Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered? (5 Viewers)

[kcirdor]

Just my 2 cents on the mindset of taking the vaccine or not, but during the previous administration’s tenure it was all about Law and Order, follow the rules or pay the consequences if you don’t. And with this administration it’s fork the government, who are they to tell me what to do with my body.

During the previous administration, the current administration was against the vaccine and mandates because Trump. It's all political theatre.

 

[jahsoul357]

I've read what you've said in every post. I've understood the implications of what you've said as well, which is apparently more than you have.

As is the case here. Your claim is that the report on effectiveness on transmission (on page 12, which is very much part of pages 5 to 14) where it states,

As described above, several studies have provided evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing infection. Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines are also effective at preventing transmission. There may be additional benefit, beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding).​

​

only 'sounds great' until you 'get to page 32'.

This entire conversation has been around the fact that the vaccine does not stop the spread. You presented this statement and the document. Reread my second reply to this. I clearly state that this statement hangs on the notion that the vaccine is effective at preventing infection. If a person is not infected, then a person can't spread it right? My medical peeps can jump in again, but if I'm reading this right. This is saying that vaccines are effective at preventing infection and due to that people are uninfected, they can't spread the virus. If the vaccinated does get COVID, which we are always told is rare, then the risk is reduced based on what the vaccine actually does (speed up the decline of viral load). But we have now learned that while the vaccinated viral load drops faster, the peak load is the same. You are just as contagious. So with that being the case, let's go to your next statements

Except, as shown, page 32, clearly states, in bold, that 'These raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness', which would include effectiveness against transmission since, as described on page 12, effectiveness against infection is part of effectiveness against transmission. Additionally, as stated in the post you just replied to, the footnote to the table on page 39 is explicit about the rates shown not being applicable to vaccine effectiveness estimates, and that these have been summarised on pages 5 to 14. Again, page 12 is a page in the ranges 5 to 14. Because 12 is more than 5 and less than 14.

In other words, the report is literally and repeatedly explicit on 'page 32' and the tables you've copied and pasted having no bearing whatsoever on the formal estimates on vaccine effectiveness, including the effectiveness on transmission, on page 12.

So it doesn't 'sound great until you get to page 32'.

It just sounds great. Because it is pretty great. Because it shows that vaccination helps reduce other people's risk of exposure as well as helping protect those vaccinated.

The interpretation of data states:

These data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19

While you are going on about efficacy, the document is telling you that as more people get vaccinated, we will see more cases. But the raw data is also telling us that the vaccinated are catching it at a much higher rate than the unvaccinated. It also shows that the vaccine is protecting the individual better from hospitalization, as the rates are higher among the unvaccinated vs the vaccinated and thus overall death, which backs up my statement that triggered this. So read that document and find which statement I am saying is false. Something else that you are failing to realize is the effectiveness associated with Infections is listed with "Medium Confidence," which states:

Evidence is emerging from a limited number of studies or with a moderately level of uncertainty

So take that coupled with the raw data and get what you want out of it.

During the previous administration, the current administration was against the vaccine and mandates because Trump. It's all political theatre.

For all the people that forgot how 2020 went.

 

[Arathrael]

This entire conversation has been around the fact that the vaccine does not stop the spread. You presented this statement and the document. Reread my second reply to this. I clearly state that this statement hangs on the notion that the vaccine is effective at preventing infection. If a person is not infected, then a person can't spread it right? My medical peeps can jump in again, but if I'm reading this right. This is saying that vaccines are effective at preventing infection and due to that people are uninfected, they can't spread the virus. If the vaccinated does get COVID, which we are always told is rare, then the risk is reduced based on what the vaccine actually does (speed up the decline of viral load). But we have now learned that while the vaccinated viral load drops faster, the peak load is the same. You are just as contagious. So with that being the case, let's go to your next statements



The interpretation of data states:

While you are going on about efficacy, the document is telling you that as more people get vaccinated, we will see more cases. But the raw data is also telling us that the vaccinated are catching it at a much higher rate than the unvaccinated. It also shows that the vaccine is protecting the individual better from hospitalization, as the rates are higher among the unvaccinated vs the vaccinated and thus overall death, which backs up my statement that triggered this. So read that document and find which statement I am saying is false. Something else that you are failing to realize is the effectiveness associated with Infections is listed with "Medium Confidence," which states:



So take that coupled with the raw data and get what you want out of it.

So you're largely ignoring the post you're replying to, misinterpreting the raw data, again, despite it explicitly saying this should not be done and describing exactly why the data can't be interpreted in that way, and failing to comprehend the very simple notion that a shorter duration of infectiousness will overall result in fewer infections, all while continually ignoring the fundamental fact that it's been plainly shown, with evidence, that vaccination is effective against transmission.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here with that approach, but unless it's "wasting people's time" I would suggest that it's not happening.

 

[kcirdor]

easy to understand Arathrael explanation of data.

with vaccine

without any immuninization

should you get the vaccine. Most likely, yes.

if you've recovered from covid already? yes and no. pending antibodies levels.

either way it's up to you.

 

[jahsoul357]

So you're largely ignoring the post you're replying to, misinterpreting the raw data, again, despite it explicitly saying this should not be done and describing exactly why the data can't be interpreted in that way, and failing to comprehend the very simple notion that a shorter duration of infectiousness will overall result in fewer infections, all while continually ignoring the fundamental fact that it's been plainly shown, with evidence, that vaccination is effective against transmission.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here with that approach, but unless it's "wasting people's time" I would suggest that it's not happening.

Tell me in what way I am misrepresenting data? And make sure you do it with data from the report.
The only thing that you are leaning on is the footnote talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine. The same pages referred stated that effectiveness for infections were listed with "Medium Confidence" and I gave the definition from the document.

So I will wait for you to explain to me what the raw numbers are telling us, so no more time can be wasted.

 

[bigdaddysaints]

If majority of the population are either asymptomatic or show mild symptoms (as they would with the vaccine), the benefit is null. Data has always shown that the severity of the symptoms are discriminate on factors that we spoke of earlier. Those that fall into that category are the ones who will benefit from the vaccine (well, most of them ). And if you read my post, those would be the targeted groups. And no one is turning anything around on the vaccinated; all I said was you can't really take a moral high ground saying you are getting vaccinated to protect others when the benefit is truly a personal one. And I think you knew what I was saying too. You couldn't possibly get what I said as me turning anything on the vaccinated.


If that's what you got from my post, you either lack reading comprehension (which I doubt) or (more probable) your bias towards this topic won't allow you to read any post that doesn't agree with yours objectively. "Fat kids," as you call them, would fall under the groups considered vulnerable.

Is it your opinion (or maybe you are saying it as fact) that the Covid-19 Vaccines that the people have taken has zero effect on non vaccinated? So you have proof that since we have been getting vaccinations, the spread factor has not changed at all? zero? It has not quelled the spread the least bit?

 

[Eeyore]

During the previous administration, the current administration was against the vaccine and mandates because Trump. It's all political theatre.

Is there a link to Joe Biden and company stating that they are against the vaccine?

 

[itztime]

Is there a link to Joe Biden and company stating that they are against the vaccine?

Without it turning political I know of one during the VP debates that she states if the previous administration says to get the vaccination she won’t…have to google it or a big ol‘ YouTube political video, will be here.

 

[kcirdor]

Is there a link to Joe Biden and company stating that they are against the vaccine?

They warned against rushing out the vaccine. They didn't trust Trump to deliver a safe vaccine. Trump doesn't deliver vaccines. They generated skepticism last year for vaccination, but now it's cool. They are in control and it's mandate time.


Trump is exactly the final straw on why no one trusts media anymore. the only reason that moron became president is because the media made a sheet load of money off of covering his buffoonery. John Kasich should have been the republican nomination.

PS; before anyone tries to label me. Bush, Bush, obama, obama, clinton, Biden. My voting record. I'll remain registered Independent for life.

 

[Saint_Ward]

The thing is, in the PDF that was linked shows that majority of the cases are among the vaccinated. I know the percentage of population vaccinated plays a factor in the numbers but those high numbers are still in place.


That being said, those who regularly take their kids to the pediatrician would have an idea of any issues that could possibly be in place. Also, just as adults, those who are overweight have a higher propensity for those issues. It wouldn't be impossible and the fact is, the ones that are solely against vaccines or taking their kids to the doctor wouldn't be interested in vaccinating the kids anyway.

You speak of collateral damage but how do you view the 18 and under group that will have adverse effects (and already have) based on widespread vaccination of children?

You mean the pdf I quoted just a few posts earlier to explain it. The one you ignored in this reply?

You're gaslighting me now.

 

[Eeyore]

They warned against rushing out the vaccine. They didn't trust Trump to deliver a safe vaccine. Trump doesn't deliver vaccines. They generated skepticism last year for vaccination, but now it's cool. They are in control and it's mandate time.


Trump is exactly the final straw on why no one trusts media anymore. the only reason that moron became president is because the media made a sheet load of money off of covering his buffoonery.

PS; before anyone tries to label me. Bush, Bush, obama, obama, clinton, Biden. My voting record. I'll remain registered Independent for life.

Found "it?"

Biden, Harris distrusted Trump, not COVID-19 vaccines

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have been pushing Americans to get inoculated against COVID-19. But

www.politifact.com

 

[kcirdor]

You mean the pdf I quoted just a few posts earlier to explain it. The one you ignored in this reply?

You're gaslighting me now.

And you are gaslighting me as well..

 

[Saint_Ward]

@Saint_Ward? Pretty much every study I've looked at leans towards it does promote more virulent stands. I was hoping you'd shoot this down too?

Been busy.

 

[Saint_Ward]

And you are gaslighting me as well..

? Do you know what gaslighting means?

 

[kcirdor]

? Do you know what gaslighting means?

yea, you are pissing me off on purpose. but obviously you replied to say you were busy in b/w comments. so no problem.