3 ms·

> them getting the vaccine doesn't protect others Of course it does. The more people are vaccinated the fewer hosts are available for the virus to spread thro

by lisper 4y ago

> them getting the vaccine doesn't protect others Of course it does. The more people are vaccinated the fewer hosts are available for the virus to spread through. > I don't particularly care what the science is Why does that not surprise me.

roenxi 4y ago
> Of course it does. What statistics are you basing this on? NSW in Australia has a vaccination rate of somewhere in the mid 90%s [0] before opening up from lockdown. It did absolutely nothing to slow the spread of COVID [1], anyone who has an active social life got vaccinated, had a short break, then got COVID. The evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point - vaccinations provided personal protection but failed to control the risk of infection. Most people I talk to had COVID and caught it off a vaccinated individual. The R value for the January outbreaks got to about 5. The vaccinations did nothing to even slow that down. The case numbers were high enough that it was physically impossible for the unvaccinated to be the main issue in the story, it was clear vaccinated->vaccinated transmission. In 2020 pre-vaccine it was obvious that everyone was going to get COVID sooner or later. Now, in 2022 post-vaccine, it remains clear that everyone is going to get COVID sooner rather than later and the vaccine didn't change that. The unclear part is whether suspending all those basic political freedoms on the way through made sense. [0] https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/stay-safe/data-and-statistics https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/stay-safe/data-and-statistic... [1] https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_NSW.html https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_NSW.html - State population of around 8 million, the case number records broke down sometime in January and has probably gotten progressively less reliable as time goes on as people get sick of reporting it.
- lisper 4y ago
  > > > them getting the vaccine doesn't protect others > > Of course it does. > What statistics are you basing this on? I'm not basing it on statistics, I'm basing it on basic knowledge of the mechanics of infectious diseases. The more people in a population have immunity to a disease, the slower it will spread. > Most people I talk to had COVID and caught it off a vaccinated individual. The people you talk to may think this is true, but there is no way anyone can possibly know this. > The vaccinations did nothing to even slow that down. Again, there is no way you can possibly know this. Without vaccines, the situation may have been much worse. > The unclear part is whether suspending all those basic political freedoms on the way through made sense. Yes, I agree that is unclear. But that is a completely different question than what is under discussion here.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > I'm not basing it on statistics, I'm basing it on basic knowledge of the mechanics of infectious diseases. The more people in a population have immunity to a disease, the slower it will spread. Your understanding must be faulty, because that isn't how it has played out in practice. I've got an 8 million person state's worth of cases for evidence here. Very well vaccinated, fast and pervasive spread. Based on the official case numbers I can estimate about half the state has had COVID. Possibly more. Follow the science, not your uninformed opinions, and all that jazz. > The people you talk to may think this is true, but there is no way anyone can possibly know this. It doesn't matter what they think, it is impossible for it to be the vaccinated. There aren't enough of them and they've been locked out of a lot of places where superspreader events are happening We had one case in the newspaper of a vaccinated individual who managed to infect ~20 people at a party for example. Or maybe it was 100, I forget. that was early in the 2021-2022 outbreak when a superspreading event was still rare enough to make the news. > Again, there is no way you can possibly know this. Without vaccines, the situation may have been much worse. There most certainly is, the failure was so complete it can be observed from the high level statistics. It can't, the number of cases is basically worse case - we're talking 2.5 million cases with a state population of 8 million. Those are official cases, the actual number of cases is higher. And the case count continues to slow burn/rise. Now, noting that the vaccine claims a >70% reduction in cases on the Pfizer wiki page ... that suggests everyone in the state has been exposed to COVID. At face value there is literally no impact on slowing the spread from the mass vaccination program. The picture here is painted and dried. Vaccines provide good personal protection but have had no impact on the spread of COVID cases. Unvaccinated individuals only posed a threat to themselves. Well meaning people - much like you - were saying things that have turned out not to be true.
    - lisper 4y ago
      > I've got an 8 million person state's worth of cases for evidence here. But the only way you can draw any conclusions is with a control experiment, another country where the vaccination rates were lower but which otherwise imposed the same restrictions, and lifted them under the same initial infection conditions. > it is impossible for it to be the vaccinated I presume you meant "unvaccinated" here. Look, no one disputes that vaccinated people can get infected and so can spread the disease. That does not change the fact that vaccinated people are infected less frequently and recover more quickly than non-vaccinated people, and so they don't spread the disease as efficiently as unvaccinated people. > the number of cases is basically worse case - we're talking 2.5 million cases with a state population of 8 million That's about 6.5 million cases shy of the worst case. > Vaccines provide good personal protection but have had no impact on the spread of COVID cases. Just because everyone who wasn't vaccinated eventually got or will get infected does not mean that the vaccinations had no impact. The rate of spread matters a lot. 2.5 million cases over two years is a lot different than 2.5 million case over two weeks.

by lisper 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

> Of course it does. What statistics are you basing this on? NSW in Australia has a vaccination rate of somewhere in the mid 90%s [0] before opening up from lockdown. It did absolutely nothing to slow the spread of COVID [1], anyone who has an active social life got vaccinated, had a short break, then got COVID. The evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point - vaccinations provided personal protection but failed to control the risk of infection. Most people I talk to had COVID and caught it off a vaccinated individual. The R value for the January outbreaks got to about 5. The vaccinations did nothing to even slow that down. The case numbers were high enough that it was physically impossible for the unvaccinated to be the main issue in the story, it was clear vaccinated->vaccinated transmission. In 2020 pre-vaccine it was obvious that everyone was going to get COVID sooner or later. Now, in 2022 post-vaccine, it remains clear that everyone is going to get COVID sooner rather than later and the vaccine didn't change that. The unclear part is whether suspending all those basic political freedoms on the way through made sense. [0] https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/stay-safe/data-and-statistics https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/stay-safe/data-and-statistic... [1] https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_NSW.html https://chrisbillington.net/COVID_NSW.html - State population of around 8 million, the case number records broke down sometime in January and has probably gotten progressively less reliable as time goes on as people get sick of reporting it.

lisper 4y ago
> > > them getting the vaccine doesn't protect others > > Of course it does. > What statistics are you basing this on? I'm not basing it on statistics, I'm basing it on basic knowledge of the mechanics of infectious diseases. The more people in a population have immunity to a disease, the slower it will spread. > Most people I talk to had COVID and caught it off a vaccinated individual. The people you talk to may think this is true, but there is no way anyone can possibly know this. > The vaccinations did nothing to even slow that down. Again, there is no way you can possibly know this. Without vaccines, the situation may have been much worse. > The unclear part is whether suspending all those basic political freedoms on the way through made sense. Yes, I agree that is unclear. But that is a completely different question than what is under discussion here.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > I'm not basing it on statistics, I'm basing it on basic knowledge of the mechanics of infectious diseases. The more people in a population have immunity to a disease, the slower it will spread. Your understanding must be faulty, because that isn't how it has played out in practice. I've got an 8 million person state's worth of cases for evidence here. Very well vaccinated, fast and pervasive spread. Based on the official case numbers I can estimate about half the state has had COVID. Possibly more. Follow the science, not your uninformed opinions, and all that jazz. > The people you talk to may think this is true, but there is no way anyone can possibly know this. It doesn't matter what they think, it is impossible for it to be the vaccinated. There aren't enough of them and they've been locked out of a lot of places where superspreader events are happening We had one case in the newspaper of a vaccinated individual who managed to infect ~20 people at a party for example. Or maybe it was 100, I forget. that was early in the 2021-2022 outbreak when a superspreading event was still rare enough to make the news. > Again, there is no way you can possibly know this. Without vaccines, the situation may have been much worse. There most certainly is, the failure was so complete it can be observed from the high level statistics. It can't, the number of cases is basically worse case - we're talking 2.5 million cases with a state population of 8 million. Those are official cases, the actual number of cases is higher. And the case count continues to slow burn/rise. Now, noting that the vaccine claims a >70% reduction in cases on the Pfizer wiki page ... that suggests everyone in the state has been exposed to COVID. At face value there is literally no impact on slowing the spread from the mass vaccination program. The picture here is painted and dried. Vaccines provide good personal protection but have had no impact on the spread of COVID cases. Unvaccinated individuals only posed a threat to themselves. Well meaning people - much like you - were saying things that have turned out not to be true.
  - lisper 4y ago
    > I've got an 8 million person state's worth of cases for evidence here. But the only way you can draw any conclusions is with a control experiment, another country where the vaccination rates were lower but which otherwise imposed the same restrictions, and lifted them under the same initial infection conditions. > it is impossible for it to be the vaccinated I presume you meant "unvaccinated" here. Look, no one disputes that vaccinated people can get infected and so can spread the disease. That does not change the fact that vaccinated people are infected less frequently and recover more quickly than non-vaccinated people, and so they don't spread the disease as efficiently as unvaccinated people. > the number of cases is basically worse case - we're talking 2.5 million cases with a state population of 8 million That's about 6.5 million cases shy of the worst case. > Vaccines provide good personal protection but have had no impact on the spread of COVID cases. Just because everyone who wasn't vaccinated eventually got or will get infected does not mean that the vaccinations had no impact. The rate of spread matters a lot. 2.5 million cases over two years is a lot different than 2.5 million case over two weeks.