5 ms·

If you would have said 1 year ago, everyone will need this vaccine to reduce R below 1 you would have been laughed out of the room. What kind of shitty vaccine

If you would have said 1 year ago, everyone will need this vaccine to reduce R below 1 you would have been laughed out of the room. What kind of shitty vaccine requires literally everyone to get it? Now good thing that wasn't the approach. Instead we said, "these vaccines kick ass" and walked that line back every day to buy compliance one person at a time. Good look. Good luck. Not sure how people can live with the cognitive dissonance of being obviously lied to "for the greater good".

Arnt 5y ago
Go on, laugh me out of the room, laugh whoever you want out of the room, the virus doesn't care how much or how little you laugh.
- peteradio 5y ago
  I'm not laughing at all. The politicians who brokered this steaming pile lied about its efficacy to get the foot in the door.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Arnt 5y ago
    Several of the common diseases require more than 90% vaccine coverage to get herd immunity. Is there any particular reason why this vaccine shouldn't? I've seen early estimates of less than that, but feh. An estimate from well before the vaccines are in production wasn't going to be accurate.
    - briandon 5y ago
      Gibraltar was 140%+ vaccinated and that wasn't enough to save Christmas there. https://news.yahoo.com/gibraltar-cancels-official-christmas-celebrations-covid-coronavirus-163444274.html https://news.yahoo.com/gibraltar-cancels-official-christmas-...
      - the_mar 5y ago
        I thought we already knew that two shots give you 6 months of immunity, assuming people with boosters are the 39.5%, wouldn't the 60.5% be just as susceptible
      - crooked-v 5y ago
        Gibraltar's economy is tourism- and travel-centric. Just using the population of people who live there full-time doesn't capture anything about the disease spread or vaccinations with temporary visitors (upwards of five million per year).
    - angelzen 5y ago
      The argument is that herd immunity for covid cannot be attained via vaccines. Not even 100% vaccination. The comparison with measles, another contagious airborne disease, is instructive. The threshold for herd immunity is estimated at 94%. This is possible because the vaccine effectiveness against infection is also 93-97%. Unfortunately covid vaccines have waning effectiveness against infection, estimated at about 50% after 6 months, and possibly waning even further. "Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 "For example, the measles is a highly contagious illness. It's estimated that 94% of the population must be immune to interrupt the chain of transmission." https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i... "One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella. Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html "Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
chinathrow 5y ago
What are you talking about? The vaccines have shown to slow down infection rates and avoid many many hispitalisations and death. So yes, getting vaxxed helps the graeter good. Good luck to you getting a ICU bed now if you have an accident or a stroke or heart issues.
- peteradio 5y ago
  I assume you read the comment I'm responding advocating for 100% vaccine rates to drop transmission rates below R0 1. If politicians (aka "Science Advisors") claimed this was the requirement from the git go it would have been an obvious non-starter.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    I'm afraid you may have misunderstood. I stated that R would be <1 if vaccination were at 100%, not that the threshold is between 99% and 100%. The virus decides how much is needed, we don't.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >Good luck to you getting a ICU bed now if you have an accident or a stroke or heart issues. They don't put covid patients in the same ward as other ICU beds for obvious reasons.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Where covid patients fill the capacity, there are no "non-covid" wards anymore, because no ICU turns a patient needing it now away to "reserve space" for some potential future patient.
    - Clubber 5y ago
      >Where covid patients fill the capacity, there are no "non-covid" wards anymore Is that happening anywhere now? I mean, got links? I'm generously curious. There's a lot of fear mongering going around. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/09/bogus-oklahoma-ivermectin-story-was-just-too-good-check/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/09/bogus-okl... This has been going on for nearly two years and governments were unwilling or unable to increase capacity in any meaningful way? What a total failure of government / medical system if this is true. The Spanish Flu lasted 3 years, it's not like we don't have a fairly recent example of how long this would probably last.
detaro 5y ago
Changing data and changing virus variants doesn't mean you were "obviously lied to".
- peteradio 5y ago
  Coronaviruses have long been known to have this behavior.
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  A bias towards very positive claims in the presence of little data does, though. All of our expectations around covid would have benefitted from the health agencies being capable of communicating what they know for certain and what they don’t, but unfortunately they decided to make strong claims in the hopes of getting strong compliance.
  - detaro 5y ago
    To a degree, but I've also found that people love to ignore caveats that are presented, or never look at more than the headline version. The amount of times you hear "but risk X is never mentioned" when it actually is clearly addressed in the source statements or "but the data shows Y" but it comes with a list of reasons why it's limited is mindboggling. (and to be fair, lots of media sucks at putting that stuff in context too) Alternatively, lots of shouting because health authorities are make sooo confusing statements and refuse to give 100% clear cut answers.
crooked-v 5y ago
1 year ago, we thought that people would actually get vaccinated at a reasonable rate, instead of dragging their feet long enough for multiple more-infectious variants to appear.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  1 year ago, the medical establishment was saying that it's impossible to develop a vaccine for a new virus in just a year, so don't even think about seeing a vaccine anytime soon... leading people with halfway-decent memories scratching their heads about how the heck this vaccine was actually developed and getting really suspicious when it doesn't behave like a vaccine at all in that it doesn't prevent you from getting or spreading the disease. And has rare but serious side effects.
  - crooked-v 5y ago
    > how the heck this vaccine was actually developed mRNA vaccines for coronaviruses have been in progress since the 70s. This just happens to be when they finally got to the point of being production-ready. It's a useful coincidence, but without it mRNA vaccines for coronaviruses would have been showing up in the near future anyway (at a slower rate without all the emergency COVID funding). > doesn't behave like a vaccine at all Sterilizing immunity isn't an inherent property of vaccines. > And has rare but serious side effects. All vaccines do that, and as with all widely-used vaccines the rate of side effects is much, much lower than the rate of side effects from the actual disease.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  We were also told if we got the shot we would be done with it. Now we need boosters, potentially indefinitely.
snovv_crash 5y ago
Note how all of the variants which health authorities said just needed a reasonably high vaccine rate are now effectively eradicated. It is only the new 'delta' (and upcoming 'omicron') that remain, and these are known to have much lower vaccine efficacy.

Arnt 5y ago

Go on, laugh me out of the room, laugh whoever you want out of the room, the virus doesn't care how much or how little you laugh.

peteradio 5y ago
I'm not laughing at all. The politicians who brokered this steaming pile lied about its efficacy to get the foot in the door.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Arnt 5y ago
  Several of the common diseases require more than 90% vaccine coverage to get herd immunity. Is there any particular reason why this vaccine shouldn't? I've seen early estimates of less than that, but feh. An estimate from well before the vaccines are in production wasn't going to be accurate.
  - briandon 5y ago
    Gibraltar was 140%+ vaccinated and that wasn't enough to save Christmas there. https://news.yahoo.com/gibraltar-cancels-official-christmas-celebrations-covid-coronavirus-163444274.html https://news.yahoo.com/gibraltar-cancels-official-christmas-...
    - the_mar 5y ago
      I thought we already knew that two shots give you 6 months of immunity, assuming people with boosters are the 39.5%, wouldn't the 60.5% be just as susceptible
    - crooked-v 5y ago
      Gibraltar's economy is tourism- and travel-centric. Just using the population of people who live there full-time doesn't capture anything about the disease spread or vaccinations with temporary visitors (upwards of five million per year).
  - angelzen 5y ago
    The argument is that herd immunity for covid cannot be attained via vaccines. Not even 100% vaccination. The comparison with measles, another contagious airborne disease, is instructive. The threshold for herd immunity is estimated at 94%. This is possible because the vaccine effectiveness against infection is also 93-97%. Unfortunately covid vaccines have waning effectiveness against infection, estimated at about 50% after 6 months, and possibly waning even further. "Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 "For example, the measles is a highly contagious illness. It's estimated that 94% of the population must be immune to interrupt the chain of transmission." https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i... "One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella. Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html "Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

chinathrow 5y ago

What are you talking about? The vaccines have shown to slow down infection rates and avoid many many hispitalisations and death. So yes, getting vaxxed helps the graeter good. Good luck to you getting a ICU bed now if you have an accident or a stroke or heart issues.

peteradio 5y ago
I assume you read the comment I'm responding advocating for 100% vaccine rates to drop transmission rates below R0 1. If politicians (aka "Science Advisors") claimed this was the requirement from the git go it would have been an obvious non-starter.
- Arnt 5y ago
  I'm afraid you may have misunderstood. I stated that R would be <1 if vaccination were at 100%, not that the threshold is between 99% and 100%. The virus decides how much is needed, we don't.
Clubber 5y ago
>Good luck to you getting a ICU bed now if you have an accident or a stroke or heart issues. They don't put covid patients in the same ward as other ICU beds for obvious reasons.
- detaro 5y ago
  Where covid patients fill the capacity, there are no "non-covid" wards anymore, because no ICU turns a patient needing it now away to "reserve space" for some potential future patient.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    >Where covid patients fill the capacity, there are no "non-covid" wards anymore Is that happening anywhere now? I mean, got links? I'm generously curious. There's a lot of fear mongering going around. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/09/bogus-oklahoma-ivermectin-story-was-just-too-good-check/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/09/bogus-okl... This has been going on for nearly two years and governments were unwilling or unable to increase capacity in any meaningful way? What a total failure of government / medical system if this is true. The Spanish Flu lasted 3 years, it's not like we don't have a fairly recent example of how long this would probably last.

detaro 5y ago

Changing data and changing virus variants doesn't mean you were "obviously lied to".

peteradio 5y ago
Coronaviruses have long been known to have this behavior.
nickysielicki 5y ago
A bias towards very positive claims in the presence of little data does, though. All of our expectations around covid would have benefitted from the health agencies being capable of communicating what they know for certain and what they don’t, but unfortunately they decided to make strong claims in the hopes of getting strong compliance.
- detaro 5y ago
  To a degree, but I've also found that people love to ignore caveats that are presented, or never look at more than the headline version. The amount of times you hear "but risk X is never mentioned" when it actually is clearly addressed in the source statements or "but the data shows Y" but it comes with a list of reasons why it's limited is mindboggling. (and to be fair, lots of media sucks at putting that stuff in context too) Alternatively, lots of shouting because health authorities are make sooo confusing statements and refuse to give 100% clear cut answers.

crooked-v 5y ago

1 year ago, we thought that people would actually get vaccinated at a reasonable rate, instead of dragging their feet long enough for multiple more-infectious variants to appear.

commandlinefan 5y ago
1 year ago, the medical establishment was saying that it's impossible to develop a vaccine for a new virus in just a year, so don't even think about seeing a vaccine anytime soon... leading people with halfway-decent memories scratching their heads about how the heck this vaccine was actually developed and getting really suspicious when it doesn't behave like a vaccine at all in that it doesn't prevent you from getting or spreading the disease. And has rare but serious side effects.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  > how the heck this vaccine was actually developed mRNA vaccines for coronaviruses have been in progress since the 70s. This just happens to be when they finally got to the point of being production-ready. It's a useful coincidence, but without it mRNA vaccines for coronaviruses would have been showing up in the near future anyway (at a slower rate without all the emergency COVID funding). > doesn't behave like a vaccine at all Sterilizing immunity isn't an inherent property of vaccines. > And has rare but serious side effects. All vaccines do that, and as with all widely-used vaccines the rate of side effects is much, much lower than the rate of side effects from the actual disease.
_-david-_ 5y ago
We were also told if we got the shot we would be done with it. Now we need boosters, potentially indefinitely.

snovv_crash 5y ago

Note how all of the variants which health authorities said just needed a reasonably high vaccine rate are now effectively eradicated. It is only the new 'delta' (and upcoming 'omicron') that remain, and these are known to have much lower vaccine efficacy.