NON_POLITICAL China Coronavirus THREAD

[ultimatebob]

Connecticut daily positivity-rate Tues was 9%


(and we really do have some nut-jobs around here)

Yeah... and our vaccination rate is over 85% now.

 

[ultimatebob]

You know who says the vaccine is a shield?
Republicans.
When they are lying about vaccines.
Which is all the fucking time.

This shouldn't be a Republican vs Democrat thing. Both sides should be telling the truth... getting the vaccine will lower your chances of getting severe illness or dying from Covid, but it likely won't prevent you from getting sick.

 

[TheVrolok]

, but it likely won't prevent you from getting sick.

What? Yes it will, in fact the mRNA vaccines do this particularly well after a booster. Other vaccines not so much. You have some data to support your claim or just spreading misinformation or cherry picking data and playing fast and loose with the truth?

 

[DigDog]

i just noticed we have reclassified the Coronavirus catastrophe [large monetary loss] as 1/1/2020 to 31/12/2022.
they don't expect it to end until at least all of next year's.

 

[pmv]

What? Yes it will, in fact the mRNA vaccines do this particularly well after a booster. Other vaccines not so much. You have some data to support your claim or just spreading misinformation or cherry picking data and playing fast and loose with the truth?

What I keep hearing is that that booster is doing a lot of that work, especially if the initial jabs were not mRNA ones (glad I had my Pfizer "chaser" shot over a month ago)

e.g.

How effective are the Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines against Omicron?

Booster jabs provide up to 70 per cent protection, study finds

www.independent.co.uk

The latest analysis by the UK government’s Health Security Agency indicates that two Covid jabs do not offer strong protection against symptomatic infection from the new variant, with the current suite of vaccines less effective than they were against Delta.


However, those who have received a booster jab remain up to 70 per cent protected, the agency found, underlining the importance of getting a third shot as soon as possible.

Which says to me that without the booster, you are indeed likely to still get ill, i.e. have symptoms.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What I keep hearing is that that booster is doing a lot of that work, especially if the initial jabs were not mRNA ones (glad I had my Pfizer "chaser" shot over a month ago)

e.g.

How effective are the Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna vaccines against Omicron?

Booster jabs provide up to 70 per cent protection, study finds

www.independent.co.uk

Which says to me that without the booster, you are indeed likely to still get ill, i.e. have symptoms.

See, I really hate the wording of shit like this. Stating that it does not offer protection from 'symptomatic infection' implies there's a difference between that, and something else. Infection is infection, and we should be caring if a person gets infected, not just if it's symptomatic, non-symptomatic, super-symptomatic, or whatever other gradients someone's invented. Then the however, what the fuck does '70% protected' mean in this? 70% of people won't die? Won't have severe illness? You'll have 70% less viral load? Infect 70% less people while spreading? It's mealy-mouthed bullshit backed up by something that showed up in a petri dish 2 weeks ago that's fucking meaningless, and has a single purpose: get people spending money in some fucking shop.

 

[ultimatebob]

What? Yes it will, in fact the mRNA vaccines do this particularly well after a booster. Other vaccines not so much. You have some data to support your claim or just spreading misinformation or cherry picking data and playing fast and loose with the truth?

The "breakthrough" infections of people who are already fully vaccinated and boosted should be all the data you need. Surely you must know somebody who got all their shots and got COVID anyway by now. If not, you can find plenty of examples in the media. Jim Cramer from CNBC is one of the more recent examples. He's so pro vaccination that he was recommending sending in the military to the homes of unvaccinated people to give them forced shots on Twitter. Didn't stop him from getting it.

 

[H T C]

The vaccines SLOW DOWN the virus transmission but DO NOT PREVENT IT.

The vaccines PREVENT MOST of the more serious cases BUT NOT ALL.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

 

[pmv]

See, I really hate the wording of shit like this. Stating that it does not offer protection from 'symptomatic infection' implies there's a difference between that, and something else. Infection is infection, and we should be caring if a person gets infected, not just if it's symptomatic, non-symptomatic, super-symptomatic, or whatever other gradients someone's invented. Then the however, what the fuck does '70% protected' mean in this? 70% of people won't die? Won't have severe illness? You'll have 70% less viral load? Infect 70% less people while spreading? It's mealy-mouthed bullshit backed up by something that showed up in a petri dish 2 weeks ago that's fucking meaningless, and has a single purpose: get people spending money in some fucking shop.

Really don't get your point, or what you are so enraged about. Which shop? It's a report from a government agency.

(I took it as meaning 70% less likely to get a case of COVID that caused symptoms.)

 

[K1052]

The "breakthrough" infections of people who are already fully vaccinated and boosted should be all the data you need. Surely you must know somebody who got all their shots and got COVID anyway by now. If not, you can find plenty of examples in the media. Jim Cramer from CNBC is one of the more recent examples. He's so pro vaccination that he was recommending sending in the military to the homes of unvaccinated people to give them forced shots on Twitter. Didn't stop him from getting it.

I'm not sure why people can't adjust to changing circumstances here. Omicron is more immune evasive and more infectious so more breakthroughs are expected. Triple vaccinated people are still well protected from the worst outcomes as opposed to another big chunk of the population who thinks this happening is proof the vaccines are useless and are sitting ducks, again. In some people the vaccinations, even with Omicron, will prevent some infections, they might be asymptomatic, or so mild that they are never diagnosed.

 

[dullard]

So the vaccine can prevent you from getting sick from the virus or getting too sick, but that's not protecting from illness.

It is absolutely true: the vaccine can prevent you from getting infected when exposed to the virus. It literally reduces risk at every point in the transmission/illness chain.

No vaccine can prevent you from inhaling the virus. No current vaccine can prevent the virus from starting to multiply inside you. You absolutely can and will get infected when vaccinated. Preventing infection is NOT how any vaccine works.

What vaccines can do is to have your immune system primed and ready so that it can stop the virus before it gets out of control. What really happens is that the infection can potentially be stopped before you know it, before you get symptoms, and before you spread it. It thus FEELS like it prevented the infection.

Many people have the misunderstanding that vaccines prevent infections because in most diseases, the immune system kicks in well before you know you got the infection. The difference with Covid is that it multiplies so fast that it often isn't possible for the immune system to kick in before you know you are infected. Vaccines help reduce the severity of the infection because your immune system has antibodies ready and eventually the right T-cells are generated days earlier. But, they absolutely cannot prevent you from breathing in the virus.

uclaLabrat is half correct. Vaccines do reduce risk at every point in the chain. They can reduce the chances of all the steps. The people you deal with, if vaccinated, might not expel as much virus. Your body will handle the virus better if vaccinated. But they do NOT prevent infections. They cannot prevent infections.

 

[dullard]

See, I really hate the wording of shit like this. Stating that it does not offer protection from 'symptomatic infection' implies there's a difference between that, and something else. Infection is infection, and we should be caring if a person gets infected, not just if it's symptomatic, non-symptomatic, super-symptomatic, or whatever other gradients someone's invented. Then the however, what the fuck does '70% protected' mean in this? 70% of people won't die? Won't have severe illness? You'll have 70% less viral load? Infect 70% less people while spreading? It's mealy-mouthed bullshit backed up by something that showed up in a petri dish 2 weeks ago that's fucking meaningless, and has a single purpose: get people spending money in some fucking shop.

The thing is NOTHING short of avoiding people can fully prevent infection. What we can do is make the infections as minimal as possible. 70% protected means that 70% of people won't know that they were infected. It means that at least 70% will not have severe illness. Thus, at least 70% will not die.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Really don't get your point, or what you are so enraged about. Which shop? It's a report from a government agency.

(I took it as meaning 70% less likely to get a case of COVID that caused symptoms.)

I get enraged because it gives people a false sense of security, specifically so they will continue to do what they're doing (spending money) rather than saying 'we don't quite know how bad this is going to be, so better off just hanging back this holiday'.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The thing is NOTHING short of avoiding people can fully prevent infection. What we can do is make the infections as minimal as possible. 70% protected means that 70% of people won't know that they were infected. It means that at least 70% will not have severe illness. Thus, at least 70% will not die.

That's 3 different things, not everyone who knows that they are infected die, same for not everyone who knows they are infected have severe illness, as well as not everyone who has severe illness will die. So which is it?

 

[K1052]

Israel going to shot #4:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1473671544937328647

Germany is reportedly doing the same but has also now ordered Omicron specific vaccine from BioNTech.

 

[ultimatebob]

Israel going to shot #4:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1473671544937328647

Germany is reportedly doing the same but has also now ordered Omicron specific vaccine from BioNTech.

Yeah... that's the booster that I want. If I'm getting a booster, I want something that was designed to work on the new variant that's out there and not something that's kinda/sorta effective depending on who you ask.

 

[pmv]

I get enraged because it gives people a false sense of security, specifically so they will continue to do what they're doing (spending money) rather than saying 'we don't quite know how bad this is going to be, so better off just hanging back this holiday'.

Well I actually agree with you that 'hanging back this holiday' is a good idea. I'm supposed to meet with family for Christmas day, but am really a bit reluctant. (Also I just can't be bothered.)

My only point really was slightly disagreeing with Vrolock (though I realise he's an actual doctor) in his claim that vaccines will prevent one from getting sick. it appears, from that linked report, to be the case that that's not true sans booster jab (particularly with AZ, that is the most common here, which is reportedly fairly ineffectual against omicron), and is not 100% the case even with a booster.

On the other hand, booster jabbing as many people as possible will clearly greatly reduce the number of people who end up severely affected.

 

[K1052]

Yeah... that's the booster that I want. If I'm getting a booster, I want something that was designed to work on the new variant that's out there and not something that's kinda/sorta effective depending on who you ask.

If it was like a cocktail menu I'd probably pick a Delta/Omicron multivalent for my 4th.

 

[dullard]

That's 3 different things, not everyone who knows that they are infected die, same for not everyone who knows they are infected have severe illness, as well as not everyone who has severe illness will die. So which is it?

The numbers generally go up with each step.

If 70% will not know they were infected, then by definition at least 70% will not have serious infection (it is practically impossible to have a serious infection without knowing you are infected). Since the vaccine has protections, the number is actually higher than 70%. Same process with each next step. It is pretty hard to die from infection if you don't have a serious infection.

The numbers change over time, change based on vaccine, change based on disease variant, etc. So, I prefer thinking of it as "at least" rather than going into specific numbers. And also, we really have not had that many people have Omicron long enough to die from it. So, the exact numbers that you want are not yet measurable. Covid deaths tend to occur 9 to 26 days after exposure (with some deaths occurring 2 to 3 months after exposure). Omicron hasn't even been in the UK for 26 days, so how can they know how many will ultimately die let alone how many will a booster prevent?

 

[Ajay]

Just picked up 40 N95 actual NIOSH certified masks. Not living in a bubble like last year. Christmas at my family’s gathering will be a bit annoying since my niece and her husband didn’t get vaccinated as they are trying to get pregnant again (why he doesn’t get vaccinated is beyond me). They will mask when not eating and I will force the issue on cracking open a couple of windows to recirculate fresh air. Family, gotta love them because who else will

Wife and I are triple vaxxed.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

My only point really was slightly disagreeing with Vrolock (though I realise he's an actual doctor) in his claim that vaccines will prevent one from getting sick. it appears, from that linked report, to be the case that that's not true sans booster jab (particularly with AZ, that is the most common here, which is reportedly fairly ineffectual against omicron), and is not 100% the case even with a booster.

I suspect what we're actually seeing is everyone's immune system is amped to shit because of having a booster recently, so we have little spartans running around read to go nuts on inbound variants, rather than the immune system actually having an immunity to omicron. Breakthroughs seem far too common.

 

[K1052]

(why he doesn’t get vaccinated is beyond me)

Maybe they are trying something unconventional:

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So, the exact numbers that you want are not yet measurable.

I agree, and that's my point. They're quantifying an unquantifiable system, intentionally to alleviate fears when they shouldn't be. They may as well say 'cloth masks are 99% effective at protecting you' and just leave it at that. If the numbers aren't quantifiable why not just make some shit up?

 

[Muse]

You know who says the vaccine is a shield?
Republicans.
When they are lying about vaccines.
Which is all the fucking time.

Lying seems to be a requirement for being a Republican. Lie about everything, you're right at home in the R Party. If truth is your thing, you look elsewhere.

 

[dullard]

I agree, and that's my point. They're quantifying an unquantifiable system, intentionally to alleviate fears when they shouldn't be. They may as well say 'cloth masks are 99% effective at protecting you' and just leave it at that. If the numbers aren't quantifiable why not just make some shit up?

Because it isn't made up. There are 70% fewer symptomatic infections. Therefore there are AT LEAST 70% fewer deaths. That isn't made up. Maybe the number is 80%, but it certainly isn't lower than 70%. That is useful information to know.