COVID-19/Coronavirus Information and Support Thread (see OP for useful links)

[Biggles]

Just came across this on BBc website:

Facebook removes anti-vax influencer campaign

Facebook has removed hundreds of accounts linked to a anti-vaccine campaign operated from Russia.

www.bbc.com

 

[Nielsen]

Do they really?

That’s all cases in total, or?

Why is vaccinating large groups of people such a bad idea? I think we're past the wait-and-see stage now.

We aren’t. New knowledge about the effect of these relatively new vaccines keeps surfacing on a regular basis.

For example, very recently it was announced that some countries aren’t satisfyingly protected against the delta variant because they unknowingly didn’t rely on the most effective vaccine currently on the market. So re-vaccination (third injection) programmes of unknown scope are now being considered. It’s arguably a massive inconvenience at most, but it’s not exactly reassuring.

Almost 4.5 billion doses have been given worldwide, including about a billion of Pfizer and billion of AstraZeneca. At some point, you'll have to stop calling it new!

True, but see what I posted right above.

Yep, seems you're talking about Flu. Vaccines for that are tweaked each year to try to cover the most expected strains of it in the coming winter, and when those miss it can get pretty bad (excess deaths). In the UK, those jabs are suggested for all over-50s.

A few things about Flu. First, it doesn't spread as quickly as COVID, partly because it's less contagious but mainly because symptoms start to show quite quickly, a day or two. COVID though is quite stealthy for a few days or more, helping it spread. Second, and more interesting perhaps, is that Flu mutates faster than coronaviruses. It might seem like we've seen countless COVID variants, but compared to the number of cases it's actually quite a small number. At the milder end, the common cold coronavirus has remained virtually unchanged for ages. Lastly, I think the risk for younger people from Flu is massively lower than the risk from COVID, not sure how the curve goes but I'm guessing it doesn't get to 1 in 12,000 risk of death until somewhere in your 50s or 60s rather than in your early 20s.

Put those points together and maybe you see why we have to accept that Flu will always be around, and why Flu vaccines are generally only given to seniors.

I fully understand why the conventional vaccines are primarily offered to seniors. For the reasons you mention I also understand why the new COVID vaccines are being offered on a broader scale, but I don’t think they should be recommended for all age groups. At least not when good health is evident.

(I kind of get your point about Google - attempting to find information on coronaviruses in general as opposed to COVID is almost impossible now).

Appreciated after all my attempts to articulate that point.

It's all a bit odd, knowing that nightclubs are open and large events like festivals are taking place, while in many other respects almost nothing changed on 'Freedom day' - people still mostly masking, still mostly keeping distance, etc.

Euro 2020 earlier this summer also came across somewhat strange and irresponsible all things considered.

But weren't you using 'agenda' in a way that implied distrust?

I don’t trust that the authorities fully know what they are doing with these vaccines, as it’s still early days in a vaccine context. However, they are completely determined in distributing and advertizing them, thus agenda. Every influential institution is increasingly invested in it.

Granted, I wouldn't listen to politicians or journalists for COVID or vaccine advice, in most cases they would be repeating some data they'd been told rather than analysed themselves. It's not necessarily that they be wrong, but it would generally be a dumbed down message. We also have Whitty and Vallance, both scientists, giving presentations of data - they do a much better job of explaining 'why', but still have to keep it fairly brief. For the real detail there's no substitute to reading the actual papers and reports produced by the people doing the analysis - it is pretty much all available, even if not always easy to find.

Which is a key point of mine. The hard to find data should be a lot more accessible. Many people have based their vaccine decision purely on public pressure generated by media streams, which are more likely to be biased than purely objective.

The short of it though is that the level of herd immunity needed depends on the transmissibility of the virus (which rose with Delta) and the effectiveness of vaccines at reducing transmission (which is worse with Delta). Before Delta it looked like UK was going to reach herd immunity with some to spare, but with Delta around there's no slack - pretty much everyone has to have either vaccine or previous infection, and it still might not be quite enough. That's probably not quite as bad as it sounds, but it has certainly caused alarm and drives the push for full vaccination.

That may be pretty much as you've heard it already, perhaps all I can add is that the math checks out and the data supports what's being said. (The main unknown is the R0 of the Delta variant, often given as 6 but anything between 5 and 7 is possible).

It may drive the push for full vaccination, but it’s not necessarily the right call.

Which statistics suggest otherwise? That hospitalisations and deaths are much lower than they were? That's anwered by the fact that nearly all people going to hospital now are unvaccinated, and the average is much lower than before. Or something else?

Something else. The fatal cases among younger people (roughly from age 0 and 39) don’t appear to be particularly exceptional. Pandemics will always increase the numbers so in that regard we can’t even compare it to the fatality rate of a classic season flu. There’s a risk but high enough to warrant mass vaccinations? I don’t believe so, and that’s why these forced (more or less) vaccinations in places of the United States seem uncalled for.

Vaccines have always been mandatory in the US military. They literally put you in a room and give you multiple injections. The Peanut Butter shot is infamous in that topic.

But, I pointed that out pages ago.

So now you think I have something against vaccines in general? Well, I don’t.

Because I never made that claim in the first place. You claimed there is one. By your own words, the burden of proof lies on you.

You claim there isn’t a vaccine agenda. That’s what needs proof, because it’s extremely obvious there is. All those stories you have posted yourself are proof there is.

At least twice every week I read a headline that goes like this: “Vaccine sceptic dies after contracting corona disease”. Inherent message: “Don’t be that guy. Take the vaccine”.

You even suggested earlier that agendas amount to fake news. Maybe you’re thinking of hidden agendas? It wouldn’t surprise me since you’ve also accused me of conspiracy theorizing. I didn’t make any such claims whatsoever.

Claiming Google intentionally hides search results to push vaccine propaganda alongside multi-national companies is a conspiracy claim. Good out there on the end, though.

Conspiracy claims are based on the idea that there are ulterior motives. I never said anything like that. I used the word “propaganda” because the authorities are so determined in promoting these rushed vaccines when they instead should take a deep breath and hold their horses.

It's literally happening right now as hospitals once again, expand care & are short-staffed due to rising cases.

Posted it pages ago in response to you. Just another indication you don't read anything.

I have read those stories or very similar ones before you posted them. You act like I’m totally ignorant.

They absolutely do.

In my opinion not convincingly enough. You’re obviously convinced, so sincerely good luck with your vaccine.

 

[TB]

At least twice every week I read a headline that goes like this: “Vaccine sceptic dies after contracting corona disease”. Inherent message: “Don’t be that guy. Take the vaccine”.

Or just maybe it's simply a fact.

 

[Nielsen]

Or just maybe it's simply a fact.

Not denying it is, but back in the day you didn’t get to read when someone died of season flu.

 

[Rossell2]

I don't think you saw many people denying the existence of seasonal flu though.

 

[Nielsen]

I don't think you saw many people denying the existence of seasonal flu though.

That’s not whom they are trying to address. The emphasis in such stories is on vaccine scepticism.

 

[FuriousDemon]

Articles about unvaccinated people dying doesn’t do much for me, but it may act as a “booster” for the more sensitive people to get vaccinated, if they were on the fence. Also, media likes to have these types of news/articles in general.

I’m much more interested and concerned about the overall trends, hospitalization rates and loads, vaccination rates, etc. Those numbers clearly show that masks, prevention measures, and so on work - remove the mandates and cases will climb. It does show that vaccines also help prevent severe disease and death, but they are not bullet proof. Unless you have a severe medical condition that your doctor says you shouldn’t take the vaccine, there is no reason not to get vaccinated. It’s the best option we have right now to minimize the risk to yourself, others around you, and reduce mutations of the virus. We know that short term side effects and complications of vaccines are lower than COVID. As far as long term, we don’t know too much about both, but with COVID we know there are definitely long term effects for many people. With vaccines, so far, it does not appear to be the case.

 

[Dotini]

Articles about unvaccinated people dying doesn’t do much for me, but it may act as a “booster” for the more sensitive people to get vaccinated, if they were on the fence. Also, media likes to have these types of news/articles in general.

I’m much more interested and concerned about the overall trends, hospitalization rates and loads, vaccination rates, etc. Those numbers clearly show that masks, prevention measures, and so on work - remove the mandates and cases will climb. It does show that vaccines also help prevent severe disease and death, but they are not bullet proof. Unless you have a severe medical condition that your doctor says you shouldn’t take the vaccine, there is no reason not to get vaccinated. It’s the best option we have right now to minimize the risk to yourself, others around you, and reduce mutations of the virus. We know that short term side effects and complications of vaccines are lower than COVID. As far as long term, we don’t know too much about both, but with COVID we know there are definitely long term effects for many people. With vaccines, so far, it does not appear to be the case.

It might also help if the vaccines were to receive full FDA approval. But even so, there is something in the stubborn, rebellious and freedom-obsessed character of many Americans that needs to be suspended for anywhere near full vaccination levels to occur.

 

[Fat Tyre]

I'm only posting this because I'm sick of hearing excuses from people for when some young people die of Covid-19. They always say, well they must have had some underlying health conditions or I'm sure they were obese, etc... I didn't have to look for these articles. I was reading about the situation in Argentina after hearing a friend lost her mum and then her dad just five days later due to Covid and all these started to pop out. So yeah all these athletes cases can be dismissed as being statistically insignificant but I hope it makes those who think that this only kills the old and frail stop being in denial.

Rugby player, 27, dies of Covid-19 (this was before Delta hit Argentina I think).

Falleció un jugador tucumano por COVID-19 - Rugby Champagne

RUGBY CHAMPAGNE, nació en 1996 y es una marca registrada dentro del periodismo especializado en rugby. Realiza coberturas y estadísticas nacionales e internacionales y la información es su fuerte.

www.rugbychampagneweb.com

Rugbier, 35, dies of Covid-19.

Covid-19 en Argentina: Murió un jugador de rugby en La Plata - TyC Sports

Joel Rutigliano tenía 35 años y estuvo 19 días internado en el Hospital Rossi. Jugaba en Berisso Rugby Club.

www.tycsports.com

Professional football (soccer) player collapses on pitch due to heart attack after recovering from Covid-19 two weeks before. Gets saved by CPR.

Almanaque González: paro cardíaco y milagro en el vestuario de All Boys - TyC Sports

El colombiano, recientemente recuperado de coronavirus, se descompensó y estuvo sin pulso por 15 segundos tras la victoria ante Gimnasia de Jujuy. Lo salvó el médico con RCP y fue trasladado a un sanatorio.

www.tycsports.com

Man in NSW, 27, with no known health conditions dies of Covid. He played football in amateur league.

Covid death of Sydney man Aude Alaskar, 27, prompts calls for young people to get vaccinated

Forklift driver, who died at home 13 days into his isolation, is the youngest person to die of coronavirus in NSW since the start of the pandemic

www.theguardian.com

 

[Outspacer]

We aren’t. New knowledge about the effect of these relatively new vaccines keeps surfacing on a regular basis.

For example, very recently it was announced that some countries aren’t satisfyingly protected against the delta variant because they unknowingly didn’t rely on the most effective vaccine currently on the market. So re-vaccination (third injection) programmes of unknown scope are now being considered. It’s arguably a massive inconvenience at most, but it’s not exactly reassuring.

I find that a bit of a weak argument - you're cherry-picking results from the worst vaccine (I presume Sinovac) as if it applies to your situation, or generally. I'm assuming you would get offered one of the most effective, probably Pfizer.

I fully understand why the conventional vaccines are primarily offered to seniors. For the reasons you mention I also understand why the new COVID vaccines are being offered on a broader scale, but I don’t think they should be recommended for all age groups. At least not when good health is evident.

They may be 'conventional' in some sense, but it's still a new tweaked vaccine each year for Flu. They are also typically not very effective, maybe 10% to 50%. I think that if we had a vaccine for Flu that didn't need tweaking every year and was more effective, it would be very reasonable to recommend it to all adult age groups. (Vaccines that target the much less variable parts of the Flu virus are in development, I think).

I don’t trust that the authorities fully know what they are doing with these vaccines, as it’s still early days in a vaccine context. However, they are completely determined in distributing and advertizing them, thus agenda. Every influential institution is increasingly invested in it.

The first part is a fear that we discuss separately (clearly my view is that vaccines are safe enough to use and reduce overall risk even in younger adults... so I would be bothered if the authorities did not share that view; it's what the facts show).

The second part about agenda is irrelevant unless you are also claiming that their motives are anything other than preventing illness and death.

Which is a key point of mine. The hard to find data should be a lot more accessible. Many people have based their vaccine decision purely on public pressure generated by media streams, which are more likely to be biased than purely objective.

It is mostly reasonably accessible, the harder to find stuff is usually for more specific aspects, when going to a read a paper is the only reliable way to get first-hand info. The media could and should do more to link to papers and other sources of information, but in many cases they don't do a terrible job of that already.

I'd say your definition of biased vs objective is a bit warped, tbh. When the data shows a net benefit for adults in taking the vaccine, I would not call it 'bias' to acknowledge that people's fears are unfounded, and to repeat the recommendation to get vaccinated. Showing unvaccinated people on their death beds is the objective truth of the situation currently, as admission statistics show.

It may drive the push for full vaccination, but it’s not necessarily the right call.

I was trying to emphasize that it's done with good, logical, intentions, not sinister ones.

Something else. The fatal cases among younger people (roughly from age 0 and 39) don’t appear to be particularly exceptional. Pandemics will always increase the numbers so in that regard we can’t even compare it to the fatality rate of a classic season flu. There’s a risk but high enough to warrant mass vaccinations? I don’t believe so, and that’s why these forced (more or less) vaccinations in places of the United States seem uncalled for.

Whoah there, you already defined 'younger people' to be adults, 20 to 39, and we already looked at the stats for those. COVID has, to a very rough aproximation, doubled their risk of death. That is exceptional, no doubt about it.

It is possible to compare CFR, perhaps more relevant to do so per country, and pandemic doesn't cause a problem in doing that (actually makes it easier because we could choose to pick a country with great data collection and stats). The main issue for Flu is getting reasonable estimates of overall case numbers (and estimating the effect of vaccines on the numbers, although that wouldn't be relevant if looking at under 50s).

That we've had to tolerate Flu and its death toll doesn't mean we accept it as inevitable. As I said, a better vaccine against it would hopefully be worth giving to all adults. It's only because the current Flu vaccine might only be 10% to 50% effective that we don't - the balance of risks don't warrant it. One with efficacy of 80% or 90%, that lasted more than one season, would be game-changing.

The balance of risks for COVID and, say, Pfizer are hugely different than those for Flu. All of the factors shift the balance towards vaccination being worth it - and there aren't any that shift it away.

What will you say in September, when the FDA is expected to give Pfizer full (non-emergency) authorisation?

 

[Nielsen]

I find that a bit of a weak argument - you're cherry-picking results from the worst vaccine (I presume Sinovac) as if it applies to your situation, or generally. I'm assuming you would get offered one of the most effective, probably Pfizer.

I’m talking about Pfizer, and it applies to me because it’s what I would haven gotten.

Moderna may be superior to Pfizer against Delta; breakthrough odds rise with time

The following is a roundup of some of the latest scientific studies on the novel coronavirus and efforts to find treatments and vaccines for COVID-19.

www.reuters.com

I'd say your definition of biased vs objective is a bit warped, tbh. When the data shows a net benefit for adults in taking I was trying to emphasize that it's done with good, logical, intentions, not sinister ones.

I haven’t said anything about sinister intentions. Rather rushed intentions.

Whoah there, you already defined 'younger people' to be adults, 20 to 39, and we already looked at the stats for those. COVID has, to a very rough aproximation, doubled their risk of death. That is exceptional, no doubt about it.

I didn’t. I simply said that by “younger people” I’m not referring to young people exclusively. Both those and young adults.

The balance of risks for COVID and, say, Pfizer are hugely different than those for Flu. All of the factors shift the balance towards vaccination being worth it - and there aren't any that shift it away.

What will you say in September, when the FDA is expected to give Pfizer full (non-emergency) authorisation?

Again I’ll refer to the article at the beginning of my post.

 

[Outspacer]

I’m talking about Pfizer, and it applies to me because it’s what I would haven gotten.

Moderna may be superior to Pfizer against Delta; breakthrough odds rise with time

The following is a roundup of some of the latest scientific studies on the novel coronavirus and efforts to find treatments and vaccines for COVID-19.

www.reuters.com

Well we've touched on this (breakthrough infections) already in regard to herd immunity; it's not news.

The main take-home from the article should be: "both vaccines remain effective at preventing COVID hospitalization". Which does not support your broad claim that "some countries aren’t satisfyingly protected against the delta variant".

I haven’t said anything about sinister intentions. Rather rushed intentions.

Well no, not rushed. Based on all the current data, of which there is plenty.

I didn’t. I simply said that by “younger people” I’m not referring to young people exclusively. Both those and young adults.

I posted something about children, and you said "By “younger people” I’m loosely referring to below the age of 40. Not young people per se.". I see the possible miscommunication, although that would mean the info I posted about children was actually relevant to some of those you were referring to, while the impression given was that you were dismissing it as irrelevant.

Again I’ll refer to the article at the beginning of my post.

Which doesn't support not using the vaccines, not at all.

So you thought you'd found a 'gotcha', and had no need to respond to any other points I raised. Really you were just misrepresenting what it said, in an lame attempt to support your position. Did you really think I wouldn't notice?

 

[UKMikey]

Why is vaccinating large groups of people such a bad idea? I think we're past the wait-and-see stage now.

We aren’t. New knowledge about the effect of these relatively new vaccines keeps surfacing on a regular basis.

For example, very recently it was announced that some countries aren’t satisfyingly protected against the delta variant because they unknowingly didn’t rely on the most effective vaccine currently on the market. So re-vaccination (third injection) programmes of unknown scope are now being considered. It’s arguably a massive inconvenience at most, but it’s not exactly reassuring.

How does that make vaccinating large groups of people a bad idea? It certainly suggests vaccinating large groups of people with a less effective vaccine isn't a good idea.

 

[Nielsen]

Well we've touched on this (breakthrough infections) already in regard to herd immunity; it's not news.

The article I linked to is from yesterday, and the main takeaway from it is that Pfizer appears to be less effective against delta. I posted it in response to you blaming me for having a “weak argument” because you assumed I talked about anything but Pfizer. I proved my point that new findings about the vaccines keep surfacing, hence the justified scepticism for the time being.

The main take-home from the article should be: "both vaccines remain effective at preventing COVID hospitalization". Which does not support your broad claim that "some countries aren’t satisfyingly protected against the delta variant".

Then why were representatives from the national health authority in my country on yesterday’s news evaluating the possible outcome of these findings? They aren’t thrilled by them and are now looking into the need for providing unplanned booster injections. They wouldn’t do that if they were satisfied, obviously.

Well no, not rushed. Based on all the current data, of which there is plenty.

Not enough data to vaccinate entire populations. I’m not sure why you insist on challenging this viewpoint when unexpected findings keep coming up on regular basis.

I posted something about children, and you said "By “younger people” I’m loosely referring to below the age of 40. Not young people per se.". I see the possible miscommunication, although that would mean the info I posted about children was actually relevant to some of those you were referring to, while the impression given was that you were dismissing it as irrelevant.

It was not my intention to give the impression it was irrelevant. I only clarified that your points didn’t cover the entire age spectrum I’m worried about.

Which doesn't support not using the vaccines, not at all.

I didn’t say Pfizer must be stopped, as I’m sure the weak and elderly can still benefit considerably from it. Why do you constantly approach my points from specific angles I haven’t expressed?

I said it’s not reassuring, and such findings contribute to validating vaccine scepticism.

So you thought you'd found a 'gotcha', and had no need to respond to any other points I raised. Really you were just misrepresenting what it said, in an lame attempt to support your position. Did you really think I wouldn't notice?

I only replied where I had a direct response. Please point out the misrepresentation I made.

How does that make vaccinating large groups of people a bad idea?

Because it makes you wonder what other conclusions there are still to be made.

It certainly suggests vaccinating large groups of people with a less effective vaccine isn't a good idea.

Definitely.

 

[UKMikey]

Because it makes you wonder what other conclusions there are still to be made.

How? The large groups that vaccinated with the more effective vaccine didn't seem to have this problem.

 

[Nielsen]

How? The large groups that vaccinated with the more effective vaccine didn't seem to have this problem.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

 

[UKMikey]

I’m not sure what you mean here.

I mean nothing about your previous posts suggests to me that mass vaccination is a bad idea. It's not like there are widespead harmful effects associated with such an approach.

 

[Nielsen]

I mean nothing about your previous posts suggests to me that mass vaccination is a bad idea. It's not like there are widespead harmful effects associated with such an approach.

For now none other than vaccine passports interfering with things once synonymous with personal freedom.

I’m sure you’ll say that’s a selfish standpoint during a pandemic, but it’s not like I do all the things and behave in the same ways I did two years ago. I’m not even sure taking the vaccine could make me return to old habits, as the uncertainty surrounding their ongoing effectiveness means we cannot rely on them.

 

[Outspacer]

The article I linked to is from yesterday, and the main takeaway from it is that Pfizer appears to be less effective against delta. I posted it in response to you blaming me for having a “weak argument” because you assumed I talked about anything but Pfizer. I proved my point that new findings about the vaccines keep surfacing, hence the justified scepticism for the time being.

Explain to me exactly how this scepticism is 'justified'? One moment you support it by a lack of information, the next you do so when new information arrives. Neither prove your point...

The article doesn't affect your previous 'concern' about possible long term vaccine side effects (boogieman, no sign of any after eight months), and you make no claim that it does.

It doesn't significantly affect any of the previous discussion about relative risks of hospitalisation and death.

We've had articles about this in the UK for a few weeks now. With the same finding that protection against hospitalisation and death are still excellent. It's not new information.

Then why were representatives from the national health authority in my country on yesterday’s news evaluating the possible outcome of these findings? They aren’t thrilled by them and are now looking into the need for providing unplanned booster injections. They wouldn’t do that if they were satisfied, obviously.

Planning for possible booster doses has been going on for ages. Why on earth wouldn't they evaluate?! Bit late is all, as they could've looked at UK data a few weeks ago.

Not enough data to vaccinate entire populations. I’m not sure why you insist on challenging this viewpoint when unexpected findings keep coming up on regular basis.

This is not a scary 'unexpected finding' - it was an unknown for the Delta variant that we can now put a number on. It's a shame that number isn't higher, but fundamentally it's much worse news for the unvaccinated than the vaccinated. Not much reason to think anyone won't catch it now, so no get out of jail free cards. Everyone will face whatever the dice rolls for them. More reason to get vaccinated (to protect yourself and make the immunity level as high as possible), not less

I didn’t say Pfizer must be stopped, as I’m sure the weak and elderly can still benefit considerably from it. Why do you constantly approach my points from specific angles I haven’t expressed?

Oh come on, you know that I meant the younger people that we've been talking about, the ones where you object to the vaccination pressure. But, sigh, I'll rephrase:

Which doesn't support not using the vaccines for any and all age groups where the benefit clearly outweighs the risk. In other words, at least all adults, as that's what I've been focussing on.

The main reason there is miscommunication is that you are not clear enough, and the more logical interpretation of what you've said often turns out to be not what you meant. Apparently. Anyway, I'm not doing it deliberately.

I said it’s not reassuring, and such findings contribute to validating vaccine scepticism.

Phooey. I repeat my responses to the first quote of this post.

I only replied where I had a direct response. Please point out the misrepresentation I made.

I did. You said, categorically, "some countries aren’t satisfyingly protected against the delta variant", and that's false as far as Pfizer, Moderna and even AstraZeneca are concerned. They all satisfyingly protect against hospitalisation and death, which is what we have been talking about, and is certainly the main concern. (And where we weren't, I'd already specifically noted that herd immunity looks unlikely in the face of Delta).

Look, all of this post is kind of an aside. I still want to hear how, for young adults, turning a 1 in 10,000 risk of death into a 1 in 250,000 risk, i.e. reducing deaths by 25x, isn't desirable, or isn't a fair assessment. (If there's a significant risk from vaccination it can be put into that risk comparison, but no sign of that re Pfizer/Moderna).

 

[UKMikey]

For now none other than vaccine passports interfering with things once synonymous with personal freedom.

I’m sure you’ll say that’s a selfish standpoint during a pandemic, but it’s not like I do all the things and behave in the same ways I did two years ago. I’m not even sure taking the vaccine could make me return to old habits, as the uncertainty surrounding their ongoing effectiveness means we cannot rely on them.

What uncertainty?

Death and long term illness are the most serious threats to personal freedom I can imagine. And to risk inflicting them on others is what I'd call selfish.

 

[ryzno]

Death sounds like freedom to me, but that's a subject for another thread...

 

[Nielsen]

Explain to me exactly how this scepticism is 'justified'?

I think I’ve explained it and also exhausted the various ways in which I can explain it to you.

One moment you support it by a lack of information, the next you do so when new information arrives. Neither prove your point...

You say that like my argumentation is illogical. If anything, it proves that scepticism due lack of of information was warranted, as documented when information backing the scepticism arrived.

The article doesn't affect your previous 'concern' about possible long term vaccine side effects (boogieman, no sign of any after eight months), and you make no claim that it does.

Your point being then?

It doesn't significantly affect any of the previous discussion about relative risks of hospitalisation and death.

It doesn’t. Why do you think it matters?

We've had articles about this in the UK for a few weeks now. With the same finding that protection against hospitalisation and death are still excellent. It's not new information.

The new information is that a popular vaccine may be too ineffective to have the desired protection against the delta variant, hospitalizations or not.

Planning for possible booster doses has been going on for ages. Why on earth wouldn't they evaluate?! Bit late is all, as they could've looked at UK data a few weeks ago.

Injecting a boost may have been seen as viable option for some time, but now it actually appears to considered as an actual necessity. I think that’s the “new” part.

This is not a scary 'unexpected finding' - it was an unknown for the Delta variant that we can now put a number on. It's a shame that number isn't higher, but fundamentally it's much worse news for the unvaccinated than the vaccinated. Not much reason to think anyone won't catch it now, so no get out of jail free cards. Everyone will face whatever the dice rolls for them. More reason to get vaccinated (to protect yourself and make the immunity level as high as possible), not less

I see it this way - not so much point in getting vaccinated now (if there ever was).

Oh come on, you know that I meant the younger people that we've been talking about, the ones where you object to the vaccination pressure. But, sigh, I'll rephrase:

Which doesn't support not using the vaccines for any and all age groups where the benefit clearly outweighs the risk. In other words, at least all adults, as that's what I've been focussing on.

The main reason there is miscommunication is that you are not clear enough, and the more logical interpretation of what you've said often turns out to be not what you meant. Apparently. Anyway, I'm not doing it deliberately.

I don’t need to “come on”. I make an effort to stay level-headed and on topic. At several occasions I’ve found your interpretations of the things I say exaggerated. Like you’ve put a predetermined label on me purely because of my viewpoint.

I did. You said, categorically, "some countries aren’t satisfyingly protected against the delta variant", and that's false as far as Pfizer, Moderna and even AstraZeneca are concerned. They all satisfyingly protect against hospitalisation and death, which is what we have been talking about, and is certainly the main concern. (And where we weren't, I'd already specifically noted that herd immunity looks unlikely in the face of Delta).

It’s not my claim though. It’s a fact when the new findings inspire health authorities to return to the drawing board.

Look, all of this post is kind of an aside. I still want to hear how, for young adults, turning a 1 in 10,000 risk of death into a 1 in 250,000 risk, i.e. reducing deaths by 25x, isn't desirable, or isn't a fair assessment. (If there's a significant risk from vaccination it can be put into that risk comparison, but no sign of that re Pfizer/Moderna).

Like I said to begin with days ago, disturbing policies like vaccine passports have come into existence in places where they shouldn’t, and mass vaccinations policies play a decisive role in that. Vaccines may reduce the risk of serious illness, but not to the point where they should be at odds with people’s freedom.

What uncertainty?

The vaccine is no guarantee.

 

[Touring Mars]

@Nielsen I'm really struggling to understand your point here.

Vaccines are highly effective against all known variants thus far... some vaccines are better than others against different variants, but all confer a good level of protection against all variants, including Delta, and the most prevalent vaccines in Europe and the US are highly effective against the Delta variant, as evinced by the massively disproportionate number of people filling ICUs across America and elsewhere who are unvaccinated.

Yes, no vaccine is 100% effective and vaccinated people still get sick, but the number of people who are avoiding death, severe illness or being hospitalised because they are vaccinated is overwhelming evidence that vaccinations are doing what they were intended to do.

So what's the problem, and why are you arguing against advocating their further use?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Death sounds like freedom to me, but that's a subject for another thread...

Not if somebody else chooses for you, but yeah different thread

 

[TexRex]

😬

 

[Nielsen]

@Nielsen I'm really struggling to understand your point here.

Vaccines are highly effective against all known variants thus far... some vaccines are better than others against different variants, but all confer a good level of protection against all variants, including Delta, and the most prevalent vaccines in Europe and the US are highly effective against the Delta variant, as evinced by the massively disproportionate number of people filling ICUs across America and elsewhere who are unvaccinated.

Yes, no vaccine is 100% effective and vaccinated people still get sick, but the number of people who are avoiding death, severe illness or being hospitalised because they are vaccinated is overwhelming evidence that vaccinations are doing what they were intended to do.

So what's the problem, and why are you arguing against advocating their further use?

I’m not against further use. I just don’t like how the vaccines by default are being distributed and advertized to non-seniors (the low-risk demographic) to the extent they are, especially not when the by product is vaccine passports seemingly becoming a norm. This summary is very similar to what I wrote to begin with, sparking the debate.

 

[TexRex]

"Low-risk."

 

[FPV MIC]

Like I said to begin with days ago, disturbing policies like vaccine passports have come into existence in places where they shouldn’t, and mass vaccinations policies play a decisive role in that. Vaccines may reduce the risk of serious illness, but not to the point where they should be at odds with people’s freedom.

The problem here is everyone has rights. I also have the right to not be infected by a Covid denier who won't wear a mask (not saying you're one here). Australia may have to introduce vaccine passports just to travel from state to state just because a small portion of people won't do the right thing.

People don't have the right to knowingly spread Covid to other people and yet they do. This causes many millions of people to be locked down here and also eventually spreads to those who are vulnerable. Hence the need for proof that we've taken every reasonable effort to not spread Covid around.

'Unfathomable': Police charge men who allegedly left Sydney despite knowing they had COVID

NSW Police charge three men who allegedly knew they had COVID-19 but still travelled from Sydney to the state's Central West.

www.abc.net.au

Major concern over infected NSW man who ‘didn’t isolate or check in’

‘It’s been very difficult for police and health authorities to track down where he’s been, it’s ridiculous.’

7news.com.au

We even have people go so far as faking check-in codes.

Australian conspiracy theorists and anti-lockdown groups share fake Covid check-in apps

Exclusive: Spoof software likely to cause difficulties for contact tracers in the event of outbreaks

www.theguardian.com

You may very well be doing the right thing but many aren't.

That’s all cases in total, or?

Yes, and it was 4,315,463 dead people. A hardly insignificant number (it's also risen by nearly 20k people since that post).

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

 

[Outspacer]

I see it this way - not so much point in getting vaccinated now (if there ever was).

I know you think that, which is precisely why all of that last stuff was an aside.

This is the key question: "is there any point?" (in relation to younger people, but mainly young adults).

Not vaccine passports, not children for whom vaccination isn't approved, not whether or not a booster dose is needed, not vague unfounded concerns that the vaccine may be unsafe, not particularly whether herd immunity can be achieved, and certainly not the irrelevant huge exaggeration of a "return to the drawing board".

All of that hinges on (or is irrelevant to) the answer to "is there any point?", which is what I've tried to focus on.

All the data indicates the answer is firmly "yes". 25x reduction in death risk. 10x or better reduction in hospitalisation risk. Reduced risk of long covid. And, even if the reduction isn't as good as we would like, 2x to 4x reduction in infection (with a larger reduction than that in transmission due to shorter illness). Indications are that those stats apply across adults of all ages. All with extremely low risk from the vaccination, as shown by eight months of data from a billion doses (Pfizer).

I gave you civil responses, barring some misunderstandings, up until you tried a 'gotcha'. But I'll admit the lack of any attempt to engage with the facts as we know them to answer that key question - even to disagree with any of my interpretations of data would be progress - was starting to grind.

There is a logical mathematical answer to the question. We could even rework it with a hypothetical 10x greater risk from the vaccine and the answer "yes, the benefits greatly outweigh the risks" would still be the same. I'm willing to recalc it for any reasonable hypothetical (even though it's rather pointless, since, as we saw with AstraZeneca, the various authorities are doing a cautious calculation already).

If you feel you're happy with doubling* your overall risk of death while COVID is around, good luck. You'll most likely be fine, I don't deny that (heck, even someone with a 1 in 6 chance of dying will most likely be fine, it's a crap argument).

* same caveats as before, meh, it's close enough.

 

[Famine]

I just don’t like how the vaccines by default are being distributed and advertized to non-seniors (the low-risk demographic) to the extent they are

That's... how you achieve herd immunity and protect the entire population.

Aside from the massively increased risk of long-term issues from COVID-19 (because it kills them less often), large, mobile unvaccinated populations are an absolute dream for a virus looking to mutate. When it does so, it renders the existing vaccination less effective and creates a larger unvaccinated population as a result - allowing for more and more rapid mutations, making the vaccine less and less effective, and so on.

A vaccine has to be population-wide in order to achieve a high enough immunity to reduce the virus's reproductive rate to zero or near zero in order for it to be effective in protecting those at highest risk of the disease. Vaccinating only those likeliest to die is, with a virus with an R0 above 5, is almost pointless.