Seems the Unvaccinated Topic hit home, 50/50 in response

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

The point is not how geographicly close countries are to each other but to compare very strict and lasting lockdowns countries to those with none or short ones.

 

Epidemiologists would obviously disagree with you about the validity of comparing similar nations. Lifestyle, climate, and population density are very similar for those nations particularly Sweden, Norway, and Finland. Here's an article written in Apr 20. 2020 discussing why comparing those nations is important and possible outcomes of their respective strategies:

 

Coronavirus: why the Nordics are our best bet for comparing strategies

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-why-the-nordics-are-our-best-bet-for-comparing-strategies-135344

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Do you know if mutations occur in vaccinated people with breakthrough infections?Has it been proven where the mutations originate?So far it seems that the origin of mutations is still a bit of a mystery it's seems to more of a guessing game at the moment.I suspect it's quite possible that mutation have just as much chance of occurring in vaccinated people so using the mutation argument as reason for being vaccinated is just an opinion and not based in scientific proof. 

I suggest you do some research on that, I am talking about the Variants of concern that have arisen.

 

1.Alpha (Sept 2020) occurred before vaccinations although now taken off the list of variants of concern due no longer circulating. First detected in the UK, Kent to be precise.

2. Beta (Sept 2020) occurred before vaccinations, first detected in South Africa

3. Gamma (Dec 2020) occurred before vaccinations, first detected in Brazil

4. Delta (Dec 2020) occurred before vaccinations, first detected in India

5. Omicron (Nov 2021) first detected in SA where vaccination levels were very low just 42 doses had been administered per 100 people

Edited February 15, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[FarFlungFalang]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

First off, what makes your argument about hunger so nonsensical is that unless you can somehow prove that the money spent on fighting covid came from funds that would have been spent on fighting hunger, it's utterly immaterial. And given that the amount spent on fighting covid is miniscule compared to what is spent on, say weapons, why target covid spending at all?

Yes I agree what you have stated is your opinion to which you are entitled.

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also, that figure of 6 million you cite is based on official govt figures.

Yes maybe I should have based it on some made up number.

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Nor does it take into account the larger number of people who suffer from long covid. What's more, now it looks like that covid patients who are considered to have recovered,  are subsequently coming down with all sorts of cardiovascular illnesses at a rate much higher than the unafflicted.

No I don't take this into account I'll leave that one to you as you do a much better job of taking it into account than I do.

[Scott]

47 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I agree that theoretically it's possible to stop both but in practice it has proven to be beyond our capabilities and I'm not advocating that we give up trying.In my view vaccines are great and so is a previous infection which basically what a vaccine is, it's a type of previous infection that provides protection from the disease.

You say that my raising hunger is a deflection in an attempt to minimise the severity of covid yet I say it is an attempt to put it in perspective with other problems by comparing it with other global issues that are more devastating health impacts that receive less media attention.You state it's a deflection, you don't say it's your opinion but you state it as a fact without an argument to support your claim.You also say  that on the other hand hunger has been around since the beginning of recorded history, well I suspect that people have been having issues with viruses during the same period and I would hazard a guess that deaths from hunger and hunger related diseases has been causing more death during that time. 

Some countries have already returned to normal and despite you claim that we are a long ways from normal it only take a few words from our leaders to return us to normal, some may struggle with the idea of returning to normal but I think most people will get used to it pretty quickly.Image being normal again.Imagine embracing life with all it's risks and enjoying it as much as possible instead of cowering in fear and blaming others for one's misery.

Comparing Covid to hunger is like comparing Covid to Road fatalities.   One has no comparable relationship to the other.   Hunger is not a disease.  Hunger does not spread through the air.  

 

I don't know any countries that have returned to normal.  There is more to normal than not wearing a mask or being quarantined.  Do these normal countries have supply chain problems?   If you are referring to Europe, they certainly do.  

 

Stemming from the pandemic, there has been a worldwide shipping container shortage, coupled with COVID-19-related shutdowns in major European port cities such as Hamburg, which have disrupted supply chains across the EU retail sector.

 

https://www.edesk.com/blog/european-supply-chain-crisis/

 

I do believe, however, that we are digressing from the OP. 

[FarFlungFalang]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I suggest you do some research on that, I am talking about the Variants of concern that have arisen.

 

1.Alpha (Sept 2020) occurred before vaccinations although now taken off the list of variants of concern due no longer circulating. First detected in the UK, Kent to be precise.

2. Beta (Sept 2020) occurred before vaccinations first detected in South Africa

3. Gamma (Dec 2020) occurred before vaccinations first detected in Brazil

4. Delta (Dec 2020) occurred before vaccinations first detected in India

5. Omicron (Nov 2021) first detected in SA where vaccination levels were very low just 42 doses have been administered per 100 people

Suggest away but you seem to have beaten me to it well done!So how does this prove that mutations don't occur in vaccinated people?By saying that mutations occur in unvaccinated people doesn't prove they don't also occur in vaccinated people does it?

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Suggest away but you seem to have beaten me to it well done!So how does this prove that mutations don't occur in vaccinated people?By saying that mutations occur in unvaccinated people doesn't prove they don't also occur in vaccinated people does it?

As I said, nobody is suggesting that they don't occur, only that the probability is likely significantly lower. That should be obvious given what we know about the vaccines' efficacy already.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Suggest away but you seem to have beaten me to it well done!So how does this prove that mutations don't occur in vaccinated people?By saying that mutations occur in unvaccinated people doesn't prove they don't also occur in vaccinated people does it?

I never said mutations don't occur in vaccinated people though did because they can and do, hundreds of them as well as in unvaccinated people, I was specifically referring to those mutations that have become variants of concern along with Omicron. 

 

Would you like anything else cleared up?

 

[Scott]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I suggest you do some research on that, I am talking about the Variants of concern that have arisen.

 

1.Alpha (Sept 2020) occurred before vaccinations although now taken off the list of variants of concern due no longer circulating. First detected in the UK, Kent to be precise.

2. Beta (Sept 2020) occurred before vaccinations, first detected in South Africa

3. Gamma (Dec 2020) occurred before vaccinations, first detected in Brazil

4. Delta (Dec 2020) occurred before vaccinations, first detected in India

5. Omicron (Nov 2021) first detected in SA where vaccination levels were very low just 42 doses had been administered per 100 people

The issue of variants arising from vaccinations is possible in an indirect manner and it is something that is looked at very carefully, but it does not get in the press because it very technical.

 

Variants arise normally and randomly in most viruses.  In Coronaviruses there are fewer because it contains an error editing function that sort makes sure it makes identical copies.  This is not fool proof and we do see mistakes that become variants.  Most mutations are dead ends.

 

When a mutation starts evading our defenses, whether natural or via immunization, they are more concerning.   They did a lot of study on Omicron for this very reason.  

 

[FarFlungFalang]

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

Comparing Covid to hunger is like comparing Covid to Road fatalities.   One has no comparable relationship to the other.   Hunger is not a disease.  Hunger does not spread through the air.  

 

I don't know any countries that have returned to normal.  There is more to normal than not wearing a mask or being quarantined.  Do these normal countries have supply chain problems?   If you are referring to Europe, they certainly do.  

 

Stemming from the pandemic, there has been a worldwide shipping container shortage, coupled with COVID-19-related shutdowns in major European port cities such as Hamburg, which have disrupted supply chains across the EU retail sector.

 

https://www.edesk.com/blog/european-supply-chain-crisis/

 

I do believe, however, that we are digressing from the OP. 

They both share deaths as a result and hunger causes more deaths than covid with is comparable as I have shown by comparing the numbers of death from both causes.You may say the are not comparable, you are free to do so as I'm free to disagree.I'm comparing the numbers of deaths by each cause I'm not comparing the causes of deaths as you seem to try and suggest I'm doing by saying what you said.I'm comparing the severity of the problems and the attention each are receiving from the media and saying it's not equatable based on the severity of each problem.

I fail to see the reason you say hunger is not a disease and doesn't float in the air since I have said neither of these things and they seem to have no relevance to what I'm saying. 

Denmark and Sweden are returning to normal and have drop all restrictions apparently.

[Scott]

17 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Suggest away but you seem to have beaten me to it well done!So how does this prove that mutations don't occur in vaccinated people?By saying that mutations occur in unvaccinated people doesn't prove they don't also occur in vaccinated people does it?

In spite of what we may think, mutations are predictable and occur at a level that can be mathematically calculated.   When a large number of people are vaccinated, the number of infections drop -- whether it is 50% effective or 90% effective, the number drops.  In vaccinated people there is generally less replication of the virus and with it less of a chance of a mutation occurring.  

 

The fewer the infections, the fewer the mutations.  The less time that people are infected, the fewer the mutations.  The less viral load overall during an infection, the fewer the mutations.  

 

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Denmark and Sweden are returning to normal and have drop all restrictions apparently.

Not quite, check their entry requirements if you come from an at risk country. Going back to normal will probably never be the same again, Public Health will always be working in the background to monitor the situation, vulnerable people will probably need booster jabs yearly unless a new vaccine is developed. Vulnerable people will need to take care of themselves knowing that covid is endemic.

 

However due to the vaccinations its great that the daily restrictions have been lifted, soon the UK to.

[Rimmer]

Baiting post and reply removed

[FarFlungFalang]

31 minutes ago, Scott said:

In spite of what we may think, mutations are predictable and occur at a level that can be mathematically calculated.   When a large number of people are vaccinated, the number of infections drop -- whether it is 50% effective or 90% effective, the number drops.  In vaccinated people there is generally less replication of the virus and with it less of a chance of a mutation occurring.  

 

The fewer the infections, the fewer the mutations.  The less time that people are infected, the fewer the mutations.  The less viral load overall during an infection, the fewer the mutations.  

 

If mutation predictions are based on the number of infections how does one predict the number of infections?I don't remember anyone predicting infections like the ones we are seeing from Omicron and I vaguely remember some saying corona viruses don't mutate often which was maybe because the didn't really understand what they were capable of.

Sorry I just can't swallow your statement that mutations are predictable.I also don't believe scientist and medical experts actually know why this these viruses behave the way they do nor do I believe they know how they behave the way they do.

You make statements like   "In vaccinated people there is generally less replication of the virus and with it less of a chance of a mutation occurring."Yet it is the random nature of mutations that is the problem as they don't know where they occur or why they occur so I can't see how they are predictable as you claim they are.

Edited February 15, 2022 by FarFlungFalang

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

 "In vaccinated people there is generally less replication of the virus and with it less of a chance of a mutation occurring."Yet it is the random nature of mutations that is the problem as they don't know where they occur or why they occur so I can't see how they are predictable as you claim they are.

You could always read this..........

 

Unvaccinated People Are Increasing the Chances for More Coronavirus Variants — Here’s How

One of the key characteristics of the coronavirus is the spike protein that allows it to latch onto a host cell, penetrate it, and cause an infection.

That spike is what vaccines target to block the virus.

In the unvaccinated, however, the virus gets in, hijacks the cell, and turns it into a factory. It then makes thousands of copies of itself. If there’s a copying mistake or error, scientists call that a mutation.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/unvaccinated-people-are-increasing-the-chances-for-more-coronavirus-variants-heres-how

[Scott]

16 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

If mutation predictions are based on the number of infections how does one predict the number of infections?I don't remember anyone predicting infections like the ones we are seeing from Omicron and I vaguely remember some saying corona viruses don't mutate often which was maybe because the didn't really understand what they were capable of.

Sorry I just can't swallow your statement that mutations are predictable.I also don't believe scientist and medical experts actually know why this these viruses behave the way they do nor do I believe they know how they behave the way they do.

You make statements like   "In vaccinated people there is generally less replication of the virus and with it less of a chance of a mutation occurring."Yet it is the random nature of mutations that is the problem as they don't know where they occur or why they occur so I can't see how they are predictable as you claim they are.

It's not about what you do or do not believe.  It is about facts, mathematics and probability:

 

Viruses mutate at a predictable frequency. We use that predictable mutation rate to determine where a virus came from, and how long ago it emerged. 

The ability of the SARs-CoV-2 virus to mutate and create new variants is mostly dependent on the amount of virus replicating. In other words, when there are more people infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, there is more possibility for mutations to occur and new variants to arise. 

 

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/are-leaky-vaccines-causing-the-new-covid-19-mutations

 

Another method of mutation is antigenic drift.  

 

The 'error editing' function keeps it relatively stable with regard to mutations, but like most things, it is far, far from perfect.   Compare any of the coronaviruses to something like the HIV virus and you can see the difference.  Mutations occur exponentially more in HIV and that is one reason that they evade vaccines so well.  

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

 

 I had linked to one of the most prestigious public health services in the world. These people hardly engage in making up numbers. By leaving that out, you distorted the evidence in what I wrote. The mods here don't like that kind of editing for a very good reason.

 

And virtually every trans-global public health service in the world acknowledges that official figures are massively undercounting the effects of the coronavirus.

 

https://www.who.int/data/stories/the-true-death-toll-of-covid-19-estimating-global-excess-mortality

 

https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid#excess-mortality-during-covid-19-background

 

[FarFlungFalang]

14 minutes ago, Scott said:

It's not about what you do or do not believe.  It is about facts, mathematics and probability:

 

Viruses mutate at a predictable frequency. We use that predictable mutation rate to determine where a virus came from, and how long ago it emerged. 

The ability of the SARs-CoV-2 virus to mutate and create new variants is mostly dependent on the amount of virus replicating. In other words, when there are more people infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, there is more possibility for mutations to occur and new variants to arise. 

 

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/are-leaky-vaccines-causing-the-new-covid-19-mutations

 

Another method of mutation is antigenic drift.  

 

The 'error editing' function keeps in relatively stable with regard to mutations, but like most things, it is far, far from perfect.   Compare any of the coronaviruses to something like the HIV virus and you can see the difference.  Mutations occur exponentially more in HIV and that is one reason that they evade vaccines so well.  

The link says they can determine where a mutation came from yet the best the can do is say where it was first detected and yet they don't state where any mutation actually came from.Why is that?If they say they can determine where the mutation came from why don't the say where they came from?Sounds to me they are not willing to say with any certainty where the mutations came from because the don't "know" for a fact where they came from and they can't scientifically prove where they came from.You talk about facts, maths and probability yet the best probability can do is say something maybe more likely to occur which still sounds like guessing to me.Knowing the probability of heads or tails doesn't mean the next toss can be predicted.

Therefore I conclude that we will indeed have to live with unvaccinated people here in Thailand just as they have decided to do in Denmark and Sweden which, to me, is a sensible decision to make.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, FarFlungFalang said:

The link says they can determine where a mutation came from yet the best the can do is say where it was first detected and yet they don't state where any mutation actually came from.Why is that?If they say they can determine where the mutation came from why don't the say where they came from?Sounds to me they are not willing to say with any certainty where the mutations came from because the don't "know" for a fact where they came from and they can't scientifically prove where they came from.You talk about facts, maths and probability yet the best probability can do is say something maybe more likely to occur which still sounds like guessing to me.Knowing the probability of heads or tails doesn't mean the next toss can be predicted.

 

Congratulations! You've managed to equate the whole field of statistics - without which modern science would be impossible - to the flip of a coin.

[ozimoron]

Prior COVID offers less protection vs Omicron; mRNA booster shot efficacy declines within months.

 

"Our findings suggest that additional doses (of vaccines) may be necessary,"

 

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/prior-covid-offers-less-protection-vs-omicron-mrna-booster-shot-efficacy-2022-02-14/

[onthedarkside]

A number of posts have been removed and/or edited because of bickering and/or flaming toward fellow forum members.

 

Please cease with the snarky personal comments and stick to the topic, or you'll be getting posting vacations.

 

[Danderman123]

8 hours ago, JustAnotherHun said:

The point is not how geographicly close countries are to each other but to compare very strict and lasting lockdowns countries to those with none or short ones.

Your point is to ignore data you don’t like.

 

Sweden is comparable to Denmark, Norway and Finland. Yeah, I know you would like to compare Sweden to Belgium or some other country, because reasons.

[Danderman123]

On 2/15/2022 at 12:02 PM, FarFlungFalang said:

The link says they can determine where a mutation came from yet the best the can do is say where it was first detected and yet they don't state where any mutation actually came from.Why is that?If they say they can determine where the mutation came from why don't the say where they came from?Sounds to me they are not willing to say with any certainty where the mutations came from because the don't "know" for a fact where they came from and they can't scientifically prove where they came from.You talk about facts, maths and probability yet the best probability can do is say something maybe more likely to occur which still sounds like guessing to me.Knowing the probability of heads or tails doesn't mean the next toss can be predicted.

Therefore I conclude that we will indeed have to live with unvaccinated people here in Thailand just as they have decided to do in Denmark and Sweden which, to me, is a sensible decision to make.

If science could tell you where a mutation “came from”, would you get vaccinated?

 

it sounds like your entire position on vaccination is based on a low understanding of science.

 

[Cherrytreeview]

Sir John Bell, of Oxford University, is on radio 4's World At One as i type.

He has just said the vaccine's are bad at stopping transmission but good at stopping serious illness.

Hopefully in a few years we will have sterilising vaccines.

He also has just said that mask wearing has marginal benefits.

 

[jackspade]

18 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

The whole point of this dicussion is that you are running around saying the vaccines "prevent infection", which is a lie. They may reduce infection, but getting a vaccine is not necesssarily going to stop you from getting infected, just as wearing a seatbelt will not necesssarily stop you from being injured in a car accident.

Vaccines may "reduce" infection or severity of infection, but they do not "prevent" infection.

 

[ozimoron]

18 hours ago, jackspade said:

The whole point of this dicussion is that you are running around saying the vaccines "prevent infection", which is a lie. They may reduce infection, but getting a vaccine is not necesssarily going to stop you from getting infected, just as wearing a seatbelt will not necesssarily stop you from being injured in a car accident.

It's not me that's lying

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, jackspade said:

Look, another poster who can be honest and admit that the vaccines do not prevent infection, but only reduce the severity (in some groups). Finally someone who uses their words carefully.

The mRNA vaccines are nowhere near sterilising.

Do you understand what effectiveness means when it comes to transmission? For example, if a vaccine has an effectiveness of 60% that means over the same amount of time, out of every x percentage of people who got vaccinated compared to the percentage of those who remained unvaccinated, the percentage of the vaccinated who were infected was only 40 percent of those who were unvaccinated. So unless you're claiming that there is no difference in the effectiveness rate, what are you on about? Is it your contention that anything less than 100% effectiveness means that a vaccine isn't preventing transmission?

[Scott]

I had read that the mRNA vaccines were 50% effective in preventing infection from Omicron.  I can't site a source for that statistic, but it sounds about right.  The statistic that is most commonly looked at is the 90% effective in preventing serious infection and hospitalization. 

(https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20220124/booster-shots-effective-preventing-omicron-hospitalizations-cdc)

 

Omicron ripped through the area and of my immediate neighbors, 7 households got infected.  What is interesting is that of those 50% got infected and 50% did not (at least not as of yet).  Living in the same household with an infected person would certainly be a high-risk for infection. 

The entire area were all vaccinated at about the same time and all were boosted at roughly the same time.  The infections happened about 5 to 6 months after the boosters.  One couple that both got sick -- and quite sick-- were not vaccinated.  None were hospitalized.

 

This is 100% anecdotal but it seems to fit in reasonably well with the predicted effectiveness of the vaccines.   

[onthedarkside]

Several misinformation posts and ensuing replies have been removed.

 

Scientific research clearly shows that COVID vaccines do help prevent transmission of COVID to others -- not at a 100% rate, but not at a 0% rate either.

 

The level of vaccine efficiency in the middle depends on all kinds of different variables, including what vaccines were used, how long since the last vaccination, and with Omicron, especially whether the prior shots were only two doses or the added third booster, etc etc.

 

[ozimoron]

The problem is that several BM's are using the strict dictionary definition of the word "prevent" to imply that vaccines don't work at all. The use of the phrase "vaccines don't prevent covid transmission" is misinformation and is being repeated often enough that it must come from some anti vax talking points.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/11/2022 at 6:50 PM, AgentSmith said:

I'm surprised this is still such a hot topic. Omicron has changed this pandemic by a large degree. The virus became much more contagious. Vaccination has a smaller effect now on the transmission of the virus. At the same time omicron is far less of a threat to our physical health and it's becoming quite clear now it's mostly the elderly and the sick who still benefit from vaccination.

 

I am vaccinated and probably also will get my booster shot when it's my turn in April here in LOS. However depending on how the virus keeps mutating that could very well be my last shot.

 

I think we should all stop demonizing the unvaccinated. Popular debate has been behind actual developments since the start of the pandemic for the simple reason that research and development goes really fast these days. It's just really hard to keep up from the sidelines.

 

Now we're approaching an endemic rather than a pandemic situation. I think it's best if we all shifted our attention to more prominent issues.

Quote

I think we should all stop demonizing the unvaccinated.

end quote

 

Seems to me the OP is on that bandwagon, and I stopped reading it when I read

On 2/11/2022 at 8:18 AM, webfact said:

People who don't vaccinate against medical advice without a medical exemption deserve far less than respect.

Not interested in being preached to by the ( IMO ) self righteous.