4 ms·

> 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

by 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
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > I'm still wrong because I point out based on facts that I'm correct? No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing. > Is your freedom not impeding on other peoples freedoms (to live)? There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up. > "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] They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question. > 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. We're not disagreeing on any numbers here. I doubt you consider your reasoning to be superior due to excessive complexity.
    - croon 5y ago
      > No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing. You're arguing the semantics of "always" while ignoring the context provided. You're trying to win an argument, regardless if it's relevant to the topic. The protection against covid (the vaccine/s) isn't worse than nothing. That is a fact, and what I'm arguing. You're stating I'm wrong, by carefully navigating around that into something entirely pointless. > There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up. So does that mean that I have complete freedom to endanger others with my actions? I assume you don't think so, so there's obviously a line somewhere. > They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question. That is exactly the point. The prevalence is 2.5 times higher in a group with much fewer vaccinations.

by croon 5y ago

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
- roenxi 5y ago
  > I'm still wrong because I point out based on facts that I'm correct? No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing. > Is your freedom not impeding on other peoples freedoms (to live)? There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up. > "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] They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question. > 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. We're not disagreeing on any numbers here. I doubt you consider your reasoning to be superior due to excessive complexity.
  - croon 5y ago
    > No, you're wrong because you said "more protection is always better". That isn't true - sometimes the protection turns out to be worse than nothing. You're arguing the semantics of "always" while ignoring the context provided. You're trying to win an argument, regardless if it's relevant to the topic. The protection against covid (the vaccine/s) isn't worse than nothing. That is a fact, and what I'm arguing. You're stating I'm wrong, by carefully navigating around that into something entirely pointless. > There isn't a freedom "to live", it doesn't mean anything. Everybody dies in the end no matter what. Nobody has ever had a "freedom" not to catch diseases, if I had that one I'd have exercised it a few times in the past; I don't like throwing up. So does that mean that I have complete freedom to endanger others with my actions? I assume you don't think so, so there's obviously a line somewhere. > They only opened up vaccinations to people aged under 40 in May, and it takes a few months to get both doses of the vaccine and that paper was issued in mid June. I'm not sure that tells us anything. Obviously if the majority of a population is vaccinated then unvaccinated people will be the majority of cases, that isn't in question. That is exactly the point. The prevalence is 2.5 times higher in a group with much fewer vaccinations.