6 ms·

What vaccinated people should know about their risk from the delta varian

37 points by yial 5y ago

murgindrag 5y ago
I feel like the goal posts are moving with lightening speed. Whenever I read a sentence like "The goal was never to eradicate COVID from being annoying—it was to eradicate it from being a killer." Those same experts, a year ago, were assuring us that COVID would never become endemic. Same thing with vaccines. Yes, everyone should get vaccinated. Yes, we were given a ton of guidance that vaccines would stop the spread of COVID. I feel like there are two camps: 1) Liberals, who are in control of the health establishment, who lie to get the behavior they want (starting with "no mask" advice, to now overselling vaccines, and rewriting history) 2) Conservatives, who ignore all science. Liberal media emphasizes how we've always been at war with Eastasia, and liberals believe it. Conservatives point to inconsistencies and open lies, and use that to discount everything from medical, academic, and government establishments.
- jdhn 5y ago
  >I feel like the goal posts are moving with lightening speed. The goalposts have been moving ever since we were told "only 2 weeks to stop the spread".
  - ptcrash 5y ago
    When did anyone say "2 weeks to stop the spread" I remember "2 Weeks to slow the curve" and Trump's "15 days to slow the spread" but I don't remember anyone ever saying eradication was simply 2 weeks of lockdown away. Even if it was as simple as 2 weeks away, many people chose to ignore the stay-at-home orders, so it's not really achievable. I think you're confusing 'moving goal posts' with constant failure to reach a goal followed by readjustment to new data.
    - jdhn 5y ago
      Stop the spread, slow the spread, the idea was that by doing just 2 weeks of isolation, everything would be manageable. This has really not been achieved anywhere in the world anywhere else other than New Zealand, and at what cost? >I think you're confusing 'moving goal posts' with constant failure to reach a goal followed by readjustment to new data. No, I don't think I am. That is a textbook definition of moving the goalposts.
- comex 5y ago
  "The goal was never to eradicate COVID from being annoying" does sound surprising considering all we've been hearing about the effectiveness of the mRNA at preventing infections of non-Delta COVID. But then, that high effectiveness was once itself a surprise, so it may make sense if the point of reference is before the original clinical trials were finished.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  Not. Fauci a year ago: Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday he believes the world will “get control of” Covid-19, but “I don’t really see us eradicating it,” expressing a view in line with public health experts—but directly contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims made as recently as Tuesday that the virus will “disappear” https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/22/contradicting-trump-fauci-doesnt-see-us-eradicating-covid-19/?sh=237a74599a11 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/22/contrad...
  - datad 5y ago
    But he has dangled the goal of herd immunity, while gradually upping the percentage of vaccination required to get there. Herd immunity to many people means “eradication” and the media has helped foster that belief.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      The percentage required was never a solid number in the first place and the shift is due to our better knowledge of the virus and the new strains that necessitate higher vaccination rate.
      - datad 5y ago
        My friend, that’s the definition of moving goalposts. But of course everything changes over time, as it should. Are we still trying to reach herd immunity? What percentage vaccinated would be required for that? Two questions for you to research. Edit: Do we have enough doses even today to vaccinate everyone, worldwide? I think we do not.
        lmilcin 5y ago
        Well, I am not your friend. I am very particular about who my friends are. As to goalposts, the goalposts moved themselves. If everybody vaccinated when they had a chance there would not be any talk of goalposts. Instead we will have more millions of people die because couple people died of vaccine and everybody else does not understand law of large numbers.
- dom96 5y ago
  Seeing the “goalposts” argument is so tiring. We learn something new every day, of course our understanding of COVID changes and thus the recommendation of how to keep ourselves healthy does too.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- zarzavat 5y ago
  The level of discourse and critical thinking in the mainstream media is made for uneducated people who don't understand even basic biology. There is a certain breed of scientist that just spouts bullshit. Unfortunately the media is so obsessed with "narratives" that it will seek these people out (and these bullshit artists seek out the media) so all nuance is lost. The moral of the story is, don't let other people do your thinking for you.
  - datad 5y ago
    The average person has no ability to understand lipid nano particles. Many scientists and most doctors do not understand, so how is the average dolt like me going to figure it all out?
    - zarzavat 5y ago
      It's not the lipid nano particles that's the issue but basic high school biology that is missing. People get confused because the media throws around high level concepts without building an appropriate mental model of how viruses, cells and vaccines actually function. This creates a fertile breeding ground for misconceptions. For example there is a misconception that after people have been vaccinated they can shed SARS-CoV-2 as a result of being vaccinated. This seems to have started by the media saying that "people who are vaccinated can still pass on the virus" (a true statement). So the media tries to counter this by saying "MYTH: people who have had the vaccine can't shed the virus" which just confuses the issue even more. If the media was actually functional then it would educate people on basic biology and then they would be able to figure out on their own that A is false and B is true. Unfortunately this is not the media we have.
    - murgindrag 5y ago
      I think the bigger problem is exponentials, rates of change, and control systems. Right now, we lock down when numbers get high, and open up when numbers get low. There's about a month lag between actions and hopsitalizations, so we act on month-old data. We don't look at rates-of-growth. This results in a roller-coaster. We ought to take whatever measures we need to keep R0<1.
- lmilcin 5y ago
  Getting rid of COVID became impossible the moment governments decided to wait with restrictions until there is enough cases. Now it is a bit too late to think about getting rid of it completely but the pandemic will not be over until people realize you can't lift restrictions until it is really over and that everybody needs to get vaccinated. Unfortunately, viruses are not politically motivated and are not swayed by fake news. Rather than bitchin at liberals or conservatives, better read up on what people who really know something about viruses say. > overselling vaccines Oh my... it is not overselling. It is dealing with people like children they are. People reverted to the point where you can't have merit-based discussion about vaccines in public, and so simplifying the message is IMO the right strategy. The point is, vaccines work and the more people vaccinate the less will die and all other finer points are less important.
  - datad 5y ago
    “ Getting rid of COVID became impossible the moment governments decided to wait with restrictions until there is enough cases.” No, Chinese government stalled, suppressed doctors and scientists who were screaming out about the virus months, literally, before anybody outside the Chinese government was aware. That’s a matter of record and easily verified.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      Chinese government did what Chinese government usually does. Then the rest of the world decided to wait for couple of months to react even with full knowledge of seriousness of the situation. "Let's wait before putting any restrictions on the population until we have enough cases." Restrictions were probably unavoidable, but most of deaths could have been avoided by quick reaction.
  - murgindrag 5y ago
    > Oh my... it is not overselling. It is dealing with people like children they are. People reverted to the point where you can't have merit-based discussion about vaccines in public, and so simplifying the message is IMO the right strategy. > > The point is, vaccines work and the more people vaccinate the less will die and all other finer points are less important. Repeating a point over and over, based on falsehoods, hasn't worked out very well either here or in global warming. At some point, people notice you're lying. The conclusion might be correct, but if you get caught lying along the way, you undermine your case. People didn't "revert." Years of this kind of oversimplification and "dealing with people like children they are" led to this ignorance. And in a rapidly-evolving situation like COVID19, this ignorance sometimes ends up biting you just months later. In my community, vaccine efficacy is well below 70%. People don't believe that since we've had months of messaging. Yes, I do think we would have higher vaccination rates if we stopped patronizing people, and started educating them. No time like the present to start.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  > were assuring us that COVID would never become endemic. no they weren't. endemic disease and booster shots every year or three were always on the table from the start.
blueyes 5y ago
@dang: missing a "t" in varianT. ^^
Zababa 5y ago
> They even went to a hockey game indoors with thousands of people. > Mostly, he felt frustrated. He’s a journalist—he’s pretty tuned in to the news. He knew breakthrough cases were possible, but he had seen many assurances that they were extremely rare and not that big of a deal. > He would have worn a mask at the hockey game, for example—even though no one was wearing a mask at the hockey game, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it’s fine for vaccinated people not to wear masks inside. I honestly don't know what to say. I've been following COVID on and off for the last year and half, and there's no way that I would see going to a hockey match with thousands of people inside without a mask as safe. The CDC says it's safe? Sure, and the WHO said that masks were useless at the beginning of the pandemic. At some point, you have to learn to think for yourself. Big organisms like the CDC and the WHO have others incentives than keeping you perfectly healthy. I don't want to sound too harsh, and I understand the frustration. But please develop a bit of critical thinking. Especially if you're a journalist.
- goes_brrrrrr 5y ago
  The CDC says it's safe because they are trying to "nudge" the public into getting vaccinated with a positive incentive - getting rid of the mask. This whole pandemic the CDC proved that it cant think more than one step ahead. Just like it was advising against wearing masks because it was afraid of them being unavailable to health workers. So the CDC credibility will take yet another hit after it insisted so hard that if you get vaccinated you can do whatever you want and you don't need to worry about covid ever again.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > Just like it was advising against wearing masks because it was afraid of them being unavailable to health workers. That was the WHO goal too. I'm honestly not a fan of lying to the public tu "nudge" them into the right direction, and we should probably wonder why we're at this point. This is, I think, a sign that's something deep down is very broken.
  - purple_ferret 5y ago
    It's safe because you're unlikely to get hospitalized. It's as safe as it's going to get, unless you commit to booster vaccines every six months. Nothing nefarious in their logic.
13415 5y ago
This is a really annoying and unnecessary article. It is based on some personal anecdote of someone who was fully vaccinated and got symptomatic Covid for 1 1/2 days that felt bad. Judging from the description in the article, it lasted shorter and was overall better than a common cold - not the flu, just a common cold we all have had before. Doctors also confirmed that it was a mild case. Yet the author goes on to paint some kind of bleak picture. I can't really see why. The case described illustrates how vaccines worked as intended. Yes, vaccinated people should probably wear masks in closed confined spaces. But if so, not because of personal risks involved in getting infected as a vaccinated person but rather to limit infections of non-vaccinated with the Delta variant. The same is true for social distancing (with moderation) and washing hands. AFAIK, the risk of dying or getting serious complication for fully vaccinated people is currently very low. Maybe future mutations change that but it doesn't look like it. If you insist on worrying about something, then worry about enough volunteers for vaccinations, enough vaccines for poorer countries, or getting refresher vaccinations once they are due.
- allturtles 5y ago
  > it lasted shorter and was overall better than a common cold The illness was described as causing total debility for 36 hours, like food poisoning. That is much worse than a common cold, IMO, which generally doesn't stop me from doing any activity and is just a nuisance.
  - 13415 5y ago
    Maybe you're personally blessed with a super-strong immune system but what you're describing is not the usual common cold. A common cold takes around 9 days, and most people have to spend and are recommended to spend 3 of those in bed. Most common colds can develop into deadly pneumonia if you take them too lightly. A colleague of my girlfriend nearly died of one in 2018 because he ignored it and went out partying...
    - allturtles 5y ago
      I don't know what to say except to appeal to my own experience. I've never heard of anyone I know being confined to bed by a common cold, nor getting pneumonia from one. 9 days maybe of lingering cough and sniffles, the worst of it is typically over in 3 days or so. > colleague of my girlfriend nearly died of one in 2018 because he ignored it and went out partying... Which suggests a mild illness? (The cold, not the pneumonia). You literally can't go out partying when you are really ill.
kcplate 5y ago
The authors friend is described “Peeing behind dumpsters” on the road trip to avoid accidental exposure—but then goes to a hockey game unmasked with thousands of people. Sorry, but something doesn’t jive with that and for me. The person who does one at of fear would certainly not do the other. I suspect there is a bit of embellishment happening with this article.
- rented_mule 5y ago
  I read that as two different trips. The dumpster bit was during an earlier drive to Florida, presumably pre-vaccination. The hockey game was during a post-vaccination trip that saw them flying.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    Yes, thanks, I missed the “flight” in that sentence.
1680168l 5y ago
Stop spreading fear.

37 points by yial 5y ago

I feel like the goal posts are moving with lightening speed. Whenever I read a sentence like "The goal was never to eradicate COVID from being annoying—it was to eradicate it from being a killer." Those same experts, a year ago, were assuring us that COVID would never become endemic. Same thing with vaccines. Yes, everyone should get vaccinated. Yes, we were given a ton of guidance that vaccines would stop the spread of COVID. I feel like there are two camps: 1) Liberals, who are in control of the health establishment, who lie to get the behavior they want (starting with "no mask" advice, to now overselling vaccines, and rewriting history) 2) Conservatives, who ignore all science. Liberal media emphasizes how we've always been at war with Eastasia, and liberals believe it. Conservatives point to inconsistencies and open lies, and use that to discount everything from medical, academic, and government establishments.

jdhn 5y ago
>I feel like the goal posts are moving with lightening speed. The goalposts have been moving ever since we were told "only 2 weeks to stop the spread".
- ptcrash 5y ago
  When did anyone say "2 weeks to stop the spread" I remember "2 Weeks to slow the curve" and Trump's "15 days to slow the spread" but I don't remember anyone ever saying eradication was simply 2 weeks of lockdown away. Even if it was as simple as 2 weeks away, many people chose to ignore the stay-at-home orders, so it's not really achievable. I think you're confusing 'moving goal posts' with constant failure to reach a goal followed by readjustment to new data.
  - jdhn 5y ago
    Stop the spread, slow the spread, the idea was that by doing just 2 weeks of isolation, everything would be manageable. This has really not been achieved anywhere in the world anywhere else other than New Zealand, and at what cost? >I think you're confusing 'moving goal posts' with constant failure to reach a goal followed by readjustment to new data. No, I don't think I am. That is a textbook definition of moving the goalposts.
comex 5y ago
"The goal was never to eradicate COVID from being annoying" does sound surprising considering all we've been hearing about the effectiveness of the mRNA at preventing infections of non-Delta COVID. But then, that high effectiveness was once itself a surprise, so it may make sense if the point of reference is before the original clinical trials were finished.
hindsightbias 5y ago
Not. Fauci a year ago: Infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday he believes the world will “get control of” Covid-19, but “I don’t really see us eradicating it,” expressing a view in line with public health experts—but directly contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims made as recently as Tuesday that the virus will “disappear” https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/22/contradicting-trump-fauci-doesnt-see-us-eradicating-covid-19/?sh=237a74599a11 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/22/contrad...
- datad 5y ago
  But he has dangled the goal of herd immunity, while gradually upping the percentage of vaccination required to get there. Herd immunity to many people means “eradication” and the media has helped foster that belief.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    The percentage required was never a solid number in the first place and the shift is due to our better knowledge of the virus and the new strains that necessitate higher vaccination rate.
    - datad 5y ago
      My friend, that’s the definition of moving goalposts. But of course everything changes over time, as it should. Are we still trying to reach herd immunity? What percentage vaccinated would be required for that? Two questions for you to research. Edit: Do we have enough doses even today to vaccinate everyone, worldwide? I think we do not.
      - lmilcin 5y ago
        Well, I am not your friend. I am very particular about who my friends are. As to goalposts, the goalposts moved themselves. If everybody vaccinated when they had a chance there would not be any talk of goalposts. Instead we will have more millions of people die because couple people died of vaccine and everybody else does not understand law of large numbers.
dom96 5y ago
Seeing the “goalposts” argument is so tiring. We learn something new every day, of course our understanding of COVID changes and thus the recommendation of how to keep ourselves healthy does too.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zarzavat 5y ago
The level of discourse and critical thinking in the mainstream media is made for uneducated people who don't understand even basic biology. There is a certain breed of scientist that just spouts bullshit. Unfortunately the media is so obsessed with "narratives" that it will seek these people out (and these bullshit artists seek out the media) so all nuance is lost. The moral of the story is, don't let other people do your thinking for you.
- datad 5y ago
  The average person has no ability to understand lipid nano particles. Many scientists and most doctors do not understand, so how is the average dolt like me going to figure it all out?
  - zarzavat 5y ago
    It's not the lipid nano particles that's the issue but basic high school biology that is missing. People get confused because the media throws around high level concepts without building an appropriate mental model of how viruses, cells and vaccines actually function. This creates a fertile breeding ground for misconceptions. For example there is a misconception that after people have been vaccinated they can shed SARS-CoV-2 as a result of being vaccinated. This seems to have started by the media saying that "people who are vaccinated can still pass on the virus" (a true statement). So the media tries to counter this by saying "MYTH: people who have had the vaccine can't shed the virus" which just confuses the issue even more. If the media was actually functional then it would educate people on basic biology and then they would be able to figure out on their own that A is false and B is true. Unfortunately this is not the media we have.
  - murgindrag 5y ago
    I think the bigger problem is exponentials, rates of change, and control systems. Right now, we lock down when numbers get high, and open up when numbers get low. There's about a month lag between actions and hopsitalizations, so we act on month-old data. We don't look at rates-of-growth. This results in a roller-coaster. We ought to take whatever measures we need to keep R0<1.
lmilcin 5y ago
Getting rid of COVID became impossible the moment governments decided to wait with restrictions until there is enough cases. Now it is a bit too late to think about getting rid of it completely but the pandemic will not be over until people realize you can't lift restrictions until it is really over and that everybody needs to get vaccinated. Unfortunately, viruses are not politically motivated and are not swayed by fake news. Rather than bitchin at liberals or conservatives, better read up on what people who really know something about viruses say. > overselling vaccines Oh my... it is not overselling. It is dealing with people like children they are. People reverted to the point where you can't have merit-based discussion about vaccines in public, and so simplifying the message is IMO the right strategy. The point is, vaccines work and the more people vaccinate the less will die and all other finer points are less important.
- datad 5y ago
  “ Getting rid of COVID became impossible the moment governments decided to wait with restrictions until there is enough cases.” No, Chinese government stalled, suppressed doctors and scientists who were screaming out about the virus months, literally, before anybody outside the Chinese government was aware. That’s a matter of record and easily verified.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    Chinese government did what Chinese government usually does. Then the rest of the world decided to wait for couple of months to react even with full knowledge of seriousness of the situation. "Let's wait before putting any restrictions on the population until we have enough cases." Restrictions were probably unavoidable, but most of deaths could have been avoided by quick reaction.
- murgindrag 5y ago
  > Oh my... it is not overselling. It is dealing with people like children they are. People reverted to the point where you can't have merit-based discussion about vaccines in public, and so simplifying the message is IMO the right strategy. > > The point is, vaccines work and the more people vaccinate the less will die and all other finer points are less important. Repeating a point over and over, based on falsehoods, hasn't worked out very well either here or in global warming. At some point, people notice you're lying. The conclusion might be correct, but if you get caught lying along the way, you undermine your case. People didn't "revert." Years of this kind of oversimplification and "dealing with people like children they are" led to this ignorance. And in a rapidly-evolving situation like COVID19, this ignorance sometimes ends up biting you just months later. In my community, vaccine efficacy is well below 70%. People don't believe that since we've had months of messaging. Yes, I do think we would have higher vaccination rates if we stopped patronizing people, and started educating them. No time like the present to start.
lamontcg 5y ago
> were assuring us that COVID would never become endemic. no they weren't. endemic disease and booster shots every year or three were always on the table from the start.

blueyes 5y ago

@dang: missing a "t" in varianT. ^^

Zababa 5y ago

> They even went to a hockey game indoors with thousands of people. > Mostly, he felt frustrated. He’s a journalist—he’s pretty tuned in to the news. He knew breakthrough cases were possible, but he had seen many assurances that they were extremely rare and not that big of a deal. > He would have worn a mask at the hockey game, for example—even though no one was wearing a mask at the hockey game, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it’s fine for vaccinated people not to wear masks inside. I honestly don't know what to say. I've been following COVID on and off for the last year and half, and there's no way that I would see going to a hockey match with thousands of people inside without a mask as safe. The CDC says it's safe? Sure, and the WHO said that masks were useless at the beginning of the pandemic. At some point, you have to learn to think for yourself. Big organisms like the CDC and the WHO have others incentives than keeping you perfectly healthy. I don't want to sound too harsh, and I understand the frustration. But please develop a bit of critical thinking. Especially if you're a journalist.

goes_brrrrrr 5y ago
The CDC says it's safe because they are trying to "nudge" the public into getting vaccinated with a positive incentive - getting rid of the mask. This whole pandemic the CDC proved that it cant think more than one step ahead. Just like it was advising against wearing masks because it was afraid of them being unavailable to health workers. So the CDC credibility will take yet another hit after it insisted so hard that if you get vaccinated you can do whatever you want and you don't need to worry about covid ever again.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > Just like it was advising against wearing masks because it was afraid of them being unavailable to health workers. That was the WHO goal too. I'm honestly not a fan of lying to the public tu "nudge" them into the right direction, and we should probably wonder why we're at this point. This is, I think, a sign that's something deep down is very broken.
- purple_ferret 5y ago
  It's safe because you're unlikely to get hospitalized. It's as safe as it's going to get, unless you commit to booster vaccines every six months. Nothing nefarious in their logic.

13415 5y ago

This is a really annoying and unnecessary article. It is based on some personal anecdote of someone who was fully vaccinated and got symptomatic Covid for 1 1/2 days that felt bad. Judging from the description in the article, it lasted shorter and was overall better than a common cold - not the flu, just a common cold we all have had before. Doctors also confirmed that it was a mild case. Yet the author goes on to paint some kind of bleak picture. I can't really see why. The case described illustrates how vaccines worked as intended. Yes, vaccinated people should probably wear masks in closed confined spaces. But if so, not because of personal risks involved in getting infected as a vaccinated person but rather to limit infections of non-vaccinated with the Delta variant. The same is true for social distancing (with moderation) and washing hands. AFAIK, the risk of dying or getting serious complication for fully vaccinated people is currently very low. Maybe future mutations change that but it doesn't look like it. If you insist on worrying about something, then worry about enough volunteers for vaccinations, enough vaccines for poorer countries, or getting refresher vaccinations once they are due.

allturtles 5y ago
> it lasted shorter and was overall better than a common cold The illness was described as causing total debility for 36 hours, like food poisoning. That is much worse than a common cold, IMO, which generally doesn't stop me from doing any activity and is just a nuisance.
- 13415 5y ago
  Maybe you're personally blessed with a super-strong immune system but what you're describing is not the usual common cold. A common cold takes around 9 days, and most people have to spend and are recommended to spend 3 of those in bed. Most common colds can develop into deadly pneumonia if you take them too lightly. A colleague of my girlfriend nearly died of one in 2018 because he ignored it and went out partying...
  - allturtles 5y ago
    I don't know what to say except to appeal to my own experience. I've never heard of anyone I know being confined to bed by a common cold, nor getting pneumonia from one. 9 days maybe of lingering cough and sniffles, the worst of it is typically over in 3 days or so. > colleague of my girlfriend nearly died of one in 2018 because he ignored it and went out partying... Which suggests a mild illness? (The cold, not the pneumonia). You literally can't go out partying when you are really ill.

kcplate 5y ago

The authors friend is described “Peeing behind dumpsters” on the road trip to avoid accidental exposure—but then goes to a hockey game unmasked with thousands of people. Sorry, but something doesn’t jive with that and for me. The person who does one at of fear would certainly not do the other. I suspect there is a bit of embellishment happening with this article.

rented_mule 5y ago
I read that as two different trips. The dumpster bit was during an earlier drive to Florida, presumably pre-vaccination. The hockey game was during a post-vaccination trip that saw them flying.
- kcplate 5y ago
  Yes, thanks, I missed the “flight” in that sentence.

1680168l 5y ago

Stop spreading fear.