251–260 of 330 posts
I noticed that they're only evaluating the covid-19 death rate. Not the overall death rate. Based on the latest data from England's ONS, in the 10 to 59 year old category, the vaccinated overall death rate is almost twice as high as the unvaccinated death rate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because those rates are from 10 to 60 years, which is quite a broad range. People in their fifties/sixties die like A LOT more than young people and these ages happen to be the most vaccinated compared to the youngest ones. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-simpson/ Also, when we are seeing far fewer vaccinated people in hospital in most countries (in my country 70% of the admissions in the hospital…
Then why did this trend only emerge in April? The population of young people being vaccinated has increased since then.
There's a reverse trend that coincides with an increased uptake in younger groups: The age-specific death rate for "10-59 + Second dose" in June was 2,8 and went down to 2,4 in September.
One thing to keep in mind: When we're talking about the 10-59 age group on their second shot prior to April, that's only a population of 800k with a total of 16 deaths reported between January and April. Confidence intervals for this period are very wide and the upper confidence limit in the ONS data is quite close to what they're reporting e.g. for September.
[1]: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations?areaTyp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It requires 1 person (the president) to agree to build emergency hospitals, or at worst 51% of 535 people in congress. At worst, it takes 60% of the Senate (because cloture), 218/435 in the House, plus the President to pass the law to do it federally, and then someone invokes the judiciary via lawsuits over federal authorities (“building hospitals is not an enumerated power”).
I think the point still stands. But if we want to be pedantic, you are assuming a filibuster and controversy. I think that could be done entirely by executive action, using administrative actions, like 900 billion dollars of other covid spending that had no legislative approval. I suppose states and governors could sue to have federal hospitals treating their residents torn down in the middle of a pandemic, but that…
Worse than suing to prevent schools or towns from requiring masks? Worse than suing to prevent "vaccine mandates"?
I'm sure you'll see it differently than I do.
> But if we want to be pedantic, you are assuming a filibuster and controversy.
I don't think you have to assume much to believe that at the present time, not a single Republican senator would vote in favor or such a measure if it was backed by the current president.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh OK. How many years will that take? You can't just staff these new hospitals with just new nurses, you need doctors and other support staff. We have a vaccine now. If everybody just got it when they could we could start to move on without spending millions or billions building new hospitals and paying people to train to become nurses and doctors in half a decade.
China built a 1000 bed covid hospital in 10 days and staffed it with army nurses. Compare this to requiring 330 million people to continually agree and coordinate basic pandemic behavior like masks and vaccines. Costs are largely irrelevant. Perhaps 100 million for such a hospital. This is 0.0001% of the 6+ trillion the government has spent on other covid actions.
It's not going to work if the entire country, continent or planet is in the same situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is “they”, and where were “they” pushing videos? This isn’t Reddit. If you’re going to make outrageous claims like that, you should be prepared to back them up.
They is the media and they were showing videos on news reports of what they stated were COVID-19 deaths of people dropping dead in the streets: https://observers.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210506-covi...
Do better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It requires 1 person (the president) to agree to build emergency hospitals, or at worst 51% of 535 people in congress. At worst, it takes 60% of the Senate (because cloture), 218/435 in the House, plus the President to pass the law to do it federally, and then someone invokes the judiciary via lawsuits over federal authorities (“building hospitals is not an enumerated power”).
I think the point still stands. But if we want to be pedantic, you are assuming a filibuster and controversy. I think that could be done entirely by executive action, using administrative actions, like 900 billion dollars of other covid spending that had no legislative approval. I suppose states and governors could sue to have federal hospitals treating their residents torn down in the middle of a pandemic, but that…
Since we're talking about what it takes to force a preferred solution in the absence of consensus, and you specifically said you were targeting the worst case, yes, I’m doing exactly what you called for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually debatable given that "fully" vaccinated people who get infected - a so-called 'breakthrough infection' - seem to transmit SARS2 at close to the same rate as those unvaccinated [1,2]: fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts Whether th…
Well, as confirmed by your [1], vaccinated people can transmit the virus during a much shorter duration. That's bound to severely decrease R among vaccinated crowds.
> That's bound to severely decrease
This does not seem to be the case if the examples of fully vaccinated regions - Gibraltar is an interesting example, the entire population from 12 years up is vaccinated but the infection rate seems to be skyrocketing which has led to the cancellation of Christmas celebrations and new restrictions [1]. Israel is another example of how vaccinations do not seem to curb infections, something which is clearly visible on this graph [2] showing vaccinations (teal line) and daily infections, sliding 7-day window (dark line).
My question to all those who seem to insist on the current crop of vaccines being as effective as they're claimed to be is what you think will be gained by what is clearly a half-truth? Yes, the vaccines seem to have some effect for a limited amount of time but is is clear that they do not provide enough protection to justify the proposed vaccination mandates nor does the difference between transmission rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated justify implementing a 2-tier society as is now being either planned or implemented in several countries. If people are to follow The Science™ they should be allowed to go by actual scientific data, whether those align with the narrative or go against it. Dogma is not science, it is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. The insistence on the efficacy of the currently available vaccines against SARS2 has the looks of a dogma in the light of the evidence. Assuming that the goal of everyone partaking in this discussion is to both minimise the impact of as well as the length of the local epidemics and the pandemic it is important for people not to be misled with false promises, something which has happened far too often already.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/christmas-celebration-gibraltar-vac...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, as confirmed by your [1], vaccinated people can transmit the virus during a much shorter duration. That's bound to severely decrease R among vaccinated crowds.
It’s frustrating how people cherry pick data and don’t think about important findings in their own cited sources. I’ve seen similar comments to that one so many times citing viral load being the same and always ignoring that the duration is much shorter. Their own citations undermine their point…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So even if you're aged 12 to 29, if you don't get vaccinated you're gambling at taking away someone else's hospital bed. Which will doom the rest of us. According to [1] at no point in time since March this year (when they started recording this data) have there been more than 100 hospitalizations in the age group 0-30 in Germany a country with 80+ million inhabitants. If this means doom to all of us I don't know a…
That's a valid argument, I wasn't aware absolute hospitalization numbers … which just leaves the other arguments to get vaccinated. Namely, lesser chance of long-term symptoms and lesser chance of getting infected (last I checked, outbound transmission doesn't seem to be reduced much, but inbound is, so it still serves to slow overall spread.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh. How many times does this have to be explained before everyone gets it? It is not all about you. There are other people in the world. Masks and social distancing protect them, too. In addition, as others have noted in this thread, death is not the only bad result, here. Long covid is horrific, and even milder cases can have permanent health effects that are extremely undesirable.
This is an unnecessarily sanctimonious post in my opinion. If you're in favour of fresh restrictions then for how long? To what extent? How much collateral damage in terms of mental health, education, the economy, social cohesion etc are you willing to accept? Implying people are selfish after two years of sacrifice is a rather churlish angle, in my opinion people advocating for continuing restrictions need to put nu…
2) I actually made no argument in favor of "fresh restrictions", but that's a nice straw man you are weaving together, there!
3) I didn't "imply people are selfish". I said it, straight out. GP's stated view is ludicrously selfish and ignorant.
4) After two years of sacrifice? That's just it, though: some people still don't get it, as evidenced by the comment I replied to.
5) Nobody argued for "indefinite social distancing", but, again, great straw man. Similarly, I did not say or imply that these measures are "inconsequential".
6) Excuse me, but as a professional classical singer, I am actually part of the industry that is perhaps the most affected out of any industry out there, or at least, tied for that dubious honor. So I don't need any lectures from you. My entire field was wiped out for about 19 months and is only now starting to limp back.