COVID anti-vaxxers should be denied COVID medical care

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
534
304
136
Correct me if i am wrong but CDC stopped tracking any positive cases unless person is hospitalized if they are vaccinated. Have that changed since they announced that?
I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion, but if that's true it would be another sign that they're not playing this above board, isn't it? "Measuring is knowing" we say in Holland.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
So you don't WANT to know the real number? You don't believe this one? Your "deliberately hyperbolic" insinuation is ridiculous. I did not want to put in a precise number because it changes anyway every day, and again I believe my term was perfectly appropriate because 20k or more would become tens of thousands in the English I've learned. You just don't like it, that much is clear.

Of course MANY more died being un-vaccinated, but the number is still important because we know they number of infected persons in any particular group is WAY higher than the number of deaths. That means that MANY fully vaccinated people are still carrying the virus, and we now know that with Delta on they are likely to be just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

Now, you're right about how difficult it is to find this info on the CDC website. It's NOT an accident in my opinion. Unlike you though, I WILL take the time to dig it up, because I want to live in REALITY.
In my experience "thousands and thousands" is used interchangeably with 10s of thousands and even 100s of thousands. Never seen it used when thousands is just as accurate.

I didn't say I don't want to know. That is you being hyperbolic again. I said I don't care enough to waste my time when the numbers provided by NPR/NBC are probably accurate to what the CDC has. I still would guess that the CDC numbers are overstated, but I have no proof of that. It's just my guess.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: eikelbijter

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion, but if that's true it would be another sign that they're not playing this above board, isn't it? "Measuring is knowing" we say in Holland.
If they are not tracking the breakthrough infection well then any numbers they do release is really pointless being they are not complete. Yes more we measure the better picture we get and unfortunately we are not getting the complete picture.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: eikelbijter

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
534
304
136
If they are not tracking the breakthrough infection well then any numbers they do release is really pointless being they are not complete. Yes more we measure the better picture we get and unfortunately we are not getting the complete picture.
I don't even know how to respond to that. So any numbers they do release "is" pointless according to you. Got it!

By the way, I do believe they're still tracking breakthrough infections that result in deaths but anyway...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
Wow, calling names? Really?

So asking how many people have died after being fully vaccinated is "pointless and idiotic"? Are you KIDDING me?

Are you disputing that natural immunity is considered as good as vaccine induced immunity in the Netherlands? Or other countries in Europe? Do I really need to show you proof?

Now as far as peer-reviewed studies go: these vaccines are SO new that the review process on most is going on right NOW. I'll link some relevant findings, which support my assertions. When the peer-review is done, we will find out, won't we?


(Edit to add quote):
"The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher. "

You guys seem to respond as if I'm against vaccines, which I'm clearly not. I just want us to be honest about their efficacy and according to the CDC we now have more than 10 thousand americans who have died of Covid after being fully vaccinated. That means MANY more infected and thus one can only conclude that expecting this to go away if only more people got vaccinated is just hogwash.
Of course it's not 'hogwash'. Vaccination reduces the likelihood of being infected in the first place and if you are infected you are infectious for a shorter period of time.

It's just like with Measles - vaccination does not make it impossible for you to contract Measles, but we have largely eliminated it from circulation through vaccination by reducing R. The same principle applies here.

Also, speaking of natural immunity - it seems to be MUCH worse than vaccination against Omicron, so I suspect countries will be revisiting their policies that natural immunity is as good as vaccination.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
If they are not tracking the breakthrough infection well then any numbers they do release is really pointless being they are not complete. Yes more we measure the better picture we get and unfortunately we are not getting the complete picture.
Why would numbers on hospitalization and death be pointless without cases? That's illogical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eikelbijter

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
534
304
136
Also, speaking of natural immunity - it seems to be MUCH worse than vaccination against Omicron, so I suspect countries will be revisiting their policies that natural immunity is as good as vaccination.

Now I am going to ask for proof! Show us a peer-reviewed study that shows that!

Now, of course as newer variants arise, protection goes down, for BOTH natural and vaccine induced immunity. I never said having had Covid19 will protect you from ALL possible future variants, not to mention Covid23 or whichever year we get the next version. My one and only point is that it's ridiculous to deny that natural immunity is real, potent, and most likely better than simply being vaccinated.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
Now I am going to ask for proof! Show us a peer-reviewed study that shows that!
I said it seems to be much worse, we obviously haven't had enough time to do peer reviewed research on it yet, but the research that has been done so far suggests natural immunity is 'substantially' compromised.

 

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
534
304
136
I said it seems to be much worse, we obviously haven't had enough time to do peer reviewed research on it yet, but the research that has been done so far suggests natural immunity is 'substantially' compromised.

That's not what you said; you said it's "it seems to be MUCH worse than vaccination against Omicron". Your article says NOTHING about that. I quote: "The study also did not examine the protection offered by vaccination."

The article you linked does nothing to support your statement. As time goes by, and newer variants emerge, protection will go down. We've know that from the beginning. This goes for natural AND vaccine induced immunity.

Try again.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
That's not what you said; you said it's "it seems to be MUCH worse than vaccination against Omicron". Your article says NOTHING about that. I quote: "The study also did not examine the protection offered by vaccination."

The article you linked does nothing to support your statement. As time goes by, and newer variants emerge, protection will go down. We've know that from the beginning. This goes for natural AND vaccine induced immunity.

Try again.
Sigh. When combined with studies that show boosters provide high antibody levels against Omicron a sensible person would conclude that vaccine immunity likely provides significantly better protection.

Do you understand now?

 

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
534
304
136
Sigh. When combined with studies that show boosters provide high antibody levels against Omicron a sensible person would conclude that vaccine immunity likely provides significantly better protection.

Do you understand now?

Sighing huh?

We were not talking about boosters, so why are you bringing them up now? We were talking about people with previous infection but no vaccine versus people without natural immunity WITH vaccine.

Then you made a statement, without ANY proof, then posted info about something different. I should be the one sighing.....

One more thing: you do realize that the stuff you posted is about a study done In Vitro right? You do understand what that means right?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
Sighing huh?

We were not talking about boosters, so why are you bringing them up now? We were talking about people with previous infection but no vaccine versus people without natural immunity WITH vaccine.

Then you made a statement, without ANY proof, then posted info about something different. I should be the one sighing.....
It makes no sense to exclude boosters from this discussion as they are part of the vaccination schedule recommended by most countries. Why on earth would you demand they be excluded from the discussion? (other than for the obvious reason that it makes you probably wrong, haha)

The facts are simple:
1) Initial evidence out of South Africa shows substantial immune evasion by Omicron for those with natural immunity, indicating it is not very effective against it.
2) Initial evidence for booster vaccinations shows strong response to Omicron, indicating they are likely effective against it.
3) Boosters are available for vaccines and by definition are not available for natural infection.

Therefore, a sensible person would conclude that vaccine protection is likely substantially better than natural immunity against Omicron. I have provided you evidence to this effect and the logic is clear. If you're not interested in accepting evidence that's up to you, but you're being silly if you ignore it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
534
304
136
It makes no sense to exclude boosters from this discussion as they are part of the vaccination schedule recommended by most countries. Why on earth would you demand they be excluded from the discussion? (other than for the obvious reason that it makes you probably wrong, haha)

The facts are simple:
1) Initial evidence out of South Africa shows substantial immune evasion by Omicron for those with natural immunity, indicating it is not very effective against it.
2) Initial evidence for booster vaccinations shows strong response to Omicron, indicating they are likely effective against it.
3) Boosters are available for vaccines and by definition are not available for natural infection.

Therefore, a sensible person would conclude that vaccine protection is likely substantially better than natural immunity against Omicron. I have provided you evidence to this effect and the logic is clear. If you're not interested in accepting evidence that's up to you, but you're being silly if you ignore it.

I agree with fact 1, 2 is at least somewhat premature depending on how you define "effective", but 3 is clearly not a fact. The fact is that REinfection IS the natural equivalent of a "booster" and most definitely available. Surviving Delta AND Omicron would give the best immunity possible.

Therefore, your much-too-simple conclusion has very little meaning other than in a binary wisdom kind of way. Of course reintroducing a pathogen, or even a part of a known pathogen, will bring the immune system up in activity. Antibody titers go up, we can measure that. We also know that immunity is MUCH more involved than that and that it can in fact take months before what could be considered "maximum" protection is achieved: the maximum ability of a person's body to ward off negative consequences of exposure to the pathogen.

The question of necessity of mandatory boosters, which could only be supported under the assumption that it would make a material difference in serious outcomes after reinfection with a newer strain, is a serious one that I don't want to get in to.

I will say that I believe boosters should be available to all that want them, probably would even be worth it to make them free.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
I agree with fact 1, 2 is at least somewhat premature depending on how you define "effective", but 3 is clearly not a fact. The fact is that REinfection IS the natural equivalent of a "booster" and most definitely available. Surviving Delta AND Omicron would give the best immunity possible.

Therefore, your much-too-simple conclusion has very little meaning other than in a binary wisdom kind of way. Of course reintroducing a pathogen, or even a part of a known pathogen, will bring the immune system up in activity. Antibody titers go up, we can measure that. We also know that immunity is MUCH more involved than that and that it can in fact take months before what could be considered "maximum" protection is achieved: the maximum ability of a person's body to ward off negative consequences of exposure to the pathogen.

The question of necessity of mandatory boosters, which could only be supported under the assumption that it would make a material difference in serious outcomes after reinfection with a newer strain, is a serious one that I don't want to get in to.

I will say that I believe boosters should be available to all that want them, probably would even be worth it to make them free.
Getting infected again, with all the risks and ill effects that go with it is precisely the outcome we are trying to avoid! That’s why boosters for natural immunity are by definition impossible.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,487
533
126
Just because someone doesn't want, or doesn't need the vaccine doesn't mean they are anti-vaccine.

Then all fatties should be denied beds at hospitals when their health fails by your thinking. I mean, they can eat better and exercise right? Someone speeding or texts and wrecks their car, shouldn't get a bed either, right? It is a conscious decision to be a fatty and drive fast. This is an idiotic and ignorant way of thinking. Not surprising certain people go down this road though.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Brovane and Pohemi

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
6,580
3,059
136
The vast majority of vaccinated people dying of covid in my state are 71+. This makes total sense when you think about it for a minute. I would also assume they make up the bulk of the hospitalizations among the vaxxed. You're still better off with the vaccine though as the numbers show.

Breakthrough cases, deaths and hospitalizations are all on my states dhhr covid site. They're not hiding these numbers.

breakthrough.jpg


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hospital.jpg
 

weblooker2021

Senior member
Jan 18, 2021
749
254
96
How does not knowing that make hospitalization and death stats pointless? Nothing you’re saying makes any sense.
Say 1 million people got vaccinated and 1000 of them utlimatly hospitalized and ultimately 500 died. Now the only info you got is that 1000 vaccinated hospitalized and 500 died. That is big difference between what information you can gather as result.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
Say 1 million people got vaccinated and 1000 of them utlimatly hospitalized and ultimately 500 died. Now the only info you got is that 1000 vaccinated hospitalized and 500 died. That is big difference between what information you can gather as result.
Yes, it would be better to have more data but on no planet does it make the hospitalization and death data pointless. In fact, those are the most important and useful data points by far, as those are the outcomes we are looking to prevent!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,960
8,195
136
Thousands and thousands of fully vaccinated Americans have died already and thousands more will of Covid. This thing WILL strain it even with vaccines. We need to stop being so afraid to die and learn to live with the dangers of the universe in a rational manner.
So you don't use seatbelts, have smoke detectors or CO detector in your home, etc.? It is time that we as a society remove all of these life-saving measures and let the Darwin effect cleanse society of dumb motherfuckers like you and a few others here.

And of course you must refuse all medical help when sick or in an accident, and don't fucking dare to call the fire department or an ambulance.
 

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
534
304
136
Say 1 million people got vaccinated and 1000 of them utlimatly hospitalized and ultimately 500 died. Now the only info you got is that 1000 vaccinated hospitalized and 500 died. That is big difference between what information you can gather as result.
Well, CDC says we have almost 200 million fully vaccinated people in the US. Last count of deaths among them that we could find, and any newer evidence is very much welcomed, is more than 10 thousand as of 6 weeks ago.

What's important though is that, 10 thousand deaths means far more infections, especially since the vaccines are very effective at preventing severe disease. I'm not sure if there are accurate numbers available but it has to be more than a hundred times more. That would mean that the vaccine would only be 99% effective at preventing death upon infection, and I believe it's MUCH higher than that. If we take 99.9% it would be a thousand times. This means that 10 MILLION fully vaccinated people have to have had Covid for 10 thousand to die. With that many breakthrough cases, it's hard to believe vaccine mandates make much sense.
 

eikelbijter

Senior member
Aug 27, 2009
534
304
136
So you don't use seatbelts, have smoke detectors or CO detector in your home, etc.? It is time that we as a society remove all of these life-saving measures and let the Darwin effect cleanse society of dumb motherfuckers like you and a few others here.
Again with the name calling. I already wrote I TOOK THE VACCINE buddy! Calm the fuck down!