Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[dholliday]

Coronavirus infections three times lower in double vaccinated people - REACT | Imperial News | Imperial College London

New research has found that double vaccinated people were three times less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive for the coronavirus.

www.imperial.ac.uk

choice quote? it's no good just linking things, you have to demonstrate that what you found is a counter to what i found.

 

[dholliday]

I posted a one-page info-graphic with easily-readable quotes, some highlighted in blue boxes and I get asked "any choice quotes?"

yes, what is your counter-argument based on that graph?

it's no good just linking things, you have to demonstrate that what you found is a counter to what i found.

 

[random]

You're just linking stuff here. You need to quote what is relevant.

What I need to do is put you on ignore

 

[Amw79]

choice quote? it's no good just linking things, you have to demonstrate that what you found is a counter to what i found.

You asked for a source to the claim that ‘unvaccinated people are more likely to contract COVID than vaccinated people’.

The fact that you’re even questioning that claim is extremely telling.

Anyway, I’ve posted a recent source.

 

[dholliday]

You asked for a source to the claim that ‘unvaccinated people are more likely to contract COVID than vaccinated people’.

The fact that you’re even questioning that claim is extremely telling.

Anyway, I’ve posted a recent source.

no choice quotes? That's what i've been doing as i don't expect yous to read entire articles looking for that one crucial sentence.

It's good debate etiquette to choice-quote. Which bit from that article is a solid counter to what i've said?

 

[Wizard]

No, my statement is correct because that entire report does not mention Delta once.

Delta didn't spread in the UK until late-Spring. It now accounts for an estimated 97% of cases.




Source?

AP News don't seem to mention anything like this.

Study: Vaccinated people can carry as much virus as others

In another big setback for the nation’s efforts to stamp out the coronavirus, scientists who studied a big COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts concluded that vaccinated people who got so-called breakthrough infections carried about the same amount of the coronavirus as those who did not get the shots

apnews.com

I did find this, tho':

Infographic: How COVID Affects Vaccinated and Unvaccinated People

This chart shows COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths among fully vaccinated/not fully vaccinated people in Wisconsin in July 2021.

www.statista.com

In July 2021, around 125 breakthrough infections happened per 100,000 fully vaccinated Wisconsinites, compared with around 369 cases per 100,000 inhabitants of the state who had not been fully vaccinated.

It's not conclusive data, as we'd need to see age-breakdowns to further confirm. For example the younger unvaxxed/hesitant are more likely to socialise than the vaxxed older folk, resulting in %-higher spread.

Statistically, therefore: a group of unvaxxed (possibly unmasked) hanging about together will statistically more likely contract an infection than smaller groups of vaccinated who remain cautious with masks/distancing. This is due to human behaviour, not vaccine/virus-behaviour.

To disprove this we'd need a scientific study which demonstrates a statistically higher infection rate with the unvaxxed over the vaxxed, regardless of behaviour.

Until we have this evidence: is what we know so far enough for wider society to condemn the unvaxxed and demand a limit to their freedoms?

I personally don't think so.



That is the scientific conclusion so far, symptomatic or not.



The BMJ author just added this bit in, but didn't cite how he knows this. The rest of the piece is a repeat-report on the same Oxford study i already linked (which did not have this bolded line).



Exactly.


Seems so.



You're just linking stuff here. You need to quote what is relevant.



What's your evidence for this? I've backed up my argument with respected scientific studies. You're just saying stuff.



Just saying random stuff...



To protect myself, I make my own decision.

To protect others, I first find out if i'm a higher risk to others in the first place (i'm not).



Source?


Anyone can get hospitalised for all kinds of thing: speeding traffic accidents, drug overdoses, alcohol/tobacco-caused cancer, pub fights etc...it's a slippery slope to an inhumane society if we suddenly want to rank people's worthiness for treatment not on their condition, but on their life choices.



Any choice quotes?


Who's anti-vax in this thread?

Ok, so I gave you a source from the BMJ. You have decided that isn’t relevant because the author “just added this bit in”. Here is another source from Imperial College London.

“People who were unvaccinated had a three-fold higher prevalence than those who had received both doses of a vaccine, at 1.21% compared to 0.40%. However both of these represent more than a five-fold increase compared to the previous round (0.24%, 0.07%, respectively). Based on these data, the researchers estimate that fully vaccinated people in this testing round had between around 50% to 60% reduced risk of infection, including asymptomatic infection, compared to unvaccinated people.”

Coronavirus infections three times lower in double vaccinated people - REACT | Imperial News | Imperial College London

New research has found that double vaccinated people were three times less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive for the coronavirus.

www.imperial.ac.uk

 

[Amw79]

no choice quotes? That's what i've been doing as i don't expect yous to read entire articles looking for that one crucial sentence.

It's good debate etiquette to choice-quote. Which bit from that article is a solid counter to what i've said?

You Didn’t ask for choice quotes, you asked for a source. Which I provided.

 

[Wizard]

You Didn’t ask for choice quotes, you asked for a source. Which I provided.

I’ve just given him the “choice quote” from the same article.

 

[dholliday]

Ok, so I gave you a source from the BMJ. You have decided that isn’t relevant because the author “just added this bit in”.

I already posted that but direct from the source. You posted a second-hand report of that which added in that one sentence, without evidence.

Memory like a sieve, you lol

Here is the original again:

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

Here is another source from Imperial College London.

“People who were unvaccinated had a three-fold higher prevalence than those who had received both doses of a vaccine, at 1.21% compared to 0.40%. However both of these represent more than a five-fold increase compared to the previous round (0.24%, 0.07%, respectively). Based on these data, the researchers estimate that fully vaccinated people in this testing round had between around 50% to 60% reduced risk of infection, including asymptomatic infection, compared to unvaccinated people.”

Coronavirus infections three times lower in double vaccinated people - REACT | Imperial News | Imperial College London

New research has found that double vaccinated people were three times less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive for the coronavirus.

www.imperial.ac.uk

That is a good link and a good choice-quote!

However, it doesn't say anything new to counter what I've already found. You may have missed it, see here:

I did find this, tho':

https://www.statista.com/chart/25589/covid-19-infections-vaccinated-unvaccinated/

In July 2021, around 125 breakthrough infections happened per 100,000 fully vaccinated Wisconsinites, compared with around 369 cases per 100,000 inhabitants of the state who had not been fully vaccinated.

It's not conclusive data, as we'd need to see age-breakdowns to further confirm. For example the younger unvaxxed/hesitant are more likely to socialise than the vaxxed older folk, resulting in %-higher spread.

Statistically, therefore: a group of unvaxxed (possibly unmasked) hanging about together will statistically more likely contract an infection than smaller groups of vaccinated who remain cautious with masks/distancing. This is due to human behaviour, not vaccine/virus-behaviour.

To disprove this we'd need a scientific study which demonstrates a statistically higher infection rate with the unvaxxed over the vaxxed, regardless of behaviour.

Until we have this evidence: is what we know so far enough for wider society to condemn the unvaxxed and demand a limit to their freedoms?

I personally don't think so.

You Didn’t ask for choice quotes, you asked for a source. Which I provided.

Source including relevant quotes is the done thing. Just googling something and whacking the link in a post doesn't add anything to the debate.

Which part of that article is a counter to what i've been saying?

 

[mill]

I already posted that but direct from the source. You posted a second-hand report of that which added in that one sentence, without evidence.

Memory like a sieve, you lol

Here is the original again:

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

That is a good link and a good choice-quote!

However, it doesn't say anything new to counter what I've already found. You may have missed it, see here:




Source including relevant quotes is the done thing. Just googling something and whacking the link in a post doesn't add anything to the debate.

Which part of that article is a counted to what i've been saying?

Im struggling to understand the point you are trying to make here.

Do you think that vaccinated people are more protected than unvaccinated people (if neither have had covid before)?

 

[Amw79]

I already posted that but direct from the source. You posted a second-hand report of that which added in that one sentence, without evidence.

Memory like a sieve, you lol

Here is the original again:

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

That is a good link and a good choice-quote!

However, it doesn't say anything new to counter what I've already found. You may have missed it, see here:


I already posted that but direct from the source. You posted a second-hand report of that which added in that one sentence, without evidence.

Memory like a sieve, you lol

Here is the original again:

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

That is a good link and a good choice-quote!

However, it doesn't say anything new to counter what I've already found. You may have missed it, see here:


I already posted that but direct from the source. You posted a second-hand report of that which added in that one sentence, without evidence.

Memory like a sieve, you lol

Here is the original again:

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

That is a good link and a good choice-quote!

However, it doesn't say anything new to counter what I've already found. You may have missed it, see here (interesting to note the 1:3 ratio holding here too):





Source including relevant quotes is the done thing. Just googling something and whacking the link in a post doesn't add anything to the debate.

Which part of that article is a counted to what i've been saying?

Jesus wept. I‘d expect you to read a short article, but never mind - Wizard posted the relevant bit.

Your claim was that unvaccinated people pose no greater risk than vaccinated people, due to the fact that the viral load for infected people is similar for vaccinated and unvaccinated. The Oxford study shows that the likelihood of infection is lower for vaccinated people, therefore in a group of people, the overall likelihood of someone being infected with COVID is greater for an unvaccinated person, therefore unvaccinated people pose a greater risk.

 

[verreauxi]

yes, what is your counter-argument based on that graph?

it's no good just linking things, you have to demonstrate that what you found is a counter to what i found.

I didn’t tag you into my original post concerning the NEJ study showing that the available vaccines are effective against the Delta variant, and was not arguing with you so I have no counter-argument to produce since there was no argument in the first place. I don’t care what you found as I wasn’t responding to that.

But while I’m responding to you (since you tagged me and not vice versa), I’m curious if you’re vaccinated or not? I ask because I’m interested in the cultural factors that produce vaccine hesitancy. Your posts here seem to indicate you are not, but perhaps I’m wrong about that, so maybe help me out by responding to my question (since quick responding seems to be something you like doing).

 

[dholliday]

Do you think that vaccinated people are more protected than unvaccinated people (if neither have had covid before)?

If you mean better protected from serious illness/hospital/death, then sure, yes that is near-certain.

The whole issue we have was kicked off by some on here bashing the unvaxxed for 'posing a danger to others', being directly responsible for harsher pandemic measures, and thus are deserving of a limiting of their freedoms.

Choice quotes:

if [the unvaxxed] get a dose of covid, they can spread it easier than a vaxed person. So that endangers me.

People not getting vaccinated should absolutely be blamed. Then denied access to services and ostracised from society.

Just popping in to say that thanks to all the dip****s on both sides of the Atlantic who are too cowardly or outright dumb to have gotten the vaccine, we had to cancel all our honeymoon plans/bookings yesterday, 3 weeks before wedding, after Virgin pulled all the flights.

Do you not see the issue? Slippery slope this...and based on no scientific evidence. At best based on swab-count tests which show about a 3:1 increase of unvaxxed becoming infected over vaxxed, but this could have human-behaviour reasons (like the young unvaxxed being more sociable than the older vaxxed).

The science tells us the viral loads of both vaxxed and unvaxxed are similar, and thus it's assumed both are equally infectious.

The Oxford study shows that the likelihood of infection is lower for vaccinated people

Where did it show that? Quote, please. Or are you referring to the swab-tests?

Good science doesn't take limited data like that as cast-iron proof of something. As i said the reasons for that 3:1 ratio can reasonably be explained by the differences in human behaviour of the young unvaxxed vs the older vaxxed. So the vaccine is not responsible for the 3:1 ratio.

This needs to be disproven. Even CDC & WHO acknowledge we are still in the collecting-data/carrying-out-studies phase, regarding this question.

As i said earlier, based on what we know, are those trio of posts above from roydo/diogenes/birk justified?

It's important to hold back on attacking ths unvaxxed...already there are signs of them being treated as Untermenschen.

Slippery slope...

 

[mill]

If you mean better protected from serious illness/hospital/death, then sure, yes that is near-certain.

The whole issue we have was kicked off by some on here bashing the unvaxxed for 'posing a danger to others', being directly responsible for harsher pandemic measures, and thus are deserving of a limiting of their freedoms.

I’m not bothered about all that I’m trying to understand your position

so you accept the premise that vaccines mean people are better protected.

Given that, do you think that the more people vaccinated the better?

 

[verreauxi]

I’m not bothered about all that I’m trying to understand your position

so you accept the premise that vaccines mean people are better protected.

Given that, do you think that the more people vaccinated the better?

Real head-scratcher that one. Let me google 1000 different things in 7 minutes and multi-quote you to death.