Coronavirus Outbreak

[Ken]

Public Health Scotland will no longer release data on vaccinated vs unvaccinated infections/deaths. The stated reason is that "this data is being used to promote vaccine misinformation".

Hmm.

There is plenty of data out there from hundreds of different jurisdictions, states, and nations. See if you can find any data from anywhere in the world that shows a higher death rate or hospitalization rate for fully vaccinated compared to unvaccinated based on a apples to apples comparison (same age groups, time period, etc.)

Just wait, As the vaccine gets increasingly ineffective the hospitalization rates will equalize as we are seeing with infection rates. Nearly half of the cases in Oregon are breakthrough cases.
Also to date, the natural immunity provides a more robust defense and I fully expect (assuming they publish the data) to swing for more cases on vaccinated side due to unvaccinated generally living their life and having already got it.

The data from Oregon don't support that conclusion at all. Here is the latest OR Health Department report on breakthrough infections dated yesterday: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/covid19/Docu ... Report.pdf

The relevant data table is here. And this is for a state with an adult vaccination rate over 80%.

[Soloist]

There is plenty of data out there from hundreds of different jurisdictions, states, and nations. See if you can find any data from anywhere in the world that shows a higher death rate or hospitalization rate for fully vaccinated compared to unvaccinated based on a apples to apples comparison (same age groups, time period, etc.)

Just wait, As the vaccine gets increasingly ineffective the hospitalization rates will equalize as we are seeing with infection rates. Nearly half of the cases in Oregon are breakthrough cases.
Also to date, the natural immunity provides a more robust defense and I fully expect (assuming they publish the data) to swing for more cases on vaccinated side due to unvaccinated generally living their life and having already got it.

The data from Oregon don't support that conclusion at all. Here is the latest OR Health Department report on breakthrough infections dated yesterday: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/covid19/Docu ... Report.pdf

The relevant data table is here. And this is for a state with an adult vaccination rate over 80%.

Lets see... 34,039+119,645=153.684
153,684+231,605=385,289
385,289 X 0.5 = 192,644.5.
153,684 compared to 192,644.5. Is it half? not quite. Is it nearly? I'd say so. My math checks out. I seem to recall some predictions stated along this path and people posted all kinds of data saying that breakthrough infections were quite rare. Sorry Ken, data isn't on your side today.

[Dan Z]

Just wait, As the vaccine gets increasingly ineffective the hospitalization rates will equalize as we are seeing with infection rates. Nearly half of the cases in Oregon are breakthrough cases.
Also to date, the natural immunity provides a more robust defense and I fully expect (assuming they publish the data) to swing for more cases on vaccinated side due to unvaccinated generally living their life and having already got it.

The data from Oregon don't support that conclusion at all. Here is the latest OR Health Department report on breakthrough infections dated yesterday: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/covid19/Docu ... Report.pdf

The relevant data table is here. And this is for a state with an adult vaccination rate over 80%.

Lets see... 34,039+119,645=153.684
153,684+231,605=385,289
385,289 X 0.5 = 192,644.5.
153,684 compared to 192,644.5. Is it half? not quite. Is it nearly? I'd say so. My math checks out. I seem to recall some predictions stated along this path and people posted all kinds of data saying that breakthrough infections were quite rare. Sorry Ken, data isn't on your side today.

Putting percentages on this, and combining vaccinated status - in Oregon, almost 60% of the cases presently are coming from the unvaccinated (76% of the hospitalizations, and 79% of the deaths).

What has to be considered though is that 70% of Oregonians are fully vaccinated, therefore those 60% of cases (and 79% of deaths) come from just 30% of the population - Double what you would expect if breakthrough cases equaled unvaccinated cases.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between you two.

[Ken]

Lets see... 34,039+119,645=153.684
153,684+231,605=385,289
385,289 X 0.5 = 192,644.5.
153,684 compared to 192,644.5. Is it half? not quite. Is it nearly? I'd say so. My math checks out. I seem to recall some predictions stated along this path and people posted all kinds of data saying that breakthrough infections were quite rare. Sorry Ken, data isn't on your side today.

Now do deaths, and especially compare boosted to unvaccinated.

All of the current data suggested that being fully vaccinated with a booster means that Covid is now less deadly than the common flu. While the unvaccinated are still filling ERs and dying by the tens of thousands per week.

Yes, being fully vaccinated and boosted does provide protection against catching Covid. Your chances of catching it are about substantially reduced. Actually 3.2 times reduced according to the latest data. So lots of vaccinated people do still catch Covid. Which is shown in the Oregon data. But your chances of dying are now 41-times less if you are vaccinated and boosted than if you are unvaccinated. That is what all the most recent data is showing for Omicron. Pretty good for a vaccine that is available everywhere for free.

This is the latest death rate data from the CDC: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... ine-status

[Soloist]

Now do deaths, and especially compare boosted to unvaccinated.

I think that you are assuming I have an opinion I didn't state. I predicted that the vaccine will become less effective and the rates of fatalities will eventually be equal assuming no changes aka a variant booster. Its painfully obvious the vaccine is not preventing infection, jury is out on if the booster helps long term.

[Ken]

Now do deaths, and especially compare boosted to unvaccinated.

I think that you are assuming I have an opinion I didn't state. I predicted that the vaccine will become less effective and the rates of fatalities will eventually be equal assuming no changes aka a variant booster. Its painfully obvious the vaccine is not preventing infection, jury is out on if the booster helps long term.

This whole thing feels a lot like the political controversies over seat belt mandates, airbag mandates, and motorcycle mandates in the 1970s.

Airbags, seat belts, and motorcycle helmets don't prevent car and motorcycle crashes, and they don't guarantee your safety, but they do reduce the risk of death if you do get into a crash.

Back in the 1970s we had all sorts of people protesting against seat belt laws, and disgruntled about the additional cost that airbags imposed on cars. And we had lots of motorcyclists doing all kinds of stupid "freedom" protests like wearing little useless plastic hard hat-style helmets or wearing helmets on their knees and such.




Helmets and seatbelts were no guarantee of safety, but they did save lives and keep people out of the ER. I went to HS with a kid who drove his motorcycle into a bridge support wearing flipflops, shorts, and a baseball cap. He died at age 18. Might still be around if he was wearing a helmet. I used to do a lot of motorcycling when I was younger but would never ride on the highway without a helmet. Maybe a deserted dirt road or trail somewhere, but not an actual highway at speed.

And vaccines are actually far more effective at reducing the risk of death than seat belts, airbags, and motorcycle helmets.

[Soloist]

This whole thing feels a lot like the political controversies over seat belt mandates, airbag mandates, and motorcycle mandates in the 1970s.

Airbags, seat belts, and motorcycle helmets don't prevent car and motorcycle crashes, and they don't guarantee your safety, but they do reduce the risk of death if you do get into a crash.

That is just silly. You know the current academic position is unclear as to how long the vaccine remains effective and it is well known that as the variants continue the effectiveness will drop. A seatbelt or an airbag doesn't become less effective with "age" I mean sure if we develop high speed transport such as hovercars or something like that the seatbelt might become less effective but you are implying that the vaccine is comparable when it is a biological agent compared to a static agent. A mutation that evades the vaccine would have no protection imparted by the vaccine and we know that coronaviruses in general can mutate to re-infect people who have already had the "cold"

Unless of course you are purely trying to be a foil to counter the "propaganda" on the "antivaxxer" side. Anyone who knows me would know I don't oppose vaccines, just ones with ties to fetal cells I would be very in favor of personal choice in getting a vaccine to prevent covid if it was ethical.

Do you dispute these statements?

The vaccine long term effectiveness is unclear
The virus mutates and could evade the vaccine

If you agree that those are accurate statements, then you and I agree, you just disagree on my conclusions based on those two statements.
Clearly, if a virus evades the vaccine, it could evade the natural immunity and the death rates would be comparable. If you somehow believe the vaccinated would still have a better survival rate due to a vaccine that a virus ignores, I would say you are a fruit cake.

[Dan Z]

The vaccine long term effectiveness is unclear
The virus mutates and could evade the vaccine

Wouldn't the same be true for immunity gained from having the disease?

[Ken]

This whole thing feels a lot like the political controversies over seat belt mandates, airbag mandates, and motorcycle mandates in the 1970s.

Airbags, seat belts, and motorcycle helmets don't prevent car and motorcycle crashes, and they don't guarantee your safety, but they do reduce the risk of death if you do get into a crash.

That is just silly. You know the current academic position is unclear as to how long the vaccine remains effective and it is well known that as the variants continue the effectiveness will drop. A seatbelt or an airbag doesn't become less effective with "age" I mean sure if we develop high speed transport such as hovercars or something like that the seatbelt might become less effective but you are implying that the vaccine is comparable when it is a biological agent compared to a static agent. A mutation that evades the vaccine would have no protection imparted by the vaccine and we know that coronaviruses in general can mutate to re-infect people who have already had the "cold"

Unless of course you are purely trying to be a foil to counter the "propaganda" on the "antivaxxer" side. Anyone who knows me would know I don't oppose vaccines, just ones with ties to fetal cells I would be very in favor of personal choice in getting a vaccine to prevent covid if it was ethical.

Do you dispute these statements?

The vaccine long term effectiveness is unclear
The virus mutates and could evade the vaccine

If you agree that those are accurate statements, then you and I agree, you just disagree on my conclusions based on those two statements.
Clearly, if a virus evades the vaccine, it could evade the natural immunity and the death rates would be comparable. If you somehow believe the vaccinated would still have a better survival rate due to a vaccine that a virus ignores, I would say you are a fruit cake.

First, we know the vaccines are extremely effective in preventing the worst effects of Covid which are severe hospitalization, death, and long-term disabilities (long-Covid). They are, in fact, much more effective than scientists had hoped in early 2020. Their effectiveness at preventing infection in the first place is dropping as the virus mutates into much more contagious forms relative to the original alpha variant. But they still produce 2-3 times greater effectiveness against infection than nothing. How LONG that protection lasts is still an open question. But getting an occasional booster shot is a trivial hassle. I am on blood thinners due to a heart valve replacement and have to have blood drawn monthly to check my INR. My oldest daughter was on immunotherapy a decade ago and had to get weekly shots. Those are all far more burdensome than an occasional booster. Personally I expect we will eventually fall into a pattern of annual Covid boosters just like with the flu which is no big deal. Probably with the formula adjusted account for new variants. Just as diseases evolve, so do medical treatments.

I might be a fruitcake. My kids probably think so sometimes. But every single piece of evidence I have ever seen suggests that vaccines are highly effective at reducing hospitalizations and deaths. And those are where the societal costs of Covid come from. Not from mild or asymptomatic cases. My daughter had 3 kids on her dorm floor test positive and get quarantined this past January. All were asymptomatic. So no big deal. Just a minor hassle. The big problem is hospitalizations and deaths. And vaccines are highly effective at preventing that.

As for seat belts and helmets and such compared to Covid vaccines? I honestly have something of a libertarian bent and if people want to do things that risk their lives I don't much care. I've done a lot of scuba diving and back country skiing, both of which have risks. But as a society we also have agreed to socialize a lot of risks. We don't turn people away from the ER if they can't pay. Lots of states have no-fault insurance laws which have the effect of subsidizing risk takers. We pay billions of dollars every year in medical expenses for people who risked their lives unnecessarily by motorcycling without helmets, driving without seatbelts, and yes, choosing to remain unvaccinated. And sometimes your own personal choices affect others. Such as drunk driving. Or choosing to be at increased risk of spreading a disease to others. So I do think there is a role for society to impose safety mandates. Both on companies (laws that require safety equipment like airbags in automobiles) and on individuals (seat belt and helmet laws). And yes, I think it is appropriate for the government to impose workplace safety rules on companies. Which can include pandemic measures such as air filtration and circulation standards, mask rules, and even vaccine mandates to the extent that such rules help make workplaces safer for vulnerable employees.

[Robert]

But every single piece of evidence I have ever seen suggests that vaccines are highly effective at reducing hospitalizations and deaths.

So is natural immunity from someone who has already contracted it.

Most are not saying vaccines do not work, but thee re some side effects and it one has already had Covid, they have better protection then a vaccine can offer. Vaccine mandates ignore all that, along with those who object to the fetal cell development of the vaccine.