Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (51 Viewers)

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
20,915
I don't know what the formulation is but if it means every single person needs to be taking shots every 6 months or year for some undetermined period of time, and proving it with a passport in order to be part of society then don't you think that's fuckin sick?
It sure is but what’s even sicker is a healthcare system that has to choose who lives and who dies. Again if the solution is to recreate what happened in Italy and New York in March and April 2020 then I don’t consider it much of a solution.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Quetzalcoatl

It ain't hard to tell
Aug 22, 2007
66,797
It sure is but what’s even sicker is a healthcare system that has to choose who lives and who dies. Again if the solution is to recreate what happened in Italy and New York in March and April 2020 then I don’t consider it much of a solution.
Why would that happen if the people who want to take their biannual boosters do so? Those who don't will die off quickly enough.

In a country like mine with public health I say a fair compromise is, if you don't take the vaccine you don't have access to treatment for Covid. The choice is yours and the health system will not be overburdened.
 

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
20,915
Why would that happen if the people who want to take their biannual boosters do so? Those who don't will die off quickly enough.

In a country like mine with public health I say a fair compromise is, if you don't take the vaccine you don't have access to treatment for Covid. The choice is yours and the health system will not be overburdened.
I don’t think it’s legal in the US to make such a rule, and it never will be. Also, unvaccinated people will always create a breeding ground for new variants.
Vaccinating 7 billion people in a span of 6 months or a year is impossible so eliminating this through vaccination only is a pipe dream. We just have to keep hospitals afloat and stay hopeful.
 

AFL_ITALIA

MAGISTERIAL
Jun 17, 2011
31,827
Exactly, if mutations can keep evading vaccinations it would be good to know whether natural immunity has a better chance of resisting them. You know, some people (call them crazy) may not want to be dependent on booster shots for perpetuity.

Also, perhaps we would achieve herd immunity quicker (maybe we would have already in some places by now) if more people did build their own immunity through natural infection rather than vaccination.

So yeah, it would be good to know. But for some reason no one is really talking about that. Or my understanding is just lacking, which is quite likely as well.
It does not as of now.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

Additionally, it seems how sick you get may also determine how immune you are.
https://scitechdaily.com/big-differ...resulting-from-mild-vs-severe-covid-19-cases/
 

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
It sure is but what’s even sicker is a healthcare system that has to choose who lives and who dies. Again if the solution is to recreate what happened in Italy and New York in March and April 2020 then I don’t consider it much of a solution.
Or Peru. 0.6% of the entire country has already died of Covid. Look at unvaccinated Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana right now. ICU’s are at full capacity and hospitalizations still soaring, and it’s almost exclusively unvaccinated folk. Florida too.

Honestly, it would be good to know the protection given from antibodies after getting sick with it. Seems obvious only those with symptomatic Covid, of a more serious sort would develop useful antibodies, and given the fact the unvaccinated are getting so sick with Delta right now, and the estimated percentage of population that is supposed to have already had Covid, a lot of people who had asymptomatic Covid earlier are likely in the group who have gotten delta and gotten very sick from delta.

I think that as long as the vaccines give protection against serious illness, reducing Covid from that 0.3-0.6 IFR to a 0.05 or lower IFR, aside from at risk elderly and immunocompromised, boosters aren’t really necessary. If a mutation happens that manages to make it deadlier again, that could change things, but the likeliest mutations are those that make it more transmissible, so hopefully it stays that way.
 

Buck Fuddy

Lara Chedraoui fanboy
May 22, 2009
10,893
"The lambda variant is alarming experts who fear, more generally, a return to lockdown era COVID-19 conditions"

...

"The takeaway here is not that vaccines are somehow ineffective — indeed, if you get COVID-19, you are almost certainly likely to become less sick if you are vaccinated — but rather that lambda's very existence is a red flag."

What are they really saying though? If the vaccines are still protecting against sickness, why would there be "a return to lockdown era COVID-19 conditions"?
Maybe because the group of vaccinated people isn't big enough?


I think that as long as the vaccines give protection against serious illness, reducing Covid from that 0.3-0.6 IFR to a 0.05 or lower IFR, aside from at risk elderly and immunocompromised, boosters aren’t really necessary. If a mutation happens that manages to make it deadlier again, that could change things, but the likeliest mutations are those that make it more transmissible, so hopefully it stays that way.
That exact decision has been taken over here. Booster shots for the at risk population. About 4% of our population, I think.


Meanwhile, hospitalizations are slowly, but surely, rising again over here.
Brilliant quote from a doctor yesterday: "All our ICU patients are antivaxxers."
 

Siamak

╭∩╮( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)╭∩╮
Aug 13, 2013
18,548
Last edited:

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
75,013

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
Lambda gonna crush everyone who already got Delta. Hehehe. :snoop:
I don't follow that logic at all. Yes, it's more transmissible but not more dangerous. If people are already vaccinated, all that should do is get some vaccinated people infected with mild symptoms and the usual ravaging of the unvaccinated. I don't see how that's shockingly different than anything we're already experiencing.

How many booster shots people gonna take before they eventually think it's getting a bit ridiculous and stop getting them?
If a variant evades vaccines for infection is one thing. If it's evade vaccines for symptoms, that's another issue. I've heard the former and not the latter.

Hence this booster shot idea makes little sense to me. The main goal isn't to prevent people from being infected if the symptoms have been manageable.

So what do you do if you're worried about Delta infecting more people, even if the symptoms of the vaccinated are manageable? Order more vaccines! More of something that we acknowledge doesn't address the stated problem.

Basically: we know camomile tea offers weak protection against Delta infection. So we're going to demand people drink more of it because they're worried about infection.

What insane logic is that?
 

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
I don't follow that logic at all. Yes, it's more transmissible but not more dangerous. If people are already vaccinated, all that should do is get some vaccinated people infected with mild symptoms and the usual ravaging of the unvaccinated. I don't see how that's shockingly different than anything we're already experiencing.



If a variant evades vaccines for infection is one thing. If it's evade vaccines for symptoms, that's another issue. I've heard the former and not the latter.

Hence this booster shot idea makes little sense to me. The main goal isn't to prevent people from being infected if the symptoms have been manageable.

So what do you do if you're worried about Delta infecting more people, even if the symptoms of the vaccinated are manageable? Order more vaccines! More of something that we acknowledge doesn't address the stated problem.

Basically: we know camomile tea offers weak protection against Delta infection. So we're going to demand people drink more of it because they're worried about infection.

What insane logic is that?
I was just teasing :p
 

Ronn

Senior Member
May 3, 2012
20,915
Except I'm not. I just can't understand how a supposedly science-aware culture decides that vaccines are the answer to every problem and the only answer available.

"Vaccines not working for infection? Sure, just take more vaccines!!!" It's beyond idiotic.
What's the solution?
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
84,795
What's the solution?
A multi-pronged strategy. Not putting all your eggs into one basket. Just like how the many layers of your immune system work.

Vaccines are working for symptoms. Great.

Worried about infection? Masks, social distancing, etc. still have their place.

But if the symptoms are covered, asymptomatic infection isn't so horrible as long as you avoid spreading it to the unvaccinated. Exposing other vaccinated people isn't so great either given mutation possibilities, but you gotta live.

Or if you're so worried about infection even with milder symptoms (a bit silly given we don't do this for the flu), maybe take the harder route and consider developing a vaccine that's primarily tested against infection rather than symptoms.

And instead of putting all measures in prevention, how about expanding efforts for detection, tracing and treatment? Make PCR tests or their equivalent faster, cheaper, and more reliable. Covers the unvaccinated but also the asymptomatic vaccinated, unlike vaccine passports.

Invest in better tracing options so the infected can be made aware privately.

And develop interventions so that those that are infected and start showing symptoms have reliable therapies to ensure they are back to healthy quickly.

We're basically betting the house on 29 black and constantly spinning the wheel. One slice of Swiss cheese is not enough.
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
75,666
Except I'm not. I just can't understand how a supposedly science-aware culture decides that vaccines are the answer to every problem and the only answer available.

"Vaccines not working for infection? Sure, just take more vaccines!!!" It's beyond idiotic.
Yep. The definition of insanity.
 

Quetzalcoatl

It ain't hard to tell
Aug 22, 2007
66,797
I don’t think it’s legal in the US to make such a rule, and it never will be. Also, unvaccinated people will always create a breeding ground for new variants.
Vaccinating 7 billion people in a span of 6 months or a year is impossible so eliminating this through vaccination only is a pipe dream. We just have to keep hospitals afloat and stay hopeful.
If variants evolve to evade vaccines, I would imagine that would happen among vaccinated groups but that's my uneducated guess.

Then we can only hope that variants don't learn to evade vaccines in terms of serious sickness, I guess?

Maybe because the group of vaccinated people isn't big enough?
Ah, I get it I think. They mean that they fear the lambda variant could cause a bunch of reinfections in the formerly infected unvaccinated group?
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 38)