Jump to content

Coronavirus part 2. Whitty’s Revenge


TexasRam
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

Prior to freedom day, I noticed that these medical reasons that exempt people from wearing a mask seem to be genetic, as whole households would walk around asda without one. It even seemed to be transmittable between husband and wife. 

It's strange how things have changed.

Once upon a time, selfish people kept everything to themselves. Now, they are happy to give Covid-19 away to everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been slightly hit and miss with mask wearing tbh, or rather... I've worn it at busy times (80% of the time?)  but had a couple of late visits to supermarkets when there's only about ten people in the whole store and I haven't worn it unless I'm using a staffed checkout.  Still sanitised hands and trolleys/baskets etc and given everyone space... even when there's practically nobody there!

I do strangely feel more uncomfortable (physically, probably psychosomatic tbh, can't help it - I was a lot more comfortable when things were mandatory!) wearing one when I look around and see others not; others think they're going to be judged for not wearing one my mind says I'm being judged for wearing one, but it would also be thinking I was being judged for not wearing one if I wasn't!

Edited by Coconut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

It's strange how things have changed.

Once upon a time, selfish people kept everything to themselves. Now, they are happy to give Covid-19 away to everyone else.

Once upon a time people who needed a safety blanket were happy just to carry their own , now they need everybody else to have one too to make them feel safe 🤷🏻‍♂️, selfish in my book would be me forcing others to live and do as I want them to  to make me feel safe 🤷🏻‍♂️, I’m 60 and neither expect or want anybody to make me feel safe , I will do that myself thanks ,

this whole virtue signalling scenario to cover up selfish personal fears is so so obvious 🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited by Archied
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, maxjam said:

To be fair, at the start of the pandemic we were told we needed approx 60-70% vaccine uptake to reach herd immunity.  I have since read elsewhere that other 'experts' have said it may need to be as much as 80-90%, and in one article, 98% uptake!?!

Estimates early in the pandemic varied wildly, but it was noted at the time that it could end up being quite high for future variants. The issue was that a lot of countries left it to burn, leading to variants. 

7 hours ago, maxjam said:

A key point however is that the covid vaccines don't provide sterlising immunity - you can still catch it and pass it on, therefore herd immunity will never be reached.  Furthermore, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that mass vaccination during a pandemic may put additional pressure on the virus to mutate, in which case blaming future variants on the unvaccinated will unnecessarily demonize them further

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210203-why-vaccinated-people-may-still-be-able-to-spread-covid-19

The risk of variants increases with case load, if countries were serious about preventing variants, they wouldn't be having 'freedom days', they'd be trying to suppress spread and complete their vaccination programs. Vaccination tends not to lead to such, as it suppresses transmission, and depending on the type of vaccine, they can be quite broad against different variations in any case. 

Equally, while research is ongoing, people who are vaccinated do have lower case viral loads in the cases where they have asymptomatic disease. Lower viral loads are strongly associated with less transmission. There's a lot of clickbait about people getting symptomatic disease passing it on while vaccinated, and the occasional suggestion of an asymptomatic case doing the same, but there's little to suggest that people who are fully vaccinated pass it on as easily. 

Equally, being unvaccinated is entirely someone's choice, a selfish one at that in many countries. If further variants occur, it will be it spreading wild through unvaccinated populations that will be the cause, as it has previously. The difference now is that as time goes on, that fraction of the population will be vulnerable by choice in many countries. Societies usually take offense at those within their ranks who make selfish choices that harm others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Albert said:

The risk of variants increases with case load, if countries were serious about preventing variants, they wouldn't be having 'freedom days', they'd be trying to suppress spread and complete their vaccination programs. Vaccination tends not to lead to such, as it suppresses transmission, and depending on the type of vaccine, they can be quite broad against different variations in any case. 

Equally, while research is ongoing, people who are vaccinated do have lower case viral loads in the cases where they have asymptomatic disease. Lower viral loads are strongly associated with less transmission. There's a lot of clickbait about people getting symptomatic disease passing it on while vaccinated, and the occasional suggestion of an asymptomatic case doing the same, but there's little to suggest that people who are fully vaccinated pass it on as easily. 

Equally, being unvaccinated is entirely someone's choice, a selfish one at that in many countries. If further variants occur, it will be it spreading wild through unvaccinated populations that will be the cause, as it has previously. The difference now is that as time goes on, that fraction of the population will be vulnerable by choice in many countries. Societies usually take offense at those within their ranks who make selfish choices that harm others. 

The latest data from the CDC is that vaccinated people who contract the Delta variant of COVID-19 may spread the virus just as easily as unvaccinated people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Archied said:

Once upon a time people who needed a safety blanket were happy just to carry their own , now they need everybody else to have one too to make them feel safe 🤷🏻‍♂️, selfish in my book would be me forcing others to live and do as I want them to  to make me feel safe 🤷🏻‍♂️, I’m 60 and neither expect or want anybody to make me feel safe , I will do that myself thanks ,

this whole virtue signalling scenario to cover up selfish personal fears is so so obvious 🤷🏻‍♂️

Once upon a time we eradicated smallpox. Infectious diseases don't need a 'safety blanket', they need not to spread. It's not about 'personal fears', and it's good for a whole society, notably including the vulnerable within it. 

There are those in society who simply cannot be protected by their own immune systems due to issues with said immune system. The idea of just leaving them to die because you want to not have a vaccine for ideological reasons is silly. 

Being part of a society means you do what you can to help that society, it always has. Quarantine measures, etc have been used since ancient times. Mass vaccination programs have also been many times in the past century. The issue now is that we have elements of our society happy and primed to accept propaganda from a few dodgy actors looking to make a name from themselves in the antivax space. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

The latest data from the CDC is that vaccinated people who contract the Delta variant of COVID-19 may spread the virus just as easily as unvaccinated people.

 

Note that it says that people who contract the delta variant may be as infectious. That is, they have found cases where people who are vaccinated have later tested positive, and had similar viral loads to people who are unvaccinated. What it isn't saying is that people who are vaccinating are always doing so, it also isn't saying that the vaccines aren't preventing people contracting it, which they definitely are, including with the delta variant. This prevention is, in turn, meaning that less people will catch it overall, even before considering impacts of the vaccine for reducing viral loads. This, of course, would mean mass vaccination reduces the risk of further variants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

Note that it says that people who contract the delta variant may be as infectious. That is, they have found cases where people who are vaccinated have later tested positive, and had similar viral loads to people who are unvaccinated. What it isn't saying is that people who are vaccinating are always doing so, it also isn't saying that the vaccines aren't preventing people contracting it, which they definitely are, including with the delta variant. This prevention is, in turn, meaning that less people will catch it overall, even before considering impacts of the vaccine for reducing viral loads. This, of course, would mean mass vaccination reduces the risk of further variants. 

I haven't looked at the data yet but there is another article here;

https://inews.co.uk/news/science/vaccinated-people-infected-delta-variant-contagious-unvaccinated-1128915

'The CDC should, therefore, “acknowledge the war has changed” while recommending universal mask use, said the document, which is in the form of a slide presentation.

This cites research, which is unpublished, pointing out that people who are fully vaccinated might spread the Delta variant at a rate similar to their unvaccinated counterparts.'

TBH I would be wary of focussing to much on individual words that media various outlets use without looking at the data.  Twitter, Facebook etc had been banning people for even mentioning this earlier in the week, they even fact checked the CDC tweet as false ffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I haven't looked at the data yet but there is another article here;

https://inews.co.uk/news/science/vaccinated-people-infected-delta-variant-contagious-unvaccinated-1128915

'The CDC should, therefore, “acknowledge the war has changed” while recommending universal mask use, said the document, which is in the form of a slide presentation.

This cites research, which is unpublished, pointing out that people who are fully vaccinated might spread the Delta variant at a rate similar to their unvaccinated counterparts.'

TBH I would be wary of focussing to much on individual words that media various outlets use without looking at the data.  Twitter, Facebook etc had been banning people for even mentioning this earlier in the week, they even fact checked the CDC tweet as false ffs.

I'm not focusing on single words, I'm focusing on the other research I have already read researching transmission of Covid-19. The vaccines do protect against infection, and we know this because they've done studies on vaccinated and unvaccinated people. For viral loads to be high enough to be infectious, they actually need to be detectable, ie they actually need to turn up as positive on a PCR test, etc. Those that aren't cannot possibly have the same viral loads as actual confirmed cases, etc. 

Do you have a source on twitter, facebook, etc, 'fact checking the CDC tweet as false'? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rammieib said:

Travel in and travel out for non Aussies?

Tickets booked to Edinburgh for Easter next year but I’ll be stunned if it happens before June-July. Got a great deal with Qatar so worth taking a punt. We’ve had our shots so we’re ready as soon as we are permitted.

 I would imagine borders will open at the same time as we can travel but you can guarantee it will be for vaccinated travellers only.

Edited by Stagtime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm not focusing on single words, I'm focusing on the other research I have already read researching transmission of Covid-19. The vaccines do protect against infection, and we know this because they've done studies on vaccinated and unvaccinated people. For viral loads to be high enough to be infectious, they actually need to be detectable, ie they actually need to turn up as positive on a PCR test, etc. Those that aren't cannot possibly have the same viral loads as actual confirmed cases, etc. 

Then we need to wait for the new data to be released.

 

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

Do you have a source on twitter, facebook, etc, 'fact checking the CDC tweet as false'? 

Not personally, I had to directly search for the CDC twitter link I posted.  I only found out about it and the censorship surroundsing it from the following video;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9Vmq9JyD3Y

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Then we need to wait for the new data to be released.

Or maybe we need to recognise that there's nothing in the post you've made that really challenges the current understanding of what the vaccine is doing, and it's more in the space of determining how infectious vaccinated cases are. Looking at that data when it's available will be interesting, but ultimately it doesn't change the main point, which is that vaccination will reduce transmission overall. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Not personally, I had to directly search for the CDC twitter link I posted.  I only found out about it and the censorship surroundsing it from the following video;

What you posted wasn't a CDC link or article. 

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

So a factchecked made a booboo? Oh no, shut everything down!

People make mistakes, it happens. Doesn't seem to be much sinister in the case they're discussing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Albert said:

Or maybe we need to recognise that there's nothing in the post you've made that really challenges the current understanding of what the vaccine is doing, and it's more in the space of determining how infectious vaccinated cases are. Looking at that data when it's available will be interesting, but ultimately it doesn't change the main point, which is that vaccination will reduce transmission overall. 

Although from one of the articles I linked it appears that the vaccinated might spread the delta variant at a similar rate to the unvaccinated;

'This cites research, which is unpublished, pointing out that people who are fully vaccinated might spread the Delta variant at a rate similar to their unvaccinated counterparts.'

As I said, we need to wait and review the data once it becomes available.  What is 'similar'? 80% as transmissible?  90%?  Its got to be far higher than 50% imho otherwise 'similar' would be the wrong word.  And if it is 80% or 90% as transmissible in the vaccinated, whilst technically it might 'reduce transmission overall' it won't be reducing it enough to make much of a difference. 

 

36 minutes ago, Albert said:

What you posted wasn't a CDC link or article. 

You see this is where is gets pedantic.  I might not have posted a direct CDC link or article, instead I provided a link that when clicked on provide a thread of information - that included the CDC and various US media outlets and relevant tweets.

 

36 minutes ago, Albert said:

So a factchecked made a booboo? Oh no, shut everything down!

People make mistakes, it happens. Doesn't seem to be much sinister in the case they're discussing. 

What gives twitter the right to fact check the CDC?  Then ban/suspend people for retweeting that information?  Will they now be reinstated?  We're only just finding out that the virus more than likely leaked from the Wuhan Lab, previously you faced the wrath of social media if you suggested it.  People have been warned/suspended for mentioning Ivermectin - which is now under going a study in the UK.  If you can't question it, its not science, its propaganda. 

Edited by maxjam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Although from one of the articles I linked it appears that the vaccinated might spread the delta variant at a similar rate to the unvaccinated;

'This cites research, which is unpublished, pointing out that people who are fully vaccinated might spread the Delta variant at a rate similar to their unvaccinated counterparts.'

As I said, we need to wait and review the data once it becomes available.  What is 'similar'? 80% as transmissible?  90%?  Its got to be far higher than 50% imho otherwise 'similar' would be the wrong word.  And if it is 80% or 90% as transmissible in the vaccinated, whilst technically it might 'reduce transmission overall' it won't be reducing it enough to make much of a difference. 

What you seem to keep missing is that the suggestion here is that it's people who have actually caught Covid-19, not just people in general. The disease cannot be spread by people who have not caught it, and the vaccines do prevent people from catching it.

Given we already know that the research is about viral loads, they're using the same kind of techniques as PCR tests use, which means that it cannot be referring to people who do not have detectable infections, as these people by definition do not have viral loads that are detectable, let alone as large as unvaccinated people. 

So the key point there is that regardless of what this would end up showing, if it actually turns out to be the case, it doesn't change that vaccination does indeed greatly reduce transmission. 

6 minutes ago, maxjam said:

You see this is where is gets pedantic.  I might not have posted a direct CDC link or article, instead I provided a link that when clicked on provide a thread of information - that included the CDC and various US media outlets and relevant tweets.

That isn't being pedantic, it's kind of the whole point. Your were trying to imply that CDC content was being downplayed, but you weren't actually posting CDC content. 

6 minutes ago, maxjam said:

What gives twitter the right to fact check the CDC?  Then ban/suspend people for retweeting that information?  Will they now be reinstated?  We're only just finding out that the virus more than likely leaked from the Wuhan Lab, previously you faced the wrath of social media if you suggested it.  People have been warned/suspended for mentioning Ivermectin - which is now under going a study in the UK.  If you can't question it, its not science, it propaganda. 

Twitter is a private business, they can censor whatever they want, it's kind of the deal with private platforms. In many ways, they're actually legally mandated to by many governments because of the way that laws around what does and does not constitute publishing has changed in the last few years around the World. 

They're basically wading through a storm of random claims from all sides, and they're trying to get on top of that. Legitimate stuff will occasionally be caught in that, but it doesn't mean that it's the intention of the action. 

As to your specific examples, at this point, no, it is not 'more than likely' that it leaked from a Wuhan lab. It's an idea that is being investigated, but the prevailing hypothesis for it's origins remains that it is a zoonosis. 

As to Ivermectin, the issue is around telling people that they should take the stuff, not just discussing whether there is merit in actually researching it. To my understanding, the paper that kicked off a lot of the controversy got pulled due to ethics issues, and there are more general doubts about the methodology, etc. It'll be interesting to see if other researchers can replicate the original claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Albert said:

What you seem to keep missing is that the suggestion here is that it's people who have actually caught Covid-19, not just people in general. The disease cannot be spread by people who have not caught it, and the vaccines do prevent people from catching it.

Given we already know that the research is about viral loads, they're using the same kind of techniques as PCR tests use, which means that it cannot be referring to people who do not have detectable infections, as these people by definition do not have viral loads that are detectable, let alone as large as unvaccinated people. 

So the key point there is that regardless of what this would end up showing, if it actually turns out to be the case, it doesn't change that vaccination does indeed greatly reduce transmission. 

And not everyone that hasn't had the vaccine gets covid.  If the CDC are recommending we all start wearing masks again because the vaccinated can spread it at similar rates to the unvaccinated I'd rather wait to read their conclusions than go back and forth on here with you 👍

 

6 minutes ago, Albert said:

That isn't being pedantic, it's kind of the whole point. Your were trying to imply that CDC content was being downplayed, but you weren't actually posting CDC content. 

It is being pedantic.  I didn't even imply the CDC content was being downplayed when I posted the link - which was posted for information purposes only.  I only said the CDC link had been fact checked as false in a later post, then provided evidence when asked in a further post.

 

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

Twitter is a private business...

I'm not going here on this forum, its off topic and will probably get the whole post removed anyway.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, maxjam said:

And not everyone that hasn't had the vaccine gets covid.  If the CDC are recommending we all start wearing masks again because the vaccinated can spread it at similar rates to the unvaccinated I'd rather wait to read their conclusions than go back and forth on here with you 👍

...umm... mate. Surely you're on the windup here, as this argument you're trying to push just doesn't hold water. 

As noted, vaccines do prevent infection, as has already been shown. Whether vaccinated people infect others at similar rates is the question here. 

10 minutes ago, maxjam said:

It is being pedantic.  I didn't even imply the CDC content was being downplayed when I posted the link - which was posted for information purposes only.  I only said the CDC link had been fact checked as false in a later post, then provided evidence when asked in a further post.

Mate, don't play dumb, you know exactly what you were doing, and it's there for all to see. 

10 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'm not going here on this forum, its off topic and will probably get the whole post removed anyway.  

Are you trying to argue that private businesses aren't allowed to make decisions about content they host? 

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.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.