Covid-19 News/Discussion

[ramssuperbowl99]

11 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

But it's not 95%. Pfizer has made clear that it's 84% after six months. Again, this is information that I didn't know.

The decrease in efficacy due to the release of variants that didn't yet exist is something that no one knew. That's how evolution works.

11 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

From the CDC director, two days ago: "What they (the vaccines) can't do anymore is prevent transmission".

In infected individuals. 

That does not mean the vaccines do not prevent transmission. The vaccines prevent the overwhelming majority of infections, based on what we've seen so far. That's why, and the CDC has been clear on this, that the overwhelming majority of transmission is in uninfected individuals. 

11 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Why do you give off this vibe like you've been personally attacked?

You are claiming things that are half true, or not true, and acting like you've been mislead.

11 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I don't understand why we've been permitted to unmask and avoid other health measures knowing that doing so continues to put the vulnerable population at risk. Can you provide an answer?

Yes:

20 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

There are 165M Americans vaccinated. There have been a total of 1.4k breakthrough deaths (and I'd speculate a large fraction of those will be in people with identifiable immune system risks). You're talking about an order of magnitude lower death risk amongst the vaccinated than the flu.

It's safe for vaccine-vaccine contact. Unvaccinated-vaccinated contact is still largely fine, but a little riskier than we thought it'd be if there are crazy high general levels of virus around. Unvaccinated-unvaccinated contact is where you'll see the overwhelming majority of transmission, and that's always been against public heath measures.

Frankly, the unvaccinated are responsible not only for being unvaccinated but also for not socially distancing and maksing, which is what current CDC guidance is recommending. They just aren't being publicly criticized for it because we they can't even clear the vaccine bar, so it's just expected.

Edited August 8, 2021 by ramssuperbowl99

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

2 minutes ago, ET80 said:

The specific question of should our government know is a very complex answer - one that doesn't really have an answer that avoids political discussion. I don't think it's a bad question, just one I can't answer without going political, y'know?

This isn't really an "order of operations" sort of thing; Yes, if you were vaccinated, you COULD take your mask off. Only issue? Our approach could be best described as "the honor system" without validation of whether or not someone is vaccinated - so both vaccinated and unvaccinated took off their masks. The vaccinated were fine for a bit, but then the unvaccinated started to get sick, the virus started to mutate within the unvaccinated and that mutation started to spread - next thing you know, we have a delta variant that can break through a defense.

Had the unvaccinated (at the very least) wore a mask and distanced during this period - they'd prevent getting infected, which would prevent the mutation, which would lead to no delta variant, which would mean the vaccine would still do its job against the Alpha/Beta/Gamma variants.

The break point here isn't false information from those making decisions - it's those who felt as if they didn't have to follow the rules set before everyone and go back to living life without taking the necessary precautions.

Your beef is with the unvaccinated. It was always an IF/THEN proposition - IF you get vaccinated, THEN you can remove your mask, travel and gather. If you DIDN'T get vaccinated, THEN you should wear a mask, socially distance, etc.

Unvaccinated people broke the IF, which ruined the THEN (at a microscopic rate, mind you - 165mm vaccinated with less than 2,000 deaths is a rounding error, mathematically speaking).

I think a lot of this assumes that the delta variant originated in this country. If it didn't, the IF/THEN isn't entirely accurate, based on what we know now: both the vaccinated and unvaccinated are spreading the delta variant to high-risk persons whose vaccine protection is waning. And, in fairness, there are certainly some unvaccinated individuals that noticed symptoms and took precautions, which is made more difficult by the vaccine due to the lessened symptoms.

So, again, that's the part I have a hard time with: had I known the "obvious", I would've continued to wear a mask, social distance and avoid crowded indoor functions. And, really, if the goal is protecting the high-risk, and knowing what we know now, everyone should be doing those things.

[ET80]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I think a lot of this assumes that the delta variant originated in this country. If it didn't, the IF/THEN isn't entirely accurate, based on what we know now

Country of origin doesn't really matter - it was a variable that nobody could account for because it simply didn't exist at the time. How can you plan for something that you don't know is coming? Can I plan for a hurricane that's going to hit Houston in the next 24 months? I can have a baseline of supplies and contingency plans, but I can't plan on whether or not I'm in the path of cyclones, can't anticipate amounts of rain, etc.

3 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

And, in fairness, there are certainly some unvaccinated individuals that noticed symptoms and took precautions, which is made more difficult by the vaccine due to the lessened symptoms.

In equal fairness, we've known that asymptomatic infection was a thing since we started in 2019 - that's not an onset due to the vaccine, asymptomatic carriers was always a thing with this virus.

7 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

So, again, that's the part I have a hard time with: had I known the "obvious", I would've continued to wear a mask, social distance and avoid crowded indoor functions.

It's only obvious in hindsight. This is all happening in real time, it's not as if we could predict the trajectory of variants to our current vaccination effectiveness.

8 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

And, really, if the goal is protecting the high-risk, and knowing what we know now, everyone should be doing those things.

I don't disagree, but it's not as if people are going to listen. Everyone SHOULD have been vaccinated by now, but... here we are.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

4 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The decrease in efficacy due to the release of variants that didn't yet exist is something that no one knew. That's how evolution works.

In infected individuals. 

That does not mean the vaccines do not prevent transmission. The vaccines prevent the overwhelming majority of infections, based on what we've seen so far. That's why, and the CDC has been clear on this, that the overwhelming majority of transmission is in uninfected individuals. 

You are claiming things that are half true, or not true, and acting like you've been mislead.

Yes:

 

In other words: only 2,000 people have died (that we know of), so disregarding health precautions despite knowing that doing so puts others at risk is perfectly acceptable.

... got it? I mean, really, what a ridiculous statement. 

I have only claimed exactly what I was aware of at the time of my vaccination, done exactly what I was advised to do by the government and have found out (after the fact) that doing so could've put someone at risk. My parents are in their early 70s, my step-dad has complicating factors and I'm a first responder. We avoided seeing them until everyone was vaccinated, and have seen them frequently since. But, hey, if he happens to be the "2,001" death, that number is so low that it really doesn't matter, because... you know... the flu and stuff.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

Just now, ET80 said:

Country of origin doesn't really matter - it was a variable that nobody could account for because it simply didn't exist at the time. How can you plan for something that you don't know is coming? Can I plan for a hurricane that's going to hit Houston in the next 24 months? I can have a baseline of supplies and contingency plans, but I can't plan on whether or not I'm in the path of cyclones, can't anticipate amounts of rain, etc.

It's only obvious in hindsight. This is all happening in real time, it's not as if we could predict the trajectory of variants to our current vaccination effectiveness.

I don't disagree, but it's not as if people are going to listen. Everyone SHOULD have been vaccinated by now, but... here we are.

First paragraph: exactly, and I agree. You said:

"Had the unvaccinated (at the very least) wore a mask and distanced during this period - they'd prevent getting infected, which would prevent the mutation, which would lead to no delta variant, which would mean the vaccine would still do its job against the Alpha/Beta/Gamma variants."

The unvaccinated in this country wouldn't have prevented the mutation of the mutation occurred elsewhere, therefore the delta variant would still have existed. There is a portion of the population (children and those that cannot get the vaccine) that would have never been vaccinated anyway, providing the delta variant an opportunity to exist regardless.

The part in bold (in your quote) is exactly my point in this whole thing, but you seemed to disagree a few posts ago. If we knew that the vaccines aren't perfect, that they lose their effectiveness over time and that one can still get and transmit COVID despite being vaccinated (statements that you regarded as common knowledge), we should have never lifted those health measures for the vaccinated in the first place. I don't think that's a bold statement... I think it makes perfect sense.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

In other words: only 2,000 people have died (that we know of), so disregarding health precautions despite knowing that doing so puts others at risk is perfectly acceptable.

... got it? I mean, really, what a ridiculous statement. 

I have only claimed exactly what I was aware of at the time of my vaccination, done exactly what I was advised to do by the government and have found out (after the fact) that doing so could've put someone at risk. My parents are in their early 70s, my step-dad has complicating factors and I'm a first responder. We avoided seeing them until everyone was vaccinated, and have seen them frequently since. But, hey, if he happens to be the "2,001" death, that number is so low that it really doesn't matter, because... you know... the flu and stuff.

Preventing absolutely every death is impossible.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Quote

• Heart disease: 659,041
• Cancer: 599,601
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005
• Alzheimer’s disease: 121,499
• Diabetes: 87,647
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,565
• Influenza and pneumonia: 49,783
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,511

 

COVID, up until now, has dominated our lives because it's slotting in #1-3 on this list, depending on how much we undercounted. 

But at a few thousand a year, the side effects of anti-COVID transmission measures might become relevant here. Isolation increasing the suicide rate 10%, as a total hypothetical, would be an extra ~5k deaths per year. So if we lock everything down and no one gets COVID, but 5k more people kill themselves, did we do the right thing?

Society isn't going to lock down over a few thousand people dying of something. We proved that last year - we didn't lock down effectively over tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people dying.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Preventing absolutely every death is impossible.

I think you're missing the point.

I don't think that we'll be able to prevent every death. I do think that, based on what we know about COVID and viruses in general, masks and other health measures can help prevent the spread of the delta variant, therefore protecting the high-risk. If that's true at all, those measures should have never been lifted, and should be put back in place.

We can't prevent them all, but we can certainly take simple measures to prevent more of them. And we should.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

That all being said, my goal here has never been to stir the pot or cause a conflict. I'm just a guy who hated science class in high school and has tried to do everything in his power to comply with directions given to protect others. I had questions. I've received answers. I appreciate your time.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I think you're missing the point.

My original criticism was that you quoted things like "I didn't know the vaccine wasn't 100% effective" when it was never advertised that way, or that "the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission" when that's just simply not true as if you were being mislead.

If you're on board that the messaging on vaccine efficacy was high, and has decreased because of outside factors, and if you're on board that vaccinated people don't transmit COVID-19 as highly as other people, I'm good.

[ET80]

3 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

If that's true at all, those measures should have never been lifted, and should be put back in place.

I don't disagree - but there are those who do, and those who would have went about their lives as if there was nothing wrong.

Even before the measures were lifted, people were removing masks and gathering in large amounts - what makes you think this group of people would EVER listen?

[ET80]

10 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

If we knew that the vaccines aren't perfect

We ALWAYS knew vaccines weren't perfect. This shouldn't have to be stated. There is no 100% measure.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

I don't disagree - but there are those who do, and those who would have went about their lives as if there was nothing wrong.

Even before the measures were lifted, people were removing masks and gathering in large amounts - what makes you think this group of people would EVER listen?

Well, I'm a police officer, and I've never agreed with that argument. People will always speed, but that doesn't mean we remove speed limits. We post them for the safety of all and the majority of the people comply.

I, for one, would've continued to wear a mask and social distance if the government told me to. They told me it was safe to do the opposite. I guess that's my only concern.

[ramssuperbowl99]

35 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Unvaccinated people broke the IF, which ruined the THEN (at a microscopic rate, mind you - 165mm vaccinated with less than 2,000 deaths is a rounding error, mathematically speaking).

To provide a hypothesis for these 2,000 people, for whom I think it's entirely possible that the vaccine truly didn't work: they could have had an undiagnosed immune deficiency that either hadn't been relevant before or had just developed. At this level of infrequency, that's the type of act of god event that can be throwing off what looks like a 100% trend.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

We ALWAYS knew vaccines weren't perfect. This shouldn't have to be stated. There is no 100% measure.

That wasn't my point, but one statement taken out of context. My full quote:

If we knew that the vaccines aren't perfect, that they lose their effectiveness over time and that one can still get and transmit COVID despite being vaccinated (statements that you regarded as common knowledge), we should have never lifted those health measures for the vaccinated in the first place.

Edited August 8, 2021 by TL-TwoWinsAway

[incognito_man]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I, for one, would've continued to wear a mask and social distance if the government told me to. They told me it was safe to do the opposite. I guess that's my only concern.

The government never lied to you. The information about risks has ALWAYS been available for you to understand. 

It's unclear why you're dealing in absolutes in a situation that's driven by statistics and trade-offs.