22 ms·

by refusing to get vaccinated, wear masks, get tested, or otherwise take steps to prevent the spread of a virus during a pandemic.

logicchains 5y ago
Or maybe they actually read the scientific literature and know the vaccine is completely ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2821%2900768-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... Or is The Lancet fake news to you?
- consp 5y ago
  Your conclusion of this is fake news since it massively prevents hospitalization and severe side effects, including death, and is thus effective.
  - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
    Statistics show otherwise. But what do I know, I'm not a guy trained to Trust the Scientific Authority, just a lowly pleb with a degree who does math and statistics for a living.
    - khazhoux 5y ago
      Hospital ICU COVID patients are almost entirely the unvaccinated. This is not in disupte except by conspiracists. What’s the alternative statistical explanation of why unvaxxed are ~90% of covid ICU?
      - rosndo 5y ago
        So we get back to the original point, how do these people ruin flights?
        ls15 5y ago
        By severe ideological mismatch
        SergeAx 5y ago
        You mean, it is unpleasant to fly side by side with people with another ideology? So society have to strip them of their rights to move freely?
        ls15 5y ago
        Not for me, but for some people it seems like this is the case.
        alpaca128 5y ago
        If that ideology indicates the person is not interested in decreasing safety risks then I'd kinda prefer them to not sit in the same plane. > strip them of their rights to move freely? Is access to airplanes necessary for that right? I don't think so, the existence of a no-fly list wouldn't be consistent with that either.
        rosndo 5y ago
        It is rather impractical to travel extended distances without access to airplanes, seems like an unreasonable burden.
        DonHopkins 5y ago
        [flagged]
        ls15 5y ago
        > What's with all the whiney low-effort replies, dude? You're going to have to put a hell of a lot more effort and evidence into your replies, since you've chosen to put up an ideological defense and carry the water for Anti-Vax Science Deniers. So what was your scientific argument for mandating vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in the age of the Omicron variant again?
      - aksss 5y ago
        You’re arguing a strawman by responding to a statement about transmission with a conversation about hospitalization.
        khazhoux 5y ago
        No. I'm quite directly responding to the comment above mine, which is about hospitalization. user consp said: "[the vaccine] massively prevents hospitalization and severe side effects, including death" user otabdeveloper4 replied: "Statistics show otherwise. [I do] math and statistics for a living" To which I replied that severe COVID hospitalizations (i.e. ICU) are dominated by unvaxxed.
      - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
        Explain first why there are no unvaxxed ICU hospitalzations in unvaxxed Africa. (Oh wait, you will suddenly remember about proper sampling and bias when arguing against a position you find ideologically abhorrent. Neat.)
        khazhoux 5y ago
        Sarcastic tone isn't helpful. I am asking what is the alternative explanation why the US covid ICU hospitalizations are dominated (upwards of 90%) by unvaccinated people. If the vaccine were ineffective against hospitalization --as you claimed-- wouldn't the ICU unvaxxed percentage be 50%? I'm legitimately interested to hear if there's an alternative explanation (besides "All the hospitals in the US are lying").
        otabdeveloper4 5y ago
        Sample and data collection bias. The people doing the research had a foregone conclusion - "vaccines are crucial in our anti-Covid effort" - and then went out of their way to massage the data to prove their point. Other countries had different foregone conclusions, and demonstrate entirely different results.
      - native_samples 5y ago
        They are not. "This is not in disupte except by conspiracists" US data simply doesn't match figures reported by other comparable countries around the world and is likely to be distorted in some way. For example, here's a story from the UK in October/November last year saying that the majority of Covid ICU patients were vaccinated. https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/11/majority-of-covid-icu-patients-in-october-and-november-were-vaccinated/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/11/majority-of-covid-icu-pa... That's the British government's own data which is of decent quality (mostly). US data is virtually uninterpretable in comparison.
        mjrpes 5y ago
        US hospitals in areas with low vaccination rates, compared to a much higher overall rate in Britain, explains this difference. Your stat is misleading, because ICU rates are much lower overall than would be the case if there was no vaccine at all. Finally, your link is outdated. Unvaccinated are back to the majority of ICU admissions in Britain, if you look at the most recent source data.
        native_samples 5y ago
        But we're not debating whether the stat is misleading or not - I think pretty much every stat about COVID vaccines is misleading in various different subtle ways. The original claim in dispute was a factual statement about particular numbers along with a claim that only "conspiracists" could disagree this. But the claim has been wrong in the UK in the recent past, and this is not a matter of "conspiracies" but of published fact, therefore the claim is wrong and people should stop making it. Re: out of date. I'll take your word for it on the UK data now, but it hardly matters. Here's one from today showing the same thing for Israel: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/05/80-of-serious-covid-cases-are-fully-vaccinated-israel-hospital-director/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/05/80-of-serious-covid-case... "Professor Yaakov Jerris, the Director of a coronavirus ward in an Israeli hospital, has said between 70% and 80% of the serious cases in his hospital are vaccinated and that the vaccine has “no significance regarding severe illness”. Israel National News has the story."
      - rhbyc 5y ago
        This is incorrect. Prof. Yaakov Jerris, who actually works in a corona ward, has these observations: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674 Are Israeli hospitals really overloaded with unvaccinated COVID patients? According to Prof. Yaakov Jerris, director of Ichilov Hospital’s coronavirus ward, the situation is completely opposite. “Right now, most of our severe cases are vaccinated,” Jerris told Channel 13 News. “They had at least three injections. Between seventy and eighty percent of the serious cases are vaccinated. So, the vaccine has no significance regarding severe illness, which is why just twenty to twenty-five percent of our patients are unvaccinated.”
    - mikevm 5y ago
  - ls15 5y ago
    The post that you replied to is about the spread of the virus. Your reply is about "hospitalization and severe side effects, including death". It is common knowledge by now, January 2022, that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. A tripple-vaccinated person can infect other people. I was infected by a tripple-vaccinated person and I was vaccinated as well. We both still live, so maybe the vaccines did something to prevent hospitalization and severe side effects, including death. How is preventing hospitalization and severe side effects, including death relevant from an airline perspective? Obviously they need to do their best to prevent spreading of the virus, but if they start mandating things that have almost no impact on that, such as the vaccines, they are overstepping boundaries.
    - mpweiher 5y ago
      Vaccines have never "prevented" transmission absolutely, so 100%. They have always "prevented" transmission in some cases, so reducing transmission. At slightly lower rates than preventing severe outcomes. Delta was 2x more transmissible than the first strain of Covid. Omicron appears to be around 4x more transmissible than delta, so 8x more transmissible than the original variant. Even if the vaccines had been 90% effective at reducing transmission and was just as effective against Omicron, we would expect Omicron to spread in a fully vaccinated/boostered population just as quickly as the original variant spread in a completely unvaccinated population. However, the vaccines were not 90% effective at preventing transmission of the original variant, more like 60-80% IIRC. And Omicron has mutated significantly, so effectiveness is further reduced. And of course there is a significant percentage of unvaccinated (partly due to "the vaccines don't work misinformation, sigh!), and the virus has a much easier time going from unvaccinated → vaccinated or vaccinated → unvaccinated than it does going from vaccinated → vaccinated. So seeing high(er) transmission rates right now in no way "proves" that the "vaccines don't work at preventing transmission". Neither do anecdotes that do not contradict the actual evidence. Transmission rates would be a lot higher without vaccines.
      - ls15 5y ago
        > However, the vaccines were not 90% effective at preventing transmission of the original variant, more like 60-80% IIRC. And Omicron has mutated significantly, so effectiveness is further reduced. And of course there is a significant percentage of unvaccinated (partly due to "the vaccines don't work misinformation, sigh!), and the virus has a much easier time going from unvaccinated → vaccinated or vaccinated → unvaccinated than it does going from vaccinated → vaccinated. Now Omicron is dominant and these earlier strains are not relevant anymore. It is reasonable to expect that the virus will mutate more and faster, maybe even with many different strains that are relevant at the same time. > And of course there is a significant percentage of unvaccinated (partly due to "the vaccines don't work misinformation, sigh!) Most of Africa is unvaccinated, because they don't have the vaccine, while some countries are trying to enforce the third injection. > Transmission rates would be a lot higher without vaccines. That is not an argument for mandating vaccines when they only prevent the spread of the currently dominant strains with a very low probability or maybe even not at all. Actually I haven't heard of any good argument for that yet.
  - ScottBurson 5y ago
    Its effectiveness at preventing the person who receives it from dying doesn't prove it also substantially reduces the probability of transmission, which is what the parent is talking about.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      It makes it less likely for you to catch it in the first place a necessary prerequisite for transmission. Also your bodies ability to fight the virus is liable to reduce your viral load and ergo chance of transmission. It beggars belief to imagine that your body is both more adept at fighting it and also somehow just as good at transmitting it. COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths by Vaccination Status February 02, 2022 https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/... Summary Unvaccinated 12-34 year-olds in Washington are • 3 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds. • 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year- olds. Unvaccinated 35-64 year-olds are • 4 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds. • 7 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year- olds. Unvaccinated 65+ year-olds are • 5 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. • 8 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. • 9 times more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds.
      - 988747 5y ago
        > 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year- olds. This can mean that the risk of hospitalization goes from 0.01% to 0.05%, which isn't something most people would care about. With statistics like that we need absolute numbers, not relative. Your post is basically an example of "how to scare people with meaningless stats".
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        Actually great grandparent post was asserting that vaccines didn't decrease transmission. In order to counter that assertion the relative numbers are exactly what is appropriate.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    So what is it to you then if someone is vaccinated if you are protected? Did you before throw a fit COVID that the person sitting next to you didn't show you a vaccine card?
- mpweiher 5y ago
  You are quoting an opinion letter to the Lancet, not peer reviewed research (see the "CORRESPONDENCE" in the top left corner). Passing opinions/letters off as peer reviewed research can legitimately be classified as "fake news" The authors of the study that this letter referenced responded to the letter: "Although our findings support Franco-Peredes’ conclusion that vaccination status should not replace social and physical public health mitigation practices, the above clarifications explain why our findings do not support his assertion that mandatory vaccination of health-care workers would not reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00761-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
  - ls15 5y ago
    Maybe the source was unfortunate, but how can someone in January 2022 say with a straight face that the existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines prevent the spread of the virus? I was vaccinated and I was infected by a tripple-vaccinated person and one of my best friends is in a similar situation. The idea that the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus is dead since we saw the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases in highly boostered countries.
    - mpweiher 5y ago
      Not sure what's with this "prevent" straw man, which seems to imply that vaccines need to be 100% effective, otherwise they do not work at all. This is not true and has never been true. Vaccines "prevent" the spread in many cases. Vaccines not not "prevent" the spread in 100% of cases. Just like they do not "prevent" severe outcomes in 100% of cases. You can be fully vaccinated and boostered and still die of Covid. It's just a lot less likely than if you're not vaccinated. This reduction is the vaccines working as designed and advertised. Effectiveness at preventing spread was always less than at preventing severe outcomes, even with the original variant the vaccines were designed for (or against). This was in all the literature I read about the vaccines during early 2021 (which also showed that, for example, AZ was significantly less effective at reducing the spread than BionTech, although both were >90% effective [still not 100%!] at preventing severe outcomes). In the meantime the virus has mutated significantly, and the vaccines are less effective than they were against the original variant, but still effective.
- WesternWind 5y ago
  You are linking to correspondence, not to the study, the study suggests the opposite. Saying they are completely ineffective is wrong based on what we know, to the best of my knowedge. I read, I talk to friends and family in the medical community, I am not an expert. My understanding is that the vaccines have some effectiveness in preventing further infection but aren't fully effective, as evidenced by the study in Lancet which you indirectly linked to. Your letter in reaction to this study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/alrticle/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/alrticle/PIIS1473-... Here's the author's reply to the correspondence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694752/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694752/ Just because peak viral load is apparently the same doesn't mean infection duration or transmission rates are the same, and the study suggests they aren't, in part because of faster decline in viral load among vaccinated folks. Of course that data is only about delta. The science may change, and I follow the science. Getting back to what I said, you know that, in the US, vaccine hesitancy is correlated with both less mask usage and less social distancing, right? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592035/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592035/ If your idea is true, and the vaccine is completely ineffective, that still suggests unvaccinated folks are more likely to get infected with COVID, and to transmit it. Getting back to the article, "Bastian said Delta has placed nearly 1,900 people on Delta’s “no-fly” list for refusing to comply with masking requirements" Those aren't people I particularly want to fly with during this pandemic, but I do find the scope creep of the federal no fly list, as opposed to the company's list, disturbing.
ls15 5y ago
Wearing masks in an airplane makes sense to the point where service starts and people are taking their masks off in order to eat and drink. If there is a testing mandate, then nobody without a negative test enters an airplane. Airlines do not allow social distancing. Getting vaccinated does not prevent the spread of the virus, but staying at home does. How many steps (that are actually effective) can an airline passenger really take in order to prevent the spread of the virus?
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  If it is sufficiently necessary for people to wear a mask then it makes absolutely zero sense to make an exception for eating. Most flights are short enough that you do not actually need to eat during the flight unless for example you have a medical reason for which obviously an exception ought to be made. The obvious example being diabetes.
- isomel 5y ago
  Firewall are useless if you don't run badly coded daemons? And no need to put a strong password on a database if there is a firewall anyway? Security measures are not all or nothing. It's about reducing the risk. Even with a testing mandate some infections might not be detected. And wearing the mask, even 50% of the time, might reduce the risk of contracting or transmitting germs during the flight. It's a minor inconvenience that helps keeping the risks somehow under control
  - nawitus 5y ago
    You need actual cost and benefit analysis. The situation can actually be different if some measures prevent spread by 1%, 10%, 50% etc. Cost and benefit analysis can be ineffective or unwanted in beginning stages of a pandemic.. but for COVID-19 it's been few years already and we can do such analysis.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    They don't reduce the risk at all, so the benefit is zero. Do you engage in pointless security theatre when running your servers and say "job done"?
SergeAx 5y ago
Antimaskers, then? I don't believe they are administering vaccines in-flight.
- jatone 5y ago
  pretty sure they're breathing during the flight thou, otherwise masks wouldn't be required. please note: no one gives a shit if your antivax on a flight. its you're fucking behavior that's the problem. Thats what puts the scarlet letter on your forehead not your moronic views on vaccinations.

logicchains 5y ago

Or maybe they actually read the scientific literature and know the vaccine is completely ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2821%2900768-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... Or is The Lancet fake news to you?

consp 5y ago
Your conclusion of this is fake news since it massively prevents hospitalization and severe side effects, including death, and is thus effective.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  Statistics show otherwise. But what do I know, I'm not a guy trained to Trust the Scientific Authority, just a lowly pleb with a degree who does math and statistics for a living.
  - khazhoux 5y ago
    Hospital ICU COVID patients are almost entirely the unvaccinated. This is not in disupte except by conspiracists. What’s the alternative statistical explanation of why unvaxxed are ~90% of covid ICU?
    - rosndo 5y ago
      So we get back to the original point, how do these people ruin flights?
      - ls15 5y ago
        By severe ideological mismatch
        SergeAx 5y ago
        You mean, it is unpleasant to fly side by side with people with another ideology? So society have to strip them of their rights to move freely?
        ls15 5y ago
        Not for me, but for some people it seems like this is the case.
        alpaca128 5y ago
        If that ideology indicates the person is not interested in decreasing safety risks then I'd kinda prefer them to not sit in the same plane. > strip them of their rights to move freely? Is access to airplanes necessary for that right? I don't think so, the existence of a no-fly list wouldn't be consistent with that either.
        rosndo 5y ago
        It is rather impractical to travel extended distances without access to airplanes, seems like an unreasonable burden.
        DonHopkins 5y ago
        [flagged]
        ls15 5y ago
        > What's with all the whiney low-effort replies, dude? You're going to have to put a hell of a lot more effort and evidence into your replies, since you've chosen to put up an ideological defense and carry the water for Anti-Vax Science Deniers. So what was your scientific argument for mandating vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in the age of the Omicron variant again?
    - aksss 5y ago
      You’re arguing a strawman by responding to a statement about transmission with a conversation about hospitalization.
      - khazhoux 5y ago
        No. I'm quite directly responding to the comment above mine, which is about hospitalization. user consp said: "[the vaccine] massively prevents hospitalization and severe side effects, including death" user otabdeveloper4 replied: "Statistics show otherwise. [I do] math and statistics for a living" To which I replied that severe COVID hospitalizations (i.e. ICU) are dominated by unvaxxed.
    - otabdeveloper4 5y ago
      Explain first why there are no unvaxxed ICU hospitalzations in unvaxxed Africa. (Oh wait, you will suddenly remember about proper sampling and bias when arguing against a position you find ideologically abhorrent. Neat.)
      - khazhoux 5y ago
        Sarcastic tone isn't helpful. I am asking what is the alternative explanation why the US covid ICU hospitalizations are dominated (upwards of 90%) by unvaccinated people. If the vaccine were ineffective against hospitalization --as you claimed-- wouldn't the ICU unvaxxed percentage be 50%? I'm legitimately interested to hear if there's an alternative explanation (besides "All the hospitals in the US are lying").
        otabdeveloper4 5y ago
        Sample and data collection bias. The people doing the research had a foregone conclusion - "vaccines are crucial in our anti-Covid effort" - and then went out of their way to massage the data to prove their point. Other countries had different foregone conclusions, and demonstrate entirely different results.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      They are not. "This is not in disupte except by conspiracists" US data simply doesn't match figures reported by other comparable countries around the world and is likely to be distorted in some way. For example, here's a story from the UK in October/November last year saying that the majority of Covid ICU patients were vaccinated. https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/11/majority-of-covid-icu-patients-in-october-and-november-were-vaccinated/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/12/11/majority-of-covid-icu-pa... That's the British government's own data which is of decent quality (mostly). US data is virtually uninterpretable in comparison.
      - mjrpes 5y ago
        US hospitals in areas with low vaccination rates, compared to a much higher overall rate in Britain, explains this difference. Your stat is misleading, because ICU rates are much lower overall than would be the case if there was no vaccine at all. Finally, your link is outdated. Unvaccinated are back to the majority of ICU admissions in Britain, if you look at the most recent source data.
        native_samples 5y ago
        But we're not debating whether the stat is misleading or not - I think pretty much every stat about COVID vaccines is misleading in various different subtle ways. The original claim in dispute was a factual statement about particular numbers along with a claim that only "conspiracists" could disagree this. But the claim has been wrong in the UK in the recent past, and this is not a matter of "conspiracies" but of published fact, therefore the claim is wrong and people should stop making it. Re: out of date. I'll take your word for it on the UK data now, but it hardly matters. Here's one from today showing the same thing for Israel: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/05/80-of-serious-covid-cases-are-fully-vaccinated-israel-hospital-director/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/05/80-of-serious-covid-case... "Professor Yaakov Jerris, the Director of a coronavirus ward in an Israeli hospital, has said between 70% and 80% of the serious cases in his hospital are vaccinated and that the vaccine has “no significance regarding severe illness”. Israel National News has the story."
    - rhbyc 5y ago
      This is incorrect. Prof. Yaakov Jerris, who actually works in a corona ward, has these observations: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674 Are Israeli hospitals really overloaded with unvaccinated COVID patients? According to Prof. Yaakov Jerris, director of Ichilov Hospital’s coronavirus ward, the situation is completely opposite. “Right now, most of our severe cases are vaccinated,” Jerris told Channel 13 News. “They had at least three injections. Between seventy and eighty percent of the serious cases are vaccinated. So, the vaccine has no significance regarding severe illness, which is why just twenty to twenty-five percent of our patients are unvaccinated.”
  - mikevm 5y ago
- ls15 5y ago
  The post that you replied to is about the spread of the virus. Your reply is about "hospitalization and severe side effects, including death". It is common knowledge by now, January 2022, that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. A tripple-vaccinated person can infect other people. I was infected by a tripple-vaccinated person and I was vaccinated as well. We both still live, so maybe the vaccines did something to prevent hospitalization and severe side effects, including death. How is preventing hospitalization and severe side effects, including death relevant from an airline perspective? Obviously they need to do their best to prevent spreading of the virus, but if they start mandating things that have almost no impact on that, such as the vaccines, they are overstepping boundaries.
  - mpweiher 5y ago
    Vaccines have never "prevented" transmission absolutely, so 100%. They have always "prevented" transmission in some cases, so reducing transmission. At slightly lower rates than preventing severe outcomes. Delta was 2x more transmissible than the first strain of Covid. Omicron appears to be around 4x more transmissible than delta, so 8x more transmissible than the original variant. Even if the vaccines had been 90% effective at reducing transmission and was just as effective against Omicron, we would expect Omicron to spread in a fully vaccinated/boostered population just as quickly as the original variant spread in a completely unvaccinated population. However, the vaccines were not 90% effective at preventing transmission of the original variant, more like 60-80% IIRC. And Omicron has mutated significantly, so effectiveness is further reduced. And of course there is a significant percentage of unvaccinated (partly due to "the vaccines don't work misinformation, sigh!), and the virus has a much easier time going from unvaccinated → vaccinated or vaccinated → unvaccinated than it does going from vaccinated → vaccinated. So seeing high(er) transmission rates right now in no way "proves" that the "vaccines don't work at preventing transmission". Neither do anecdotes that do not contradict the actual evidence. Transmission rates would be a lot higher without vaccines.
    - ls15 5y ago
      > However, the vaccines were not 90% effective at preventing transmission of the original variant, more like 60-80% IIRC. And Omicron has mutated significantly, so effectiveness is further reduced. And of course there is a significant percentage of unvaccinated (partly due to "the vaccines don't work misinformation, sigh!), and the virus has a much easier time going from unvaccinated → vaccinated or vaccinated → unvaccinated than it does going from vaccinated → vaccinated. Now Omicron is dominant and these earlier strains are not relevant anymore. It is reasonable to expect that the virus will mutate more and faster, maybe even with many different strains that are relevant at the same time. > And of course there is a significant percentage of unvaccinated (partly due to "the vaccines don't work misinformation, sigh!) Most of Africa is unvaccinated, because they don't have the vaccine, while some countries are trying to enforce the third injection. > Transmission rates would be a lot higher without vaccines. That is not an argument for mandating vaccines when they only prevent the spread of the currently dominant strains with a very low probability or maybe even not at all. Actually I haven't heard of any good argument for that yet.
- ScottBurson 5y ago
  Its effectiveness at preventing the person who receives it from dying doesn't prove it also substantially reduces the probability of transmission, which is what the parent is talking about.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    It makes it less likely for you to catch it in the first place a necessary prerequisite for transmission. Also your bodies ability to fight the virus is liable to reduce your viral load and ergo chance of transmission. It beggars belief to imagine that your body is both more adept at fighting it and also somehow just as good at transmitting it. COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths by Vaccination Status February 02, 2022 https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/... Summary Unvaccinated 12-34 year-olds in Washington are • 3 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds. • 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year- olds. Unvaccinated 35-64 year-olds are • 4 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds. • 7 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year- olds. Unvaccinated 65+ year-olds are • 5 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. • 8 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds. • 9 times more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds.
    - 988747 5y ago
      > 5 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year- olds. This can mean that the risk of hospitalization goes from 0.01% to 0.05%, which isn't something most people would care about. With statistics like that we need absolute numbers, not relative. Your post is basically an example of "how to scare people with meaningless stats".
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        Actually great grandparent post was asserting that vaccines didn't decrease transmission. In order to counter that assertion the relative numbers are exactly what is appropriate.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  So what is it to you then if someone is vaccinated if you are protected? Did you before throw a fit COVID that the person sitting next to you didn't show you a vaccine card?
mpweiher 5y ago
You are quoting an opinion letter to the Lancet, not peer reviewed research (see the "CORRESPONDENCE" in the top left corner). Passing opinions/letters off as peer reviewed research can legitimately be classified as "fake news" The authors of the study that this letter referenced responded to the letter: "Although our findings support Franco-Peredes’ conclusion that vaccination status should not replace social and physical public health mitigation practices, the above clarifications explain why our findings do not support his assertion that mandatory vaccination of health-care workers would not reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00761-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
- ls15 5y ago
  Maybe the source was unfortunate, but how can someone in January 2022 say with a straight face that the existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines prevent the spread of the virus? I was vaccinated and I was infected by a tripple-vaccinated person and one of my best friends is in a similar situation. The idea that the vaccines prevent the spread of the virus is dead since we saw the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases in highly boostered countries.
  - mpweiher 5y ago
    Not sure what's with this "prevent" straw man, which seems to imply that vaccines need to be 100% effective, otherwise they do not work at all. This is not true and has never been true. Vaccines "prevent" the spread in many cases. Vaccines not not "prevent" the spread in 100% of cases. Just like they do not "prevent" severe outcomes in 100% of cases. You can be fully vaccinated and boostered and still die of Covid. It's just a lot less likely than if you're not vaccinated. This reduction is the vaccines working as designed and advertised. Effectiveness at preventing spread was always less than at preventing severe outcomes, even with the original variant the vaccines were designed for (or against). This was in all the literature I read about the vaccines during early 2021 (which also showed that, for example, AZ was significantly less effective at reducing the spread than BionTech, although both were >90% effective [still not 100%!] at preventing severe outcomes). In the meantime the virus has mutated significantly, and the vaccines are less effective than they were against the original variant, but still effective.
WesternWind 5y ago
You are linking to correspondence, not to the study, the study suggests the opposite. Saying they are completely ineffective is wrong based on what we know, to the best of my knowedge. I read, I talk to friends and family in the medical community, I am not an expert. My understanding is that the vaccines have some effectiveness in preventing further infection but aren't fully effective, as evidenced by the study in Lancet which you indirectly linked to. Your letter in reaction to this study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/alrticle/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/alrticle/PIIS1473-... Here's the author's reply to the correspondence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694752/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694752/ Just because peak viral load is apparently the same doesn't mean infection duration or transmission rates are the same, and the study suggests they aren't, in part because of faster decline in viral load among vaccinated folks. Of course that data is only about delta. The science may change, and I follow the science. Getting back to what I said, you know that, in the US, vaccine hesitancy is correlated with both less mask usage and less social distancing, right? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592035/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592035/ If your idea is true, and the vaccine is completely ineffective, that still suggests unvaccinated folks are more likely to get infected with COVID, and to transmit it. Getting back to the article, "Bastian said Delta has placed nearly 1,900 people on Delta’s “no-fly” list for refusing to comply with masking requirements" Those aren't people I particularly want to fly with during this pandemic, but I do find the scope creep of the federal no fly list, as opposed to the company's list, disturbing.

ls15 5y ago

Wearing masks in an airplane makes sense to the point where service starts and people are taking their masks off in order to eat and drink. If there is a testing mandate, then nobody without a negative test enters an airplane. Airlines do not allow social distancing. Getting vaccinated does not prevent the spread of the virus, but staying at home does. How many steps (that are actually effective) can an airline passenger really take in order to prevent the spread of the virus?

michaelmrose 5y ago
If it is sufficiently necessary for people to wear a mask then it makes absolutely zero sense to make an exception for eating. Most flights are short enough that you do not actually need to eat during the flight unless for example you have a medical reason for which obviously an exception ought to be made. The obvious example being diabetes.
isomel 5y ago
Firewall are useless if you don't run badly coded daemons? And no need to put a strong password on a database if there is a firewall anyway? Security measures are not all or nothing. It's about reducing the risk. Even with a testing mandate some infections might not be detected. And wearing the mask, even 50% of the time, might reduce the risk of contracting or transmitting germs during the flight. It's a minor inconvenience that helps keeping the risks somehow under control
- nawitus 5y ago
  You need actual cost and benefit analysis. The situation can actually be different if some measures prevent spread by 1%, 10%, 50% etc. Cost and benefit analysis can be ineffective or unwanted in beginning stages of a pandemic.. but for COVID-19 it's been few years already and we can do such analysis.
- native_samples 5y ago
  They don't reduce the risk at all, so the benefit is zero. Do you engage in pointless security theatre when running your servers and say "job done"?

SergeAx 5y ago

Antimaskers, then? I don't believe they are administering vaccines in-flight.

jatone 5y ago
pretty sure they're breathing during the flight thou, otherwise masks wouldn't be required. please note: no one gives a shit if your antivax on a flight. its you're fucking behavior that's the problem. Thats what puts the scarlet letter on your forehead not your moronic views on vaccinations.