5 ms·

Re your 1st paragraph: Ahh, yeah, when things change beyond first estimations, let's use outdated statements made using old data to conclude "They were lying fr

Re your 1st paragraph: Ahh, yeah, when things change beyond first estimations, let's use outdated statements made using old data to conclude "They were lying from the beginning, it's been planned all along!". Meanwhile it's month 18 in USA because the antivax folks started with the premise of non-cooperation ("because I hate the other party") and worked from there to invent all sorts of excuses why their non-cooperation is justified, so the government, who needs to care for all, including the beligerent, have to keep policies to keep everyone somewhat protected, ie masks, distancing, and proof of vaccination checks. Compare that to Portugal with 98% vaccination rate and no more vaccine proof checks required. Yeah yeah you can still get the virus if you're vaxed, but it'll then be just like a bad flu, actually fulfilling the mistaken belief that many deniers had in the beginning...

jtbayly 5y ago
If 100% of the population were fully vaccinated tomorrow, would that end the pandemic?
- hattmall 5y ago
  I think what your missing is that it's been over for a while in a lot of places. Like there's a lot of places that by last May there was no way to know anything was going on and school started back just fine in August of 2020.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  It would probably end the restrictions (to which the "I've got their plan figured out"-contrarian will reply "No, I bet the tyrannical governments have worse plans"). The scientific literature says the vaccinated have lower viral load and are less infectious, if the load on hospitals and careworkers get reduced, what would prevent the relaxation of the restrictions? Currently careworkers have been under extra pressure for 18 months, imagine a car engine being revved too hard and too long that suddenly blows, and apply this analogy to them, obviously not the entire industry in a day, but maybe over a semester...
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > The scientific literature says the vaccinated have lower viral load and are less infectious It appears that is not necessarily the case[1]: > In July 2021, following multiple large public events in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, 469 COVID-19 cases were identified among Massachusetts residents who had traveled to the town during July 3–17; 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons. Testing identified the Delta variant in 90% of specimens from 133 patients. Cycle threshold values were similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated and those who were not. Certainly, the experience in Israel and the debate in the UK at the moment over more lockdowns would indicate that even very high levels of immunity (from either vaccination or infection) do not necessarily correspond with an easing of restrictions. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm...
    - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
      I don't think that study disproves my statement, the study didn't/couldn't see viral load or infectiousness. I wonder how many more would've been sick without the vaccine. There were 469 cases, but how many showed up to those events? Reading the study further, 4 vaxed people (and 1 unvaxed) were hospitalized and there were 0 deaths. I'd say a great result for the vaccine, but to be objective we'd have to see how it'd be different with the same set of people (same health status, etc) but without the vaccine. I think/hope the goal isn't the eradication of the virus or its spread, but rather reducing the number of hospitalizations. The virus will probably stay with us, but if hospitals are no longer overwhelmed (since people aren't getting very sick and dying) then the governments will probably drop restrictions. Although mask mandates for some places like hospitals or old people's homes will probably remain for a long time...
      - brigandish 5y ago
        > I don't think that study disproves my statement, the study didn't/couldn't see viral load or infectiousness. They were using a measure called Ct cutoff, which (if used that way) is a crude measure of viral load, as the CDC points out in its own literature[1]: > Since Ct values can vary based on many factors, it is not a good indicator of how infectious a person is or how much virus is present in a person (known as viral load). However, it also points out in the sentence prior: > It is still unknown how much virus is needed to transmit the virus from person-to-person and cause new infections. What no longer needs to be ascertained is how this data has been interpreted by the experts, which is that the vaccines do not confer much, if any, advantage against transmission. There was the hope before the vaccines came out that they might but it was pointed out repeatedly that it would be unlikely given the nature of coronaviruses, and that has come to be the case. > if hospitals are no longer overwhelmed (since people aren't getting very sick and dying) then the governments will probably drop restrictions I hate to repeat myself, but the examples of Israel and the UK should also remind you that it is mere hope you are expressing, not anything borne out by experience. I hope you are right but my experience of people and how loathe they are to relinquish power - especially people who seek it, like politicians - tempers that somewhat. [1] https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/novel-coronavirus/Ct_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/nov...
- eftychis 5y ago
  Actually, yeah. That would mean on average an infected person would infect less than one person and thus after a short while we converge on a zero infected population; as an infected person you either get well and unlikely to get infected again or die. Vaccines work probabilistically and at scale. You need everyone to get the vaccine. If you have pockets of "inoculation" and give enough space to the virus to evolve through retransmission or too long to live, well tough luck. This is the tool we have. And historically pandemics destroyed us. Not sure what we hope for here.
saurik 5y ago
Are you saying that the "a year from now" estimate from the commenter is correct merely due to "prior estimates were wrong is no reason to distrust new estimates"? FWIW, I am under the impression that, officially, there aren't even estimates anymore... it will end when it ends and, frankly, if the issue are the people who aren't getting vaccinated, do you think that is changing soon? If anything, aren't we learning that the immunity--even and maybe even particularly the "natural immunity" from having contracted the virus directly--is temporary?

jtbayly 5y ago

If 100% of the population were fully vaccinated tomorrow, would that end the pandemic?

hattmall 5y ago
I think what your missing is that it's been over for a while in a lot of places. Like there's a lot of places that by last May there was no way to know anything was going on and school started back just fine in August of 2020.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
It would probably end the restrictions (to which the "I've got their plan figured out"-contrarian will reply "No, I bet the tyrannical governments have worse plans"). The scientific literature says the vaccinated have lower viral load and are less infectious, if the load on hospitals and careworkers get reduced, what would prevent the relaxation of the restrictions? Currently careworkers have been under extra pressure for 18 months, imagine a car engine being revved too hard and too long that suddenly blows, and apply this analogy to them, obviously not the entire industry in a day, but maybe over a semester...
- brigandish 5y ago
  > The scientific literature says the vaccinated have lower viral load and are less infectious It appears that is not necessarily the case[1]: > In July 2021, following multiple large public events in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, 469 COVID-19 cases were identified among Massachusetts residents who had traveled to the town during July 3–17; 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated persons. Testing identified the Delta variant in 90% of specimens from 133 patients. Cycle threshold values were similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated and those who were not. Certainly, the experience in Israel and the debate in the UK at the moment over more lockdowns would indicate that even very high levels of immunity (from either vaccination or infection) do not necessarily correspond with an easing of restrictions. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm...
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    I don't think that study disproves my statement, the study didn't/couldn't see viral load or infectiousness. I wonder how many more would've been sick without the vaccine. There were 469 cases, but how many showed up to those events? Reading the study further, 4 vaxed people (and 1 unvaxed) were hospitalized and there were 0 deaths. I'd say a great result for the vaccine, but to be objective we'd have to see how it'd be different with the same set of people (same health status, etc) but without the vaccine. I think/hope the goal isn't the eradication of the virus or its spread, but rather reducing the number of hospitalizations. The virus will probably stay with us, but if hospitals are no longer overwhelmed (since people aren't getting very sick and dying) then the governments will probably drop restrictions. Although mask mandates for some places like hospitals or old people's homes will probably remain for a long time...
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > I don't think that study disproves my statement, the study didn't/couldn't see viral load or infectiousness. They were using a measure called Ct cutoff, which (if used that way) is a crude measure of viral load, as the CDC points out in its own literature[1]: > Since Ct values can vary based on many factors, it is not a good indicator of how infectious a person is or how much virus is present in a person (known as viral load). However, it also points out in the sentence prior: > It is still unknown how much virus is needed to transmit the virus from person-to-person and cause new infections. What no longer needs to be ascertained is how this data has been interpreted by the experts, which is that the vaccines do not confer much, if any, advantage against transmission. There was the hope before the vaccines came out that they might but it was pointed out repeatedly that it would be unlikely given the nature of coronaviruses, and that has come to be the case. > if hospitals are no longer overwhelmed (since people aren't getting very sick and dying) then the governments will probably drop restrictions I hate to repeat myself, but the examples of Israel and the UK should also remind you that it is mere hope you are expressing, not anything borne out by experience. I hope you are right but my experience of people and how loathe they are to relinquish power - especially people who seek it, like politicians - tempers that somewhat. [1] https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/novel-coronavirus/Ct_Fact_Sheet.pdf https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/nov...
eftychis 5y ago
Actually, yeah. That would mean on average an infected person would infect less than one person and thus after a short while we converge on a zero infected population; as an infected person you either get well and unlikely to get infected again or die. Vaccines work probabilistically and at scale. You need everyone to get the vaccine. If you have pockets of "inoculation" and give enough space to the virus to evolve through retransmission or too long to live, well tough luck. This is the tool we have. And historically pandemics destroyed us. Not sure what we hope for here.

saurik 5y ago

Are you saying that the "a year from now" estimate from the commenter is correct merely due to "prior estimates were wrong is no reason to distrust new estimates"? FWIW, I am under the impression that, officially, there aren't even estimates anymore... it will end when it ends and, frankly, if the issue are the people who aren't getting vaccinated, do you think that is changing soon? If anything, aren't we learning that the immunity--even and maybe even particularly the "natural immunity" from having contracted the virus directly--is temporary?