3 ms·

You answered none of my objections. How many of the Chicago police who refuse to reveal their vaccination status have NOT HAD COVID? > As you can see ... Yes

You answered none of my objections. How many of the Chicago police who refuse to reveal their vaccination status have NOT HAD COVID? > As you can see ... Yes, we know that "The AZD1222 vaccine against COVID-19 has an efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection." - quoting https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxf... . So of course we expect some people who have had the vaccine to still get infected. What is your actual point? You want to quote studies? Here's https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm... titled "Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021" ] Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated. If you have COVID, get vaccinated, and you're even less likely to get COVID again. > We know that Covid swept ... What does "swept" mean? Was it 30% of the police force? Was it the same 30% of the police force that do not want to reveal their vaccination status? Or did all of the police who got infected also get vaccinated, so only the anti-vaxxers are resisting? Where is your evidence that your argument is even relevant to this topic?

walterbell 5y ago
> efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection This sentence means the vaccine prevents symptoms, as stated on the CDC website. This sentence does not mean the vaccine prevents infection, no matter how much someone wants that to be true. Recovery from Covid prevented infection in 99% of 5 million UK people. People who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatically infected, especially with Delta, are extremely contagious and thus dangerous to other people. For this reason, the CDC recommends testing of vaccinated people after exposure, since the vaccine suppresses symptoms that would otherwise cause people to self-isolate, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac... > Based on evolving evidence, CDC recommends fully vaccinated people get tested 5-7 days after close contact with a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. In other words, vaccinated+infected+asymptomatic people are much more infectious and dangerous than Covid-recovered people. > What does "swept" mean? It means a 2020 graph like this one for New York, with a city-wide density of cases that is much higher than other parts of the USA in a comparable timeframe, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-totals.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-totals.pag... Logic dictates that essential workers who were serving the public would have faced the highest risk of exposure. If people in a high-risk subset of 2020 workers, in one of the highest-risk cities in the USA were not infected with Covid in 2020, why would they be infected in 2021 when overall rates of infection are dramatically lower? Either they got infected in 2020 and the survivors are now immune, or they didn't get infected during nine months of exposure, and now have a much lower chance of being infected. > Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021" Here's a detailed analysis of that study, https://satyameva.medium.com/analysis-of-reduced-risk-of-reinfection-with-sars-cov-2-after-covid-19-vaccination-in-kentucky-2e797a5f3c44 https://satyameva.medium.com/analysis-of-reduced-risk-of-rei...: "this study doesn’t really look at the relative strengths of naturally acquired immunity Vs vaccination acquired immunity, it is looking at whether vaccination can add further to the robust protection elicited by covid infection ... they made no effort to show the protection elicited by prior infection in the first place." > If you have COVID, get vaccinated, and you're even less likely to get COVID again. That's a personal medical decision based on medical history, the marginally incremental (and rapidly declining trend: https://youtu.be/TSZMtSPX3iE https://youtu.be/TSZMtSPX3iE) benefit of a vaccine over and above the immunity provided by recovery, and the still-evolving landscape of adverse events which are affecting a minority of vaccine recipients. From a recent FDA statement, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-takes-additional-actions-use-booster-dose-covid-19-vaccines https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi... Moderna risks > Ongoing analyses from the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) safety surveillance systems have identified increased risks of inflammatory heart conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, following vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, particularly following the second dose. Typically, onset of symptoms has been a few days following vaccination. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age, particularly males 18 through 24, than among females and older males. J&J risks > Earlier analyses from the FDA and CDC safety surveillance systems suggest an increased risk of a serious and rare type of blood clot in combination with low blood platelets following administration of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. This serious condition is called thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). People who developed TTS after receiving the vaccine had symptoms that began about one to two weeks after vaccination. Reporting of TTS has been highest in females ages 18 through 49 years. In addition, safety surveillance suggests an increased risk of a specific serious neurological disorder called Guillain Barré syndrome, within 42 days following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. It would be irresponsible to recommend blind acceptance of all vaccines for all people. The FDA does not. Readers who are male between 18 and 40, or female between 18 and 49, please consider the above FDA statements when selecting a vaccine or booster, and carefully monitor health during the high-risk windows, e.g. it is safest to avoid heavy exertion for 14 days after a shot.
- eesmith 5y ago
  I again point out your lack of evidence that the police who refuse to get vaccinated are also those who have all had COVID. You think if that was their issue, they would mention it, right? I can't find a number about police specifically, so let's say 50% of them have had COVID, since that seems like a high number. If the decision to not reveal vaccination status is independent of having COVID, then that's still 1/6th of the police force who haven't had COVID and who refuse to get vaccination. (Or, technically, refuse to reveal their vaccination status.) Do you think the vast majority of the police who object have had COVID? What is the basis of your belief? For those who object, and who haven't had the disease or the vaccination, tell me, should they be allowed to stay on the force and possibly infect the people they are required to be in close contact with? > This sentence does not mean the vaccine prevents infection Like, duh. I'm not ignorant. I do actually read the links I post. > Here's a detailed analysis Translation: here's a blog post from some anonymous self-described "Doctor" who has only ever made 4 posts. (Though is possibly also more known on Reddit?) Still, I read it. You realize it makes no argument for why those who have had COVID shouldn't get a vaccination, right? The author writes only "Whether convalescent individuals should be vaccinated is still open to debate in my opinion." but gives no explanation of the basis for that opinion. Why did you seemingly waste my time pointing me to that blog post? At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28953984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28953984 you referenced the CDC to support your views. The CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/prepare-for-vaccination.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/prepare-f... also says "Get Vaccinated Even If You Have Had COVID-19". Why should I trust you and some anonymous blogger over the CDC?

walterbell 5y ago

> efficacy of 63.09% against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection This sentence means the vaccine prevents symptoms, as stated on the CDC website. This sentence does not mean the vaccine prevents infection, no matter how much someone wants that to be true. Recovery from Covid prevented infection in 99% of 5 million UK people. People who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatically infected, especially with Delta, are extremely contagious and thus dangerous to other people. For this reason, the CDC recommends testing of vaccinated people after exposure, since the vaccine suppresses symptoms that would otherwise cause people to self-isolate, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac... > Based on evolving evidence, CDC recommends fully vaccinated people get tested 5-7 days after close contact with a person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. In other words, vaccinated+infected+asymptomatic people are much more infectious and dangerous than Covid-recovered people. > What does "swept" mean? It means a 2020 graph like this one for New York, with a city-wide density of cases that is much higher than other parts of the USA in a comparable timeframe, https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-totals.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-totals.pag... Logic dictates that essential workers who were serving the public would have faced the highest risk of exposure. If people in a high-risk subset of 2020 workers, in one of the highest-risk cities in the USA were not infected with Covid in 2020, why would they be infected in 2021 when overall rates of infection are dramatically lower? Either they got infected in 2020 and the survivors are now immune, or they didn't get infected during nine months of exposure, and now have a much lower chance of being infected. > Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination — Kentucky, May–June 2021" Here's a detailed analysis of that study, https://satyameva.medium.com/analysis-of-reduced-risk-of-reinfection-with-sars-cov-2-after-covid-19-vaccination-in-kentucky-2e797a5f3c44 https://satyameva.medium.com/analysis-of-reduced-risk-of-rei...: "this study doesn’t really look at the relative strengths of naturally acquired immunity Vs vaccination acquired immunity, it is looking at whether vaccination can add further to the robust protection elicited by covid infection ... they made no effort to show the protection elicited by prior infection in the first place." > If you have COVID, get vaccinated, and you're even less likely to get COVID again. That's a personal medical decision based on medical history, the marginally incremental (and rapidly declining trend: https://youtu.be/TSZMtSPX3iE https://youtu.be/TSZMtSPX3iE) benefit of a vaccine over and above the immunity provided by recovery, and the still-evolving landscape of adverse events which are affecting a minority of vaccine recipients. From a recent FDA statement, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-takes-additional-actions-use-booster-dose-covid-19-vaccines https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi... Moderna risks > Ongoing analyses from the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) safety surveillance systems have identified increased risks of inflammatory heart conditions, myocarditis and pericarditis, following vaccination with the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, particularly following the second dose. Typically, onset of symptoms has been a few days following vaccination. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age, particularly males 18 through 24, than among females and older males. J&J risks > Earlier analyses from the FDA and CDC safety surveillance systems suggest an increased risk of a serious and rare type of blood clot in combination with low blood platelets following administration of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. This serious condition is called thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). People who developed TTS after receiving the vaccine had symptoms that began about one to two weeks after vaccination. Reporting of TTS has been highest in females ages 18 through 49 years. In addition, safety surveillance suggests an increased risk of a specific serious neurological disorder called Guillain Barré syndrome, within 42 days following receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. It would be irresponsible to recommend blind acceptance of all vaccines for all people. The FDA does not. Readers who are male between 18 and 40, or female between 18 and 49, please consider the above FDA statements when selecting a vaccine or booster, and carefully monitor health during the high-risk windows, e.g. it is safest to avoid heavy exertion for 14 days after a shot.

eesmith 5y ago
I again point out your lack of evidence that the police who refuse to get vaccinated are also those who have all had COVID. You think if that was their issue, they would mention it, right? I can't find a number about police specifically, so let's say 50% of them have had COVID, since that seems like a high number. If the decision to not reveal vaccination status is independent of having COVID, then that's still 1/6th of the police force who haven't had COVID and who refuse to get vaccination. (Or, technically, refuse to reveal their vaccination status.) Do you think the vast majority of the police who object have had COVID? What is the basis of your belief? For those who object, and who haven't had the disease or the vaccination, tell me, should they be allowed to stay on the force and possibly infect the people they are required to be in close contact with? > This sentence does not mean the vaccine prevents infection Like, duh. I'm not ignorant. I do actually read the links I post. > Here's a detailed analysis Translation: here's a blog post from some anonymous self-described "Doctor" who has only ever made 4 posts. (Though is possibly also more known on Reddit?) Still, I read it. You realize it makes no argument for why those who have had COVID shouldn't get a vaccination, right? The author writes only "Whether convalescent individuals should be vaccinated is still open to debate in my opinion." but gives no explanation of the basis for that opinion. Why did you seemingly waste my time pointing me to that blog post? At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28953984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28953984 you referenced the CDC to support your views. The CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/prepare-for-vaccination.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/prepare-f... also says "Get Vaccinated Even If You Have Had COVID-19". Why should I trust you and some anonymous blogger over the CDC?