4 ms·

You're quoting something from May last year, before there was vaccine, where he was expressing a general disclaimer about the (very) small potentional for enhan

by croon 5y ago

You're quoting something from May last year, before there was vaccine, where he was expressing a general disclaimer about the (very) small potentional for enhanced pathogenesis when creating vaccines. This is not the case with the covid-19 vaccines. So yes, regarding covid, more protection is always better than less. The rest of my points were also specifically about covid, as is apparent if you were to quote its entirety. > We should be letting people make their own choices. Should people make "their own" decisions on how much diesel exhaust their cars produce, or whether they can carry around airborne nerve gas?

roenxi 5y ago
It could still happen. There are going to be more waves of coronavirus that are better adjusted to work around the current crop of vaccines. Nobody has a crystal ball for this stuff. That is why the scientific bodies keep talking about "evidence" and "no evidence" instead of making blanket claims. Plus if I recall correctly there is some evidence that people who get COVID after being vaccinated (ie, breakthrough cases) get worse cases. We haven't had time for the Phase IV trials yet, so it is entirely possible that there are some interactions that haven't come to light yet. > Should people make "their own" decisions on how much diesel exhaust their cars produce, or whether they can carry around airborne nerve gas? Yes to the diesel. And no to the nerve gas. But I'll point out that coronavirus is quite different to nerve gas - you're going to be exposed to it anyway regardless of vaccination rate. And statistically speaking, the person who exposes you is likely to be vaccinated.
- croon 5y ago
  > Plus if I recall correctly there is some evidence that people who get COVID after being vaccinated (ie, breakthrough cases) get worse cases. Please find the source, otherwise I assume this is from misinformation around Israel statistics, which doesn't say that at all. > Yes to the diesel. "The excess emissions of harmful nitrogen oxide (NOx) exhaust gases can be linked to 38,000 premature deaths worldwide, according to the new research." [0] [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131067-diesel-fumes-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-than-thought/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131067-diesel-fumes-le... > But I'll point out that coronavirus is quite different to nerve gas - you're going to be exposed to it anyway regardless of vaccination rate. [citation needed] > And statistically speaking, the person who exposes you is likely to be vaccinated. Misleading. Please tell me adjusted to group size which group (vaccinated/unvaccinated) is more likely to expose me.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > Please find the source On reflection, it didn't make any sense. Obviously the worst case scenario for covid is death and so it isn't possible for a vaccine to make breakthrough cases worse. Regardless, you're still wrong. It isn't the case that more protection is always better. We know that there are circumstances where a vaccine can make a disease worse. And we don't know what future variants of the coronavirus will do. On the diesel; yeah, it causes deaths from air pollution. Lots of things do. Life is not without risk. > [citation needed] ... Misleading. I mean; it is kinda obvious that COVID isn't going away. And you can tell from the case numbers that it is mostly vaccinated people getting it, because there aren't enough deaths for it to be raging through an unvaccinated population [0]. It isn't misleading, it is just facts. [0] EDIT - Eg, New York is at around 33 deaths v. 4,400 cases in the last 7 days. CFR of 0.7%, let alone IFR. Compared to a batting average of around 55k / 2 million cases overall which is >2%. Suggests around 66% of cases are among vaccinated people minimum, maybe higher.
    - croon 5y ago
      > Regardless, you're still wrong. It isn't the case that more protection is always better. We know that there are circumstances where a vaccine can make a disease worse. And we don't know what future variants of the coronavirus will do. I'm still wrong because I point out based on facts that I'm correct? The covid vaccines are much better than no vaccines. I'll throw in another point: "For every 10 million people who receive the first dose of AstraZeneca, about 66 more will suffer from a blood-clotting syndrome than during normal circumstances, according to the study published in the British Medical Journal. This figure compares with 12,614 more incidences recorded in 10 million people who have tested positive for Covid-19." [0] > On the diesel; yeah, it causes deaths from air pollution. Lots of things do. Life is not without risk. Is your freedom not impeding on other peoples freedoms (to live)? > I mean; it is kinda obvious that COVID isn't going away. And you can tell from the case numbers that it is mostly vaccinated people getting it, because there aren't enough deaths for it to be raging through an unvaccinated population. > It isn't misleading, it is just facts. "Prevalence in those aged 5-49 was 2.5 times higher at 0.20% (0.16%, 0.26%) compared with those aged 50 years and above at 0.08% (0.06%, 0.11%)." [1] It would've been nicer with more exact data, but older were vaccinated earlier, and ages 5-12 have 0 vaccinations yet. Your "facts" seem based on simple reasoning that I can't reconcile with what I consider facts to be, nor do I agree with the reasoning to begin with. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-26/blood-clot-risk-much-higher-from-covid-19-than-with-vaccines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-26/blood-clo... [1] https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/89629 https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/89629

by croon 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

It could still happen. There are going to be more waves of coronavirus that are better adjusted to work around the current crop of vaccines. Nobody has a crystal ball for this stuff. That is why the scientific bodies keep talking about "evidence" and "no evidence" instead of making blanket claims. Plus if I recall correctly there is some evidence that people who get COVID after being vaccinated (ie, breakthrough cases) get worse cases. We haven't had time for the Phase IV trials yet, so it is entirely possible that there are some interactions that haven't come to light yet. > Should people make "their own" decisions on how much diesel exhaust their cars produce, or whether they can carry around airborne nerve gas? Yes to the diesel. And no to the nerve gas. But I'll point out that coronavirus is quite different to nerve gas - you're going to be exposed to it anyway regardless of vaccination rate. And statistically speaking, the person who exposes you is likely to be vaccinated.

croon 5y ago
> Plus if I recall correctly there is some evidence that people who get COVID after being vaccinated (ie, breakthrough cases) get worse cases. Please find the source, otherwise I assume this is from misinformation around Israel statistics, which doesn't say that at all. > Yes to the diesel. "The excess emissions of harmful nitrogen oxide (NOx) exhaust gases can be linked to 38,000 premature deaths worldwide, according to the new research." [0] [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131067-diesel-fumes-lead-to-thousands-more-deaths-than-thought/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131067-diesel-fumes-le... > But I'll point out that coronavirus is quite different to nerve gas - you're going to be exposed to it anyway regardless of vaccination rate. [citation needed] > And statistically speaking, the person who exposes you is likely to be vaccinated. Misleading. Please tell me adjusted to group size which group (vaccinated/unvaccinated) is more likely to expose me.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > Please find the source On reflection, it didn't make any sense. Obviously the worst case scenario for covid is death and so it isn't possible for a vaccine to make breakthrough cases worse. Regardless, you're still wrong. It isn't the case that more protection is always better. We know that there are circumstances where a vaccine can make a disease worse. And we don't know what future variants of the coronavirus will do. On the diesel; yeah, it causes deaths from air pollution. Lots of things do. Life is not without risk. > [citation needed] ... Misleading. I mean; it is kinda obvious that COVID isn't going away. And you can tell from the case numbers that it is mostly vaccinated people getting it, because there aren't enough deaths for it to be raging through an unvaccinated population [0]. It isn't misleading, it is just facts. [0] EDIT - Eg, New York is at around 33 deaths v. 4,400 cases in the last 7 days. CFR of 0.7%, let alone IFR. Compared to a batting average of around 55k / 2 million cases overall which is >2%. Suggests around 66% of cases are among vaccinated people minimum, maybe higher.
  - croon 5y ago
    > Regardless, you're still wrong. It isn't the case that more protection is always better. We know that there are circumstances where a vaccine can make a disease worse. And we don't know what future variants of the coronavirus will do. I'm still wrong because I point out based on facts that I'm correct? The covid vaccines are much better than no vaccines. I'll throw in another point: "For every 10 million people who receive the first dose of AstraZeneca, about 66 more will suffer from a blood-clotting syndrome than during normal circumstances, according to the study published in the British Medical Journal. This figure compares with 12,614 more incidences recorded in 10 million people who have tested positive for Covid-19." [0] > On the diesel; yeah, it causes deaths from air pollution. Lots of things do. Life is not without risk. Is your freedom not impeding on other peoples freedoms (to live)? > I mean; it is kinda obvious that COVID isn't going away. And you can tell from the case numbers that it is mostly vaccinated people getting it, because there aren't enough deaths for it to be raging through an unvaccinated population. > It isn't misleading, it is just facts. "Prevalence in those aged 5-49 was 2.5 times higher at 0.20% (0.16%, 0.26%) compared with those aged 50 years and above at 0.08% (0.06%, 0.11%)." [1] It would've been nicer with more exact data, but older were vaccinated earlier, and ages 5-12 have 0 vaccinations yet. Your "facts" seem based on simple reasoning that I can't reconcile with what I consider facts to be, nor do I agree with the reasoning to begin with. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-26/blood-clot-risk-much-higher-from-covid-19-than-with-vaccines https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-26/blood-clo... [1] https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/89629 https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/89629