Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no evidence that being unvaccinated is safer than being vaccinated.
Wiz, seen as you're not explaining where you got this from, I'm just gonna assume it's a symptom of the collective blindspot (i.e. you see an argument that's not being presented).


Reminder:

1) What is the evidence that the unvaxxed represent a danger to others?

2) Should their freedoms be curtailed?

3) The vaxxed are protected, why are they arsed?
These are the open questions, they haven't changed. The reason we have these questions is because many of you on here believe the unvaxxed do represent a danger. Did the next 7 or 8 pages since I was last online attempt to answer them?


My suggestion to all is to stop responding to him. Don't take him seriously. He has shown he has no intention of actually engaging in a sincere discussion.
Nope.

If he truly researched the topic and wanted to understand the pros/cons and benefits/risks he'd be able cite literature that countered his argument himself.
I've cited lots of literature. I've cited both that support my argument (that the unvaxxed should not be targeted as Untermenschen as viral loads are similar to vaxxed), and accepted the validity of literature which provides counter (that the increased unvaxxed-hospitalised represent extra hospital beds).

Maybe you missed those posts?


He seems to only be able to cherry pick his data.
No, I've responded to every single thing. I feel it is my respondents who are cherry-picking (eg: ignoring that the unvaxxed & vaxxed have similar viral loads, which inconveniently does not support the argument that the unvaxxed are more dangerous than the vaxxed).


Once he's conducted a systematic review on his chosen questions, then we can talk.

Maybe a temp ban until he can confirm he has a study protocol at the very least?
Fascist thinking.


I do think that everyone that can, should get the vaccine and most of the excuses given from those that don't are pitiful, ill informed and selfish.
Give us examples of such excuses.


A larger percentage of the unvaccinated population is choosing not to get vaccinated because some idiot right-wing social media post told them not to.
How do you know that? It certainly sounds good in your head: right-wing bad.


being unvaccinated due to a massive disinformation campaign that puts everyone else at risk and prolongs the pandemic.
two-part question here:
1) how does it put everyone else at risk?
2) how does it prolong the pandemic?

...we may already have the answers, based on the last few days' discussion

1) you could argue that the unvaxxed, due to their younger age & more socialising & less masks, infect other folk more often than the vaxxed (who are older, less social). The 3:1 swab-test studies we linked earlier support this.
2) the unvaxxed are more hospitalised. Tho' we need data on this to further confirm how relevant this is to all unvaxxed: ages, BMI, already high-risk etc.

Would those be your answers too? If so, is that enough to curtail the freedoms of the unvaxxed?


Let me remind you all of Israel: the most-thoroughly vaccinated nation on Earth:


Key bits:

the principal causes of Israel’s current predicament are the dominance of the extremely infectious Delta variant, which was carried into the country by [vaccinated] Israelis returning from foreign vacations during the weeks in which Israel dropped all restrictive measures.

Fully vaccinated people with weakened immune systems appeared particularly vulnerable to the aggressive Delta variant.

In order to keep severe illness and the number of COVID deaths down, and avoiding a fourth national lockdown, Israel has embarked on an aggressive effort to provide all adults with boosters in a matter of weeks.

[the problem is] waning immunity, so that inoculated people get reinfected, and at the same time with the very transmissible Delta variant.



Israel's solution to the vaccines not appearing to end the pandemic, is to vaccinate more. Therefore, from Israel's perspective, the ones putting folk at risk aren't necessarily the unvaccinated anymore, it's the merely double-jabbed.

A sign of things to come? Will we soon be targeting the double-jabbed who are reluctant to get a booster? Shall we curtail their freedoms? The Autumn/Winter is bound to see an increase in numbers. Shall we have a two-prong freedom-limiter? The completely unvaxxed aren't allowed to leave their homes, and the merely double-jabbed aren't allowed to attend events?

How far does your logic take you?


I don't have the answers either, I'm just here to protect the rights of folk to choose what they do with their own bodies, and not be demonised for it. As an extension, again I am looking for real data on ages/BMI/pre-existing illnesses of the hospitalised/dead...so that the unvaxxed, and soon the merely double-jabbed, may make an informed decision.




willfully clinging to misinformation for political purposes.
Post any examples of misinformation since I've been active in this thread. Cheers.

No, not when their reasons are based on misinformation and they can harm others by their choice.
Again, what misinformation?

Not getting vaccinated has the potential to increase the spread of the virus to children, elderly, and immuno-cormpromised
How, in your understanding, does it do that? Is it the virus doing that, or human behaviour?

to increase the number of hospital visits, and to increase the duration of hospital visits
Yes, that does seem to be the case. But again, we need age/BMI/pre-existing illnesses data to better understand what this means.


right-wing shitboxes started pushing some nonsense...the politicized right-wing
right-wing bad.

This is what's going on at a much larger scale with the anti-vax Covid nonsense in many cases
Examples?


You have rejected the hypothesis that the vaccinated cohort is more infectious than the unvaccinated cohort.

Given this, the vaccinated cohort is either as infectious or less infectious.

Meaning out of the states possible, the worst possible state is that the vaccinated cohort is *as* infectious as the unvaccinated cohort.

You have *not* rejected the hypothesis that the unvaccinated cohort is more infectious than the vaccinated one.

Given this, the unvaccinated cohort is either as infectious or more infectious (you’ve rejected the notion that the unvaccinated cohort can be less infectious).

Meaning the best state for the unvaccinated cohort is they are *as* infectious as the vaccinated one.

This is surreal stuff.



The government should mandate vaccination now
Just the double-jab, or also the boosters? And mandate how? What if people refuse?

You need answers to these questions if you make such bold statements.


These anti vaxxers are going to cause additional lockdowns with their crazy stance.
How are they gonna cause this? And when you say "anti-vaxxers", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?

The latter, I grant you, there's an argument their stance is a little crazy.

The former...no, there's no argument that their stance is crazy in the slightest.


It's gonna come and go in little waves like any other bug because that's what COVID now is.
Seems that way, unfortunately. In my view we need a very precise study on age/BMI/pre-existing illnesses of all serious-cases/deaths. Then we need to protect that folk*. The rest of us, get on with life.

*as technically a high-risk pre-existing illnesses person myself, I would accept being protected (i.e. less personal freedoms) if it means the rest of healthy young/middle-aged society can all get back to normal. I think folk are slowly going insane, but if the data supports the view that the vast majority aren't high-risk, then there's no need for it to continue this way.


Before anyone starts, I don't mean that it's any less serious, I just mean in how it acts in spreading through the population. Like we saw with Delta in June/July and then suddenly had the drop off despite all the forecasts of doom.
Aye, we can hopefully soon better predict when the peaks will occur.

Which is why it's so important people are vaccinated against it.
Not sure that's an argument for the above, considering similar viral loads and potentially a swift drop-off of the effects (see Israel piece above).


I go off my personal and family experience from a month or so back.

I was bad. I'm 26, fit, eat healthy, don't smoke. Had one jab. Was knocked for six by COVID. And only in this last week have I recovered in terms of getting close to what my fitness was before COVID, too.

My sister and her fiance, who hadn't had their first jabs at the time but are now booked in, were awful with it, and only just getting back to normal.

My dad, 65, with COPD, had both of his jabs, and luckily was only ill for about 2 days but is still having trouble with getting his fitness back (and he's healthy and active for his age).

My mum, 58, had two jabs, was around four people in the same house who were all ill with COVID at the same time, and didn't get infected.

The vaccines help. In my dad's case, they might well have saved his life.

Another one - I have a neighbour, he's in his 50s, drinks like it's going out of fashion, he must be 20-25 stone.

He was in the ICU due to COVID a few weeks ago. The vaccines saved his life. He needed oxygen, because he's so unfit, but if he hadn't had been vaccinated, he'd have died, no doubt about it.
I agree the vaccines protect against more severe Covid illness.

If, as the evidence appears to be showing, regular half-yearly booster shots are required...perhaps indefinitely...are you up for it?


The choice should be either get vaccinated or not be allowed in any indoor venue or on public transport.
How will the unvaccinated get about? Go shops?


If this virus is going to primarily affect and spread amongst the unvaccinated cohort
Israel appears to show this is not necessarily the case.


, then as it is doing anyway, that inevitably effects those who are vaccinated also, and most particularly the immuno-compromised amongst them.
Israel appears to prove that the vaccinated also inevitably affect those people.


I don't understand the anti-vax people, and have zero sympathy for them.
When you say "anti-vax", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?


Nor do I understand how these people expect a return to "normality" on the basis that they enjoy the same privileges and access as those who have been vaccinated.
From this it appears you support the vaccinated be granted normal rights, whereas the unvaccinated should be granted limited rights.

What is your reasoning for this?


It is the vaccinated population, in the act of being vaccinated, that have brought society to the level of normality and relative freedoms it now enjoys. It's parasitical to piggy-back on that.
Where is your evidence that the relative normality we had in the summer was mainly due to the vaccinated? If that was the case, we'd also have relative normality now.


Why should I share space with someone unvaccinated on a train for example?
Why shouldn't you? What higher danger are they to you than a vaccinated person would be?


I wouldn't be expected to do if they openly smoked on board, for example. It would be seen as a threat to the health and safety of fellow passengers.
With this analogy, you appear to believe the unvaccinated person can infect you with a higher load than a vaccinated person. The science does not tell us this, it tells us the viral loads are broadly similar.


What gives them the right to increase the risk for everyone else, when all it takes is two jabs?
How are they increasing the risk?

The virus has to be kept on the run, with the risk of spread and mutation. It has to be hounded out. It's not realistic for people to expect the same type of society post-pandemic, if they are not prepared to make their individual contribution to get as close to eradicating this as is scientifically possible.
There is no scientific evidence that the vaccines eradicate the virus. There is only evidence that they help prevent more severe cases. Think of it like the flu jab.

Masks are currently no longer a thing in the UK and I have no major issue with vaccinated people not being masked. I would also support a law where anti vaxxers are forced to mask up in all indoor settings.
Why? Why should the 'anti-vaxxer' wear a mask when the vaccinated does not? What is the difference? It's not in viral loads...so what is the difference?

When you say "anti-vax", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?
 
Wiz, seen as you're not explaining where you got this from, I'm just gonna assume it's a symptom of the collective blindspot (i.e. you see an argument that's not being presented).



These are the open questions, they haven't changed. The reason we have these questions is because many of you on here believe the unvaxxed do represent a danger. Did the next 7 or 8 pages since I was last online attempt to answer them?



Nope.


I've cited lots of literature. I've cited both that support my argument (that the unvaxxed should not be targeted as Untermenschen as viral loads are similar to vaxxed), and accepted the validity of literature which provides counter (that the increased unvaxxed-hospitalised represent extra hospital beds).

Maybe you missed those posts?



No, I've responded to every single thing. I feel it is my respondents who are cherry-picking (eg: ignoring that the unvaxxed & vaxxed have similar viral loads, which inconveniently does not support the argument that the unvaxxed are more dangerous than the vaxxed).



Fascist thinking.



Give us examples of such excuses.



How do you know that? It certainly sounds good in your head: right-wing bad.



two-part question here:
1) how does it put everyone else at risk?
2) how does it prolong the pandemic?

...we may already have the answers, based on the last few days' discussion

1) you could argue that the unvaxxed, due to their younger age & more socialising & less masks, infect other folk more often than the vaxxed (who are older, less social). The 3:1 swab-test studies we linked earlier support this.
2) the unvaxxed are more hospitalised. Tho' we need data on this to further confirm how relevant this is to all unvaxxed: ages, BMI, already high-risk etc.

Would those be your answers too? If so, is that enough to curtail the freedoms of the unvaxxed?


Let me remind you all of Israel: the most-thoroughly vaccinated nation on Earth:


Key bits:

the principal causes of Israel’s current predicament are the dominance of the extremely infectious Delta variant, which was carried into the country by [vaccinated] Israelis returning from foreign vacations during the weeks in which Israel dropped all restrictive measures.

Fully vaccinated people with weakened immune systems appeared particularly vulnerable to the aggressive Delta variant.

In order to keep severe illness and the number of COVID deaths down, and avoiding a fourth national lockdown, Israel has embarked on an aggressive effort to provide all adults with boosters in a matter of weeks.

[the problem is] waning immunity, so that inoculated people get reinfected, and at the same time with the very transmissible Delta variant.



Israel's solution to the vaccines not appearing to end the pandemic, is to vaccinate more. Therefore, from Israel's perspective, the ones putting folk at risk aren't necessarily the unvaccinated anymore, it's the merely double-jabbed.

A sign of things to come? Will we soon be targeting the double-jabbed who are reluctant to get a booster? Shall we curtail their freedoms? The Autumn/Winter is bound to see an increase in numbers. Shall we have a two-prong freedom-limiter? The completely unvaxxed aren't allowed to leave their homes, and the merely double-jabbed aren't allowed to attend events?

How far does your logic take you?


I don't have the answers either, I'm just here to protect the rights of folk to choose what they do with their own bodies, and not be demonised for it. As an extension, again I am looking for real data on ages/BMI/pre-existing illnesses of the hospitalised/dead...so that the unvaxxed, and soon the merely double-jabbed, may make an informed decision.





Post any examples of misinformation since I've been active in this thread. Cheers.


Again, what misinformation?


How, in your understanding, does it do that? Is it the virus doing that, or human behaviour?


Yes, that does seem to be the case. But again, we need age/BMI/pre-existing illnesses data to better understand what this means.



right-wing bad.


Examples?




This is surreal stuff.




Just the double-jab, or also the boosters? And mandate how? What if people refuse?

You need answers to these questions if you make such bold statements.



How are they gonna cause this? And when you say "anti-vaxxers", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?

The latter, I grant you, there's an argument their stance is a little crazy.

The former...no, there's no argument that their stance is crazy in the slightest.



Seems that way, unfortunately. In my view we need a very precise study on age/BMI/pre-existing illnesses of all serious-cases/deaths. Then we need to protect that folk*. The rest of us, get on with life.

*as technically a high-risk pre-existing illnesses person myself, I would accept being protected (i.e. less personal freedoms) if it means the rest of healthy young/middle-aged society can all get back to normal. I think folk are slowly going insane, but if the data supports the view that the vast majority aren't high-risk, then there's no need for it to continue this way.



Aye, we can hopefully soon better predict when the peaks will occur.


Not sure that's an argument for the above, considering similar viral loads and potentially a swift drop-off of the effects (see Israel piece above).



I agree the vaccines protect against more severe Covid illness.

If, as the evidence appears to be showing, regular half-yearly booster shots are required...perhaps indefinitely...are you up for it?



How will the unvaccinated get about? Go shops?



Israel appears to show this is not necessarily the case.



Israel appears to prove that the vaccinated also inevitably affect those people.



When you say "anti-vax", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?



From this it appears you support the vaccinated be granted normal rights, whereas the unvaccinated should be granted limited rights.

What is your reasoning for this?



Where is your evidence that the relative normality we had in the summer was mainly due to the vaccinated? If that was the case, we'd also have relative normality now.



Why shouldn't you? What higher danger are they to you than a vaccinated person would be?



With this analogy, you appear to believe the unvaccinated person can infect you with a higher load than a vaccinated person. The science does not tell us this, it tells us the viral loads are broadly similar.



How are they increasing the risk?


There is no scientific evidence that the vaccines eradicate the virus. There is only evidence that they help prevent more severe cases. Think of it like the flu jab.


Why? Why should the 'anti-vaxxer' wear a mask when the vaccinated does not? What is the difference? It's not in viral loads...so what is the difference?

When you say "anti-vax", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?
*goosesteps into thread*

Temp ban? Please?

Anyway, please conduct and provide outcomes of a systematic review (or reviews) of all available evidence so you can answer your own questions or gtfo.

*goose steps out*
 
Wiz, seen as you're not explaining where you got this from, I'm just gonna assume it's a symptom of the collective blindspot (i.e. you see an argument that's not being presented).



These are the open questions, they haven't changed. The reason we have these questions is because many of you on here believe the unvaxxed do represent a danger. Did the next 7 or 8 pages since I was last online attempt to answer them?



Nope.


I've cited lots of literature. I've cited both that support my argument (that the unvaxxed should not be targeted as Untermenschen as viral loads are similar to vaxxed), and accepted the validity of literature which provides counter (that the increased unvaxxed-hospitalised represent extra hospital beds).

Maybe you missed those posts?



No, I've responded to every single thing. I feel it is my respondents who are cherry-picking (eg: ignoring that the unvaxxed & vaxxed have similar viral loads, which inconveniently does not support the argument that the unvaxxed are more dangerous than the vaxxed).



Fascist thinking.



Give us examples of such excuses.



How do you know that? It certainly sounds good in your head: right-wing bad.



two-part question here:
1) how does it put everyone else at risk?
2) how does it prolong the pandemic?

...we may already have the answers, based on the last few days' discussion

1) you could argue that the unvaxxed, due to their younger age & more socialising & less masks, infect other folk more often than the vaxxed (who are older, less social). The 3:1 swab-test studies we linked earlier support this.
2) the unvaxxed are more hospitalised. Tho' we need data on this to further confirm how relevant this is to all unvaxxed: ages, BMI, already high-risk etc.

Would those be your answers too? If so, is that enough to curtail the freedoms of the unvaxxed?


Let me remind you all of Israel: the most-thoroughly vaccinated nation on Earth:


Key bits:

the principal causes of Israel’s current predicament are the dominance of the extremely infectious Delta variant, which was carried into the country by [vaccinated] Israelis returning from foreign vacations during the weeks in which Israel dropped all restrictive measures.

Fully vaccinated people with weakened immune systems appeared particularly vulnerable to the aggressive Delta variant.

In order to keep severe illness and the number of COVID deaths down, and avoiding a fourth national lockdown, Israel has embarked on an aggressive effort to provide all adults with boosters in a matter of weeks.

[the problem is] waning immunity, so that inoculated people get reinfected, and at the same time with the very transmissible Delta variant.



Israel's solution to the vaccines not appearing to end the pandemic, is to vaccinate more. Therefore, from Israel's perspective, the ones putting folk at risk aren't necessarily the unvaccinated anymore, it's the merely double-jabbed.

A sign of things to come? Will we soon be targeting the double-jabbed who are reluctant to get a booster? Shall we curtail their freedoms? The Autumn/Winter is bound to see an increase in numbers. Shall we have a two-prong freedom-limiter? The completely unvaxxed aren't allowed to leave their homes, and the merely double-jabbed aren't allowed to attend events?

How far does your logic take you?


I don't have the answers either, I'm just here to protect the rights of folk to choose what they do with their own bodies, and not be demonised for it. As an extension, again I am looking for real data on ages/BMI/pre-existing illnesses of the hospitalised/dead...so that the unvaxxed, and soon the merely double-jabbed, may make an informed decision.





Post any examples of misinformation since I've been active in this thread. Cheers.


Again, what misinformation?


How, in your understanding, does it do that? Is it the virus doing that, or human behaviour?


Yes, that does seem to be the case. But again, we need age/BMI/pre-existing illnesses data to better understand what this means.



right-wing bad.


Examples?




This is surreal stuff.




Just the double-jab, or also the boosters? And mandate how? What if people refuse?

You need answers to these questions if you make such bold statements.



How are they gonna cause this? And when you say "anti-vaxxers", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?

The latter, I grant you, there's an argument their stance is a little crazy.

The former...no, there's no argument that their stance is crazy in the slightest.



Seems that way, unfortunately. In my view we need a very precise study on age/BMI/pre-existing illnesses of all serious-cases/deaths. Then we need to protect that folk*. The rest of us, get on with life.

*as technically a high-risk pre-existing illnesses person myself, I would accept being protected (i.e. less personal freedoms) if it means the rest of healthy young/middle-aged society can all get back to normal. I think folk are slowly going insane, but if the data supports the view that the vast majority aren't high-risk, then there's no need for it to continue this way.



Aye, we can hopefully soon better predict when the peaks will occur.


Not sure that's an argument for the above, considering similar viral loads and potentially a swift drop-off of the effects (see Israel piece above).



I agree the vaccines protect against more severe Covid illness.

If, as the evidence appears to be showing, regular half-yearly booster shots are required...perhaps indefinitely...are you up for it?



How will the unvaccinated get about? Go shops?



Israel appears to show this is not necessarily the case.



Israel appears to prove that the vaccinated also inevitably affect those people.



When you say "anti-vax", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?



From this it appears you support the vaccinated be granted normal rights, whereas the unvaccinated should be granted limited rights.

What is your reasoning for this?



Where is your evidence that the relative normality we had in the summer was mainly due to the vaccinated? If that was the case, we'd also have relative normality now.



Why shouldn't you? What higher danger are they to you than a vaccinated person would be?



With this analogy, you appear to believe the unvaccinated person can infect you with a higher load than a vaccinated person. The science does not tell us this, it tells us the viral loads are broadly similar.



How are they increasing the risk?


There is no scientific evidence that the vaccines eradicate the virus. There is only evidence that they help prevent more severe cases. Think of it like the flu jab.


Why? Why should the 'anti-vaxxer' wear a mask when the vaccinated does not? What is the difference? It's not in viral loads...so what is the difference?

When you say "anti-vax", do you merely mean folk who have chosen to not yet take the vaccine? Or do you mean actual anti-vax folk who are against vaccines in general?

I salute you sir.

Monumental, not even @Zatara extolling the virtues of European youth players, via the medium of the multi quote, can match that herculean effort.
 
@dholliday it must take a while to respond to 100 posts at once.
I have asked precise questions, and provided precise answers to misinformation.

Simply put: vaccines save lives. Anyone who has made the choice to not take one shouldn't complain if theres limitations in order to keep people safe.
Which people? The unvaxxed themselves? You have to be a bit clearer with what you're saying.


Temp ban? Please?
Outside of this echo chamber, the things I'm talking about are common. Maybe I will get banned for offering a different perspective, I'll accept it with good grace, but I don't think it's ultimately useful to do so.



Anyway, please conduct and provide outcomes of a systematic review (or reviews) of all available evidence so you can answer your own questions or gtfo.
This makes no sense. If yous are making misinformed statements, or simply statements I disagree with, then I will respond. That's what a discussion is.
 
I have asked precise questions, and provided precise answers to misinformation.


Which people? The unvaxxed themselves? You have to be a bit clearer with what you're saying.



Outside of this echo chamber, the things I'm talking about are common. Maybe I will get banned for offering a different perspective, I'll accept it with good grace, but I don't think it's ultimately useful to do so.




This makes no sense. If yous are making misinformed statements, or simply statements I disagree with, then I will respond. That's what a discussion is.
Systematic review please
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top