Coronavirus

[daniel]

The pro-mandate crowd is lying about this study. They want you to believe it shows vaccination alone is more effective than infection alone. But the study says nothing of the sort. They did not even look at vaccination alone. Everyone in the study had a previous confirmed infection. The study shows the vaccine provides some additional protection for people who already had Covid, nothing else.

The Kentucky result is consistent with the Israeli study. That one found prior infection was 13-27x more effective than vaccine alone, but prior infection plus one shot was even more effective. To summarize:

Vaccine alone - effective
Infection alone - more effective
Infection and vaccine - most effective

It does not matter, it absolutely does NOT matter whether surviving an infection is more protective than vaccination alone. What matters, the ONLY thing that matters is that if you are vaccinated you are less likely to get infected, and if you do get infected you're less likely to develop a severe case, and you're less likely to infect someone else, than if you are not vaccinated.

Whether you've already had covid or not, you should get vaccinated, for your own health and for the health of everybody around you. And that's why we should have vaccine mandates. Not just to go to bars and restaurants and sporting events or concerts. There should be a vaccine mandate if you want to leave your house!

 

[msm859]

I was trying to be polite, so let me just be blunt and to the point. Vaccinated do shed as much as the unvaccinated, period. The study I posted shows that. The quantitative studies are irrelevant since it is not testing on the predominant delta variant.

Vaccines don't work well when there are significant variations. How well does the flu vaccine work? 40%?

Well I have to disagree. And I know one example does not prove a hypothesis, but my fully vaccinated wife got COVID. NO one around her did. And I (fully vaccinated) slept with her and as did our unvaccinated granddaughter, along with her having close contact with several other - unvaccinated people. So the question I asked earlier about the downside was the heart problems - needs to be considered. Allergic reactions - not so sure. I am not a doctor but I read only @ 5 in a million have an allergic reaction - and I believe that would have occurred with your first shot. If there is a medical test that can prove you have as much immunity as a vaccinated person then I would be okay with that person not having to be vaccinated. That along with medical verification of a severe allergic reaction to the first shot would probably be my only allowed exceptions. Otherwise it should be mandated for everyone and without it you should not be allowed to participate in society wherein you expose other people.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

The pro-mandate crowd is lying about this study. They want you to believe it shows vaccination alone is more effective than infection alone. But the study says nothing of the sort. They did not even look at vaccination alone. Everyone in the study had a previous confirmed infection. The study shows the vaccine provides some additional protection for people who already had Covid, nothing else.

The Kentucky result is consistent with the Israeli study. That one found prior infection was 13-27x more effective than vaccine alone, but prior infection plus one shot was even more effective. To summarize:

Vaccine alone - effective
Infection alone - more effective
Infection and vaccine - most effective

Doesn't this summary make the case FOR a vaccination mandate? If you already have antibodies from a prior infection, then the vaccine should boost your defences (which I get is being argued as being unnecessary) AND decrease the viral load that you're shedding reducing a chance of a mutation?

But more importantly, it closes the door on the anti-vaxxers, who (50% chance may NOT have the anti-bodies) are the biggest potential source for a mutation?

IF, we do as bkp_duke suggests, and VERIFY that people have the anti-bodies BEFORE requiring the vaccine, how long would that take and at what cost? Would it cost less in resources and TIME to just mandate proof of vaccination instead? Not to mention that this verification method gives the anti-vaxxers an out for continuing to be antibody free ("I'm still waiting for my anti-body test results", despite never having taken the test)?

If the objective is for everyone (medical conditions exempted) to have antibodies in order to reduce the chance for a mutation, then from a logical standpoint there doesn't seem to be any ground to stand on for making vaccinations optional.

 

[Technophile]

Thanks for that opinion. Do you have a study that shows that to be true for delta variant? Studies from Israel suggest that to be false. That is why there are booster shots required and vaccine passports have been nullified and now are required to have a booster shot.

If you are aware of a study that shows a complete diminution of vaccine efficacy against Delta, then please post it, because it seems to me like you are misinterpreting something again.

Adjusted estimated vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection by variant:



This is from
Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study

 

[uujjj2]

Florida is just a hundred deaths behind New York right now. By the end of today, Florida may have more.

The deed is done. Florida has surpassed New York State in COVID deaths. Andrew Cuomo should take this opportunity to troll Ron DeSantis on Twitter.

 

[bkp_duke]

Doesn't this summary make the case FOR a vaccination mandate? If you already have antibodies from a prior infection, then the vaccine should boost your defences (which I get is being argued as being unnecessary) AND decrease the viral load that you're shedding reducing a chance of a mutation?

But more importantly, it closes the door on the anti-vaxxers, who (50% chance may NOT have the anti-bodies) are the biggest potential source for a mutation?

IF, we do as bkp_duke suggests, and VERIFY that people have the anti-bodies BEFORE requiring the vaccine, how long would that take and at what cost? Would it cost less in resources and TIME to just mandate proof of vaccination instead? Not to mention that this verification method gives the anti-vaxxers an out for continuing to be antibody free ("I'm still waiting for my anti-body test results", despite never having taken the test)?

If the objective is for everyone (medical conditions exempted) to have antibodies in order to reduce the chance for a mutation, then from a logical standpoint there doesn't seem to be any ground to stand on for making vaccinations optional.

Antibody tests are rapid tests. They can very quickly be obtained, even faster than the PCR tests commonly used to see if someone is infected. Cost is also lower than a PCR test, probably as low or lower than the cost of a vaccine single dose.

Cost is not a valid argument in this case.

 

[uujjj2]

Antibody tests are rapid tests. They can very quickly be obtained, even faster than the PCR tests commonly used to see if someone is infected. Cost is also lower than a PCR test, probably as low or lower than the cost of a vaccine single dose.

Cost is not a valid argument in this case.

An antibody test is a blood test. If you're scared of needles, that doesn't help. I mean, there's a good argument that COVID survivors don't need a vaccine, sure, but at a practical level it's simpler, safer, and (with the patchwork of vax mandates) more convenient just to get a J&J shot and get on with your life.

 

[bkp_duke]

An antibody test is a blood test. If you're scared of needles, that doesn't help. I mean, there's a good argument that COVID survivors don't need a vaccine, sure, but at a practical level it's simpler, safer, and (with the patchwork of vax mandates) more convenient just to get a J&J shot and get on with your life.

Some of the antibody tests are just finger pricks, very little blood required. Interestingly enough, I've met a good number of people over the years that even though they don't want a shot, they will accept a blood draw to avoid getting a vaccine. Baffles me every time.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Antibody tests are rapid tests. They can very quickly be obtained, even faster than the PCR tests commonly used to see if someone is infected. Cost is also lower than a PCR test, probably as low or lower than the cost of a vaccine single dose.

Cost is not a valid argument in this case.

I thought rapid tests were much less accurate than PCR tests?

But cost isn't just for the dosage, but the human resources and real-estate to implement it.

Example:
- vaccine-mandate:
- do you have proof of vaccination?
- Yes, venue allows access.
- No, venue bars access. get vaccinated at local distribution center.

- proof-of-antibody method:
- do you have proof of anti-bodies/vaccination?
- Yes, venue allows access.
- No, get vaccinated at local distribution center OR go to a covid test center to get tested, wait for results, and then get written proof of antibodies.

 

[bkp_duke]

I thought rapid tests were much less accurate than PCR tests?

But cost isn't just for the dosage, but the human resources and real-estate to implement it.

Example:
- vaccine-mandate:
- do you have proof of vaccination?
- Yes, venue allows access.
- No, venue bars access. get vaccinated at local distribution center.

- proof-of-antibody method:
- do you have proof of anti-bodies/vaccination?
- Yes, venue allows access.
- No, get vaccinated at local distribution center OR go to a covid test center to get tested, wait for results, and then get written proof of antibodies.

That's a rapid antigen test.

The rapid antibody tests are pretty good. There are also full serum draws.
Plus anyone hospitalized for COVID should be able to easily prove that, and be fully exempt from any vaccine requirement, or even antibody testing (there's a huge paper trail with hospitalization).

Not remotely close to the same thing.

 

[daniel]

Personally, I'd rather get a shot in the arm than a finger-prick. Finger-pricks hurt like hell. A shot in the arm, if an experienced nurse does it (rather than a half-trained pharmacist) doesn't hurt at all. I barely felt any of my three Pfizer jabs.

 

[jerry33]

Personally, I'd rather get a shot in the arm than a finger-prick. Finger-pricks hurt like hell. A shot in the arm, if an experienced nurse does it (rather than a half-trained pharmacist) doesn't hurt at all. I barely felt any of my three Pfizer jabs.

Agreed. It's been a long time since I felt a shot. Of course, where there's no sense there's no feeling.

 

[EVNow]

Has anyone looked at Singapore lately ?

View attachment 718561

All the more remarkable given Singapore's vaccination rate.

2,475 new COVID-19 cases in Singapore, 8 more deaths reported

SINGAPORE: Singapore reported 2,475 new COVID-19 cases as of noon on Monday (Oct 4), an increase in infections after two days of falling figures. There were also eight more fatalities from complications due to the coronavirus, taking the death toll to 121. The eight - four m

www.channelnewsasia.com

As of Sunday, 82 per cent of Singapore’s population has been fully vaccinated, while 85 per cent has received at least one dose.

 

[JRP3]

Antibody tests are rapid tests. They can very quickly be obtained, even faster than the PCR tests commonly used to see if someone is infected. Cost is also lower than a PCR test, probably as low or lower than the cost of a vaccine single dose.

Cost is not a valid argument in this case.

Yes it is, as is practicality. Two or three vaccination shots and you're done vs daily testing or even weekly testing. It's not even close.

 

[bkp_duke]

Yes it is, as is practicality. Two or three vaccination shots and you're done vs daily testing or even weekly testing. It's not even close.

You completely discount the fact that you come near some people with a shot they don't want they will pull a gun on you. We've already seen reports of this in the media. That's a HEAVY toll on society right there.

 

[bkp_duke]

All the more remarkable given Singapore's vaccination rate.

2,475 new COVID-19 cases in Singapore, 8 more deaths reported

SINGAPORE: Singapore reported 2,475 new COVID-19 cases as of noon on Monday (Oct 4), an increase in infections after two days of falling figures. There were also eight more fatalities from complications due to the coronavirus, taking the death toll to 121. The eight - four m

www.channelnewsasia.com

But which vaccine? It does make a big difference with delta.

Also, you overlap that "spike" for Singapore compared to other countries and it's still relatively small on a per capita basis.

 

[JRP3]

You completely discount the fact that you come near some people with a shot they don't want they will pull a gun on you. We've already seen reports of this in the media. That's a HEAVY toll on society right there.

That's a tiny minority of wackos, it's a minor toll on society. It also doesn't counter your false claim of costs. But sure, don't give them a shot, and don't allow them in any place that requires vaccinations. Lunatics do not have the right to endanger others because of their irrational beliefs. As I've mentioned previously they locked up Typhoid Mary.

 

[JRP3]

But which vaccine? It does make a big difference with delta.

Also, you overlap that "spike" for Singapore compared to other countries and it's still relatively small on a per capita basis.

According to Wiki it's mostly Pfizer, maybe 2/3rds, and then Moderna and Sinovac

 

[bkp_duke]

That's a tiny minority of wackos, it's a minor toll on society. It also doesn't counter your false claim of costs. But sure, don't give them a shot, and don't allow them in any place that requires vaccinations. Lunatics do not have the right to endanger others because of their irrational beliefs. As I've mentioned previously they locked up Typhoid Mary.

Again, the argument of "endangering others" is hollow. The unvaccinated are only endangering themselves. There is not a significant number of vaccinated individuals that are dying of COVID. That doesn't give you an excuse to force upon them something that they don't want. We've had this argument several pages back, I'm not going to rehash it, nor am I going to budge on the personal freedoms stance. The "risk" is to the vaccinated population is too low to justify what you are proposing.

 

[daniel]

You completely discount the fact that you come near some people with a shot they don't want they will pull a gun on you. We've already seen reports of this in the media. That's a HEAVY toll on society right there.

That's what the police are supposed to be for: To arrest and imprison people who pull guns on other people.

Again, the argument of "endangering others" is hollow. The unvaccinated are only endangering themselves. There is not a significant number of vaccinated individuals that are dying of COVID. That doesn't give you an excuse to force upon them something that they don't want. We've had this argument several pages back, I'm not going to rehash it, nor am I going to budge on the personal freedoms stance. The "risk" is to the vaccinated population is too low to justify what you are proposing.

Some people cannot get vaccinated, and some immunocompromised people do not produce immunity in response to vaccination. Vaccine refusers are endangering people who cannot get vaccinated (due to age or allergies) and they are severely endangering immunocompromised people.

Vaccine refusers are the moral equivalent of drunk drivers. They should be placed in mandatory, enforced quarantine until the pandemic is under control.