12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You're throwing out as much as possible hoping it sticks, its failing each time.

 

Vaccinated people with breakthrough COVID infections had lower viral loads

UCLA study of 12,000 health workers found infected individuals who were unvaccinated shed more viral particles

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/vaccinated-workers-shed-less-covid-virus

As I said, viral loads are basically the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated. You guys can twist it in your favor and make it like something it isn’t all you want. Countries fully vaccinated have had high infection rates.
 

Viral loads being equal between vaccinated and unvaccinated is why the cdc made the vaccinated put the masks back on. so…. They were just like you, they wanted it to be true, but it wasn’t. So they made the vaccinated mask back up.
 

What is your reason they did a 180 on masks for vaccinated? And if what you are saying is true, why don’t they let vaccinated go without masks now? 

4 minutes ago, illiterate said:

As I said, viral loads are basically the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated. You guys can twist it in your favor and make it like something it isn’t all you want. Countries fully vaccinated have had high infection rates.

I've already provided evidence that this is not true which you've ignored.

 

There are also no countries that have been fully vaccinated and even if there were, nobody is saying the vaccines protect from infection 100% especially with Omicron

10 minutes ago, illiterate said:

Viral loads being equal between vaccinated and unvaccinated is why the cdc made the vaccinated put the masks back on. so…. They were just like you, they wanted it to be true, but it wasn’t. So they made the vaccinated mask back up.

Viral loads are not equal.

 

11 minutes ago, illiterate said:

What is your reason they did a 180 on masks for vaccinated? And if what you are saying is true, why don’t they let vaccinated go without masks now? 

Because masks add an extra layer of protection. Its about reducing risk, the risk cannot be eliminated.

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

That’s why science relies on clinical studies.

Did someone say it didn’t?

13 minutes ago, illiterate said:

As I said, viral loads are basically the same between vaccinated and unvaccinated. You guys can twist it in your favor and make it like something it isn’t all you want. Countries fully vaccinated have had high infection rates.
 

Viral loads being equal between vaccinated and unvaccinated is why the cdc made the vaccinated put the masks back on. so…. They were just like you, they wanted it to be true, but it wasn’t. So they made the vaccinated mask back up.
 

What is your reason they did a 180 on masks for vaccinated? And if what you are saying is true, why don’t they let vaccinated go without masks now? 

Posting false or misleading information is against forum rules and will earn a warning and a suspension.

 

As has been pointed out.  This virus is not static.  It has changed and when it changes the recommendations will change with it.  

 

Minimizing the seriousness of Covid is misleading.  

 

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

actually, no. The anecdotes are overwhelmingly on one side of the debate. The side that believes in science finds it easier to cite actual credible research and data. The other side can't find any.

Maybe you’re only hearing certain anecdotes because you self-select for certain information sources and most of your friends share your own views. I can tell you that most of the anecdotes I have been hearing lately from friends, coworkers and family are much more in line with the observations I stated earlier.

 

And besides, they’re just observations. Take them or leave them ????

36 minutes ago, illiterate said:

Google. 
 

I can help you though, vaccinated people pass the virus too. Their viral loads bw vaccinated and unvaccinated are “similar”, at least according to UC Davis. So at best let’s call it a question that doesn’t have a clear answer yet. You don’t get to just make stuff up because you want it to be true 

Google is not a country.

 

Or are you suggesting I do the research to support your absurd claim?  Ok, I did the research; there are no countries that are 100% vaccinated.

 

Vaccinated people are less likely to get Covid.  Those that don't get the virus can't propagate the virus.

51 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Again! Totally deceptive misinformation. Vaccines are quite effective at preventing transmission. In the case of delta, very much so and in the case of omicron about 50%. The research and date have been posted here many times.

 

This is like an omicron reinfection. This abhorrent deception keeps being repeated despite plenty of science refuting it. It's just lying.

And what about your own immunity system?

15 minutes ago, jackspade said:

Maybe you’re only hearing certain anecdotes because you self-select for certain information sources and most of your friends share your own views. I can tell you that most of the anecdotes I have been hearing lately from friends, coworkers and family are much more in line with the observations I stated earlier.

 

And besides, they’re just observations. Take them or leave them ????

I always leave them. Anecdotes are proof of nothing. I prefer scientific rigor. Take it or leave it ????

15 minutes ago, peter zwart said:

And what about your own immunity system?

Unvaccinated? I wouldn't rely on it to combat any virus when there is a vaccination available..

10 minutes ago, illiterate said:

what I am posting is not false. What others are posting is false. 

 

“Indeed, there is growing evidence that peak viral titres in the upper airways of the lungs and culturable virus are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.^2,3,5–7“

^{https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext}

That is not a study, it is just a letter to the Lancet by Carlos Franco-Paredes

 

"According to a spokeswoman for The Lancet Group, such letters represented the views of the author and "not necessarily the views of The Lancet journals".

 

Here's a fact check on that particular letter.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-04/coronacheck-lancet-anti-vaccine-mandate-letter/100802688

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I always leave them. Anecdotes are proof of nothing. I prefer scientific rigor. Take it or leave it ????

For some odd reason, I don’t believe you ????

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

That is not a study, it is just a letter to the Lancet by Carlos Franco-Paredes

 

"According to a spokeswoman for The Lancet Group, such letters represented the views of the author and "not necessarily the views of The Lancet journals".

 

Here's a fact check on that particular letter.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-04/coronacheck-lancet-anti-vaccine-mandate-letter/100802688

There’s five studies linked there for you. The problem is the data is inconvenient for you. 

3 minutes ago, jackspade said:

This is so, SO untrue. Everyone knows that the vaccines, while they may decrease deaths a very small amount, do not prevent you from getting sick with COVID. There is no significant scientifically verified difference in the transmissibility of COVID from a vaxxed vs from an unvaxxed person.

No the only thing untrue is your whole post.

 

"UK data finds 3rd vaccine dose offers 95% protection against Omicron deaths"

 

"It added that effectiveness against hospitalization due to COVID complications was around 90% for the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, dropping to 75% 10-14 weeks after the booster, and it was 90-95% up to 9 weeks after the Moderna booster."

 

“The evidence is clear, the vaccine helps to protect us all against the effects of COVID-19 and the booster is offering high levels of protection from hospitalization and death"

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-data-finds-booster-shots-offer-95-protection-against-omicron-deaths/

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Unvaccinated? I wouldn't rely on it to combat any virus when there is a vaccination available..

fair deal. But i do

2 minutes ago, illiterate said:

There’s five studies linked there for you. The problem is the data is inconvenient for you. 

Have you looked at the studies?

 

Did you do a meta analysis of them? No nor did Carlos Franco-Paredes, he just wrote a letter citing them.

 

If you have evidence for your claims in a scientific peer reviewed study then quote and link, thats how you make your case otherwise your just repeating what you wish to be true

22 minutes ago, illiterate said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v2
 

What that result in the article means is there is no real difference in transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated. This is also why the cdc reversed mask mandates for vaccinated. 
 

As I have said, just because you want something to be true does not magically make it true.

This article can't be relied upon to be accurate and it says so loud and clear but you want to misrepresent it as gospel.

 

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

 

"We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous."

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v2

 

tl:dr; this site is not a credible source and should be banned from quoting without additional credible substantiation

 

On 2/10/2022 at 5:50 PM, paul1804 said:

It is still early days yet as to whether we get any long term side effects from the vaccine and personally if I didnt intend to travel I would have held off getting Vaxxed until there was more confidence in it. There are too many unanswered questions about the whole Covid outbreak, its origin and so much more that is not clear and we are not being told. Regarding unvaccinated entry into Thailand, an Australian  friend of mine arrived from the UK mid January 2022 unvaxed, quarantined in BKK and now back living on Samui so I guess that puts your argument to an end!!! Again there is so much miss information spread in every aspect associated with this virus by individuals & government so called medical experts what do you really believe!! Recently some NZ medics found foreign matter in the Pfizer vaccine and after publicly putting the NZ government on notice 3 other countries reported the same findings so how can we be confident with any of the vaccinations given the situation & its uncertainty!  

"an Australian  friend of mine arrived from the UK mid January 2022 unvaxed, quarantined in BKK and now back living on Samui so I guess that puts your argument to an end!!! "

Huh???

15 hours ago, pedro01 said:

I found it ineffective.

huh???

23 minutes ago, illiterate said:

What he is saying is exactly correct. It’s just emotional people like you fail to accept it

Actually I quoted real world statistics direct from the UKHSA. Please keep up.

1 hour ago, illiterate said:

You don’t get to just make stuff up because you want it to be true 

There is evidence that supports this theory that one can indeed make make stuff up because you want it to be true.Not only is it possible it is quite common. 

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

tl:dr; this site is not a credible source and should be banned from quoting without additional credible substantiation

 

LoL- Right! Though the "not credible source" is supported by Yale University and the British Medical Journal, it should be "banned from quoting". As any other source that does not provide "proof" what you would like to read in your state of permanent hysteria, I guess.

"Follow the science"...harhar

13 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

LoL- Right! Though the "not credible source" is supported by Yale University and the British Medical Journal, it should be "banned from quoting". As any other source that does not provide "proof" what you would like to read in your state of permanent hysteria, I guess.

"Follow the science"...harhar

That study only measured the people once for viral loads, a flaw in its research. 

 

Here's some more.

 

A vaccinated person is less likely to get COVID in the first instance, is less contagious, and is contagious for a shorter time, resulting in significantly less spread of the virus through a highly vaccinated community.

 

"vaccinated people clear the virus faster, with lower levels of virus overall, and have less time with very high levels of virus present."

 

https://globalbiodefense.com/2021/12/04/vaccinated-people-clear-covid-faster-less-time-with-high-virus-levels/

Segregation was tried in South Africa it was tried in America, they tried it in Australia the Germans tried it now it's reared it's ugly head again in the form of segregating unvaccinated people.I haven't seen any studies that show that segregating unvaccinated people (wether they've been previously infected or not) has any beneficial outcomes.What studies show that medical segregation works that are being used by Governments to justify using segregation based on vaccination?Where is the science on segregation? 

On 2/11/2022 at 2:18 AM, webfact said:

What an enormous response to our topic “Are we just going to have to live with unvaccinated people across Thailand?”

i actually wonder  " god,  are we going to have to live with all these vaccinated people for the rest of our lives " .

 

which booster is it now?   to be "fully vaccinated" .     and remind me, do they prevent people from getting and transmitting this covid 19 thing?     seems like some famous people are on record saying it does

2 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

Why? You should know that many drugs, particularly antiviral drugs, can cause damage to you liver and/or kidneys, to various degrees. There is a cost/benefit/risk ratio for every treatment or prophylaxis, so  far in modern medicine vaccines, in general, are coming out a long way ahead.

This is specific to vaccines and comprimising our immune systems: 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says#:~:text=European Union regulators warned that,to the European Medicines Agency.

 

So it might all be moot.

52 minutes ago, jackspade said:

This is so, SO untrue. The science shows that the vaccines, while they may decrease deaths a very small amount, do not prevent you from getting sick with COVID. There is no significant scientifically verified difference in the transmissibility of COVID from a vaxxed vs from an unvaxxed person.

"The science shows that the vaccines, while they may decrease deaths a very small amount..."

 

That is so, SO untrue:

 

"During October–November, age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated persons were 53.2 compared with those in fully vaccinated persons with a booster dose and 12.7 compared with persons without a booster dose; these results represented crude VE against death of 98% and 92%, respectively. Protection improved among persons who received a booster dose compared with not receiving a booster, regardless of primary series vaccine product type. Booster doses provided the largest gains in protection among persons aged ≥65 years followed by persons aged 50–64 years when compared with those aged 18–49 years.   https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

 

"People who had received three doses of a COVID-19 vaccine or a booster were 93.4% less likely to die of the infection compared to the unvaccinated, according to a new U.K. study published on Friday. "  https://fortune.com/2022/02/04/fully-vaccinated-93-percent-less-likely-covid-death-compared-unvaccinated/

 

I consider a reduction in death rates of over 90% to be more than "a very small amount".

 

The CDC study also shows that Covid vaccinations are not as effective against Omicron, but still:

 

"When the Omicron variant emerged during December 2021, case IRRs decreased to 4.9 for fully vaccinated persons with booster doses and 2.8 for those without booster doses.."

 

An unvaccinated person is almost five times as likely to be infected with Covid during the Omicron wave than a person that is vaccinated and boosted, and almost three times as likely to be infected as someone who is vaccinated but not boosted.

 

People who are not infected do not spread the disease, and vaccinated people are significantly less likely to get infected.  Therefore, vaccinations most definitely help reduce the spread of Covid.

 

The next time you accuse someone of posting false information, try providing some credible sources showing the information to be false.  That's what I did for your false information.

1 hour ago, illiterate said:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v2
 

What that result in the article means is there is no real difference in transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated. This is also why the cdc reversed mask mandates for vaccinated. 
 

As I have said, just because you want something to be true does not magically make it true.

Geez, it's not that difficult.

 

Yes, vaccinated people with breakthrough infections can infect others.  But vaccinated people are far less likely to get infected, and so are less likely to spread the infection. 

14 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Segregation was tried in South Africa it was tried in America, they tried it in Australia the Germans tried it now it's reared it's ugly head again in the form of segregating unvaccinated people.I haven't seen any studies that show that segregating unvaccinated people (wether they've been previously infected or not) has any beneficial outcomes.What studies show that medical segregation works that are being used by Governments to justify using segregation based on vaccination?Where is the science on segregation? 

Segregation of immigrants was practiced in the US long ago when they were quarantined on Rikers Island. This segregation is not racially motivated as all your examples were. Segregation of lepers was practiced in Australia until the late 70's at last. Nothing to see here.

I am far more interested in science, than I am in fear mongering. And even though I am not a VAX guy, I feel at this time, getting a high quality vaccine represents a reasonable fulfillment of an obligation to society, and a minor sacrifice for anti-vax people to make. Doubly so for the ones who run around draping themselves in a flag of patriotism. Before getting double vaxed with Pfizer, courtesy of the US donation, I had not used any vaccines in decades. However, this time it feels different. Kind of like giving something back to society?

Refusing to take a vaccine, to benefit society and bring society back, is about as sensible as believing the earth is flat. Imagine making a sacrifice for your country? What a concept. Many of the fake patriots would wet their pants if they were ever asked to truly protect their nation or serve in any manner. And within that anti vax group, it is the subgroup that drapes themselves in a flag of fake patriotism, all the while ranting about their willingness to die for their country, that are the most annoying. They have finally been given an ideal platform to demonstrate their absolute patriotism. Now, "freedom and liberty" are the issues, not courage. Sorry. Not buying their stories. It is a demonstration of utter cowardice. 

 

It is the nutters and Vax extremists who seem to be reinforcing Darwin's theories and thinning their own population, all at the same time. What can one say? 
A kindergartener has to have some vaccines before being allowed into school, pandemic or not. I know you think you're being brave by doing this based on a "principle," but are you at least as brave as a kindergartener?

5 minutes ago, rumak said:

i actually wonder  " god,  are we going to have to live with all these vaccinated people for the rest of our lives " .

 

which booster is it now?   to be "fully vaccinated" .     and remind me, do they prevent people from getting and transmitting this covid 19 thing?     seems like some famous people are on record saying it does

In Australia they have ditched the term "fully vaccinated" and now use the term "up to date with vaccination".So if you are not "up to date with vaccination" you can be "segregated".Yet it seems they do this segregation without scientific studies to show that it's effective in regards to this virus.It seems to me they are making stuff up because they believe it's true.Where are the scientific studies that show segregating unvaccinated people actually works?

3 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

In Australia they have ditched the term "fully vaccinated" and now use the term "up to date with vaccination".So if you are not "up to date with vaccination" you can be "segregated".Yet it seems they do this segregation without scientific studies to show that it's effective in regards to this virus.It seems to me they are making stuff up because they believe it's true.Where are the scientific studies that show segregating unvaccinated people actually works?

It's a logical conclusion from the evidence that unvaccinated people are more likely to contract and transmit the virus.