Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
As you think my logic is flawed…
do you think it’s possible to pass covid onto someone else if you don’t contract it in the first place?
efcfanwirral
Player Valuation: £30m
I've got to say anyone without the vaccine is going to be in a very bad position when we go back into lockdown. Seems they're being set up as sub-humans. That's what much of the rhetoric is sounding like, not just on here but casually in every day conversation.
I've had mine, don't particularly feel protected nor do I feel like I'm protecting anyone else, and I fully expect to spend the winter locked down. Its mad people are so massively passionate either direction on this. Not sure about one every 6/8 months like Israel and America want but I guess that's just our future life now
I've had mine, don't particularly feel protected nor do I feel like I'm protecting anyone else, and I fully expect to spend the winter locked down. Its mad people are so massively passionate either direction on this. Not sure about one every 6/8 months like Israel and America want but I guess that's just our future life now
I’m going to put this here as I think it’s important show. It’s not a direct response to you btw but it’s to show the importance of vaccinations.
I’ve made a couple of fairly conservative assumptions that I’ll happily adjust for people. They are as follows:
R0 is 6 for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people (assuming it is highly infectious and the same for both cohorts). So for every 1 person that gets it, they’ll spread it to 6 people all things being equal.
The efficacy of the vaccine is 50%. That is, if you are vaccinated it is 50/50 you’ll contract covid. The efficacy after two vaccines is much higher.
So I’m assuming that the vaccine efficacy is lower than what has been shown so far and I’ve assumed that once it’s been contracted you are equally likely to pass it on if you are vaccinated or not.
So using conditional probabilities of A) contracting the virus and B) spreading it onto others, the formula would be as follows:
For one vaccinated person the expected outcome based on the conditional probability of getting the virus and then passing it on would be :
(Efficacy x number of people) x (infectious factor x r0)
or
(0.5 x 1) x (1 x 6) = 3.
The same formula for an unvaccinated person would be: (1 x 1) x (1 x 6) = 6
The infectious factor is 1 for both assuming you are equally infectious.
These are all relative to each other. That 50% chance of getting it relative to and unvaccinated person reduces the probability of spreading it by half relative to unvaccinated. Assuming you can’t spread it if you don’t contract it.
If I used an efficacy figure closer to the actual figure (80%), the vaccinated figure would be 1.2.
To say that vaccinations don’t make a difference to the spread is insane, basically.
Last edited:
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Ok explain why my logic is wrong please.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
The graph explains it. You can see it clearly. The virus comes in similar peaks and troughs, regardless of vaccination programs. Other nations show similar peaks & troughs, just that Israel is the most vaccinated nation on Earth.
Ergo, it's not insane "to say that vaccinations don’t make a difference to the spread"...it's quite a sensible feasible scenario based on the data we have.
What's insane is calling such a view insane.
This might be interesting viewing:
ps - the NPR i also linked is for balance...the authority-reaction to such numbers is to simply vaccinate more. Plus booster shots, probably regular 6 month intervals.
But anyone looking at the graphs may just see the virus doing what it wants, regardless.
pps - i agree the vaccines help reduce severe illness, especially in the over-50's and otherwise vulnerable. Anyone wishing to have that protection should take it. But remember, you were calling the view that the vaccines not making a difference to the mere spread "insane"...when the evidence shows otherwise. That is unhelpful rhetoric.
The graph doesn’t show it at all actually.
that graph alone shows multiple regime shifts (lockdown restrictions v no restrictions, delta variant v others) and totally ignores what the figures would have been without vaccinations.
All you need to answer is this. Do you think the vaccines reduce the likelihood that you’ll contract covid to any degree?
If so, then the conditional probability of a vaccinated person contracting the virus and then passing it onto others will be lower than than that of an unvaccinated person.
Unless vaccinated people are more infectious (which you don’t believe) or you can pass it on without actually contacting it (which is highly improbable).
So answer that one question. Do you believe that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of someone contacting it?
You are totally misrepresenting what those graphs show.
As has been mentioned, without analysing the case positive rates by subgroup (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) and taking into account other societal restrictions you cannot make that claim.
4737carlin
Player Valuation: £90m
Most anti vaxxers are sub humans, have a read of this one that just popped up
COVID-19: Girl, 17, in hospital with coronavirus is targeted by anti-vaxxers after urging young people to have jab
Maisy Evans, 17, feared she would die after becoming seriously unwell with COVID. She tells Sky News she has been accused of being a "liar" and an "actress paid by the government" after revealing her ordeal on social media.
efcfanwirral
Player Valuation: £30m
Once this is normalised it'll be so much easier to whip up this sub human rhetoric, and once a mechanism is in place it'll be easy to exclude more groups from society. I don't like the way things are going at all. Imagine if a Farage style government got in via some mad populist rush? Do you think it'd stop at "anti vaxxers"?Most anti vaxxers are sub humans, have a read of this one that just popped up
COVID-19: Girl, 17, in hospital with coronavirus is targeted by anti-vaxxers after urging young people to have jab
Maisy Evans, 17, feared she would die after becoming seriously unwell with COVID. She tells Sky News she has been accused of being a "liar" and an "actress paid by the government" after revealing her ordeal on social media.news.sky.com
The thing is, if you believe that vaccinated people and unvaccinated people are as infectious as each other, then the rate of vaccination is even MORE important a factor than it would be if vaccinated people were less infectious. You’d need more people to be vaccinated to reduce the spread than you would if you believed vaccinated people were less infectious.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
A government did get elected in 2010 and it did whip up rhetoric against “illegals”; British citizens were deported as a result.
FWIW I think people should absolutely have the right to refuse a vaccine (or any medical treatment).
Of course related to that is everyone else’s right not to be put at risk by those people - for example my nan is 99 and in a care home; that home should absolutely be able to ban unvaccinated types from working there or from visiting because of that risk posed.
This is false information that has been repeatedly debunked here and all over the scientific literature.
Discussion is welcomed as are differences of opinion, but I am not going to allow blatantly false information to be promulgated here.
Last edited:
And there is now data that the vaccinated have lower vial loads when infected so this suggests they would be less likely to spread infection
- Status