Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[roydo]

That doesn't support your argument that they can spread it more. That just supports the argument that the vaccinated can spread the virus as much as the unvaccinated, so it is important for the unvaxxed to get the jab to protect themselves (as they're not protected by the vaxxed).

There is so far no peer-reviewed science which supports the notion that the unvaxxed present more of a danger to people than the vaxxed do.

Vax data showed reduced levels of transmission.

I take it you have decided to remain unvaxxed. If thats cos of a medical condition, fair enough. If not, you are a selfish uninformed tit.

 

[dholliday]

‘But the fact that they can have high levels of virus suggests that people who aren’t yet vaccinated may not be as protected from the Delta variant as we hoped. This means it is essential for as many people as possible to get vaccinated – both in the UK and worldwide.’

From your own post.

@ste d' indica, @JimmyJeffers and @verreauxi liking your post.

Are you all really not understanding what this text is saying?


Here's roydo again:

Folk who refuse a vax based on anything other than medical grounds. If they get a dose of covid, they can spread it easier than a vaxed person. So that endangers me, which by extension, seriously endangers Mrs R.

Here's that text in full, it is clearly saying the unvaccinated (or vulnerable) are just as much at risk from the vaccinated as the unvaccinated.

‘We don’t yet know how much transmission can happen from people who get COVID-19 after being vaccinated – for example, they may have high levels of virus for shorter periods of time.

‘But the fact that they [the vaccinated] can have high levels of virus suggests that people who aren’t yet vaccinated may not be as protected from the Delta variant as we hoped. This means it is essential for as many people as possible to get vaccinated – both in the UK and worldwide.’

 

[verreauxi]

America…FFS

Farm Supply Stores Are Running Short on a Horse Dewormer/Pseudoscience COVID Cure

People are using the horse medicine as a supposed COVID cure-all.

slate.com

Yeah, there's lots of pushing of invermectin without solid evidence of its efficacy against COVID in humans without serious side-effects (as well as pushing cooked-data) as detailed below:

Fact-checking claim about ivermectin, COVID-19

An Instagram post claims that the coronavirus pandemic was planned and that "they gave you the virus on purpose" to init

www.politifact.com

Frontiers Removes Controversial Ivermectin Paper Pre-Publication

A review article containing contested claims about the tropical medicine drug as a COVID-19 treatment was listed as "provisionally accepted" on the journal's website before being removed this week.

www.the-scientist.com

But the real issue is that the first paper to show the efficacy of invermectin in reducing the replication of the coronavirus was in vitro (in a petri dish) with a dose at 1000x the safe levels of doses given to mice and humans; it was ineffective in vivo in a mouse-model. So while Invermectin might show promise (and it would be great if it did), those pushing for its use are pushing a drug with no evidence of effectiveness in combatting COVID and, in fact, the drug when taken at microgram quantities (as in the in vitro study) could have extremely serious ill-health effects. This is discussed in the conclusion of this review paper:

Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen - The Journal of Antibiotics

Ivermectin proposes many potentials effects to treat a range of diseases, with its antimicrobial, antiviral, and anti-cancer properties as a wonder drug. It is highly effective against many microorganisms including some viruses. In this comprehensive systematic review, antiviral effects of...

www.nature.com

 

[random]

There is so far no peer-reviewed science which supports the notion that the unvaxxed present more of a danger to people than the vaxxed do.

Counter argument:

https://khub.net/documents/13593956...1-6ade-d3eb-a39e-9c9b25a8122a?t=1619601878136

(Read page 18)

 

[dholliday]

Vax data showed reduced levels of transmission.

Where does it show that? Not from the text you quoted, that shows the opposite (see my post above).

I take it you have decided to remain unvaxxed. If thats cos of a medical condition, fair enough. If not, you are a selfish uninformed tit.

Sorry mate, i am not the uninformed one here.

 

[dholliday]

Counter argument:

https://khub.net/documents/13593956...1-6ade-d3eb-a39e-9c9b25a8122a?t=1619601878136

That's a 32-page document. Care to choice-quote?

 

[roydo]

‘But the fact that they [the vaccinated] can have high levels of virus suggests that people who aren’t yet vaccinated may not be as protected from the Delta variant as we hoped. This means it is essential for as many people as possible to get vaccinated – both in the UK and worldwide.’

So. Get a vax. Not really sure what daft point you are making.

 

[random]

That's a 32-page document. Care to choice-quote?

page 18

small part of it

These results show that the likelihood of household transmission is 40-50% lower for households in which the index cases are vaccinated 21 days or more prior to testing positive (compared to no vaccination),

 

[roydo]

Where does it show that? Not from the text you quoted, that shows the opposite (see my post above).



Sorry mate, i am not the uninformed one here.

Clearly.

The early data from the vax's showed reduced transmission. If that isnt quite as good with the Delta, fine, thats what viruses do.

The central, and important point is that vax's work; unless you disagree.

 

[ste d' indica]

@ste d' indica, @JimmyJeffers and @verreauxi liking your post.

Are you all really not understanding what this text is saying?


Here's roydo again:


Here's that text in full, it is clearly saying the unvaccinated (or vulnerable) are just as much at risk from the vaccinated as the unvaccinated.

‘We don’t yet know how much transmission can happen from people who get COVID-19 after being vaccinated – for example, they may have high levels of virus for shorter periods of time.

‘But the fact that they [the vaccinated] can have high levels of virus suggests that people who aren’t yet vaccinated may not be as protected from the Delta variant as we hoped. This means it is essential for as many people as possible to get vaccinated – both in the UK and worldwide.’

What are you the 'Like Police'?
'kin fascist.

 

[mill]

Source?

I already linked the latest Oxford studies which tell us that the vaxxed and unvaxxed spread similar loads (Delta of course being the hugely-dominant strain):

Delta infections after two vaccine doses had similar peak levels of virus to those in unvaccinated people.

Vaccines still effective against Delta variant of concern, says Oxford-led study of the COVID-19 Infections Survey

Obtaining two vaccine doses remains the most effective way to ensure protection against the COVID-19 Delta variant of concern dominant in the UK today, according to a study from the University of Oxford.

www.ox.ac.uk

Unvaxxed people who have *had* covid already.

‘Two doses of either vaccine still provided at least the same level of protection as having had COVID-19 before through natural infection; people who had been vaccinated after already being infected with COVID-19 had even more protection than vaccinated individuals who had not had COVID-19 before.’

You are deliberating misquoting something to make an incorrect point.

 

[dholliday]

So. Get a vax. Not really sure what daft point you are making.

The point i'm making is countering your claim that unvaxxed people are a bigger risk to folk than the vaxxed.

This is really important. As if yous (plural) continue to blame the unvaxxed - like @BirkenheadBlue is - without any scientific evidence, then we're heading for trouble. We shouldn't be blaming fellow citizens for what the authorities are doing.

Clearly.

The early data from the vax's showed reduced transmission.

Not for Delta.

If that isnt quite as good with the Delta, fine, thats what viruses do.

Delta is the dominant variant with at least 97% of estimates cases. It's now irrelevant how previous variants acted.

The central, and important point is that vax's work; unless you disagree.

That wasn't your central important point. You were worried the unvaxxed would endanger your family. There's no evidence that this is the case.

 

[dholliday]

page 18

small part of it

These results show that the likelihood of household transmission is 40-50% lower for households in which the index cases are vaccinated 21 days or more prior to testing positive (compared to no vaccination),

This is an outdated study, pre-Delta. Irrelevant now.

 

[random]

This is an outdated study, pre-Delta. Irrelevant now.

Delta variant discovered in December 2020

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/5-things-to-know-delta-variant-covid


Quote from report I linked to

The analysis cohort included households with an index case occurring between 4 January 2021 to 28 February 2021


As February 2021 is later than December 2020 I believe your statement is incorrect

 

[roydo]

You were worried the unvaxxed would endanger your family. There's no evidence that this is the case.

Sorry mate, I dont ask folk what variant they might have. Just show some respect and get a jab, or if not, dont come anywhere near me ta.