but we can believe which is much easier to do than actually knowing.The best we do is take a guess.The study is from a well respected centre of learning and trusted information and scientific experts therefore should at least be considered in the debate, but if you don't want to listen to the experts that entirely up to you as you are the one in charge of your beliefs or you can always choose which experts to believe.Where do most of the experts get their knowledge from?Mostly they get their knowledge from other experts, kind of like a Chinese whispers of experts.   

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.

Edited February 8, 2022 by placeholder

[pedro01]

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

There was a very wise comment once from Gary Kasparov once about disinformation. He pointed out that the purpose of disinformation is not to persuade you that their version of reality is correct, but that no version is correct. That you can't trust anybody. People are actually dying in disproportionate numbers because they refuse to accept the overwhelming consensus of scientists. How much more conclusive can you get than that? This isn't about debating some political proposition. This is not some disagreement about values. Are you seriously contending that the beliefs of people who are not scientists, not statisticians, not clinicians are just as valid about a scientific issue as those who are scientists, statisticians, and clinicians? If so, how do you explain why these people are dying in disproportionate numbers?

Your last question "how do I explain why.....?" Is telling.

 

You say that "how conclusive can you get" about something that confirms your world view. The answer is "conclusive to you".

 

Freakonomics would be a good read because this sort of thing is covered each story. Science, action, unexpected outcomes, revised science.

 

Trial and error, feedback loops, constant learning.

 

For me, COVID was a lottery. Might get sick, might die. It was uncertain.

 

The vaccines were also a lottery. Long term effects unknown.

 

I decided the balance of probability was in favor of the vaccines, so I had 2 AZ.

 

But a certainty? All data is in? No opinions allowed? Nope.

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by onthedarkside
off topic comment removed

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, pedro01 said:

Your last question "how do I explain why.....?" Is telling.

 

You say that "how conclusive can you get" about something that confirms your world view. The answer is "conclusive to you".

 

Freakonomics would be a good read because this sort of thing is covered each story. Science, action, unexpected outcomes, revised science.

 

Trial and error, feedback loops, constant learning.

 

For me, COVID was a lottery. Might get sick, might die. It was uncertain.

 

The vaccines were also a lottery. Long term effects unknown.

 

I decided the balance of probability was in favor of the vaccines, so I had 2 AZ.

 

But a certainty? All data is in? No opinions allowed? Nope.

 

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.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

16 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The U.S. CDC has recently updated their tracking info on vaccine effectiveness during the Omicron era, with some pretty interesting results (these results being based on the mRNA vaccines used in the U.S.):

 

Rates of Infection: unvaxed vs. fully vaxed:

 

 

 

Rates of Infection: unvaxed vs. fully vaxed with booster dose:

 

 

CDC website source

Quote

If so, how do you explain why these people are dying in disproportionate numbers?

 

 

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

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

And similar comparative data for COVID infections and hospitalizations from Los Angeles County public health authorities covering the period into January 2022:

 

"As of January 8, 2022, during Omicron predominance, COVID-19 incidence and hospitalization rates in Los Angeles County among unvaccinated persons were 3.6 and 23.0 times, respectively, those of fully vaccinated persons with a booster, and 2.0 and 5.3 times, respectively, those among fully vaccinated persons without a booster. During both Delta and Omicron predominance, incidence and hospitalization rates were highest among unvaccinated persons and lowest among vaccinated persons with a booster."

........

In addition, during the entire analytic period, admission to intensive care units (ICUs), intubation for mechanical ventilation, and death were more likely to occur among unvaccinated persons than among fully vaccinated persons without or with a booster (p<0.001). Incidence and hospitalization rates were consistently highest for unvaccinated persons and lowest for fully vaccinated persons with a booster. Being up to date with COVID-19 vaccination is critical to protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated hospitalization."

...

The rise in hospitalization rates in LAC was most pronounced among unvaccinated persons, whereas hospitalization rates remained lower among those who were fully vaccinated, and lowest among those who had received a booster."

 

CDC source

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

Basically they created a big statistical artefact and called it research.

Did So-Called ‘Johns Hopkins Study’ Really Show Lockdowns Were Ineffective Against Covid-19?

 

"If you’ve noticed, some have been repeating the name “Johns Hopkins study” as if it were some kind of magical phrase like “open sesame” or “MMMbop.” In actuality, it’s not really appropriate here to call what’s being circulated a “Johns Hopkins study,” which might suggest that Johns Hopkins University has somehow commissioned or endorsed the study.

...

Moreover, Maher didn’t clarify that the three authors were economists rather than medical, epidemiology, or public health experts. Isn’t that a bit like three proctologists telling you how the economy is doing? It’s not clear how much economists alone would understand the complexities and subtleties of medicine and public health. After all, if you were to end up in the emergency room with an injury, “don’t worry an economist will be around shortly to re-attach your arm” may not be the most comforting thing to hear."

 

 

And the Forbes report goes on into a whole lot more details and information that makes the purported study worth a whole lot less that those promoting it would like others to believe.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/02/06/did-so-called-johns-hopkins-study-really-show-lockdowns-were-ineffective-against-covid-19/

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[heybruce]

On 2/7/2022 at 2:58 AM, ThLT said:

No, I stated that the effectiveness of vaccines wane. I thought that was common scientific knowledge—even for vaccines as a whole.

 

Here, from the UK Health Security Agency:

 

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in EnglandTechnical briefing 33 - UK Health Security Agency

 

(Apparently, Moderna wanes less, but it's not surprising, since the normal dose is 100 mcg and 50 mcg for the booster—in comparison to only 30 mcg for the Pfizer, both the normal dose and booster. It does wane though.)

 

Notice the percentages as well? Not anywhere close to your 81%. ????

Finally had time to look at the study.  The numbers on waning booster effectiveness are based on a total of 68,489 Omicron cases between 27 November 2021 and 17 December 2021.  It does not say how many of those occurred in people who had received boosters, however ten weeks before 17 December would be early October, when only a small fraction of the population had received boosters.  The NHS staff didn't begin receiving boosters until mid-September.   https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58583610

 

That means the numbers used to assess the decline in effectiveness of boosters with time were too small to have confidence in the results.  That is why the study has the warning:

 

"These results should be interpreted with caution due to the low counts and the possible biases
related to the populations with highest exposure to Omicron (including travellers and their close
contacts) which cannot fully be accounted for."  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf

Edited February 8, 2022 by heybruce

[MSMU1993]

10 hours ago, pomchop said:

i'll trust john hopkins who clearly state that the vaccines LOWER the chance of getting covid 19.

 

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. 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.  Widespread vaccination means the coronavirus will not infect as many people. This will limit spread through communities and will restrict the virus’s opportunity to continue to mutate into new variants.

 

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.  

 

[FarFlungFalang]

9 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.

They are experts and have done a scientific study of some data so they are scientific experts.You seem to think this study is trying to prove that lockdowns don't work or that I'm using this study to say lockdowns don't work, to me the study is trying to show the lockdowns that they studied and how they fared.It's a cost benefit analysis of what happened in the places they studied.If you think the economic ramifications of lockdowns should not enter the debate then I suggest you consider that the 26 million people that died of hunger and hunger related diseases over the past 2 years (based on the yearly average) mostly died in countries with poor economic performance.Good economic performance is what we strive for daily so we can benefit from good education to produce excellent scientific experts to better protect our health and well being.You can right this study off as a statistical artefact but then you maybe accused of "not listening to the experts".

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, Aussie999 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