151–160 of 207 posts
It seemed likely early on that the risks of vaccination exceeded the benefits for healthy young people, but the argument was they should get vaccinated anyway so they wouldn't be able to transmit the virus to someone more vulnerable. Now that it's clear vaccination doesn't prevent transmission, the argument for vaccinating healthy young people is pretty weak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a definite overlap in people skeptical of lockdowns and the vaccines, but the sub tries to steer clear of vaccine skepticism due to it being technically off topic, and something that would get the sub nuked. Not that you asked me- I would classify it as "different" than the flu, that it affects different individuals differently, and that the original variant was definitely something more scary than the flu.…
Quoted post unavailable.
If you go by age-adjusted excess mortality then most countries reached levels last seen about a decade ago, more or less. The UK for example I think was 'rolled back' to 2007/2008 levels of mortality, Sweden back to 2012.
So 10x worse than worst flu years just doesn't seem right at all and I wonder where you got that stat. One thing that is clear is that the general population systematically over-estimates the severity of COVID by orders of magnitude.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimat...
There's a similar French poll out there, probably they exist for many countries. IFR estimates in these polls are wild, like 100x-200x higher than the correct values. So it's worth checking that you're familiar with the true numbers, as many people aren't, yet think they're well informed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is r/lockdownskepticism also skeptical of vaccination? It's a very heterogenous sub, but I don't think you'll find the kind of anti-vax thinking that suggests that, eg, childhood vaccination is unhelpful to a society, if that's what you're asking. If you are asking more strictly about sentiment toward the currently available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, I think that by and large we think they're a marvel of engineering, bu…
> Lockdowns necessarily cause stratification by socioeconomic status rather than by risk. Even in an 'effective' lockdown, we still see spread among the "essential workers" who keep society going, and in their households, which are disproportionately likely to be multigen. How do you explain countries like Vietnam, China, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, where Covid was eliminated from their societies via lockdown (an…
As for other places, for some reason COVID seems less severe in east Asia in general. You left out Japan where COVID has not been particularly serious and which also used quite light measures, especially in the early days.
Really, this has been done to death by now. Lockdowns don't have any effect. Some people thought they did because the natural wave pattern happened to overlap with when lockdowns were brought in and epidemiologists - perhaps the most useless form of expertise in the world - were united in believing that COVID wasn't going to be seasonal, for no obvious reason. So they just ascribed the fall in cases to their brilliant policies instead of the true cause. Once COVID came back at different times in different countries much more data became available and it started to show the truth: NPIs like lockdowns, masks, contact tracing etc were all useless. Only very early and very harsh border controls seemed to have much effect, and even then only temporarily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is r/lockdownskepticism also skeptical of vaccination? It's a very heterogenous sub, but I don't think you'll find the kind of anti-vax thinking that suggests that, eg, childhood vaccination is unhelpful to a society, if that's what you're asking. If you are asking more strictly about sentiment toward the currently available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, I think that by and large we think they're a marvel of engineering, bu…
Is there a consensus of how to deal with the covid situation between the people of this sub? If yes, what would that be?
The latter is not mere fatalism, by the way. It's simply acceptance that at this time, with our current level of understanding and abilities, we cannot stop respiratory illnesses from spreading and frankly, even claims about stopping "severe illness" are all horribly confounded by massive conflicts of interest and a culture of dishonesty in public health. As this paper is now showing, in fact, Moderna was advertised as perfectly safe and an obvious no-brainer tradeoff free improvement. In fact it's not, it's taken a very long time to realize this, and in fact there's certainly a lot of cases that the medical system isn't aware of. As such we cannot actually say whether the vaccines are helping or harming over-all because the damages inflicting aren't being measured properly, or at all. And indeed in many parts of the world excess death is actually positive in 2021, instead of negative as it should be given an effective vaccine (overhang from 2020 pushing it down + effective vaccines reducing COVID excess to zero).
I am sad that only now this has become an open issue. Meanwhile, women are still fighting over menstrual cycle changes post vaccination.
It seemed likely early on that the risks of vaccination exceeded the benefits for healthy young people, but the argument was they should get vaccinated anyway so they wouldn't be able to transmit the virus to someone more vulnerable. Now that it's clear vaccination doesn't prevent transmission, the argument for vaccinating healthy young people is pretty weak.
It seemed likely early on that the risks of vaccination exceeded the benefits for healthy young people, but the argument was they should get vaccinated anyway so they wouldn't be able to transmit the virus to someone more vulnerable. Now that it's clear vaccination doesn't prevent transmission, the argument for vaccinating healthy young people is pretty weak.
You seem to be assuming the answer to that is either true or false. Isn't it much more likely that vaccines prevent some transmission and the question is how much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am older than 40 and according to qcovid my risk of hospitalization is about 0,1%, so I doubt your 0,4% number. I am slightly overweight, which increases my risk by about 20%. But I doubt all the 18-29 year olds in your group are so obese that they get to 0,4%.
I don't know about qcovid but these two sources disagree : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33729203/ https://riskcalc.org/COVID19Hospitalization/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But since the vaccine only works for a couple of months, doesn't it make more sense to consider the risk of catching Covid in that short time frame? It seems likely that future Covid strains will be less deadly, too, just as the flu has years that are more or less deadly than others. Also, isn't a fraction of the population immune to begin with?
There is no evidence that the "vaccine only works for a couple of months". The vaccine has continued to show efficacy against hospitalization and death (severe covid) even as there has been some waning in infection immunity over a period of multiple months (more than 2 or a couple months though). See e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7049a2.htm "During February 1–September 30, 2021, mRNA vaccine effective…
I don't have a English language resource ready, but this article in a renowned German science magazine shows protection against severe illness is drastically reduced after six months for the current vaccines: https://www.spektrum.de/news/wie-lange-schuetzt-der-impfstof...
For example from the chart, after 6 months the protection from Biontec is only 30% of the protection in the beginning.
An animal study found that aspiration during injection could reduce the risk of vaccine induced myocarditis. It hasn't been reproduced in humans but this seems like something worthy of further research. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
Why would the aspiration risk be significantly different between the two mRNA vaccines?