Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
dholliday
deconstructed rep
ok, sounds like i didn't follow what you was asking.
no. all being equal, they will spread it about equally. This is backed up by the lab-studies which revealed similar viral loads among the vaxxed and unvaxxed.
Why do you need the autonomy? With sex, clearly you do because your personal space is also involved. With an unvaccinated person who may walk past you in the shops, why do you need autonomy? What can this unvaxxed person do to you that a vaxxed person cannot?
I specifically used the word: privately as I'm aware of public smoking bans. Maybe this analogy is a dead-end. Maybe there's no solid analogy for something like a vaccine.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
@everyone:
The key question remains: what is the evidence that the unvaxxed represent an increased danger to society, and should their freedoms be curtailed because of this evidence?
Bonus: if the vaxxed are protected (and they are) then why are they bothered what the unvaxxed do?
The answer I have so far, from all of you collectively, is: swab-tests reveal the unvaxxed-infected outnumber the vaxxed-infected by about 3:1, yes this is enough evidence to limit unvaxxed freedoms until they get vaxxed.
Bonus: the unvaxxed can get more seriously ill, and cause unneccary hospitalisations.
To which my response is: the 3:1 ratio isn't proven to be directly influenced by the vaccine. It is likely caused by human behaviour due to the unvaxxed being younger & more socially active than the vaxxed. This isn't sufficient evidence to curtail freedoms of our young generation, especially as the viral loads are proven to be equal between the vaxxed & unvaxxed.
Bonus: the vaxxed are protected, and the unvaxxed are mostly young and statistically will very rarely end up in hospital.
This is where we are...and where we will probably remain, until new knowledge comes to light.
The key question remains: what is the evidence that the unvaxxed represent an increased danger to society, and should their freedoms be curtailed because of this evidence?
Bonus: if the vaxxed are protected (and they are) then why are they bothered what the unvaxxed do?
The answer I have so far, from all of you collectively, is: swab-tests reveal the unvaxxed-infected outnumber the vaxxed-infected by about 3:1, yes this is enough evidence to limit unvaxxed freedoms until they get vaxxed.
Bonus: the unvaxxed can get more seriously ill, and cause unneccary hospitalisations.
To which my response is: the 3:1 ratio isn't proven to be directly influenced by the vaccine. It is likely caused by human behaviour due to the unvaxxed being younger & more socially active than the vaxxed. This isn't sufficient evidence to curtail freedoms of our young generation, especially as the viral loads are proven to be equal between the vaxxed & unvaxxed.
Bonus: the vaxxed are protected, and the unvaxxed are mostly young and statistically will very rarely end up in hospital.
This is where we are...and where we will probably remain, until new knowledge comes to light.
Last edited:
carolinablue232
Player Valuation: £70m
I can’t possibly read the extent of your debate these last several pages, but here in the states our big issue is capacity. When hospital beds get overloaded with people who have severe covid systems because they didn’t get the vaccine, it hurts our clinicians’ mental health, and it limits the care of others who need those beds for other reasons. So yes, it both directly and indirectly harms others when people don’t get vaccinated as those unvaccinated individuals are more likely to experience severe symptoms requiring care. If you don’t like masks and lockdowns, help prevent the severe covid cases the logical way and get vaccinated. It’s not hard, hurts for about a day, and all the actual science anywhere supports it. I don’t get why it’s so hard.
Excellent thank you.
so by your own admission, the worst case scenario for vaccinated people is a lower risk of serious illness or death, they are less likely to display severe symptoms and, again worst case, are as likely to transmit the virus as unvaccinated people (the study mentioned said vaccinated people *can* have similar viral loads to unvaccinated people, not *always* have the same viral load - irrespective of viral load, symptoms *do* have an impact on likelihood of transmission btw).
On the other hand , the *best* case scenario for unvaccinated people is a higher risk of serious illness and death, a higher risk of severe symptoms and, again best case, they are as likely to pass on the virus to other people as vaccinated people. Best case.
I appreciate you answering those questions. It’s a great insight into your thought process and decision making.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
62% of americans are vaccinated. That already massively reduces potential overloading of covid-patients when compared to previous waves.
Let's assume US get to 70%, which sounds realistic. That means for every 100 patients from the early waves, there now will be merely 30. That's a massive reduction and should be within capacities.
But if not yet within capacities, then take heart that the majority of the 30% unvaccinated will be young fit people, who statistically very rarely require hospitalisation after infection.
But that's what hospitals are for.
It's a personal choice. Some people simply don't want to put this vaccine into their body. My body my choice, and all that.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
No, that is not my own admission at all. You just invented the "worst scenario" bit.
And no, the worst-case scenario for vaccinated people isn't a lower risk of illness. That's best-case. You're getting your best/worst mixed up lol
the worst-case clearly is...well...death.
source?
No, this is bonkers. How is that best-case? That's worst-case...how are you getting best/worst so upside down? Bizarre.
Best case is no symptoms, they never knew they had it.
Bizarroland.
carolinablue232
Player Valuation: £70m
1. Some places are already at their limits again, so no it’s not that simple.
2. Wait, so your argument to prevent the issue going forward is for more people to get vaccinated? Thanks for seeing how it is a problem and agreeing…
3. Yes it’s their job to provide care but they’re also human, and they’re tired. Some have said enough and quit because of the strain it’s taken. If a cop got shot at every single day, I bet they’d resign even though their job is to protect. My sister is a physician and is at the point of basically begging her patients to get vaccinated.
4. You asked how making the choice to not get vaccinated impacts other people. I told you how it does and will do going forward. If you want to ignore the fact that it does negatively impact others, then that’s your choice as well.
I’m talking about probabilities and likelihood. I’m not talking about *possible* outcomes. There is a difference which you’ve failed to grasp.
Sounds like a really bad situation but glad you managed to eventually get your jab mate
Some in Australia seem to have lost their minds
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Aye, according to CDC: New admissions of patients with confirmed COVID-19 are currently at their highest levels since the start of the pandemic in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oregon, and Washington.
And this is a huge swing:
Data shows COVID hospitalization rate 39 times higher for unvaccinated
Although the number of breakthrough COVID cases has risen, they remain below 1% of all cases in Massachusetts.
You're right to wish for an uptake in vaccinations based on this data.
I said at the current rate 70% vaccinated is likely. And sure, the more vaccinated, the less hospitalised.
But not everyone wants to get vaccinated, for various reasons. Do you support their choice?
Data like % of hospitalised that are unvaxxed, 70+ or obese could be illuminating.
It sounds like an extremely tough job. My respect & thanks to all hospital staff who keep things ticking over, and of course it's completely understandeable when some quit.
I understand.
If the hospital capacities are at breaking point even with 62% vaccinated, and if the vast majority of patients are unvaxxed (i.e. the remaining 38%), then it points to a severe increase in virus-potency or transmissibility, that even the lack of the usual 700,000 annual flu-hospitalisations (flu being near-zero these days) haven't helped ease capacities.
No, you make a strong case. And looking at the US situation the numbers are horrendous. I can't find a reliable stat for how many current active Covid-hospitalisations there are, but it sounds like a hell of a lot. Contrast with Germany - where I live - which has only 700 currently hospitalised (nation of 82m people). I wonder why the difference is so huge.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
"worst-case" isn't probable. It's "possible".
You've weirdly got everything upside-down these last few posts.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
that's horrible.
Wiz, what happened to you explaining this out-of-the-blue line from earlier?
dholliday
deconstructed rep
interesting (US):
Today there remains no full understanding on how the aggressively contagious delta variant spreads among the nearly 200 million partially or fully vaccinated Americans, or on how many are getting sick.
www.propublica.org
Today there remains no full understanding on how the aggressively contagious delta variant spreads among the nearly 200 million partially or fully vaccinated Americans, or on how many are getting sick.
The CDC Only Tracks a Fraction of Breakthrough COVID-19 Infections, Even as Cases Surge
A May 1 decision by the CDC to only track breakthrough infections that lead to hospitalization or death has left the nation with a muddled understanding of COVID-19’s impact on the vaccinated.
www.propublica.org
- Status