COVID-19 (artist formerly known as Wuhan strain novel Corona virus)

I don't really care enough to have this conversation with you. I likely won't be following up further after this post.

You pick. The mRNA vaccines seem to make the most sense for discussion sake.

I read something about a study from Denmark that found Omicron was 2.7 to 3.7 times more infections than the Delta in the vaccinated. That constitutes "significantly" for me. There was a time when "breakthrough infections" weren't really a thing. Now they're extremely common. This isn't rocket science.

 

If you have high blood pressure, and often skip your med, and still eat tons of sodium and processed foods, it isn't the drug's fault for your continued high blood pressure.

It isn't semantics to point that out. Vaccines are drugs meant to prime an immune system. It's still very effective at doing that.

Measuring whether the product of the immune system's priming is less effective today than 6 months ago is something that can't really be inferred, it has to be measured. And there are a ton of variables that go in to that measurement.

Unfortunately, people want to just guess by anecdote than say "the answer needs to be measured."

Maybe someone has measured. That would be the answer, at the moment. And hopefully that measurement is statistically valid.

 

No, it's harder. Rocket science is easy. Booster make rocket go until rocket reach escape velocity.

 

You're comparing variants, rather than unvaccinated vs vaccinated. Why?

If you aren't wanting to follow up, let's be clear that you want to talk about vaccine effectiveness, but are not looking at a control (unvaccinated people) and are looking at two different variants (two different independent variables) with an undefined dependent variable (not a specific vaccine type or vaccine). This is an untenable approach for coming to a meaningful answer to "was the vaccine significantly better at controlling spread of COVID 6 months ago?" in the context of unvaccinated vs vaccinated, which is the context that matters for examining the utility of the vaccine for spread.

To generate meaningful answers, one has to go through a logical process that constrains variables and tests a specific hypothesis. If the hypothesis is vaccines are significantly less effective now than 6 months ago, the hypothesis itself has no useful application to the decision in the present to vaccinate. Better hypotheses would be "vaccine x does not significantly affect the transmission rate of the Omicron variant," or "vaccine x recipients do not have a significant difference in infection rates than unvaccinated or vaccine y recipients." If you are more interested in looking at the differences in the variants, then you would compare those last hypothesis tests to ones 6 months previous, but that wouldn't tell you anything regarding getting vaccinated now or not because the difference between vaxed/unvaxed then and vax/unvaxed now is not relevant to the difference between vaccinated or unvaccinated now but rather relevant to understanding the epidemiology of the illness and the needs for future vaccines.

It also does not address the concern of adverse effects from COVID, which do occur in children at a rate of .1 to 1.5 %. Extrapolated over a population of 73 million children in the US, that is at minimum 73,000 hospitalizations possible with unknown long term effects. With vaccinations, this hypothetical number would be reduced to 3,650 or so. So even if the spread was unaffected, the health outcomes would be greatly improved for nearly 70,000 children, in a scenario where the whole population has been affected at the minimum hospitalization rate for that group. I don't know that this is the exact math behind recommendations, but it is that kind of math. But people like to gamble, be smug when they win and blame everyone else when they lose. Better to listen to the card counters.

 

He has no frame of reference. It's like saying the ocean is not that deep because he can't dive deeper than 30 ft without needing to come up for air.

 

I'll just talk about gut feelings, I guess, and get apoplectic if anyone challenges those feelings.

 

IF globally, "everybody" (being the scientific # required to shut this shit down) had gotten the vaccine when 1st released then we would not be having these inane rationalizations due to variants.

But hey, some azzholes had to make it all about them.

Just my unscientific PoV as someone who got all the shots that my parents and the military made me get.

 

If the vaccine isn't stopping the spread and people are still getting sick due to variants, it's not doing much.

 

I'm not an anti vaxxer, just saying it's hard to preach vaccinate and then say well, you can get this variant but you won't be too sick

 

I dont agree covid would be gone if everybody was vaccinated.

 

Go look at a hospital graph broken out between vaxxed and unvaxxed and then tell me it isn't doing much,

 

I'd imagine your choice to vaccinate your 2 or 3 year old right now with 3-4 covid vaccines is not something you'd like to do, but I could be wrong.

 

Are vaxxed people in the hospital?

 

A variant would get by the vaccine you got then you need this booster, that booster and then a mask that may or may not work.

This entire thing has been a cluster[uck fay] of epic proportions.

 

At a significantly lower rate.

 

But they're there, which leads to people saying they've been lied to by (insert politician/celebrity/Fauci) which leads to even more distrust.

 

I too would like to speak with the virus' manager.

 

Do you remember back when the vaccines first came out, and people were criticizing them for being only 50 to 90% effective? I 'member. But anyone saying they were lied to forgot. I have receipts, if you don't remember.

 

I remember, it's why I laughed at every politician saying it was the answer. It's a tool but it isn't a miracle cure.

 

I laughed.

Seriously, though don't you think it could have sold a lot better than it has been?