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

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

Quote "If un vaccinated people become infected the chances they are getting severely ill and need to be treated in a hospital are much greater then vaccinated people," unquote, the issue here is, Omicron is not as severe as Delta, or any earlier varieties, therefore, it shouldn't put as much strain on the medical system.

But it is more contagious. For the sake of an example, if Omicron has only 50% the serious illness rate of say, Delta, but is twice as contagious, that will balance out to the same number of serious illnesses.

[ThLT]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you clearly don't understand is why epidemiologists don't do computations the way you do. Like other studies, the Lancet study took place over a limited space of time. So just because x number of people got ill over y number of months, doesn't mean that those who didn't get ill for that period won't get ill some time in the future. But those who are vaccinated are 52% less likely to get ill, at least from the same variant, as those who are unvaccinated. 

Next time you declare norms for judging data that the scientific community doesn't follow, you might want to think twice about sharing them with others.

And please spare us the allegations about your academic qualifications. We are all anonymous here. Such declarations are worthless. 

Dude, I've literally studied statistics in college. It's a 13% difference.

 

You saying "But but but.... but that 13% is 52% more!" means nothing. 

 

If I have $0.01 in my pockets.... and you have $0.02... sure, you have 200% more than me, but we're both broke!!!

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by ThLT

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The vaccines only last a few months before you will need a booster shot .

It has been shown that natural protection, recovery naturally is better than being protected by vaccination .

   Vaccinated people will need a booster every six months , naturally protected people wont need any booster shots 

"It has been shown that natural protection, recovery naturally is better than being protected by vaccination ."

 

Please provide a source for that claim.

[TropicalGuy]

48 minutes ago, ThLT said:

I'm pro-vaccine (like you). Yet the things you've said in this thread are in fact extreme, not scientific and not rational.

 

and “ extreme” is “ bad” right ? 
many bad situations require extreme but good solutions….

Hitler, Cancer, Rapists, ISIS, etc.

[placeholder]

Just now, ThLT said:

Dude, I've literally studied statistics in college.

 

You saying "But but but.... it's 52% moreeeee" means nothing. 

 

If I have $0.01 in my pockets.... and you have $0.02... sure, you have 200% more than me, but we're both broke!!!

 Given that your example is completely irrelevant to issue at hand, it seems that even if you did literally study statistics in college, (and how do we know that's true), it does look like you have literally forgotten everything you once knew.

[TropicalGuy]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"It has been shown that natural protection, recovery naturally is better than being protected by vaccination ."

 

Please provide a source for that claim.

Don’t hold your breathe…,false beliefs have only false sources ….or no sources.

[AnotherFarang8]

5 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Dude, I've literally studied statistics in college. It's a 13% difference.

 

You saying "But but but.... but that 13% is 52% more!" means nothing. 

 

If I have $0.01 in my pockets.... and you have $0.02... sure, you have 200% more than me, but we're both broke!!!

 

It’s 100% more, not 200%. I only studied math in school but it’s been enough to discern the true facts from the constant stream of bs that media and politicians keep pushing re: covid.

[ThLT]

Just now, TropicalGuy said:

and “ extreme” is “ bad” right ? 
many bad situations require extreme but good solutions….

Hitler, Cancer, Rapists, ISIS, etc.

Yes, all those things you listed are what I would consider "extreme." You're highly authoritarian and troubling remarks, about putting unvaccinated people with criminals and on persecutory lists, would also fall under those same categories.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Good, then you should be able to recognize the disingenuousness of presenting a proportion without taking into consideration what that proportion is based on?

 

You completely ignored that point I'm making.

 

Saying there is a "13% difference in protection against infection"... AND

Saying "vaccines protect more against infection by more than 150%," while correct, statistically disingenuous.

 

Sure. But I'm refuting the claim that vaccines protect against infection. If 25% of vaccinated get infected, and 38% for unvaccinated... vaccines don't really protect that much against infection.

My proportion is of the actual number of vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected in the study.  It is easy to understand and relevant.

 

You prefer the difference between percentages, which is not as informative and can be misleading. 

 

Reducing the risk of infection is protection against infection.  Since infections spread exponentially through a population, reducing the spread from 38% to 25% is very significant.

[ThLT]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 Given that your example is completely irrelevant to issue at hand, it seems that even if you did literally study statistics in college, (and how do we know that's true), it does look like you have literally forgotten everything you once knew.

I thought even a high school student would understand the "$0.01 vs. $0.02 being 200% richer" example... 

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"It has been shown that natural protection, recovery naturally is better than being protected by vaccination ."

 

Please provide a source for that claim.

During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.

 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

[pedro01]

59 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You reject current studies based on objective analysis of actual cases because some people have been wrong in the past?

If I sold you a car and it had 2 wheels, would you believe me if I told you i'd sold you a perfectly good motorbike.

 

Then if a wheel fell off and i told you it was a unicycle, you'd buy that too?

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

Don’t hold your breathe…,false beliefs have only false sources ….or no sources.

Posted the link in the post above .

[TropicalGuy]

10 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

So your unvaccinated?

 

No respect for that.

Certainly no respect not even courtesy for willful ignorance which when made public may be slapped down hard ……

[Aussie999]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But it is more contagious. For the sake of an example, if Omicron has only 50% the serious illness rate of say, Delta, but is twice as contagious, that will balance out to the same number of serious illnesses.

An, certainly, in Australia, people are requested to self isolate, at home, unless they suffer severe symptoms... in other words, it's not that more severe than the seasonal flu, which does affect a minority, who need hospitalization. 

[AndyFoxy]

13 hours ago, freedomnow said:

What about natural immunity after infection non-vaccinated status.....

 

....seems to count for nothing or barely be mentioned.

Those in charge have less control if it is accepted as well as the vax

Edited February 4, 2022 by AndyFoxy

[Aussie999]

2 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

An, certainly, in Australia, people are requested to self isolate, at home, unless they suffer severe symptoms... in other words, it's not that more severe than the seasonal flu, which does affect a minority, who need hospitalization, a high percentage. I know I will get covid, but have had 3 jabs, so do not expect a severe case.... as I said, the unvaccinated take their chance.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Aussie999

[AndyFoxy]

9 hours ago, JayClay said:

Are you seriously suggesting that a dress code, a purely aesthetic policy, has more merit than a policy designed to save lives of staff and fellow patrons?

 

If people want to make misguided choices for "their health and well being" that's fine. But when science says that those have a negative impact on those around them, then businesses owners absolutely have the right to deny entry to such people.

So you want to allow only vaxxed people into the business so they can infect other vaxxed people? 
 

That’s vaxxism. An unvaxxed , should be allowed in with an equal chance of infecting someone else.

Edited February 4, 2022 by AndyFoxy

[TropicalGuy]

5 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Yes, all those things you listed are what I would consider "extreme." You're highly authoritarian and troubling remarks, about putting unvaccinated people with criminals and on persecutory lists, would also fall under those same categories.

“ avoid” and “ separate” I said, not persecute..

 

[ThLT]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

My proportion is of the actual number of vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected in the study.  It is easy to understand and relevant.

Here was your claim:

 

Quote

Regarding my claim the study shows unvaccinated people were one and a half times more likely to get infected, all that is required is simple arithmetic.  38% of 232 "contacts" is 88 contacts.   25% of 232 contacts is 58 contacts.  One and a half times 58 is 87, so the unvaccinated were slightly more than one and a half times more likely to get infected.

You took the 25% and 38% percentages, and made a second proportion. To state a 152% percentage, without considering what that proportion represents, is meaningless.

 

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You prefer the difference between percentages, which is not as informative and can be misleading. 

I prefer what is stated in the study, that: 25% of vaccinated were infected, and 38% unvaccinated were infected.

 

My point is that you saying that "it's a 152% difference!!!" is misleading.

 

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Reducing the risk of infection is protection against infection.  Since infections spread exponentially through a population, reducing the spread from 38% to 25% is very significant.

Sure. But you're arguing with me about something I'm not talking about. I'm saying vaccines aren't that protective against infection.

 

If 25% of vaccinated people get infected, and 38% who are unvaccinated get infected... vaccines aren't that much more effective at protecting against infection.

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.

 

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

From your source:

 

"Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning (2,5,6). Similar cohort data accounting for booster doses needs to be assessed, as new variants, including Omicron, circulate. Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change with the emergence of new variants, vaccination remains the safest strategy to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and associated complications; all eligible persons should be up to date with COVID-19 vaccination. Additional recommendations for vaccine doses might be warranted in the future as the virus and immunity levels change."

 

We also have the CDC study showing that vaccinated people with boosters are 53 times more likely to survive a Covid infection than the unvaccinated:

 

"During October–November, unvaccinated persons had 13.9 and 53.2 times the risks for infection and COVID-19–associated death, respectively, compared with fully vaccinated persons who received booster doses, and 4.0 and 12.7 times the risks compared with fully vaccinated persons without booster doses."   https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220131&instance_id=51759&nl=the-morning&regi_id=135884956&segment_id=81212&te=1&user_id=7ef4c302f3d7b72eda453d22c70af53e

[Sparktrader]

13 hours ago, alextrat1966 said:

Sure, everyone has the right not to take the vaccine. But so do business owners have the right not to let unvaccinated people enter their businesses, or fly aboard their airplanes, and so do countries have the right not to let the unvaccinated enter. 

 

Any choice you make in life, has consequences (no matter in regards to vaccines or not). If you freely make a choice, you must manly take the consequences. 

Which means what? Vaccines don't work very well????

 

If vaccines are 90% good why fear unvaccinated?

 

It's a strange one.

 

I got double shot. I've got no fear from others that didn't.

 

 

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

If I sold you a car and it had 2 wheels, would you believe me if I told you i'd sold you a perfectly good motorbike.

 

Then if a wheel fell off and i told you it was a unicycle, you'd buy that too?

Does your post have anything to do with my faith in current scientific publications from credible sources?

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, ThLT said:

Here was your claim:

 

You took the 25% and 38% percentages, and made a second proportion. To state a 152% percentage, without considering what that proportion represents, is meaningless.

 

I prefer what is stated in the study, that: 25% of vaccinated were infected, and 38% unvaccinated were infected.

 

My point is that you saying that "it's a 152% difference!!!" is misleading.

 

Sure. But you're arguing with me about something I'm not talking about. I'm saying vaccines aren't that protective against infection.

 

If 25% of vaccinated people get infected, and 38% who are unvaccinated get infected... vaccines aren't that much more effective at protecting against infection.

True but severity is the key. Risk of death much lower. Of course depends on immune system and general health. 

 

It's like seatbelts. Using them won't stop a crash. Just risk of death.

 

I don't care if others don't wear them or get vaccines.

[ThLT]

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

True but severity is the key. Risk of death much lower. Of course depends on immune system and general health.

 

It's like seatbelts. Using them won't stop a crash. Just risk of death.

 

I don't care if others don't wear them or get vaccines.

I'm pro-vaccine, and I've already agreed with severity and risk of death. Not what I'm talking about.

[AndyFoxy]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Yes, people have a right to make decisions regarding their health and well being.  And businesses have a right and responsibility to decide on how best to keep their employees and customers safe.  When there is a pandemic caused by a dangerous and highly contagious virus the responsible decision is to require vaccinations for those entering a crowded business.  People who choose not to get vaccinated have to live with this.

So what you are really saying is that you don’t want unvaxxed people in crowded business because they might give it to those with a vaccine that doesn’t work. ????

[TropicalGuy]

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Posted the link in the post above .

That study summary doesn’t support your post statement. 
recovered -Covid  or not, all people still get highest protection from being vaccinated than not. 

[ThLT]

6 minutes ago, AndyFoxy said:

So what you are really saying is that you don’t want unvaxxed people in crowded business because they might give it to those with a vaccine that doesn’t work. ????

And if everyone were vaccinated, only vaccinated people would be giving COVID to vaccinated people... No more scapegoats. Vaccinated people would need to be banned from vaccinated people!! ???? ????

 

Pro or anti-vaccine... this is 100% all about finding a scapegoat.

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by ThLT

[TropicalGuy]

9 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Which means what? Vaccines don't work very well????

 

If vaccines are 90% good why fear unvaccinated?

 

It's a strange one.

 

I got double shot. I've got no fear from others that didn't.

 

 

Unvaxxed overloading hospitals . 97% of the Covid dead are unvaxxed.  Unvaxxed easily and seriously infecting other unvaxxed . less easily and less seriously infecting the vaxxed and recovered. 

[heybruce]

25 minutes ago, ThLT said:

Here was your claim:

 

You took the 25% and 38% percentages, and made a second proportion. To state a 152% percentage, without considering what that proportion represents, is meaningless.

 

I prefer what is stated in the study, that: 25% of vaccinated were infected, and 38% unvaccinated were infected.

 

My point is that you saying that "it's a 152% difference!!!" is misleading.

 

Sure. But you're arguing with me about something I'm not talking about. I'm saying vaccines aren't that protective against infection.

 

If 25% of vaccinated people get infected, and 38% who are unvaccinated get infected... vaccines aren't that much more effective at protecting against infection.

38% is slightly more than one and a half times 25%.  That is informative and relevant.  The difference between the percentages is less informative and less relevant.  Using differences in percentages is a common technique for misleading marketing campaigns.

 

As I've explained twice before, the difference between 25% and 38% is very significant when trying to contain the exponential growth of a disease.  The Lancet study you cited agrees with me:

 

"The SARs in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% in vaccinated and 38% in unvaccinated contacts. These results underpin the key message that vaccinated contacts are better protected than the unvaccinated. All breakthrough infections were mild, and no hospitalisations and deaths were observed."  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext

Edited February 4, 2022 by heybruce