COVID makes comeback in Thailand as booster fatigue leaves door open

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes, but health authorities should have known - must have known - that any claims of absolute 100% protection against infection and transmission for a rapidly evolving respiratory virus had to be incorrect.

 

Yet that did not stop them flooding the airwaves with statements to that effect, and then using those statements as a basis for subsequent public policy.

 

That is why I characterize them as incompetent, malicious, or both.

If anyone got vaccinated due to assurances of public health officials, most were protected from infection, and perhaps 10s of 1000s were saved from an agonizing death.

 

It's called erring on the side of caution.

 

Your position is like someone saying that no birth control method should be used because nothing is 100% effective.

 

Kind of crazy, if you ask me.

[Danderman123]

3 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

Yes, but health authorities should have known - must have known - that any claims of absolute 100% protection against infection and transmission for a rapidly evolving respiratory virus had to be incorrect.

 

Yet that did not stop them flooding the airwaves with statements to that effect, and then using those statements as a basis for subsequent public policy.

 

That is why I characterize them as incompetent, malicious, or both.

This is really tiresome.

 

You are confused by statements describing use of vaccination to reach herd immunity, based on historical precedent.  The point they were making is that herd immunity could be reach if X% got vaccinated (ignoring quick mutation by the virus, which wasn't known at the time).

 

The fly in the ointment was a bunch of  politically motivated anti-vaxxers who were willing to die to own the Libs. Which they did.

[Eleftheros]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

It's called erring on the side of caution.

It's called 'deliberately making false statements'. And that's being generous.

 

If you believe that government apparatchiks are justified in stating falsehoods for the supposed 'greater good' of society, then you are on the same side as some extremely nasty and well-known people in the recent history of the world.

[Eleftheros]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

This is really tiresome.

 

You are confused by statements describing use of vaccination to reach herd immunity, based on historical precedent.  The point they were making is that herd immunity could be reach if X% got vaccinated (ignoring quick mutation by the virus, which wasn't known at the time).

 

The fly in the ointment was a bunch of  politically motivated anti-vaxxers who were willing to die to own the Libs. Which they did.

No, I am talking about repeated public statements made by leading health and political figures in the US to the effect that if you got a Covid-19 vaccine, you were 100% safe from getting the virus and transmitting it.

 

No more, no less.

[anrcaccount]

People thought "effective" meant they wouldn't catch the virus. So 90% effective or 100% effective meant most people wouldn't get it.

 

Communication of this and public policy was made to strongly encourage vaccination, in many countries by way of mandates restricting peoples freedom to work, travel, and go about their day to day lives.

 

Words like "the vaccinated economy" were used by political leaders and yes, many said if you are vaccinated you wouldn't get the virus. Trying to argue otherwise is highly revisionist. 

 

Then as the virus rapidly mutated, most of the population "got it" anyway, to its credit vaccination having prevented a lot of serious illness and death. 

 

This outcome however, does not change the fact most people got vaccinated ( many under duress) with the belief this would prevent them being infected. 

 

The anti vaccination movement this had spawned, will be looked back on as a public health policy failure. Vaccination rates for many illnesses have plunged as a result of this being linked to people's freedoms and politicised in such a way. Vaccination itself has been tarred by the covid response. 

 

In my view it's unlikely any future pandemics will have any mandates or significant public health restrictions imposed.

 

Vaccination, as it always should have been outside a few exceptional settings, will revert to a personal health decision-  encouraged by your doctor or other health professionals. 

 

[Bkk Brian]

15 minutes ago, anrcaccount said:

People thought "effective" meant they wouldn't catch the virus. So 90% effective or 100% effective meant most people wouldn't get it.

 

Communication of this and public policy was made to strongly encourage vaccination, in many countries by way of mandates restricting peoples freedom to work, travel, and go about their day to day lives.

 

Words like "the vaccinated economy" were used by political leaders and yes, many said if you are vaccinated you wouldn't get the virus. Trying to argue otherwise is highly revisionist. 

 

Then as the virus rapidly mutated, most of the population "got it" anyway, to its credit vaccination having prevented a lot of serious illness and death. 

 

This outcome however, does not change the fact most people got vaccinated ( many under duress) with the belief this would prevent them being infected. 

 

The anti vaccination movement this had spawned, will be looked back on as a public health policy failure. Vaccination rates for many illnesses have plunged as a result of this being linked to people's freedoms and politicised in such a way. Vaccination itself has been tarred by the covid response. 

 

In my view it's unlikely any future pandemics will have any mandates or significant public health restrictions imposed.

 

Vaccination, as it always should have been outside a few exceptional settings, will revert to a personal health decision-  encouraged by your doctor or other health professionals. 

 

People thought "effective" meant they wouldn't catch the virus. So 90% effective or 100% effective meant most people wouldn't get it.

 

Your making numerous assumptions there by not crediting people with inteligence. How can you possibly claim people did not know what effective means when it was clearly stated in all studies, trials and even by the manufacturues themselves: this one from AZ

 

Real-world data demonstrated 92% vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisations due to the Delta variant

  https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-effective-against-delta-indian-variant.html

 

When I had two jabs of AZ here in Thailand I knew it would not stop me getting it although it would help a little in that sense but more so it would help me not to die or get seriously ill.

[anrcaccount]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

People thought "effective" meant they wouldn't catch the virus. So 90% effective or 100% effective meant most people wouldn't get it.

 

Your making numerous assumptions there by not crediting people with inteligence. How can you possibly claim people did not know what effective means when it was clearly stated in all studies, trials and even by the manufacturues themselves: this one from AZ

 

Real-world data demonstrated 92% vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisations due to the Delta variant

  https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-effective-against-delta-indian-variant.html

 

When I had two jabs of AZ I knew it would not stop me getting it although it would help a little in that sense but more so it would help me not to die or get seriously ill.

Most people aren't as smart as you Brian. 

 

Most people don't read any of the studies and papers.

 

Most people think a vaccine will stop them being infected with a virus. 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, anrcaccount said:

Most people aren't as smart as you Brian. 

 

Most people don't read any of the studies and papers.

 

Most people think a vaccine will stop them being infected with a virus. 

More unsubstantiated claims on people and what they do or do not know.

[TravelerEastWest]

9 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

More unsubstantiated claims on people and what they do or do not know.

I agree that vaccines and boosters are very good for our health.

 

"Most people don't read any of the studies and papers."

 

I am well educated and I don't read technical papers as I don't have the statistical skills needed to really understand them (only basic grad school statistics not advanced classes) and other than a few scientists I don't know anyone who is qualified to understand research papers.

 

But again COVID vaccines are amazingly helpful for the world.

[Danderman123]

12 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

No, I am talking about repeated public statements made by leading health and political figures in the US to the effect that if you got a Covid-19 vaccine, you were 100% safe from getting the virus and transmitting it.

 

No more, no less.

And I am talking about misinformation spread by deluded anti-vaxxers that caused many people to forgo vaccination and to die an agonizing death from Covid. Some people have no shame.

 

A million dead Americans from Covid, and you are still pushing the anti-vax agenda.

[Danderman123]

12 hours ago, anrcaccount said:

Most people aren't as smart as you Brian. 

 

Most people don't read any of the studies and papers.

 

Most people think a vaccine will stop them being infected with a virus. 

Yeah, those medical researchers and physicians who maintain that vaccination is effective in reducing Covid infections are all wrong, because you know more than them.

 

There are special facilities for people who think like that. Especially since anti-vaxxers indirectly cause Covid infections by inducing people to forgo vaccination. 

[Danderman123]

13 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

It's called 'deliberately making false statements'. And that's being generous.

 

If you believe that government apparatchiks are justified in stating falsehoods for the supposed 'greater good' of society, then you are on the same side as some extremely nasty and well-known people in the recent history of the world.

Nope.

 

If an official thought at the time that vaccination was 100% effective, they made a harmless mistake.

 

On the other hand, someone claiming that vaccination is ineffective induces people to forgo vaccination, with the result that people die.

 

You are deluded if your panties are in a bun over early optimism about vaccine efficacy.

 

More to the point, you cannot differentiate between high effectiveness and zero effectiveness. Which is weird. It's like someone claiming that since condoms are not 100% effective, they are 0% effective.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Don't feed the anti-vax trolls... It just encourages more trolling.

 

[stoner]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Don't feed the anti-vax trolls... It just encourages more trolling.

 

same could be said about the other side now john. don't feed the fear mongering ...it just encourages more fear mongering. 

 

your reply will be predictable as well. 

 

i think some of the posters are only trying at times to put some relative context on some valid questions and concerns. 

 

i am in no way anti vax (took 2 moderna when i was asked to for the good of the general public. even though i did not want to) but i also have questions and concerns over the pandemic. so do i get labeled because i have concerns that are my free will to have ? 

 

does ones worldview trump another ? 

 

some posters may be concerned with the things that were said at the start of covid. things that when taken form that persons world view are extremely important to them.... even if not important or relevant to you.

 

that makes them anti vaxers ? 

 

strange logic. 

[Eleftheros]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

If an official thought at the time that vaccination was 100% effective, they made a harmless mistake.

It was not "if", it was not "an official" and it was not "a harmless mistake".

 

It definitely occurred, it was the US Government and their leading health authorities, and it was a false supposition which was used as a firm basis for a raft of extremely damaging and discriminatory policy decisions.

 

For example, there is no logical reason for any sort of vaccine mandate unless you are holding as a fact that the vaccines are 100% effective. Because if you don't have that 100% certainty, you cannot logically separate the population into a pristine vaccinated cohort and an infectious unvaccinated cohort.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

European groups green-light COVID-19 vaccine strain change

"The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) today issued a joint statement that agrees with a recent World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation that COVID-19 vaccines be switched for the fall to a monovalent (single-strain) vaccine that contains an XBB lineage strain.

...

Also, the ECDC and EMA recommended simplified recommendations for immunization campaigns in the fall, including a single dose for people older than 5 years, that revaccinations stick with a 3-month minimum interval, and that people with weakened immune systems may need extra doses based on national recommendations."

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/european-groups-green-light-covid-19-vaccine-strain-change

 

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-ecdc-statement-updating-covid-19-vaccines-target-new-sars-cov-2-virus-variants

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Large study shows safety of COVID mRNA vaccines in young children

"Messenger RNA vaccines for COVID-19 pose little risk to young children, with no myocarditis (inflammation of heart muscle) or pericarditis (inflammation around the heart) observed in vaccine recipients age 0 to 4. The reassuring findings were published today in Pediatrics.

...

"Parents can be assured that this large study found no serious side effects from the mRNA vaccines," said senior author Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center in a press release.

 

"Parents can protect their young children from COVID-19 in the same way they vaccinate their children to protect from other serious childhood diseases."

 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/large-study-shows-safety-covid-mrna-vaccines-young-children

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

On 6/8/2023 at 1:18 PM, Eleftheros said:

It was not "if", it was not "an official" and it was not "a harmless mistake".

 

It definitely occurred, it was the US Government and their leading health authorities, and it was a false supposition which was used as a firm basis for a raft of extremely damaging and discriminatory policy decisions.

 

For example, there is no logical reason for any sort of vaccine mandate unless you are holding as a fact that the vaccines are 100% effective. Because if you don't have that 100% certainty, you cannot logically separate the population into a pristine vaccinated cohort and an infectious unvaccinated cohort.

Given how many lives were saved by vaccination, its all good.

 

I understand that *somebody* has to take the side of the virus, that's just human nature. So, yeah, anything that served to protect people from the virus would be deplorable for pro-virus types.

[Danderman123]

On 6/8/2023 at 12:23 PM, stoner said:

same could be said about the other side now john. don't feed the fear mongering ...it just encourages more fear mongering. 

 

your reply will be predictable as well. 

 

i think some of the posters are only trying at times to put some relative context on some valid questions and concerns. 

 

i am in no way anti vax (took 2 moderna when i was asked to for the good of the general public. even though i did not want to) but i also have questions and concerns over the pandemic. so do i get labeled because i have concerns that are my free will to have ? 

 

does ones worldview trump another ? 

 

some posters may be concerned with the things that were said at the start of covid. things that when taken form that persons world view are extremely important to them.... even if not important or relevant to you.

 

that makes them anti vaxers ? 

 

strange logic. 

Were you vaccinated when you were a child? Was it traumatic for you?

 

You seem to believe that refusal to vaccinate during an epidemic that killed a million Americans is somehow a good thing.

[stoner]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You seem to believe that refusal to vaccinate during an epidemic that killed a million Americans is somehow a good thing.

what are you on about ? please refrain from telling me my own opinion thanks. 

[Eleftheros]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Given how many lives were saved by vaccination, its all good.

 

I understand that *somebody* has to take the side of the virus, that's just human nature. So, yeah, anything that served to protect people from the virus would be deplorable for pro-virus types.

Someone who is "pro-virus" is actively anti-human, given that viruses kill humans in large numbers every year.

 

Such people, it seems, can almost exclusively be found in the ranks of the climate change zealots who believe that humans are, in the words of environmentalist David Attenborough,  "a plague on the Earth".

 

To produce an estimate of "lives saved by vaccination", you first have to assume what degree of protection against a "Covid death" was given to each individual by a vaccination, and then multiply that by the population, a highly speculative piece of mathematics.

 

These estimates serve a single purpose: to pacify the gullible into believing they did the "right thing".

 

[Danderman123]

8 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

 

 

To produce an estimate of "lives saved by vaccination", you first have to assume what degree of protection against a "Covid death" was given to each individual by a vaccination, and then multiply that by the population, a highly speculative piece of mathematics.

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext

 

14.4 million lives saved the first year of vaccination.

 

 

[rabang]

On 6/7/2023 at 3:09 AM, Danderman123 said:

It looks like it's going to be one booster per year.

I will never get a covid booster. As a matter of fact I regret taking the first two shots as well.

[Eleftheros]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

14.4 million lives saved the first year of vaccination.

Good find. It exactly proves my point that any estimate of "lives saved" is an entirely speculative exercise in mathematical modelling.

 

If you want to "prove" that the vaccines saved lives, you first have to assume that the vaccines saved lives, as the article explicitly states.

 

"Vaccination was assumed to confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of severe disease requiring hospital admission."

 

Of course, once you have simply assumed that the vaccine works, then it is not too difficult to "prove" that it saved a lot of lives. The exact number you come up with depends on how you tweak the parameters in your computer model.

 

It's a mathematically pointless exercise, but I suppose it serves a purpose. It probably provides some cover to governments and Big Pharma by "proving" how well they handled this outbreak.

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Eleftheros said:

Good find. It exactly proves my point that any estimate of "lives saved" is an entirely speculative exercise in mathematical modelling.

 

If you want to "prove" that the vaccines saved lives, you first have to assume that the vaccines saved lives, as the article explicitly states.

 

"Vaccination was assumed to confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of severe disease requiring hospital admission."

 

Of course, once you have simply assumed that the vaccine works, then it is not too difficult to "prove" that it saved a lot of lives. The exact number you come up with depends on how you tweak the parameters in your computer model.

 

It's a mathematically pointless exercise, but I suppose it serves a purpose. It probably provides some cover to governments and Big Pharma by "proving" how well they handled this outbreak.

 

"If you want to "prove" that the vaccines saved lives, you first have to assume that the vaccines saved lives, as the article explicitly states."

 

"Vaccination was assumed to confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of severe disease requiring hospital admission."

 

 

The assumption that it saves lives is well documented by the facts in the Vaccine effectiveness trials including real world trials. Numerous links on that.

 

The study additionally cites all its links to back this up at the end of the article.

[h90]

On 6/7/2023 at 9:22 PM, Danderman123 said:

This is really tiresome.

 

You are confused by statements describing use of vaccination to reach herd immunity, based on historical precedent.  The point they were making is that herd immunity could be reach if X% got vaccinated (ignoring quick mutation by the virus, which wasn't known at the time).

 

The fly in the ointment was a bunch of  politically motivated anti-vaxxers who were willing to die to own the Libs. Which they did.

every RNA virus quickly mutate...that I learned in school...so that is well known since 50+ years. And that an injected vaccine does not work against infection of respiratory viruses is also well known. That why they try to develop vaccines you spray into the nose, so you have antibodies there.
 

Beside all the discussion if the vaccine is good or bad, these two facts were well known and on the beginning they also said that with the mRNA vaccine they can change vaccine in a matter of weeks with every mutation. That was the big selling point of the mRNA vaccine.

 

Coronaviruses are known and researched since the 1930s that is not something complete new we never have seen before. Just this one was much more dangerous than the others...but not something new

[h90]

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

Good find. It exactly proves my point that any estimate of "lives saved" is an entirely speculative exercise in mathematical modelling.

 

If you want to "prove" that the vaccines saved lives, you first have to assume that the vaccines saved lives, as the article explicitly states.

 

"Vaccination was assumed to confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of severe disease requiring hospital admission."

 

Of course, once you have simply assumed that the vaccine works, then it is not too difficult to "prove" that it saved a lot of lives. The exact number you come up with depends on how you tweak the parameters in your computer model.

 

It's a mathematically pointless exercise, but I suppose it serves a purpose. It probably provides some cover to governments and Big Pharma by "proving" how well they handled this outbreak.

 

prove that it saved lives is a pointless proof. You need to prove that it is a net benefit...which may vary massive between age groups

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, Eleftheros said:

Good find. It exactly proves my point that any estimate of "lives saved" is an entirely speculative exercise in mathematical modelling.

 

If you want to "prove" that the vaccines saved lives, you first have to assume that the vaccines saved lives, as the article explicitly states.

 

"Vaccination was assumed to confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of severe disease requiring hospital admission."

 

Of course, once you have simply assumed that the vaccine works, then it is not too difficult to "prove" that it saved a lot of lives. The exact number you come up with depends on how you tweak the parameters in your computer model.

 

It's a mathematically pointless exercise, but I suppose it serves a purpose. It probably provides some cover to governments and Big Pharma by "proving" how well they handled this outbreak.

 

In Real Life, vaccinated individuals died from Covid at much lower rates than the unvaccinated.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, h90 said:

prove that it saved lives is a pointless proof. You need to prove that it is a net benefit...which may vary massive between age groups

I guess your post makes sense if you think that saving lives has no value.

[Eleftheros]

23 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

In Real Life, vaccinated individuals died from Covid at much lower rates than the unvaccinated.

That may be true, but it still doesn't alter the fact that declaring "vaccines saved 14.4 million lives" is an absurd and unscientific claim.

 

Any number can only best guess from a computer model based on a set of assumptions and estimates. Change the assumptions and you change the number.

 

The Lancet guys did extremely detailed work, but the reality of computer modelling is that the error bars on any estimate are usually so wide as to make the answer meaningless - except for political purposes.

 

That was precisely the case of Imperial College's computer model of Covid deaths - wildly inaccurate, but politically useful. Hundreds more examples of this kind of thing can be found in the climate change literature.