1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Some of you are arguing an absurd position: "if one round of a new vaccine isn't 100% effective in perpetuity against a novel coronavirus* and all its variants now and forever then it's just not worth the risk"

* Noteworthy that no vaccine against a member of the coronavirus family has ever been produced before.

Meh, I'd just like to see higher vaccine rates have some measurable effect on transmission rates. I don't think that's asking a lot. Maybe don't try to push through unconstitutional vaccine mandates until the kinks get worked out a bit? Just a thought.

5 minutes ago, Kz! said:

This is incorrect. Harvard scientists looked at data from all over the world and found that there was no relationship between vaccination rates and transmission rates. Harvard.

Yes, and the problem with that meta-analysis is that how case numbers are reported across different countries is wildly different. 

The only reason you care about the study at all is it supports your narrative.

It's not a good study, and even the authors acknowledged the flaws in such an analysis and cautioned against drawing exactly the conclusion you want.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yes, and the problem with that meta-analysis is that how case numbers are reported across different countries is wildly different. 

The only reason you care about the study at all is it supports your narrative.

It's not a good study, and even the authors acknowledged the flaws in such an analysis and cautioned against drawing exactly the conclusion you want.

lmfao, you should go to Harvard and tell them they didn't divide by ishlib to get numbers that confirm your biases a little better. Until then, it's the best analysis we have. Womp womp. 

We already know the viral vector vaccines aren't nearly as effective, so if we just look at the effect of onward transmission with mrna vaccines, the reduction in transmission risk is significant. The effect is two-fold, given equal circumstances of exposure, a vaccinated person is less likely to develop a breakthrough infection in the first place, and even beyond that, if a breakthrough does occur, we already know breakthrough infections are far less likely to be transmitted to another person (due to neutralizing antibody binding and shorter period of contagiousness.) 

 

British scientists at the University of Oxford examined national records of nearly 150,000 contacts that were traced from roughly 100,000 initial cases. The samples included people who were fully or partially vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the AstraZeneca vaccines, as well as people who were unvaccinated. The researchers then looked at how the vaccines affected the spread of the virus if a person had a breakthrough infection with either the alpha variant or the highly contagious delta variant.

Both vaccines reduced transmission, although they were more effective against the alpha variant compared to the delta variant. When infected with the delta variant, a given contact was 65 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. With AstraZeneca, a given contact was 36 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583

3 minutes ago, Kz! said:

lmfao, you should go to Harvard and tell them they didn't divide by ishlib to get numbers that confirm your biases a little better. Until then, it's the best analysis we have. Womp womp. 

if you actually had the ability to read the fully original study (not peer reviewed even), you would have seen the acknowledgement. they don't need me or anyone else to understand that the numbers for case rates are less reliable than other numbers like death rates.

but the headline is all you care about so what's the point? 

 

again, you continue to try and harp on transmission rates now because the effect of vaccines on the death rates is absolutely undeniable. you have your premise - the vaccines are not necessary - and you're crawling for any and all information that supports your position. so you ignore that death rates for vaccinated are a fraction of what they are for the unvaccinated, even knowing that most people with complicating conditions that would make them more likely to die from COVID are among the vaccinated population. 

the vaccines are an astounding scientific success made possible at least in part by the actions of the president you claim to support. if nothing else I absolutely give Trump credit for doing the right things on the vaccine development side of things. even with reduced efficacy against the Delta variant they are still the most powerful weapon we have against the virus, and the continued opposition to them is simply astounding to me.

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

if you actually had the ability to read the fully original study (not peer reviewed even), you would have seen the acknowledgement. they don't need me or anyone else to understand that the numbers for case rates are less reliable than other numbers like death rates.

but the headline is all you care about so what's the point? 

 

again, you continue to try and harp on transmission rates now because the effect of vaccines on the death rates is absolutely undeniable. you have your premise - the vaccines are not necessary - and you're crawling for any and all information that supports your position. so you ignore that death rates for vaccinated are a fraction of what they are for the unvaccinated, even knowing that most people with complicating conditions that would make them more likely to die from COVID are among the vaccinated population. 

the vaccines are an astounding scientific success made possible at least in part by the actions of the president you claim to support. if nothing else I absolutely give Trump credit for doing the right things on the vaccine development side of things. even with reduced efficacy against the Delta variant they are still the most powerful weapon we have against the virus, and the continued opposition to them is simply astounding to me.

We were specifically discussing transmission rates in regards to the virus's ability to mutate, so you pivoting to death rates is irrelevant. I've always said the vaccines are great for people who want them. I just want the people who don't to be left alone. It's really not asking all that much, but tyrannical dictators like Biden just won't.  

8 minutes ago, Kz! said:

We were specifically discussing transmission rates in regards to the virus's ability to mutate, so you pivoting to death rates is irrelevant. I've always said the vaccines are great for people who want them. I just want the people who don't to be left alone. It's really not asking all that much, but tyrannical dictators like Biden just won't.  

When someone's President of the United States, the authority is total.

 

https://www.travelinglifestyle.net/us-reopening-borders-to-tourism-who-can-enter/

U.S. Reopening Borders For Intl. Tourists on November 8

Beginning Monday, the United States will drop entrance restrictions for vaccinated EU and Asian travelers, putting an end to historic restrictions that have kept the country partially isolated from the rest of the world for almost 21 months. 

According to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. will reopen its air and land borders as soon as ports of entry start operations on Nov. 8

This may seem strange, but it makes total sense when you realize we're dealing with a cult of mentally deranged people.  

17 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

 

Vaccines in general are good. Most go through years of development and trails before they are approved. 

During the Pandemic, the COVID vaccines were fast tracked, and there is limited knowledge of any potential long term issues. 

You can be both PRO VACCINE and yet be weary of VACCINES that we dont know what the long term ramifications are. 

 

I realize nuance is dead since we as a society have politicized everything, but come on, even those in the cheap seats can grasp this simple concept. 

1 minute ago, Ipiggles said:

Vaccines in general are good. Most go through years of development and trails before they are approved. 

During the Pandemic, the COVID vaccines were fast tracked, and there is limited knowledge of any potential long term issues. 

You can be both PRO VACCINE and yet be weary of VACCINES that we dont know what the long term ramifications are. 

 

I realize nuance is dead since we as a society have politicized everything, but come on, even those in the cheap seats can grasp this simple concept. 

are you saying that operation warp speed was a terrible, dangerous mistake?  

Hey guys. Just a heads up. The media is talking about a story that just happened  instead of a story that happened a while ago. 

3 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Vaccines in general are good. Most go through years of development and trails before they are approved. 

During the Pandemic, the COVID vaccines were fast tracked, and there is limited knowledge of any potential long term issues. 

You can be both PRO VACCINE and yet be weary of VACCINES that we dont know what the long term ramifications are. 

 

I realize nuance is dead since we as a society have politicized everything, but come on, even those in the cheap seats can grasp this simple concept. 

Careful. That's a serious offense over here. 

 

19 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Vaccines in general are good. Most go through years of development and trails before they are approved. 

During the Pandemic, the COVID vaccines were fast tracked, and there is limited knowledge of any potential long term issues. 

You can be both PRO VACCINE and yet be weary of VACCINES that we dont know what the long term ramifications are. 

 

I realize nuance is dead since we as a society have politicized everything, but come on, even those in the cheap seats can grasp this simple concept. 

This is true.

The vaccine that Salk developed for Polio in 1953 took 2 years to be rolled out to children. If you exclude the 1.6 million children in the trial.

The COVID vaccines were rolled out very quickly. Despite this, they seem remarkably effective, with few serious side effects.

I personally waited until about a 100 million people were vaccinated before getting mine.

 

56 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Vaccines in general are good. Most go through years of development and trails before they are approved. 

During the Pandemic, the COVID vaccines were fast tracked, and there is limited knowledge of any potential long term issues. 

You can be both PRO VACCINE and yet be weary of VACCINES that we dont know what the long term ramifications are. 

 

I realize nuance is dead since we as a society have politicized everything, but come on, even those in the cheap seats can grasp this simple concept. 

but, we do. jabs have been in arms for a year now. vaccines, especially mRNA vaccines, have a very limited amount of time they can even survive in the body.

mRNA development has been ongoing for 30 years. one of the main challenges is that mRNA is so fragile it would be broken down by the body too quickly to have any effect. 

these vaccines are flushed out of the system in a VERY short time. and in the history of vaccines no side effects have ever been reported beyond about 6 weeks IIRC. 

and finally, we may not "know" the long term ramifications of the vaccine, but we also don't "know" the long term ramifications of COVID. but on the study that HAS been able to be done, catching COVID is far more likely to leave someone with long-term effects than the vaccine. That we DO know.

Here's a thought:

 

See what actual researchers in the field have to say. See if they are vaccinated.

3 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Here's a thought:

 

See what actual researchers in the field have to say. See if they are vaccinated.

Well, obviously, there would be both unvaccinated and vaccinated "researchers in the field." So what you really mean is, listen to the ones that agree with you. 

34 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Well, obviously, there would be both unvaccinated and vaccinated "researchers in the field." So what you really mean is, listen to the ones that agree with you. 

Yes, the ones that don't agree are hacks!

3 minutes ago, GreenReaper said:

Yes, the ones that don't agree are hacks!

Agreed!

Researchers are actually trained in vaccines and infectious disease.

Watching Joe Rogan isn't research. Some people think it is.

does joe rogan take an adult sized dose of horse pills or a 2/3 dose adjusted for height?  

 

 

More like 1/4th dose. He's so tiny!

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

More like 1/4th dose. He's so tiny!

I read in Scientific America his ivermectin dosage was based on that of the pygmy horse.