Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
dholliday said:
The unvaccinated have never totalled using above 3% of the total NHS beds available. That's hardly 'taxing' in the middle of peak-waves during a pandemic.

How are they increasing the likelihood of others contracting the virus? The vaccinated infected can spread it just as easily, and they number more in hospitals than the unvaxxed.




They're not as effective as they initially promoted them. They're effective for about 2-3 months, thereafter their effectiveness drops off steeply. Even more so for Omicron, where the double-jabbed are not much more effective than the natural immune system of the unvaccinated.




Yes. The EU have declared the double-jabbed are effectively joining the ranks of the unvaccinated (timeframe is 9 months after their last jab).



It doesn't specifically combat the new variant as it was designed for the Wuhan variant, which was 3 generations ago. It may give a short-term (4-6 weeks) immune-system boost. But the heads of the vaccine firms are telling us everyone needs new vaccines designed for Omicron. These vaccines will be 3-doses, and will be ready by Spring.





It does appear that they are trying to sell us the idea that everyone needs regular vaccinations.



Yes. This further spreads the virus. The idea appears to be to persuade people to get the vaccine (get vaccinated, no need to test!) rather than actually contain the virus. The data shows the vaccinated spread the virus in the same way, in the same amount and for the same length of time as the unvaccinated. More so, when factoring in that the vaxxed have more freedoms.





Exactly. Portugal, South Korea, Israel etc all have very high vaccination rates...yet they're not getting out of these waves.

The virus does what it wants...regardless of vaccines or lockdowns or even masks. The data from nations with similar population-densities show this. It peaks in colder months, and quietens down in warmer months. Much like the cold or flu.


let us know how you get on...and maybe change your user name x


Never being above 3% of total NHS beds, during peak-waves of a pandemic, isn't that significant. Flu seasons were much worse (in terms of %-beds used up by flu patients who didn't have the flu jab).



If hundreds of 18-70 year old vaccinated are dying per month then no, the vaccine is not really working very well.




There's dozens of valid (non-medically exempted) reasons why folk are wary of taking the vaccines. If you genuinely aren't aware of them, I can list some.



Thank you! This seriously means a lot. Here in Germany the conversation is even worse, people openly promoting the idea of shutting out the unvaxxed from hospitals, supermarkets, even sending them to camps. Wishing death to them is becoming common. The politicians aren't much better.

The unvaccinated folk are getting scared (and not of the virus!)...this in a nation which supposedly has learnt from the errors of dehumanisation.

UK is a little better in the discourse...but not much.



The unvaccinated have never totalled using above 3% of the total NHS beds available. It's their choice to not take the jab and they accept increased risks of hospitalisation. But they pay their taxes and NI just like anyone else. That's what the Health Service is there for.

If the unvaxxed took up 30% of the total NHS bed space...then maybe there'd be an argument.



There's dozens of valid (non-medically exempted) reasons why folk are wary of taking the vaccines. If you genuinely aren't aware of them, I can list some.


No, this is misinformation. Any serious site will tell you the development of a vaccine takes around 10 years.

View attachment 149161


I didn't say that. I said it was developed for the Wuhan variant, a generation before Alpha.



Quite...which is why the current vaccines are not much snuff for Omicron, and why they are developing new ones.


Yes. Would you agree that staying below 3% of total NHS beds during peak-waves of an active pandemic is actually reasonable?
Click to expand...
What ever will be -will be.

Welcome back. Great heroes need great villains.

You're missed.
 
dholliday said:
self-correction/clarification: This applies to the age group of 18+ where vaccinations are common, and is applicable to the current wave (where most are now vaccinated).

So in conclusion, three simple points:

1) the UK's voluntarily-unvaccinated have not used up more than 3% of total NHS beds at any one time during this current peak wave. If 3% is a regular thing, then maybe it's a problem. But as it occurs during a peak-wave of an active global pandemic, it appears a reasonable percentage.

2) many serious studies show the vaccinated can spread the virus in relatively the same amount, time-frame and viral-load as the unvaccinated. Some studies show that for the first 1-2 months after receiving a booster the time-frame of infectiousness is reduced vs the unvaxxed. But taken as whole this appears insignificant (unless the vaccinated take monthly boosters?) and is effectively cancelled out by the unvaccinated being bound by stricter rules and more regular testing...are thus less socially active and less capable of catching & spreading. Then there's the Omicron mutation, which is causing real panic but appears according to the data to be spread by the vaccinated.

3) with this in mind, is it reasonable to blame the unvaccinated for NHS bed-availability and/or virus spread/mutations? And if it's not reasonable, why are politicians & the media pushing this narrative?


The bolded bit is important...the blame game can be quite revealing.
Click to expand...
I think the pols are worried about exponential growth. and whilst nonvacc may be taking up just a few beds at the moment, if omicron takes hold then within a couple of weeks we will see a big increase in bed take up, and that percentage will mainly be the nonvacc. I think the nonvacc are getting it in the ear cos of the potential that we may have to lock down again if this looks likely. One way to prevent this is to say to the nonvacc, if we get near to overload, your decision to nonvacc may be held against you when allocation of beds is decided. That way, we have a policy of not locking down, and nonvacc have to take on the risk that adequate medical care may not be available if we hit capacity.
 
dholliday said:
Why do 'fact-checkers' say stuff like this:

theconversation.com

No, vaccinated people are not ‘just as infectious’ as unvaccinated people if they get COVID

A vaccinated person is less likely to get COVID, is less contagious, and is contagious for a shorter time.
theconversation.com theconversation.com


When the science (which we apparently adhere to) says otherwise?

www.medrxiv.org

Transmission potential of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a federal prison, July—August 2021

Background The extent to which vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 contribute to transmission is unclear. During a SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant outbreak among incarcerated persons with high vaccination rates in a federal prison, we assessed markers of viral shedding in vaccinated...
www.medrxiv.org www.medrxiv.org

www.ucdavis.edu

Viral Loads Similar Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated People

A new study from the University of California, Davis, Genome Center, UC San Francisco and the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub shows no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. It also found no significant...
www.ucdavis.edu www.ucdavis.edu

Choice quotes:
"No significant differences were detected in duration of RT-PCR positivity among fully vaccinated participants versus those not fully vaccinated"
"no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people who tested positive for the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. "


As we (should) know, science is ever-changing...especially fast in an active pandemic with a new virus, new mutations and a new type of vaccine. Coupled with an unprecedented global response.

We can't pick-n-choose one study over another just because it appears to better target the unvaccinated. I understand people are frustated after 2 years of pandemic and are just looking for someone to blame...but the unvaxxed aren't it. There's not enough persuasive science to back this up. Merely taking up a few hundred beds a month (never going above 3% of total beds) surely can't be enough reason for all the blame currently being apportioned to the unvaxxed.

Believe me, it's hugely stressful to suddenly live in a world where you're constantly getting the blame for countless deaths & loss of freedoms when all you've done is decided not to take a new vaccine for a new virus. A personal decision, based on all kinds of factors. With full awareness that the decision to remain unvaxxed may increase the risk of a heavy Covid illness. Just like it was your personal decision to take the vaccine, with awareness that there are no long-term studies available on what the vaccines do to your body.

I can speak for many unvaccinated in that we follow all the rules & take regular tests...it's unfeasible to suggest the unvaccinated are drivers of the pandemic, especially now considering the vaccinated are comfortably in the majority.


Let's think about this, please.
Click to expand...

The second link says nothing about likelihood of infection in vax vs unvaccinated, or infectiousness so doesn’t prove the point you’re trying to make.

Quote
“This study did not directly address how easily vaccinated people can get infected with SARS-CoV-2, or how readily someone with a breakthrough infection can transmit the virus.

“Our study does not provide information on infectiousness,”

There are many other studies which indicate that viral clearance is quicker in the vaccinated, so are infectious for a shorter timeframe.


Quote:
“Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance.”

news.harvard.edu

Vaccinated who get breakthrough infections less contagious

Breakthrough COVID-19 cases in vaccinated people may be less likely to spread infection because virus is shed for a shorter period of time as opposed to infections in unvaccinated people.
news.harvard.edu news.harvard.edu

Quote:
“breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals cleared faster — on average, in 5.5 days — than infections in unvaccinated individuals, which took an average of 7.5 days to clear. This finding suggests that people with breakthrough infections may be as infectious as unvaccinated people in the early stage of their infection, but that those with breakthrough infections are infectious for a shorter period and therefore less likely to transmit the disease to others over time.”

We get it. You don’t want to get vaxed, that’s your choice. But please think twice before cherry picking a couple of studies (exactly what you’re accusing others of doing), and spewing it all over forums around the internet.

You’ve already acknowledged that the unvaxxed are (at least) 4 times more likely to end up in Hospital (this was off the basis of your own data, which I haven’t checked), so if you’re spreading this vaccine scepticism and putting doubt in the minds of the undecided or hesitant, you’re potentially putting people at risk and doing harm.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

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

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

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