4 ms·

> Given that widespread vaccination does not stop infection from spreading There is not widespread vaccination, though. That's where your argument falls apart.

by junon 5y ago

loeg 5y ago
That, and vaccination does reduce transmission in addition to disease severity.
- junon 5y ago
  Yes, correct
- seafoam 5y ago
  Vaccination reduces positive PCR test results in the weeks after the jab. It is not for sure that it reduces community transmission. In the US, the CDC stopped publishing the data one would need to get answers on this in May. For some reason.
  - junon 5y ago
    > It is not for sure that it reduces community transmission. Citation please, because you're challenging the entire field of immunology here.
adam_arthur 5y ago
Covid is spreading at a similar rate today in most countries as it did when it first struck and there was no vaccine at all. Look at the trends in Italy, UK, US, for example. I agree the vaccine helps, but there is no clear impact on reducing spread if you look at infection data in aggregate. We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts.
- junon 5y ago
  Citation please.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Look at the covid stats for the UK. Do you see a difference? If you choose not to spend 1 minute to Google it, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to cite my comment like a research paper when the verification is a Google search away. If you disagree with the stats, feel fee to provide evidence that refutes it. That would enhance the conversation.
- tremon 5y ago
  You still can't compare those trends, because many of those countries have relaxed their lockdown measures after reaching a certain level of vaccination. When looking at hospitalization rates instead of only case rates, it seems that the countries with high levels of vaccination are seeing a much lower percentage of cases ending up in hospital. Taking for example the NL numbers: we have twice as many cases/day as during last winter's peak, but only half as many deaths/day. Naively, that suggests that the vaccines reduce case mortality by 75%. But that data is also hopelessly incomplete: we recently reinstated some of our lockdown measures, so the number of infections/day is stabilizing, but fatalities/day will probably keep rising for another week.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    I never disputed that vaccines mitigate effect of the virus. It's clear that they do, which will limit hospitalizations. I am disputing that lockdowns have led to any discernable difference in outcomes over the long run in regards to case counts. New Zealand may be the special case where they were able to actually completely halt inbound travel. But obviously their situation doesn't generalize.
    - taylodl 5y ago
      Lockdowns were implemented to prevent the collapse of the medical system. Lockdowns have been repealed with the advent of vaccines. Why? Because those vaccinated who get COVID get much milder cases and don't typically require hospitalization, and for the few that do, they don't require ICU. Lockdowns weren't implemented to reduce case counts per se, they were implemented to prevent medical system collapse. The vaccines have been instrumental in getting back to normal.
      - spurgu 5y ago
        Hospitals have never been anywhere near collapse in most places though. Currently in Finland for example there's currently hysteria about the hospital capacity, whereas in actuality the issue is that some non-critical surgery would need to be postponed. It's far from "collapsing".
- CabSauce 5y ago
  You're trying to find data to fit your pre-determined conclusion. We're dealing with different variants now, which are more contagious.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    What data to fit my conclusion? I'm referencing hard data, and the dissenters here are not. If you disagree, use hard data to support your assertions that vaccines have noticeably reduced infection rate. The one following the science is the one using the data, by the way. Anything else is religion.
    - tremon 5y ago
      You're not referencing any data at all, just handwaving at it. You're only comparing the raw infection rates without taking into account the amount of mitigating measures such as mask mandates, work-from-home orders, and closing of schools, restaurants and bars. Last year's numbers were all achieved with very stringent lockdowns and school closures; pretty much all those countries returned to classroom teaching in September of this year. So no, you don't get to claim "hard data" on your opinion.
      - adam_arthur 5y ago
        I stated that case counts today are roughly equivalent to pre-vaccine times in most countries This is called verifiable data. Also the numbers in the US south are roughly equivalent to the east/west that had much more stringent lockdown, mask, and vaccine measures. If these policies had any significant impact, you would see a large disparity in outcomes of TX, FL, vs NY, CA. This is also verifiable data. Prove me wrong with data showing FL and TX had worse outcomes in regards to infections to blue states with strict measures. If you can't show a significant difference in outcome, reassessing your firmly held beliefs that have been proven wrong through data is called "following the science". Most lockdown proponents are following religion, and what they desire to be true, than science.
        5y ago
spurgu 5y ago
Are you serious? Most of Europe at least is at numbers that would've created herd immunity with the alpha variant (had the vaccine actually stopped transmission). I'd say that's pretty widespread.
- junon 5y ago
  I think you misunderstand what herd immunity is.
  - spurgu 5y ago
    Huh? The point where R0 dips below 1?
    - junon 5y ago
      I'm more referring to the fact that Europe is nowhere near the low end of the vaccination percentage health officials stated was necessary to have any chance at controlling this.
      - spurgu 5y ago
        Ok, I think initial estimates (back in 2020) were that we'd need a vaccination rate of around 80-85% (which many countries have now). But that got thrown out of the window with force with Delta.

> Given that widespread vaccination does not stop infection from spreading There is not widespread vaccination, though. That's where your argument falls apart.

by junon 5y ago

> Given that widespread vaccination does not stop infection from spreading There is not widespread vaccination, though. That's where your argument falls apart.

loeg 5y ago

That, and vaccination does reduce transmission in addition to disease severity.

junon 5y ago
Yes, correct
seafoam 5y ago
Vaccination reduces positive PCR test results in the weeks after the jab. It is not for sure that it reduces community transmission. In the US, the CDC stopped publishing the data one would need to get answers on this in May. For some reason.
- junon 5y ago
  > It is not for sure that it reduces community transmission. Citation please, because you're challenging the entire field of immunology here.

adam_arthur 5y ago

Covid is spreading at a similar rate today in most countries as it did when it first struck and there was no vaccine at all. Look at the trends in Italy, UK, US, for example. I agree the vaccine helps, but there is no clear impact on reducing spread if you look at infection data in aggregate. We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts.

junon 5y ago
Citation please.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Look at the covid stats for the UK. Do you see a difference? If you choose not to spend 1 minute to Google it, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to cite my comment like a research paper when the verification is a Google search away. If you disagree with the stats, feel fee to provide evidence that refutes it. That would enhance the conversation.
tremon 5y ago
You still can't compare those trends, because many of those countries have relaxed their lockdown measures after reaching a certain level of vaccination. When looking at hospitalization rates instead of only case rates, it seems that the countries with high levels of vaccination are seeing a much lower percentage of cases ending up in hospital. Taking for example the NL numbers: we have twice as many cases/day as during last winter's peak, but only half as many deaths/day. Naively, that suggests that the vaccines reduce case mortality by 75%. But that data is also hopelessly incomplete: we recently reinstated some of our lockdown measures, so the number of infections/day is stabilizing, but fatalities/day will probably keep rising for another week.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  I never disputed that vaccines mitigate effect of the virus. It's clear that they do, which will limit hospitalizations. I am disputing that lockdowns have led to any discernable difference in outcomes over the long run in regards to case counts. New Zealand may be the special case where they were able to actually completely halt inbound travel. But obviously their situation doesn't generalize.
  - taylodl 5y ago
    Lockdowns were implemented to prevent the collapse of the medical system. Lockdowns have been repealed with the advent of vaccines. Why? Because those vaccinated who get COVID get much milder cases and don't typically require hospitalization, and for the few that do, they don't require ICU. Lockdowns weren't implemented to reduce case counts per se, they were implemented to prevent medical system collapse. The vaccines have been instrumental in getting back to normal.
    - spurgu 5y ago
      Hospitals have never been anywhere near collapse in most places though. Currently in Finland for example there's currently hysteria about the hospital capacity, whereas in actuality the issue is that some non-critical surgery would need to be postponed. It's far from "collapsing".
CabSauce 5y ago
You're trying to find data to fit your pre-determined conclusion. We're dealing with different variants now, which are more contagious.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  What data to fit my conclusion? I'm referencing hard data, and the dissenters here are not. If you disagree, use hard data to support your assertions that vaccines have noticeably reduced infection rate. The one following the science is the one using the data, by the way. Anything else is religion.
  - tremon 5y ago
    You're not referencing any data at all, just handwaving at it. You're only comparing the raw infection rates without taking into account the amount of mitigating measures such as mask mandates, work-from-home orders, and closing of schools, restaurants and bars. Last year's numbers were all achieved with very stringent lockdowns and school closures; pretty much all those countries returned to classroom teaching in September of this year. So no, you don't get to claim "hard data" on your opinion.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      I stated that case counts today are roughly equivalent to pre-vaccine times in most countries This is called verifiable data. Also the numbers in the US south are roughly equivalent to the east/west that had much more stringent lockdown, mask, and vaccine measures. If these policies had any significant impact, you would see a large disparity in outcomes of TX, FL, vs NY, CA. This is also verifiable data. Prove me wrong with data showing FL and TX had worse outcomes in regards to infections to blue states with strict measures. If you can't show a significant difference in outcome, reassessing your firmly held beliefs that have been proven wrong through data is called "following the science". Most lockdown proponents are following religion, and what they desire to be true, than science.
      - 5y ago

spurgu 5y ago

Are you serious? Most of Europe at least is at numbers that would've created herd immunity with the alpha variant (had the vaccine actually stopped transmission). I'd say that's pretty widespread.

junon 5y ago
I think you misunderstand what herd immunity is.
- spurgu 5y ago
  Huh? The point where R0 dips below 1?
  - junon 5y ago
    I'm more referring to the fact that Europe is nowhere near the low end of the vaccination percentage health officials stated was necessary to have any chance at controlling this.
    - spurgu 5y ago
      Ok, I think initial estimates (back in 2020) were that we'd need a vaccination rate of around 80-85% (which many countries have now). But that got thrown out of the window with force with Delta.