5 ms·

I get what you're saying but we're seeing the virus spread through the vaccinated. Because the vaccinated aren't getting sick and ending up in hospital, they're

by h3cate 5y ago

I get what you're saying but we're seeing the virus spread through the vaccinated. Because the vaccinated aren't getting sick and ending up in hospital, they're spreading it to more people and the virus is mutating the whole way so I struggle to follow your logic.

bialpio 5y ago
Last time I saw a number, vaccinations offer more than ~60% protection against infection with Delta altogether - did you run the numbers / see some study to arrive at "they're spreading it to more people", or is this a case of "it aligns with what I already thought / it justifies my current behavior so it must be true"?
- ineedasername 5y ago
  it justifies my current behavior so it must be true That would be my guess, since actual evidence shows that vaccinated people are infectious for a significantly shorter period of time: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var...
- h3cate 5y ago
  Take out the word more and I will stand by what I said. Also you might have less chance of getting infected but you also are less likely to develop symptoms and so will most likely not isolate when you are infected. You are trying to condense a very complex scenario into a very simple argument.
  - bialpio 5y ago
    > Take out the word more (...) "With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 On the contrary, I'm actually tightening my estimation to "more than 67%" (95% CI @ 61.3%-71.8%). BNT162b2 is Pfizer, ChAdOx1 is AstraZeneca. > (...) also are less likely to develop symptoms and so will most likely not isolate when you are infected. Yup, so multiply those likelihoods and let me know what number you arrived at and what assumptions did you take so that we can compare some concrete estimations. Or share some article that tried to estimate this. > You are trying to condense a very complex scenario into a very simple argument. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by some data, so far the only thing you're offering is an opinion.
ineedasername 5y ago
Where is the flaw of logic in these points: 1) The vaccinated are not getting it anywhere near the rates of the unvaccinated, so they are not spreading it at anywhere close to how much the unvaccinated spread it. 2) If they do spread it to another vaccinated person, that person is highly unlikely to get very sick at all. 3) If they spread it to an unvaccinated person, that person is much more likely to get sick and have a better opportunity to spread it to even more people. 4) People who get sick & end up in the hospital still have lots of time before they get to spread the virus before being hospitalized. 5) Vaccinated people who get COVID are infectious to others for significantly less time than unvaccinated people. 6) Current does not show vaccinated people causing new or more powerful strains. [0] 7) New strains are still significantly less infectious & dangerous for those who are vaccinated. So I fail to see how your points are relevant from an overall risk-reduction point of view. Available evidence points towards vaccination as a superior risk reduction mechanism than the alternative (which I guess is do nothing? If not, please clarify) that you are proposing. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-variants/fact-check-no-evidence-vaccination-efforts-are-causing-new-covid-19-variants-idUSL2N2NL1M2 https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-variants/f...
- h3cate 5y ago
  1) We don't know this is true. We know that people that have been vaccinated show much less symptoms and are therefore less likely to get a test which can explain the lower positive test rate. 2) Again to point 1 3) They will most likely spread it back to said vaccinated people who are less likely to get sick 4) Back to point 3 5) Has this been proved anywhere? 6) For the time being. The delta variant only mutated 12 months after the first infection
shkkmo 5y ago
It's hard to follow logic when you make up your own facts to fit your argument.

by h3cate 5y ago

bialpio 5y ago

Last time I saw a number, vaccinations offer more than ~60% protection against infection with Delta altogether - did you run the numbers / see some study to arrive at "they're spreading it to more people", or is this a case of "it aligns with what I already thought / it justifies my current behavior so it must be true"?

ineedasername 5y ago
it justifies my current behavior so it must be true That would be my guess, since actual evidence shows that vaccinated people are infectious for a significantly shorter period of time: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-var...
h3cate 5y ago
Take out the word more and I will stand by what I said. Also you might have less chance of getting infected but you also are less likely to develop symptoms and so will most likely not isolate when you are infected. You are trying to condense a very complex scenario into a very simple argument.
- bialpio 5y ago
  > Take out the word more (...) "With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891 On the contrary, I'm actually tightening my estimation to "more than 67%" (95% CI @ 61.3%-71.8%). BNT162b2 is Pfizer, ChAdOx1 is AstraZeneca. > (...) also are less likely to develop symptoms and so will most likely not isolate when you are infected. Yup, so multiply those likelihoods and let me know what number you arrived at and what assumptions did you take so that we can compare some concrete estimations. Or share some article that tried to estimate this. > You are trying to condense a very complex scenario into a very simple argument. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by some data, so far the only thing you're offering is an opinion.

ineedasername 5y ago

Where is the flaw of logic in these points: 1) The vaccinated are not getting it anywhere near the rates of the unvaccinated, so they are not spreading it at anywhere close to how much the unvaccinated spread it. 2) If they do spread it to another vaccinated person, that person is highly unlikely to get very sick at all. 3) If they spread it to an unvaccinated person, that person is much more likely to get sick and have a better opportunity to spread it to even more people. 4) People who get sick & end up in the hospital still have lots of time before they get to spread the virus before being hospitalized. 5) Vaccinated people who get COVID are infectious to others for significantly less time than unvaccinated people. 6) Current does not show vaccinated people causing new or more powerful strains. [0] 7) New strains are still significantly less infectious & dangerous for those who are vaccinated. So I fail to see how your points are relevant from an overall risk-reduction point of view. Available evidence points towards vaccination as a superior risk reduction mechanism than the alternative (which I guess is do nothing? If not, please clarify) that you are proposing. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-variants/fact-check-no-evidence-vaccination-efforts-are-causing-new-covid-19-variants-idUSL2N2NL1M2 https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-variants/f...

h3cate 5y ago
1) We don't know this is true. We know that people that have been vaccinated show much less symptoms and are therefore less likely to get a test which can explain the lower positive test rate. 2) Again to point 1 3) They will most likely spread it back to said vaccinated people who are less likely to get sick 4) Back to point 3 5) Has this been proved anywhere? 6) For the time being. The delta variant only mutated 12 months after the first infection

shkkmo 5y ago

It's hard to follow logic when you make up your own facts to fit your argument.