I might have missed something, but did anyone here claim vaccinated people can't be infected?
Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]
- Thread starter RDGoodla
- Start date
Not can't, but in much reduced numbers:
Case rates among the vaccinated remain high in differing populations. I think the most significant factor is how long after vaccination the AB's remain active and prevent infection, so demographics receiving the vaccine will be more resistant for the near future than those who had their vaccine some months earlier. We see in the UK numbers I posted a large parallel between the recently vaccinated <18s and lower infection rates, while the 40-49s who had their 2nd doses in the summer fair no better than the unvaccinated (statistically much worse but caveats apply).
I'm surprised to see the UKHSA numbers are still being quoted as proof of something they don't show. This was done to death the other month.
Here's what David Spiegelhalter thinks about it:
Why are the UKHSA (formerly PHE) publishing the statistics using the duff denominator? Nobody seems to be entirely sure. They have the NIMS data available, so they decide to use it in their reports, even though everyone knows it is hopelessly inaccurate. There are no really accurate population estimates (last UK census was held in 2011!), but the ONS is at least more up to date and with better reasoning behind it.
Here's what David Spiegelhalter thinks about it:
Why are the UKHSA (formerly PHE) publishing the statistics using the duff denominator? Nobody seems to be entirely sure. They have the NIMS data available, so they decide to use it in their reports, even though everyone knows it is hopelessly inaccurate. There are no really accurate population estimates (last UK census was held in 2011!), but the ONS is at least more up to date and with better reasoning behind it.
If you can link to better numbers proving one way or the other, please do.
No, there wasn't anything wrong with my short summary. When the pandemic hit, we didn't know a lot, but data was quickly gathered and we gradually learned more e.g. about the way in which intubation was only to be used as the very last option and proning could be helpful. You're confusing changing advice from the authorities as being down to scientific knowledge when in fact it was government policy which changed. Some of the government policy in the UK had reasoning behind it (i.e. telling people they didn't need to wear masks for the first few months - because we didn't have enough good PPE for medical workers. Still don't, for that matter, but that's due to government incompetence). What has occurred since, in the UK at least, is the scientific advice has said one thing and the government has pretty ignored it until it was too late to be effective. Hence the multiple lockdowns. They are still ignoring it now that Omicron is on the loose so the shit is likely to hit the fan again, if not by Christmas, then by the New Year. I only hope that initial indications from SA (and it is still very preliminary data) that cases seem to be milder than Delta holds up in the UK where there is a different breakdown in age, morbidity and immunity. Even if this proves to be the case, the increased infectivity/immune escape may well make the coming wave as bad or worse as previous ones, despite the vaccine rollout.
The thing that you seem to be ignoring is the fact that the 'shield the vulnerable' tactic couldn't work with the way modern societies operate. If the UK had brazened it out as was the original plan, hundreds of thousands would have died over the first extended wave of infections. Many more than during the whole of the Spanish Flu pandemic. And that would have just been in the first wave. This is especially the case with an under-funded, under-resourced and under-staffed health system. The countries who have done better so far are those whose public health measures were the strongest and this is likely to be the case for as long as Covid remains a serious threat.
Here, took me about 30 seconds to find:
https://www.ft.com/content/a51f85a2-e338-4057-81bc-75447b7660b3
Note that the linked article contains criticisms of the UKHSA for so stupidly using such inaccurate data from Spiegelhalter (chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge university), Sir David Norgrove (chair of the UK Statistics Authority) and Stian Westlake (chief executive of the Royal Statistical Society).
It was a terrible and misleading representation of the data and I don't think I've seen anybody defend the choice - even the UKHSA themselves!
behind a paywall
I cannot understand, why did you cut off the table.
In Germany we have almost everywhere the 2G rule: fully vaxxed or recovered (it changend last week, but it doesn't matter for my example). And there are much more vaccinated vulnerable persons than not vaccinated.
Every weekend is football. 2G means, that unvaccianted people cannot visit these games (or restaurants with 2G etc). If there (in the stadium) is an infected fully vaccinated person, so he or she can infect other fully vaccinated people in the stadium (until last week 2G meant, that there were no restrictions, no masks, no distance etc.).
So it is possible, that more vaccinated persons are infected than unvaccinated. But who cares? They are fully vaccinated.
----------------
Is Omicron a big deal? No, at least not in the next weeks outside of southern Africa (and not South Africa). Delta is almost everywhere dominating, this could change in january/february, if you trust Christian Drosten. All you can do is to get the third shot (or your first, second...).
In Germany we have almost everywhere the 2G rule: fully vaxxed or recovered (it changend last week, but it doesn't matter for my example). And there are much more vaccinated vulnerable persons than not vaccinated.
Every weekend is football. 2G means, that unvaccianted people cannot visit these games (or restaurants with 2G etc). If there (in the stadium) is an infected fully vaccinated person, so he or she can infect other fully vaccinated people in the stadium (until last week 2G meant, that there were no restrictions, no masks, no distance etc.).
So it is possible, that more vaccinated persons are infected than unvaccinated. But who cares? They are fully vaccinated.
----------------
Is Omicron a big deal? No, at least not in the next weeks outside of southern Africa (and not South Africa). Delta is almost everywhere dominating, this could change in january/february, if you trust Christian Drosten. All you can do is to get the third shot (or your first, second...).
Thats the darn problem with the "vaccinated" vs "unvaccinated" division that have been pushed by government and the media. While science says that the vaccinated can be carriers and transmit the disease and that among the vaccinated (as well as the unvaccinated) and that many vaccinated do not develop full immunity, the measures and the selective science chosen to complement the measures ignore the whole science. Hence there is this nonsense where the measures themselves just hide a lot of issues under the rug. They use the convenient half truth narrative so that we can return back to "normal", remove any kind of responsibility from the authority (because they did the right thing in our eyes) and throw the blame on the unvaccinated.
Allowing the vaccinated to roam around without testing about who has the virus and who has not developed enough immunity is irresponsible.
There should have been rapid tests provided to all and also an immunity test as standard to determine the true level of protection against the virus including the unvaccinated and the vaccinated.
But they dont which raises a lot of questions about the real motives or if there is a huge worrisome incompetency involved or if there is some lack of transparency where the money decide the implemented measures. There is a concern about the transparency regarding the deals made between goverment officials and the pharmaceuticals.
I also blame the media about this because they are largely funded by interest groups which push a specific narrative for policies, for specific personalities, themselves or the products and services they promote.
This concern about biased journalism was raised in 2011:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/does-gates-funding-of-media-taint-objectivity/
We have the same concern now:
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/11/bill-gates-foundation-jeffrey-epstein-divorce-journalism
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/modi-gates-award.html
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/11/21/bill-gates-million-media-outlets-global-agenda/
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/08/bill-gates-global-health-policy/
You mean remove the right hand columns? Because the focus is not on whether vaccines are good at preventing serious disease, but whether they reduce infection spread by reducing people's chance to contract and spread the disease.
It's the focus of the current line of discussion in this thread!
Hypothesis is vaccinate people don't catch the disease anything like as much as the unvaccinated. That needs to be proven or disproven. No-one's debating the value of the vaccines in preventing serious disease.
Very peculiar, because I could read it on my home PC and I certainly don't have an FT subscription! I wonder why that article was visible to me when I searched?
Luckily, the FT journalist who generates some excellent graphics relating to the pandemic also posts them on twitter:
That said, I'm surprised that the dodgy NIMS stats are still being quoted now. Thoroughly debunked back in October, but I see it wasn't mentioned in this thread. It just goes to show how a bit of misinformation can run and run, rearing its head months later...
All talk of natural mutations is pretty moot if we're going to administer drugs that deliberately mutate the disease!!
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2984
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2984
Principally because we rely on search engine results. When looking for data, that was the only info that came up for me and it was from an official source. The data should have been corrected at the time, not left as is. And that's why it's best practice to share info rather than just complain about sources and how they are (mis)used.
As for the improved data, it certainly shows vaccinations reduce the prevalence of the disease, a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of unvaccinated to vaccinated, but also that it far from eliminates it. We have good science showing time interval between vaccination shots decreased resistance to infection, hence the desire for booster shots. 95% of the adult UK population tests positive for C19 antibodies...if that were enough, the disease would be dead already!
A 2:1 or 3:1 ratio represents a very, very large number of hospitalisations and deaths when the majority of the population is vaccinated. It's why we haven't been in lockdown since cases surged in June and July and then remained high. Whether it will be enough to avoid lockdown when Omicron takes over in a few weeks remains to be seen. Let's hope so.
Banging my head against a wall.
No-one was talking about the impact on hospitals. It was a specific data point about a specific topic, mutation potential in infected persons. As ever, instead of actually discussing the point to conclusion and everyone settling on an agreed reality, or at least recognising the issue in the case of diverged opinions, it's just moved on to reiterating a mantra, "vaccines are good," despite preaching to the converted.This debate is, IMHO, pointless and intellectually sterile. I leave you to it.
Don't leave, you made me think about that subject!Banging my head against a wall.
This debate is, IMHO, pointless and intellectually sterile. I leave you to it.
I have mentioned something that is not shown by your data: the viral load is reduced by the vaccines, so even infected people will develop less mutations than if they were not vaccinated because they carry less viruses. Of course this effect reduces as time goes on, hence the need for a 3rd injection (and likely more in the future).
For what it's worth, I've never particularly argued we should start vaccinating people to stop the virus turning into something more serious (which it already has, possibly due to lack of available vaccination). It is one reason for vaccination but the main reason is to stop people dying in very large numbers, becoming seriously ill with life-changing results and (to a lesser degree) developing 'Long Covid' post-viral syndrome. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted what you're trying to say, but most of your arguments seem to be similar to the Covid 'minimisers' of this world who set up strawman arguments about other diseases which simply aren't comparable to the novel coronavirus pandemic which we are all living through. To the extent of quoting misleading statistics which had previously been debunked. You dismissed my comments in an earlier post about the scientific response without actually pointing out what was 'so much wrong' with them and you haven't replied to my response. Why is Covid-19 not any 'worse' than the many viruses which have been endemic for hundreds of years and cause little serious illness? Why shouldn't we vaccinate now and save millions of lives over the next few years? The alternative is surely to allow it to run rife, killing lots of old and immuno-compromised people as well as unlucky younger folk and then just hope that it doesn't mutate into something even more serious.
I personally anticipate that we (well, those in wealthy countries first of all, of course) will be having boosters for another year or perhaps two but it is perhaps only longer-term that we'll be seeing those most vulnerable having a yearly vaccination as we currently see with influenza. You'd assume further advances in treatments will appear so that Covid becomes a milder and more treatable disease in everyone else. As you appear to be worried about future immune-escape variants, note that there is already work underway to develop vaccines which target multiple epitopes. A couple of the vaccine companies are testing combined Covid/Flu vaccines as well, I believe (Moderna and Novavax, I seem to think?).
Just what level of deaths do you think we should be willing to accept rather than to vaccinate and run the risk of escape mutations down the line (which we could then develop vaccines and treatments for, of course)? If this is a thought experiment - i.e. not using vaccines which are effective at reducing death and morbidity - how would you deal with the fallout? The hospitals would quickly be overwhelmed (seen in many countries during previous waves), leaving people dying in the street and at home in large numbers. Medical staff would be ill in such numbers that they wouldn't be able to treat patients regardless of their ailment, so more deaths. Imagine how many would leave the profession following such terrible situations.
So, what would we do if we're going to 'let it rip'? Set up 'dying rooms' for palliative care for those who we couldn't treat? Police cordons at hospitals as those with dying relatives attempted to get some sort of treatment? For me, when faced with imminent disaster, it takes a unusual viewpoint to think that doing nothing in case of future disaster might be the better option.
It should be noted that it is thought most of the variants have developed in the immuno-compromised who wouldn't be alive in previous eras due to the lack of modern medical treatments. If you are advocating that we should not use vaccines for Covid-19 because of the risk of future escape variants do you also think we should also stop treating people with certain cancers or auto-immune diseases who are the most likely 'culprits' as hosts? Just a thought experiment.
I personally anticipate that we (well, those in wealthy countries first of all, of course) will be having boosters for another year or perhaps two but it is perhaps only longer-term that we'll be seeing those most vulnerable having a yearly vaccination as we currently see with influenza. You'd assume further advances in treatments will appear so that Covid becomes a milder and more treatable disease in everyone else. As you appear to be worried about future immune-escape variants, note that there is already work underway to develop vaccines which target multiple epitopes. A couple of the vaccine companies are testing combined Covid/Flu vaccines as well, I believe (Moderna and Novavax, I seem to think?).
Just what level of deaths do you think we should be willing to accept rather than to vaccinate and run the risk of escape mutations down the line (which we could then develop vaccines and treatments for, of course)? If this is a thought experiment - i.e. not using vaccines which are effective at reducing death and morbidity - how would you deal with the fallout? The hospitals would quickly be overwhelmed (seen in many countries during previous waves), leaving people dying in the street and at home in large numbers. Medical staff would be ill in such numbers that they wouldn't be able to treat patients regardless of their ailment, so more deaths. Imagine how many would leave the profession following such terrible situations.
So, what would we do if we're going to 'let it rip'? Set up 'dying rooms' for palliative care for those who we couldn't treat? Police cordons at hospitals as those with dying relatives attempted to get some sort of treatment? For me, when faced with imminent disaster, it takes a unusual viewpoint to think that doing nothing in case of future disaster might be the better option.
It should be noted that it is thought most of the variants have developed in the immuno-compromised who wouldn't be alive in previous eras due to the lack of modern medical treatments. If you are advocating that we should not use vaccines for Covid-19 because of the risk of future escape variants do you also think we should also stop treating people with certain cancers or auto-immune diseases who are the most likely 'culprits' as hosts? Just a thought experiment.
I don't don't think anybody here ever advocated against vaccines, nor for stopping vaccinations. At every attempt to propose nuance, I feel like some people double down into binary arguments. This, and no other issue for that matter, is not a binary matter.
Thanks for proving you are deliberately ignoring all nuance. Very intelligent. Much scinece.
The whole pandemic is not only about if a person has had a vaccine or not, and even if it was, the pandemic is not the only problem society world wide has to deal with, and it has to be balanced against all the old ones we already had before, and Shifity just said he was banging his head against the wall for this innability to remember the context of the discussion and now its me. Must be self-protecting cognitive dissonance selective memory.
Even if we just talk about one person having had the vaccine in isolation, i.e. your snarky but shit example.
Which vaccine was it. Which batch? How many doses? How long ago?
Does this look binary to you?
Is their immunity binary (either 0% or 100%)? Is their ability to pass the virus along binary? Is their ability to carry mutations binary?
That's what we have been talking about, while you are happy to say "Vaccine = Good" which by the way, me and Shifty agree with and have stated as much multiple times.