Some good news....

[jaeger19]

Great foe the US what about India or Africa

The same applies. Thats why it is important that the US and Europe see vaccination around the world as a priority.

 

[yankintx]

I am going to say that a lot of people are not getting tested and positive cases are not being reported.

I know 3 people who tested positive without having it reported

I suspect another spike in the winter, but let's use common sense, and learn from our previous actions.

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

I'm seeing that over the last 2 months more people are getting Covid than I've seen in over the last year.
But for sure the Media is not Fearmongering us with the data, as they have been in the past.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm seeing that over the last 2 months more people are getting Covid than I've seen in over the last year.
But for sure the Media is not Fearmongering us with the data, as they have been in the past.

Because hospitals are not being overrun with covid patients and having to go to crisis levels of care.

 

[jonny5]

He could have stopped it. Because he politicized the issue etc.. pretty much covid will be around causing problems forever.

IF he followed the CDC and medical experts advice etc... Vaccination rates in the US would not be 70% they would be much higher.
and if we had followed using masks, social distancing etc.. with high levels of vaccination. The virus would have had very few places to go. There would be less variants and less spread and the virus would likely over time die out.

I fear that now..we have reached a level in which we will have to continue to deal with spikes of covid and new variants because the US will always have a contingent of unvaccinated that will act as a petri dish.

Except the vaccine doesnt stop transmission of the virus.

 

[jaeger19]

Except the vaccine doesnt stop transmission of the virus.

Yes it does.

 

[jonny5]

Yes it does.

No it doesnt. Studies show 50% effectiveness at best.

 

[jaeger19]

No it doesnt. Studies show 50% effectiveness at best.

Bingo..that means it STOPS half of infections.
On top of that. It reduces the length of infection.. which reduces the amount of time that a person is infectious.. thus reducing the number of infections.
And in addition it reduces the symptoms of the infection.. less coughing, sneezing etc...which means less infected material being spewed out, which again reduces the number of people infected.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Bingo..that means it STOPS half of infections.
On top of that. It reduces the length of infection.. which reduces the amount of time that a person is infectious.. thus reducing the number of infections.
And in addition it reduces the symptoms of the infection.. less coughing, sneezing etc...which means less infected material being spewed out, which again reduces the number of people infected.

It also dramatically reduces the chances of having to be hospitalized, where you can spread it to far more people than you would if you just stayed home.

And that 50% factor is affected by the fact that a huge portion of unvaccinated people have already had covid. They are counted as vaccinated for purposes of the comparison, but are effectively vaccinated for purposes of counting risk. If you compared vaccinated people who never had covid with unvaccinated people who never had covid, I imagine that the difference would be a lot more dramatic.

 

[jonny5]

Bingo..that means it STOPS half of infections.
On top of that. It reduces the length of infection.. which reduces the amount of time that a person is infectious.. thus reducing the number of infections.
And in addition it reduces the symptoms of the infection.. less coughing, sneezing etc...which means less infected material being spewed out, which again reduces the number of people infected.

No, it means it DOESNT stop 50% of infections. If you vaccinated everyone, as you suggested, the virus would have plenty of places to do, as you suggested it wouldnt.

 

[jonny5]

It also dramatically reduces the chances of having to be hospitalized, where you can spread it to far more people than you would if you just stayed home.

And that 50% factor is affected by the fact that a huge portion of unvaccinated people have already had covid. They are counted as vaccinated for purposes of the comparison, but are effectively vaccinated for purposes of counting risk. If you compared vaccinated people who never had covid with unvaccinated people who never had covid, I imagine that the difference would be a lot more dramatic.

A huge number of people had covid before there ever was a vaccine. The vaccine did not and was never going to stop the spread.

 

[jaeger19]

No, it means it DOESNT stop 50% of infections. If you vaccinated everyone, as you suggested, the virus would have plenty of places to do, as you suggested it wouldnt.

Actually it does
In a laymans explanation.

The virus doesn;t just need 'plenty of places to do". The virus needs opportunity to infect.

Studies show that when people who were infectious went home to family. Who they were quarantined with. No vaccinations, no masking, no social distancing. Living in close quarters with and infectious person. Basically the worst case scenario for spreading respiratory infection. The rate of transmission was only 27%. That means in the worst case.. the virus only had about a 27%chance of infecting another person in the household.

So your chance of getting infection from someone at the grocery store? Pretty dang low.
Thats without ANY intervention.

So.. when you add in EVERYONE (including school age children ) vaccination. The likelihood of getting infected drops considerable
Add in rigorous testing.. so people that are infectious have to quarantine,
Add in masking?
Add in social distancing.
Add in immunity from prior infection

The opportunity to infect people drops to a point that over time..the virus has simply no opportunity to propogate enough to stay viable.

Take a look at the flu during the pandemdic. Everyone asked.. "where is the flu"... Flu numbers were dramatically low. And why? The flu vaccines are about as effective as the covid vaccines if not a little less.
But we had social distancing, masking, and a higher than normal level of vaccination that year.

Yes.. if we got everyone vaccinated and were willing for a period of time to mask, social distance, and test? We could get rid of covid.

The chances are less now because the variants are more infectious.. but even now... it could be possible. But covid has become a political issue..and therefore getting compliance is not likely.

 

[jaeger19]

A huge number of people had covid before there ever was a vaccine. The vaccine did not and was never going to stop the spread.

See above

 

[Noodlegawd]

A huge number of people had covid before there ever was a vaccine. The vaccine did not and was never going to stop the spread.

Red herring. Stopping the spread and reducing it are two totally different things.

 

[jonny5]

Actually it does
In a laymans explanation.

The virus doesn;t just need 'plenty of places to do". The virus needs opportunity to infect.

Studies show that when people who were infectious went home to family. Who they were quarantined with. No vaccinations, no masking, no social distancing. Living in close quarters with and infectious person. Basically the worst case scenario for spreading respiratory infection. The rate of transmission was only 27%. That means in the worst case.. the virus only had about a 27%chance of infecting another person in the household.

So your chance of getting infection from someone at the grocery store? Pretty dang low.
Thats without ANY intervention.

So.. when you add in EVERYONE (including school age children ) vaccination. The likelihood of getting infected drops considerable
Add in rigorous testing.. so people that are infectious have to quarantine,
Add in masking?
Add in social distancing.
Add in immunity from prior infection

The opportunity to infect people drops to a point that over time..the virus has simply no opportunity to propogate enough to stay viable.

Take a look at the flu during the pandemdic. Everyone asked.. "where is the flu"... Flu numbers were dramatically low. And why? The flu vaccines are about as effective as the covid vaccines if not a little less.
But we had social distancing, masking, and a higher than normal level of vaccination that year.

Yes.. if we got everyone vaccinated and were willing for a period of time to mask, social distance, and test? We could get rid of covid.

The chances are less now because the variants are more infectious.. but even now... it could be possible. But covid has become a political issue..and therefore getting compliance is not likely.

You said it would have no where to go. Thats wrong. And thats what I rebutted. The vaccine does not stop infection from spreading.

 

[jonny5]

Red herring. Stopping the spread and reducing it are two totally different things.

And what I said was it doesnt stop infection. We know thats true. No need to read 1000 words for 'layman'.

 

[mrjurrs]

The recent spike in new cases appears to have peaked, and the daily death rate never really stopped falling.


View attachment 67394900




View attachment 67394896

End of June #'s
Cases 7 day average-112,658
Deaths 7 day Average- 382

You may be done with Covid, but Covid is not done with us. An annualized death rate of about 20k, is like adding a second flu death total each year. Please note, the worse time for deaths and cases has been the winter months (and we're not counting them in annualized figures).

 

[Noodlegawd]

End of June #'s
Cases 7 day average-112,658
Deaths 7 day Average- 382

You may be done with Covid, but Covid is not done with us. An annualized death rate of about 20k, is like adding a second flu death total each year. Please note, the worse time for deaths and cases has been the winter months (and we're not counting them in annualized figures).

That's not an annualized death rate of 20k. It's close to 140k. 382 is the 7-day moving average of daily deaths, not the weekly deaths.

I never said anything about being "done with Covid" or it being done with us, so you can keep your strawman.

 

[mrjurrs]

That's not an annualized death rate of 20k. It's close to 140k. 382 is the 7-day moving average of daily deaths, not the weekly deaths.

I never said anything about being "done with Covid" or it being done with us, so you can keep your strawman.

You're correct, thanks for the catch. Little sensitive today?

 

[Noodlegawd]

You're correct, thanks for the catch. Little sensitive today?

Not sensitive. Argumentative. That's why I come here, to be argumentative.

 

[jaeger19]

You said it would have no where to go. Thats wrong. And thats what I rebutted. The vaccine does not stop infection from spreading.

Yes I did. and I am correct. The virus would have nowhere to go because it could not access enough people to keep the virus "alive".
The vaccine does help stop the infection from spreading.

 

[jonny5]

Yes I did. and I am correct. The virus would have nowhere to go because it could not access enough people to keep the virus "alive".
The vaccine does help stop the infection from spreading.

Sure it would because the vaccine is not effective at stopping the spread. In 100 vaccinated people, at least 50 would get it. Its really no better than just getting the virus in terms of infection.

 

[jaeger19]

Sure it would because the vaccine is not effective at stopping the spread. In 100 vaccinated people, at least 50 would get it. Its really no better than just getting the virus in terms of infection.

Dude.. you don;t seem to want to get it. IF the vaccine was did not stop the spread. In 100 vaccinated people.. ALL 100 people would get it.
But thats not what happens. AS you point out.. the vaccine would stop 50 people from getting it. Thus the vaccine DOES stop transmission.

So lets use that.

In 100 people.. if none are vaccinated.. you might expect 27 of those people to get covid ( What studies seem to say the liklihood of transmission is in people that live in the same household).

In 100 people that are all vaccinated.. you would expect HALF the number of people who get infected to not get infected.. so now you are down to roughly 13 people who will get infected.

Thats a pretty significant difference. And if you factor in social distancing, and masks and testing with quarantine? You could stop the virus.

 

[jonny5]

Dude.. you don;t seem to want to get it. IF the vaccine was did not stop the spread. In 100 vaccinated people.. ALL 100 people would get it.
But thats not what happens. AS you point out.. the vaccine would stop 50 people from getting it. Thus the vaccine DOES stop transmission.

So lets use that.

In 100 people.. if none are vaccinated.. you might expect 27 of those people to get covid ( What studies seem to say the liklihood of transmission is in people that live in the same household).

In 100 people that are all vaccinated.. you would expect HALF the number of people who get infected to not get infected.. so now you are down to roughly 13 people who will get infected.

Thats a pretty significant difference. And if you factor in social distancing, and masks and testing with quarantine? You could stop the virus.

No, because 100 vaccinated people still get it as well, just 50 of them fight it off well enough so they never manifest symptoms. They may even still be running around transmitting it.

Basically the same as natural immunity. Social distancing doesnt work, masks dont work, quaruntine didnt work either since it was widespread already.

 

[jaeger19]

No, because 100 vaccinated people still get it as well, just 50 of them fight it off well enough so they never manifest symptoms. They may even still be running around transmitting it.

Basically the same as natural immunity. Social distancing doesnt work, masks dont work, quaruntine didnt work either since it was widespread already.

No. 50% don't get infected. With original covid it was even higher. Efficacy was near 90% for preventing infection with Pfizer.

And if they do get it..their chances of having prolonged symptoms and more sever symptoms which lead to more potential spread ho dramatically down.