3 ms·

> Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. Your cal

> Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus. That of course also doesn't take into account other people who cannot take it, and the number of unconfirmed cases of immunity from having contracted the virus. I don't have any estimates for those numbers so I won't speculate on what they are besides saying that the number of unvaccinated Americans that can and need to be vaccinated is probably a lot less than 35 million.

nobody9999 5y ago
>Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus. Note that I did not mention immunity. I mentioned vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Contracted/recovered from the virus != vaccinated. As to levels of immunity from previous infection, I made no statement whatsoever. Edit: clarified my initial statement vis a vis vaccination vs. immunity.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Well you're talking about 45 million ineligible children and then not taking that number into account, I see no reason why you've talked about them then. > Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40. Actually, the calculation is 120 (total unvaccinated)-45 (children under 12)=75. Whether or not someone has contracted the virus or not is irrelevant to whether or not they have (or can) receive a vaccination. Whether or not those 40 million cases have some level of immunity is also irrelevant to whether or not they are vaccinated.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      From your parent comment above: > As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID. So this statement you made doesn't apply anymore? It is irrelevant now all of a sudden? We aren't taking the 40 million into account anymore? Why? Only one or the other? Then why even bring any of these numbers up if you're just going to disregard them? > Removing those children from my calculation... You're not removing them from a calculation, you're removing them from the 120 number and then ignoring the fact that you've also already removed 40 from that number, which was the calculation you're referring to. Why even have this conversation if you're just going to arbitrarily decide to not consider a factor you've already considered prior? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion?
      - nobody9999 5y ago
        >> As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID. >So this statement you made doesn't apply anymore? It is irrelevant now all of a sudden? We aren't taking the 40 million into account anymore? Why? Only one or the other? Then why even bring any of these numbers up if you're just going to disregard them? Who says it doesn't apply? I said: ...there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID. The fact that there are ~45 million children who are unvaccinated because those under 12 haven't been approved for the vaccine(s) doesn't invalidate my point at all. In fact, it strengthens it. The ~75 million folks who could get vaccinated but have not done so is still almost twice the number of recorded cases. I'm trying really hard to assume good faith, so I'll make the leap and consider that perhaps English isn't your first language.

nobody9999 5y ago

>Your calculation is wrong. 120 million that are unvaccinated, out of which 40 million are immune from past contraction and another 45 million are ineligible, that leaves 35 million, less than the number of people who are immune from having contracted the virus. Note that I did not mention immunity. I mentioned vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Contracted/recovered from the virus != vaccinated. As to levels of immunity from previous infection, I made no statement whatsoever. Edit: clarified my initial statement vis a vis vaccination vs. immunity.

betwixthewires 5y ago
Well you're talking about 45 million ineligible children and then not taking that number into account, I see no reason why you've talked about them then. > Removing those children from my calculation, there are still almost twice as many people unvaccinated as are estimated to have contracted the virus. This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >This is what I'm responding to. It is incorrect. 120-40-45=35. 35 is far and away from almost twice as much as 40. Actually, the calculation is 120 (total unvaccinated)-45 (children under 12)=75. Whether or not someone has contracted the virus or not is irrelevant to whether or not they have (or can) receive a vaccination. Whether or not those 40 million cases have some level of immunity is also irrelevant to whether or not they are vaccinated.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    From your parent comment above: > As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID. So this statement you made doesn't apply anymore? It is irrelevant now all of a sudden? We aren't taking the 40 million into account anymore? Why? Only one or the other? Then why even bring any of these numbers up if you're just going to disregard them? > Removing those children from my calculation... You're not removing them from a calculation, you're removing them from the 120 number and then ignoring the fact that you've also already removed 40 from that number, which was the calculation you're referring to. Why even have this conversation if you're just going to arbitrarily decide to not consider a factor you've already considered prior? What are you trying to accomplish with this discussion?
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >> As such, there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID. >So this statement you made doesn't apply anymore? It is irrelevant now all of a sudden? We aren't taking the 40 million into account anymore? Why? Only one or the other? Then why even bring any of these numbers up if you're just going to disregard them? Who says it doesn't apply? I said: ...there are more (perhaps much more) than twice as many folks who have not had COVID who are unvaccinated than there are those who have had COVID. The fact that there are ~45 million children who are unvaccinated because those under 12 haven't been approved for the vaccine(s) doesn't invalidate my point at all. In fact, it strengthens it. The ~75 million folks who could get vaccinated but have not done so is still almost twice the number of recorded cases. I'm trying really hard to assume good faith, so I'll make the leap and consider that perhaps English isn't your first language.