151–160 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not when the intent behind the decision was to keep people at work, consequences be damned.
Yes, it was only a mistake if you consider that control of the spread of the virus was of utmost importance. The real mistake was letting controlling spread take precedence over literally everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People care because it impinges on the mass denial all of all the death and harm inflicted during the pandemic, as well as the ongoing dangers and unknowns of our new, post-COVID reality. This isn’t uncommon in history, but it unfortunately tends to take a few cycles of mass death before humans adapt their culture and social behavior to the world as it exists (vs. how it was before or they wish it could be). We’re st…
Very few people are dying of COVID-19 anymore. There's no valid reason to change human culture and social behavior just because we now have five endemic coronaviruses instead of four.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_totaldeaths...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not familiar with _unvaxed_ people getting coronavirus multiple times (prior infection confirmed by antibody blood test). I got it once and blood tests show continued strong antibodies. Since then I haven't even had the flu in a couple years. I have heard of many vaxed people getting coronavirus multiple times, including prominent world leaders.
>I'm not familiar with _unvaxed_ people getting coronavirus multiple times (prior infection confirmed by antibody blood test). Then you simply aren't paying attention. Most of my anti-vax relatives have gotten covid multiple times.
The nasal swab amplication test looks for fragments in the air intake filter, not actual infection.
By the way, I had vaccines for polio measles tetanus and others. Being in decent physical health, my doctor confirmed I was not in a risk group which would benefit from the jab which was authorized for emergency use only. The risk/reward for my profile was not worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know that?
Because their paper states it. That’s what is meant by “when accounting for etc” in: “We found that vaccinated and unvaccinated participants exhaled similar numbers of SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies (Fig 2C), when accounting for age, sex, presence of co-morbidities, days since symptom onset and symptom severity”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don’t get Covid because you got the vaccine, that’s a benefit to others.
Receiving the COVID vaccine does not prevent the contraction of COVID or ability to spread it, it only lessens the symptoms after infection
Now, I realize that it could just negatively correlate with self-reporting symptoms? Or it could be that that correlation between self reporting and how much you exhaled was just very lightly correlated, such that the other correlation is low? Neither of which would be that surprising, I guess. They do disappoint me, for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Unlike like measles or polio The polio vaccine children receive today in the United States is non-steralizing. If this anti-vaxxer assumption was meaningful, we wouldn't have fewer cases of polio. >We did this for chicken pox until a couple decades ago. Fun, because that's having great side effects, notably, that shingles sucks ass, and now that there isn't a giant amount of chickenpox virus in every closed space be…
I'm not familiar with _unvaxed_ people getting coronavirus multiple times (prior infection confirmed by antibody blood test). I got it once and blood tests show continued strong antibodies. Since then I haven't even had the flu in a couple years. I have heard of many vaxed people getting coronavirus multiple times, including prominent world leaders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because their paper states it. That’s what is meant by “when accounting for etc” in: “We found that vaccinated and unvaccinated participants exhaled similar numbers of SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies (Fig 2C), when accounting for age, sex, presence of co-morbidities, days since symptom onset and symptom severity”
That... doesn't say anything about them exhaling less? It specifically says that they exhibit the same. You can make a logical jump to say that, combined with a high variance but statistically significant link to self reported symptoms, that maybe vaccinated would have people that self report lower levels. But, that is specifically not in the comparison that you quoted. It says only that vaccinated and unvaccinated a…
It’s like saying night and day in Yosemite are equally bright when effects of the sun and moon are controlled for.
Look, this doesn’t appear to be sticking, it’s a basic statistical modeling thing. At this point the options are accept it at face value, study stats, or be like the kid saying “why” 100 times after every explanation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That... doesn't say anything about them exhaling less? It specifically says that they exhibit the same. You can make a logical jump to say that, combined with a high variance but statistically significant link to self reported symptoms, that maybe vaccinated would have people that self report lower levels. But, that is specifically not in the comparison that you quoted. It says only that vaccinated and unvaccinated a…
It’s saying indistinguishable when adjusted for severity. It’s like saying night and day in Yosemite are equally bright when effects of the sun and moon are controlled for. Look, this doesn’t appear to be sticking, it’s a basic statistical modeling thing. At this point the options are accept it at face value, study stats, or be like the kid saying “why” 100 times after every explanation.
Stated differently, you have variables
A = self-reported severity
B = amount shed
C = vaccinated status
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s saying indistinguishable when adjusted for severity. It’s like saying night and day in Yosemite are equally bright when effects of the sun and moon are controlled for. Look, this doesn’t appear to be sticking, it’s a basic statistical modeling thing. At this point the options are accept it at face value, study stats, or be like the kid saying “why” 100 times after every explanation.
But they specifically say that differently? As I said in another, you are jumping from severity correlating with vaccine to get to this idea. But, they actually call out self reported severity as correlating. Such that, if the correlations were strong enough it would have also showed up in their control for that variable. Stated differently, you have variables A = self-reported severity B = amount shed C = vaccinated…
They are saying after backing out the correlation between A and B to get adjusted B, there is no correlation between C and adjusted B. That is an ELI5 explanation of their statement “controlled for” about the factors like severity.
Yes their focus is not on how A and C relate, but we know that relation from other sources.
That is what controlled for means. “Hello” means a greeting in English. It’s the definition. Same concept, it’s the meaning of controlled for. It’s what it was defined to mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I get your perspective, but everybody has their own risk assessment and comfort Yeah I get that, but with him it seems very out of character. He likes to ski and is a general aviation pilot; these aren't low risk activities. I hope he comes to term with the new normal soon because he's still young and spending the rest of his life paranoid behind a mask would be truly sad.
> He likes to ski and is a general aviation pilot; these aren't low risk activities. So… spending micromorts on worthwhile activities, rather than on queueing at the supermarket? Sounds pretty consistent to me.