Jump to content

COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)


Orbit

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, LumberjackAxe said:

I know the thread has veered toward whether a mandate is good or not, but what do folks think about comparing the risk of getting COVID/hospitalization, versus the an adverse vaccine reaction? Is it even possible?

I already did that, with the data that’s available (my risk from COVID vs. VAERS). It’s about equal risk, slightly favoring not taking the vaccine, for the < 50 age group with no underlying med conditions. The bigger elephant in the room is what are the potential long term adverse reactions? Nobody knows, and that’s the biggest factor for many. No one can make any statistically significant argument that immediate adverse reactions equal the driving decision to not get the vaccine, but why get a vaccine that does so little for you (again, the healthy/young crowd specifically) in trade for an unknown longterm risk (could be very low, but could be bad). Also, if you’ve had COVID, you are significantly better protected than if you just had the vaccine, so no scientific reason to get the vaccine if you’ve managed to already have COVID. 

None of this is a “no brainer;” it’s dependent on many variables that differ from person to person. To say COVID vaccination is a blanket “obvious,” “no brainer,” etc. decision one way or the other for everyone out there is ignorant, selfish, or both.

Edited by brabus
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brabus said:

I already did that, with the data that’s available (my risk from COVID vs. VAERS). It’s about equal risk, slightly favoring not taking the vaccine, for the < 50 age group with no underlying med conditions. 

You may want to rerun your numbers. I just did now, using the CDC’s numbers, and came up with the following:

There have been 39,831,318 total COVID cases thus far, and 644,848 of them have died (a 1.6% fatality rate). I got the data for two age groups:

30-39: 5,175,077 cases, 7,162 deaths (0.1% fatality rate)

40-49: 4,579,472 cases, 17,057 deaths (0.4% fatality rate)

There have been 162,027,175 COVID vaccinations fully administered, and 7,086 of them have died (a 0.004% fatality rate)  

25-39: 32,689,055 vaccinations, 162 deaths for 30-39 (0.0005% fatality rate) and 96 deaths for 18-29 (0.0008% fatality rate) (they only had vaccinated rates for 25-39, so I have to estimate the actual rate)

40-49: 22,952,343 vaccinations, 263 deaths (0.001% fatality rate)

You don’t have a choice about contracting COVID, but if you do, you (in your age group) have a 0.4% chance of dying. You do have a choice about getting the vaccine, and if you do, you have a 0.001% chance of dying. That’s a 400-fold difference in favor of getting the vaccine.

For me personally, walking around without the vaccine in the US there’s a very high probability that I’ll contract COVID and if I do a .1% chance of dying. If I get the vaccine, I have a ~.0005% chance of dying. What if I get covid after vaccination? We’ll the only data I could find is that the fatality rate is less than .00%, so I’m open to interpretations there.

COVID kills 0.1%, the vaccine kills .0008%. That’s the no brainer from me.

Maybe you’re interpreting this differently? If so, please educate me.

 

 


 

 

Edited by LumberjackAxe
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LumberjackAxe said:

I’m perpetuating some shitty internet practices right now, but Sam Harris had an excellent podcast on this topic (http://samharris.org/subscriber-rss/?uid=109560) and his guest brought up a curious point: that even if you take the worst-case scenario numbers of adverse events from the vaccine (these numbers not coming from the CDC, but from anti-vax sources), and then compare that risk to the risk of an adverse reaction to COVID-19, then it’s still a no brainer to get the vaccine.

 

I know the thread has veered toward whether a mandate is good or not, but what do folks think about comparing the risk of getting COVID/hospitalization, versus the an adverse vaccine reaction? Is it even possible?

I used to make this point about autism. Even if you believe that vaccines cause autism (which I don't), the number of autistic kids is way lower than the number of kids killed/ruined by measles, polio, etc. So isn't autism better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LumberjackLet me clarify, I have a higher risk of an adverse reaction from the vaccine than the gain in protection I receive from the vaccine. I was not comparing fatality rate. Though in either case, we’re splitting hairs. So how important is something that you’re arguing takes you from 99.9% to 99.99% survival, but comes with an unknown price tag (long term affects)? Point is, very reasonable to not get it, or get it, depends on the person and their situation. The only insane thing is not accepting that both answers can be right, and it’s a personal choice in which is right for an individual. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I used to make this point about autism. Even if you believe that vaccines cause autism (which I don't), the number of autistic kids is way lower than the number of kids killed/ruined by measles, polio, etc. So isn't autism better?


The hard part in all those is that from the aggregate, as a society, it makes sense to vaccinate given the low likelihood of adverse affects. The benefits to the overall society out weighs the risk to a few within the population.

However, at the individual level, you bear the risk and burden of any realized risk, and society might not (probably won't) step in to assist you. But at the same time, it makes sense for your neighbor to get the vaccine and breast the risk, because you get to read the societal benefit of them getting vaccinated.

So this puts individual choice ("freedom") at odds with what is good for society, even if that societal good benefits the individual. This notion is amplified in the US because we're a very individualistic society.

Like you vaccines and autism example, from a (previous to COVID) antivaxxer, even a small chance of vaccines causing autism (which they don't) is a risk they don't want to take, given that the diseases being vaccinated having been largely eradicated in modern countries (ironically, because of vaccine mandates). The threat of the disease isn't real to them (who gets the measles any more?), but the perceived consequences of taking a preventative action to protect against the disease is viewed as real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some fun math:

Assuming an infection fatality rate of .4-.7, and going off reported deaths, the virus has penetrated into the US population in the neighborhood of 30-45%.  The population write large is ~53% fully vaccinated.  Obviously neither natural or vaccine immunity is 100% (thanks mutations).  A recent initial study indicated the Delta variant R0 mean was 5 (range 3.2-8) which would mean we'd need somewhere around 80% (range, 69-88%) immunity for herd protection.

Doesn't take into account state by state vaccination rates, or area under the exposure curve (NY got shellacked initially, CA/FL not so much).

Maybe my cynical prediction of another year of this shit was too cynical......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pawnman said:

Right...public health protections that use vaccines to reduce risk are entirely incomparable.

4 hours ago, pawnman said:

You use a seatbelt?  How can you let the government compromise your autonomy like that?  So few people die in car accidents, seat belts don't even help anyway...

Dude, Polio is significantly worse than COVID - significantly. Like, your chances of dying or being maimed by Polio do make it a non-starter. Consequences matter. And seat belts have no adverse, or potentially adverse affect on you. Vaccines do. It's not more complicated than that, so don't try to make it so.

3 hours ago, LumberjackAxe said:

I’m perpetuating some shitty internet practices right now, but Sam Harris had an excellent podcast on this topic (http://samharris.org/subscriber-rss/?uid=109560) and his guest brought up a curious point: that even if you take the worst-case scenario numbers of adverse events from the vaccine (these numbers not coming from the CDC, but from anti-vax sources), and then compare that risk to the risk of an adverse reaction to COVID-19, then it’s still a no brainer to get the vaccine.

I know the thread has veered toward whether a mandate is good or not, but what do folks think about comparing the risk of getting COVID/hospitalization, versus the an adverse vaccine reaction? Is it even possible?

Leaving aside the fact that Sam Harris is a total pseudo-intellectual, hell yeah, the vaccine is going to diminish your symptoms and the chances you wind up in the ER substantially, so there really is no question from a risk perspective which you should do. Consideration of long-term affects are unknown for both the disease itself and the vaccine, so arguments that rest on that distinction are null. We don't know in either case, and there is no reason to think one would be worse than the other.

1 hour ago, LumberjackAxe said:

You may want to rerun your numbers. I just did now, using the CDC’s numbers, and came up with the following:

There have been 39,831,318 total COVID cases thus far, and 644,848 of them have died (a 1.6% fatality rate). I got the data for two age groups:

30-39: 5,175,077 cases, 7,162 deaths (0.1% fatality rate)

40-49: 4,579,472 cases, 17,057 deaths (0.4% fatality rate)

There have been 162,027,175 COVID vaccinations fully administered, and 7,086 of them have died (a 0.004% fatality rate)  

25-39: 32,689,055 vaccinations, 162 deaths for 30-39 (0.0005% fatality rate) and 96 deaths for 18-29 (0.0008% fatality rate) (they only had vaccinated rates for 25-39, so I have to estimate the actual rate)

40-49: 22,952,343 vaccinations, 263 deaths (0.001% fatality rate)

You don’t have a choice about contracting COVID, but if you do, you (in your age group) have a 0.4% chance of dying. You do have a choice about getting the vaccine, and if you do, you have a 0.001% chance of dying. That’s a 400-fold difference in favor of getting the vaccine.

For me personally, walking around without the vaccine in the US there’s a very high probability that I’ll contract COVID and if I do a .1% chance of dying. If I get the vaccine, I have a ~.0005% chance of dying. What if I get covid after vaccination? We’ll the only data I could find is that the fatality rate is less than .00%, so I’m open to interpretations there.

COVID kills 0.1%, the vaccine kills .0008%. That’s the no brainer from me.

Maybe you’re interpreting this differently? If so, please educate me.

All these numbers. A couple things. One, as precise as that "total" number looks and feels, the total number of infections is unknown and we have good reason to think it is MUCH higher - note that many infections are asymptomatic. Note that there was a recent study that found the presence of COVID antibodies to be 2x as prevalent than expected. 2X is huge. That's the denominator. For the numerator, plenty of context is missing - what % of these people had 1, 2, 3, or more underlying conditions? What percent were obese? COVID has been way more dangerous and detrimental to our politics, economy, and society than Fauci would have us believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, busdriver said:

Question for the "anti-vaxxers," something I've been thinking about a bit:

If the Faucis of the world had been completely transparent instead of shaping their comments to the public to get a desired behavior.  If the politicians hadn't been completely hypocritical.  If the public had reimbursed businesses for loss due to public action.         Etc.  

Would you be as vehemently against the vaccine?  a mandate?

In other words, how much of your position is based on "not one more fucking inch" vs opposition to this specific thing?

Being honest with myself, I don't think I would have sneezed if all that went away, and this was solely about a mandatory, free vaccine.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but yes, to answer your question. Had Fauci stood up at the beginning and told everyone not to buy masks because the people who need them more than you would not be able to get them, then yeah, I would trust him more, and so would a lot of other people. For many people, trusting the government in a situation like this probably figures pretty heavily in their decision matrix. Instead, he lied to us. It was a "noble" lie, but it was a lie none-the-less. At the end of the day it's hard to trust someone who secretly thinks you're stupid, but is also simultaneously and constantly stepping all over their own dick.

For me it's about not one more fucking inch. Vaccine passports in NYC? Get fucked.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Dude, Polio is significantly worse than COVID - significantly. Like, your chances of dying or being maimed by Polio do make it a non-starter. Consequences matter. And seat belts have no adverse, or potentially adverse affect on you. Vaccines do. It's not more complicated than that, so don't try to make it so.

Leaving aside the fact that Sam Harris is a total pseudo-intellectual, hell yeah, the vaccine is going to diminish your symptoms and the chances you wind up in the ER substantially, so there really is no question from a risk perspective which you should do. Consideration of long-term affects are unknown for both the disease itself and the vaccine, so arguments that rest on that distinction are null. We don't know in either case, and there is no reason to think one would be worse than the other.

All these numbers. A couple things. One, as precise as that "total" number looks and feels, the total number of infections is unknown and we have good reason to think it is MUCH higher - note that many infections are asymptomatic. Note that there was a recent study that found the presence of COVID antibodies to be 2x as prevalent than expected. 2X is huge. That's the denominator. For the numerator, plenty of context is missing - what % of these people had 1, 2, 3, or more underlying conditions? What percent were obese? COVID has been way more dangerous and detrimental to our politics, economy, and society than Fauci would have us believe.

I'm curious, then.

What is your cutoff point for making a vaccine mandatory.  You're clearly all for mandatory polio vaccines, because "polio is worse than Covid".  OK...how about measles?  TB?  Rubella?

Where is your line in the sand where you say "it's OK to mandate these vaccines for kids going to school, it's not OK to mandate these other vaccines for adults in the military"?

Bonus points if, in all your number-crunching, you want to propose a public health solution that the CDC and FDA haven't already pushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

I'm curious, then.

What is your cutoff point for making a vaccine mandatory.  You're clearly all for mandatory polio vaccines, because "polio is worse than Covid".  OK...how about measles?  TB?  Rubella?

Where is your line in the sand where you say "it's OK to mandate these vaccines for kids going to school, it's not OK to mandate these other vaccines for adults in the military"?

Bonus points if, in all your number-crunching, you want to propose a public health solution that the CDC and FDA haven't already pushed.

At least 10 years of real-world data using voluntarily vaccinated as the sample. Then mandates must be proportional to the threat, so only mandates where they make sense. Hospitals and schools. Children when the disease actually threatens children.

 

The severity of the disease is the true regulator of vaccination rates. If COVID-19 was killing people like SARS or MERS(10-30%), people would line up for the vaccine, just like they did in Feb/March when it came out and all the fat/old people who were most at risk went and got it. 

 

After 10 years of studying the vaccine effects, then you can make it mandatory as well as punish people on their insurance premiums if they won't get it.

 

Disclaimer, I'm voluntarily vaccinated, so your stupid and hysterical arguments are not just ridiculous-sounding to the anti-vax crowd.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, then.
What is your cutoff point for making a vaccine mandatory.  You're clearly all for mandatory polio vaccines, because "polio is worse than Covid".  OK...how about measles?  TB?  Rubella?
Where is your line in the sand where you say "it's OK to mandate these vaccines for kids going to school, it's not OK to mandate these other vaccines for adults in the military"?
Bonus points if, in all your number-crunching, you want to propose a public health solution that the CDC and FDA haven't already pushed.
In 2018-19, about 35,000,000 people in the US got the flu. 35,000 died. The DoD mandates a vaccine for a virus with a .1% death rate. Death isn't everything. Immobilization is just as significant of a factor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2018-19, about 35,000,000 people in the US got the flu. 35,000 died. The DoD mandates a vaccine for a virus with a .1% death rate. Death isn't everything. Immobilization is just as significant of a factor.


So is permanent lung damage and all the other stuff we don’t know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

At least 10 years of real-world data using voluntarily vaccinated as the sample. Then mandates must be proportional to the threat, so only mandates where they make sense. Hospitals and schools. Children when the disease actually threatens children.

 

The severity of the disease is the true regulator of vaccination rates. If COVID-19 was killing people like SARS or MERS(10-30%), people would line up for the vaccine, just like they did in Feb/March when it came out and all the fat/old people who were most at risk went and got it. 

 

After 10 years of studying the vaccine effects, then you can make it mandatory as well as punish people on their insurance premiums if they won't get it.

 

Disclaimer, I'm voluntarily vaccinated, so your stupid and hysterical arguments are not just ridiculous-sounding to the anti-vax crowd.

Why 10 years?  Is that based on any data, or just a gut feeling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheNewGazmo said:
2 hours ago, pawnman said:
I'm curious, then.
What is your cutoff point for making a vaccine mandatory.  You're clearly all for mandatory polio vaccines, because "polio is worse than Covid".  OK...how about measles?  TB?  Rubella?
Where is your line in the sand where you say "it's OK to mandate these vaccines for kids going to school, it's not OK to mandate these other vaccines for adults in the military"?
Bonus points if, in all your number-crunching, you want to propose a public health solution that the CDC and FDA haven't already pushed.

In 2018-19, about 35,000,000 people in the US got the flu. 35,000 died. The DoD mandates a vaccine for a virus with a .1% death rate. Death isn't everything. Immobilization is just as significant of a factor.

Agreed.  So...are you now saying you support Covid vaccinations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Intercept just published 900 pages of FOIA released documents regarding the origins of COVID and it's research funding.

I've only spent about 20 minutes reading through and I've already read some unbelievable shit. Do yourself a favor and read some of it. It's insane. You won't be seeing it on the nightly news.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989-understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-notice

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21055988-risk-zoonotic-virus-hotspots-grant-notice

page 114 of the first link:

Aim 3: Testing predictions of CoV inter-species transmission. We will test our models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments in cell culture and humanized mice. With bat-CoVs that we've isolated or sequenced, and using live virus or pseudovirus infection in cells of different origin or expressing different receptor molecules, we will assess potential for each isolated virus and those with receptor binding site sequence, to spill over. We will do this by sequencing the spike (or other receptor binding/fusion) protein genes from all our bat-CoVs, creating mutants to identify how significantly each would need to evolve to use ACE2, CD26/DPP4 (MERS-CoV receptor) or other potential CoV receptors. We will then use receptor-mutant pseudovirus binding assays, in vitro studies in bat, primate, human and other species' cell lines, and with humanized mice where particularly interesting viruses are identified phylogenetically, or isolated. These tests will provide public health-relevant data, and also iteratively improve our predictive model to better target bat species and Co Vs during our field studies to obtain bat-CoV strains of the greatest interest for understanding the mechanisms of cross-species transmission.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Why 10 years?  Is that based on any data, or just a gut feeling?

Vaccines historically do not have effects that manifest more than 12 months after getting the shot. Mostly it's a matter of weeks.

 

However identifying the pattern takes much longer, and constructing and executing the proper studies to validate the potential effects takes even longer. Years in fact.

 

10 years also ensures the bulk of the elected officials, appointees, and bureaucrats involved "at ground zero" are cycled out, allowing for a more dispassionate analysis of the necessity for a mandate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Vaccines historically do not have effects that manifest more than 12 months after getting the shot. Mostly it's a matter of weeks.

 

However identifying the pattern takes much longer, and constructing and executing the proper studies to validate the potential effects takes even longer. Years in fact.

 

10 years also ensures the bulk of the elected officials, appointees, and bureaucrats involved "at ground zero" are cycled out, allowing for a more dispassionate analysis of the necessity for a mandate. 

Why isn’t your standard 8 months with a technology that has not been tested in humans? With reported events like this? 
 

448C6EF6-A8E3-4453-BCF9-FE7B3055F5BC.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, torqued said:

The Intercept just published 900 pages of FOIA released documents regarding the origins of COVID and it's research funding.

I've only spent about 20 minutes reading through and I've already read some unbelievable shit. Do yourself a favor and read some of it. It's insane. You won't be seeing it on the nightly news.

FOIA request documents? Pffft where'd you find that fake news? InfoWars? I don't trust websites that are labeled FAR-right militant extremist anti-semitic and are ran by White Christian males! Can you even provide me with one source? No I mean a peer-reviewed source. You must have voted for Trump.... Besides, Snopes said your documents have been debunked. Did you read that right? I typed DEBUNKED. Now drink your corn syrup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which of our pro-vax friends here disagrees with the ACLU?

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Pandemic Preparedness

The Need For a Public Health -Not A Law Enforcement/National Security-Approach

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf

Government agencies have an essential role to play in helping to prevent and mitigate epidemics. Unfortunately, in recent years, our government’s approach to preparing the nation for a possible influenza pandemic has been highly misguided. Too often, policymakers are resorting to law enforcement and national security-oriented measures that not only suppress individual rights unnecessarily, but have proven to be ineffective in stopping the spread of disease and saving lives.

The following report examines the relationship between civil liberties and public health in contemporary U.S. pandemic planning and makes a series of recommendations for developing a more effective, civil liberties-friendly approach.

Conflating Public Health with National Security and Law Enforcement

Rather than focusing on well-established measures for protecting the lives and health of Americans, policymakers have recently embraced an approach that views public health policy through the prism of national security and law enforcement. This model assumes that we must “trade liberty for security.” As a result, instead of helping individuals and communities through education and provision of health care, today’s pandemic prevention focuses on taking aggressive, coercive actions against those who are sick. People, rather than the disease, become the enemy.

Lessons from History


American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.


The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically:


• Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities.


• On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. They want positive government help in avoiding and treating disease. As long as public officials are working to help people rather than to punish them, people are likely to engage willingly in any and all efforts to keep their families and communities healthy.


• Minorities and other socially disadvantaged populations tend to bear the brunt of tough public health measures.

...History warns that vulnerable populations may well be subjected to unnecessary and arbitrary detentions if a pandemic strikes.The same point is applicable to vaccinations. The problem will not be that force is needed to vaccinate the population, rather that vaccine will be unavailable or in limited supply and will have to be rationed while people line up to demand access. Nonetheless it is worth emphasizing to public officials that the Supreme Court has ruled that competent individuals have a right to refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment, and this includes vaccinations..

And it goes on, and on, and on... Read it

Edited by torqued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...