Where is the mandate?

You guys keep moving the goalposts. The original claim was 99% of cases were in the unvaccinated. This is false. We see it varies by state from 6% to 38% in our examples. This is NOT meaningless because it predicts how much spread will occur from vaccinated sources. The breakthrough infection rate has less meaning in this context.

The breakthrough rate has most significance when compared to the infection rate of the unvaccinated. This then shows efficacy of the vaccine but doesn’t help much in predicting how much transmission is being driven by each demographic. The percentages of infected vaccinated vs. unvaccinated is more relevant when discussing what demographics are driving transmission rates. That was @gnoib point but he used a bogus number.

Hospitalization is one metric. Around 25% of hospitalized for Covid in Massachusetts are vaccinated. The reason we see higher percentages hospitalized is because we are not finding breakthrough cases that are asymptomatic. Those people just aren’t being tested.

Yes that is important but doesn’t predict how much transmission is caused by that demographic. It’s also not accurate because asymptomatic cases are flying under the radar. Likely some mildly symptomatics are as well.

That’s correct. And 1% breakthrough rate doesn’t mean 1% of active infections are in vaccinated and 99% of active cases are in unvaccinated. As I said, you guys are conflating two different statistics.

Agreed. But the post I responded to was not about vaccine efficacy. It was claiming 99% of infections/cases were in the unvaccinated. This simply isn’t true.

 

Yes, the shed viable virons from a vaccinated infected individual will on average be less in total than from an unvaccinated infected individual. On average. I’ve tried to be clear on that point but apparently failed.

But this does not predict transmission rates in whole. Behavior still has a huge effect. The asymptomatic rate is likely much higher in the vaccinated leading to no isolation or even testing in these cases. This makes transmission more likely, not less. This is part of the reason we are seeing higher percentages of vaccinated hospitalized than show up in simple case counts.

The good news with missing asymptomatic breakthrough infections is that these individuals will now almost certainly have much better immunity than if they just received another booster. The breakthrough infection rates should decrease over time, but vaccinated individuals will continue to become infected and infect others. It’s just the way it’s going to be.

 

When you deny the results of FDA clinical testing and data gathered by CDC I think you have a serious responsibility to state your sources.

 

I'm glad you point out that behavior is still an issue.

It seems there continue to be those loudly opposed to behavior restrictions.

 

Interesting, thanks.

 

You did notice that I countered Gnoib's statement too, right?
I'm not moving the goalposts. I was just explaining what rate I thought was important, and added it to the discussion.
Yes, the numbers he presented do not mean that only 1% of active infections are in the vaccinated.
Still, the numbers I presented show 0.92% of the vaccinated (average of four states) are getting the virus.
Sure, there are undiagnosed cases... but that's the case for the unvaccinated too. We can't invalidate everything because of undiagnosed cases, because it applies to both categories.
If we accept the CDC's latest research saying that the vaccinated are 5 times less likely to catch the virus than the vaccinated, and the rate of (at least diagnosed) cases is 0.92% for the vaccinated, then we'd need to conclude that the rate for the unvaccinated is 5 times more than that, or 4.6%.

 

What have I denied? Be specific.

 

Again, you are not taking into account that the people who have accepted the vaccine - at least before some mandates were imposed, but so far it's not a huge statistical impact from that because as compared to the full mass of workers in the United States, the ones already submitted to mandates are a tiny minority - are likely to be more prudent than the ones who did not accept the vaccine.

I'd guess that the vaccine deniers are the same people who don't wear a mask and make a point of going to bars and sports events, super-crowded and unmasked, exhibiting reckless behaviors because for them, this is all a hoax, a Democrat power-grab, and the virus is no big deal, the death toll is inflated, etc., so "I'm not wearing any stinking mask because of my freedoms and I'm partying, babe!"

I'm prepared to bet my house that reckless behavior is more frequent among the unvaccinated than among the vaccinated.

Anecdotal case of six, myself, my wife, my son, his wife, my daughter and her husband, all six of us are fully vaccinated, and you won't catch any of us not wearing an advanced mask with good seal (at least N95, and for certain activities, N100), and not practicing social distancing, or not being mindful of not going into crowded indoor spaces. We are only eating out in places that have an outdoor setup, we're not going to bars, and we are not going to stadiums and arenas, but rather watching the games on TV. We all have a bubble of likeminded friends who take the same precautions, and we only get together with them. Still, when we get together, it's outdoors. I have a nice gazebo in my backyard and that's where we entertain bubble members. So, we're extremely unlikely to catch the virus, and to pass it on to others if we did catch it.

When my son recently got married he had a very small ceremony just for the two nuclear families (not even cousins/uncles etc. were invited - all family members fully vaccinated) and a couple of friends from their bubble (also vaccinated). The wife of a friend refused the vaccine. They were kindly uninvited.

So, we're extremely prudent people. Compare that to your usual tattooed redneck biker who screams "My freeeeddddoooms" and refuses the vaccines and the masks. Sorry, but I do think that behavior-wise, the vaccinated in general are much more prudent.

 

I'm just saying that what you quote often doesn't match the science based medicine of the FDA, CDC and WHO.

Thus, when you post I'd like to see a cite. After all, countering these major sources of high quality science isn't something that anyone should take lightly.

I'm not going to comb your past posts.

 

Fair enough. I’ve apparently misinterpreted this statement.

It appeared you were agreeing with him.

Certainly not invalidate anything. But I think it’s correct to assume the asymptomatic rate in the vaccinated is higher than the unvaccinated. This does matter in the context of confirmed cases based on testing. I’m open to evidence we aren’t testing mostly symptomatics at this point.

That’s math I can agree with!

 

Ok. Baseless accusations. Got it. If I quote anything that conflicts with the FDA, CDC, and WHO what I quote is peer reviewed studies or meta analysis of reviewed studies and the other organizations are in conflict with known evidence. Masks are one example. The mask advice from the CDC has consistently conflicted with all known evidence on efficacy of certain mask material and type.

When you made the incorrect claim obesity doesn’t affect others I posted numerous peer reviewed studies and pull quotes from those studies that showed your claim to be baseless and false. You did not accept the peer reviewed studies. Don’t falsely accuse me without evidence of not backing my claims when I just did so comprehensively yesterday to you and you outright denied science.

Your baseless accusations aren’t helping your authoritarian cause.

 

Oops, yes, it does seem like for a moment I lost track of what I was getting at, and what Gnoib was getting at, and did make a statement that indicated agreement. I did keep saying that one stat shouldn't translate into the other but at one point, by issuing this agreement, I was conflating them too. So yes, you do have a point. As usual, you're very perceptive.

 

Thanks. That is interesting but I’ve observed the opposite as well as what you describe. Certainly if only 1% of vaccinees have breakthrough infections your experience backs that up.

How do you know the virus wasn’t transmitted? Was everyone tested at the correct time from exposure?

 

It’s all good. All that matters is we agree on the facts as usual. Fact based discussions with you are always a breath of fresh air.

 

There is much data to show that your claim is incorrect and that Ricmortis is correct. It would be a waste of my time to provide links to you. Around the world, it is those who've taken the shot who are becoming infected.

 

You are the authoritarian who demands laws against obesity - as if that will protect people from those overweight.

 

Quote me demanding laws against obesity! Go ahead. You aren’t making that up are you? I clearly stated the opposite. How could you miss this that I posted TO YOU.

 

You have positioned obesity as just as validly approached with law as is COVID.

And, I stand by my position that you have no justification for that.

 

Why should a curious person accept the claims of FDA and CDC and the rest of the compromised agencies?

Why accept the claims of agencies that moved the goal posts so many times in the last two years? Why believe a single word known liars utter?

Pfizer has pleaded guilty at least twice since 2004 to criminal fraud charges in court. That makes them criminal fraudsters. Why should I believe them?

 

I wrote, 99% of the people hospitalized in my County are unvaccinated, 1% have had at least 1 shot.

There are similar numbers in Europe, even in the countries with 80 to 90% vaccination rate.
Brake throughs happen, but to evaluate them, one needs to know the health condition of that person and naturally how long ago the second vaccination was and the persons social behavior.
@Center Field, Nagelsmann could not coach Bayern against Benefica, he had a mild flue type infection, which turned out to be c19. He is just 37, very fit and fully vaccinated. Two thoughts pop into my mind, when I read about.
How long ago did he get his second and what is his social behavior.
Did he make the mistake of feeling to save? Is he in the 4-6 month threshold, were the vaccine wanes

Hold your horses, this is what I wrote. So please 557, do not put any words into my mouth, you do that on a regular base.

 

Ah, you made it up. Thanks for confirming that. Of course it’s as validly approached with law as Covid. Much more so in fact. It would save more lives, increase quality of life for 70% of the US population, and be very advantageous environmentally.

Good. I don’t believe I have justification for mandating diet and exercise either. And if we don’t have justification for mandating something with a huge positive impact on society we don’t have the justification to mandate something with much less positive impact on society. Just because someone has a personal hangup about one type of vaccine for one disease doesn’t mean they have the right to remove bodily autonomy from another. We can’t force people to do things based on personal perceptions of risk or personal risk tolerance.

An unvaccinated individual has the potential to put you at risk from Covid about 2-3 weeks of their entire life. A vaccinated individual has the potential to put you at risk from Covid to a lesser degree and lesser time period.

An obese person has the potential to put you at risk every day of their life. From Covid, Influenza, Staph., vehicular accidents, work accidents, transmitting obesity causing pathogens to you, and by making you more likely to become obese just by observing their state of obesity.

You’ve been conditioned to fear the lesser risk and were completely unaware of the greater risk—even denying its existence when demonstrated with peer reviewed studies. As I’ve said previously, your position was taken in a state of insufficient knowledge to make a logical conclusion. Now your knowledge has been buttressed with the facts on how obesity affects others. I’m sure it will take some time to accept such novel information. It’s counter to everything you’ve been led to believe.

 

Sorry sir. I quoted you with the quote function. Here are YOUR WORDS again that I responded to. I have not put words in your mouth. You make a post on PF and pass the edit window it’s your baby. Sorry. You own it.

I would love to see statistics of any place hospitalizations are 99% unvaccinated. Some area large enough to avoid being a statistical anomaly. In other words not just one hospital at one point in time.

 

I didn't say that.

I said that if you want to make some claim that is not supported by US and international science based medicine, you should post a source.

If you think there is a better source, then STATE it.

And, if you want to make claims like "move the goal posts", then you need to support that, too. Remember that the science and engineering concerning COVID has advances in a major way during the past year and a half. Not only that, but we've struggled on the policy front to find the best policy that as many people as possible will accept.

AND, if you want to claim someone lied, YOU BETTER BRING IT. OK??

 

Again you pull things out of contex, which is dishonest. I responded to the claim that it is the vaccinated who are catching covid, and are in the hospital. Which is BS.
Its about hospitalization, not catching covid or dying, mild dose you probably have no further damage to your organs, hospital you have a very high chance ( now you will scream for links ) of Long Covid.

Again 99% of all covid cases in the hospital in my County are unvaccinated, the missing 1% have had at least 1 shot.