Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That said, @Colirio—you sort of lose me when you suggest that a vaccine has to be 100% effective in every single individual who receives it.


I’m not sure where I said that. I only submitted that there are unanswered questions. 
 

On 8/1/2021 at 2:56 PM, NeuroTypical said:

There simply is no serious voice that can be raised against the effectiveness of the vaccine.


This is the single statement I was referring to and why I asked the questions that I did.
 

There are (unanswered) questions concerning it’s effectiveness. I’m not even stating that it’s not effective. I simply pointed out that logic alone raises these questions, so why can there not be any voice raised against it? 

 

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The sort of conspiracy it would take to manipulate the sort of data NT has presented here and to keep it all secret would be absolutely monumental… .

 

Counsel, I believe you are in the wrong courtroom. (Or maybe I am?) The conspiracy theorist discussion is being had with other people, not me. 

Edited by Colirio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colirio said:


[1] I’m not sure where I said that. I only submitted that there are unanswered questions. 
 

. . . . 

[2] Counsel, I believe you are in the wrong courtroom. The conspiracy theorist discussion is being had with other people, not me. 

1.  Hmm.  You did say “If the vaccine was effective in keeping the vaccinated from catching the sickness, then there would be no further need of masks or social distancing once vaccinated.”  That’s setting up a pretty absolutist definition of “effective”.

And frankly, I think we are all experienced enough to understand that a person who claims they’re “just asking questions” and then proceeds to ask a series of very loaded questions, is generally going to be seen as pushing an agenda; whether they care to admit it or not.

2.  That being the case, I wish you had engaged with the numbers @NeuroTypical offered rather than just saying [and yes, I’m paraphrasing here] “but there are other apparent statistical conflicts that I presume ab initio to be irreconcilable, ergo your data is meaningless”.  Assuming that “these numbers of deaths have dropped more significantly than the percentages in which people have been vaccinated” is even a fact in evidence here, two possible explanations could be a) the efficacy of the vaccine amongst the entire population is bolstered by the presence of recovered Covid patients who also have now have natural immunity, and  b) the disease transmits ar something other than a 1:1 ratio (in other words, the average COVID patient manages to infect more than one other person), which would naturally mean that over time we would expect to see an exponential relationship between vaccines administered and the decline in actual Covid cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

just asking questions” and then proceeds to ask a series of very loaded questions, 

To be fair, some people don’t know their questions are loaded. Ie, if I don’t swim in the culture or haven’t been raised LDS, I’m simply not aware of what questions are sensitive or loaded. I’m speaking from personal experience here. Also, by labeling questions as “loaded” or questioning the askers intentions, it shows how you feel. It’s pretty defensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And frankly, I think we are all experienced enough to understand that a person who claims they’re “just asking questions” and then proceeds to ask a series of very loaded questions, is generally going to be seen as pushing an agenda; whether they care to admit it or not.


Yes. The agenda is that there are unanswered questions regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine. There is a concerted effort on social media to silence any opposing discussion and the “definitive” statement NT made closely aligns with such silencing. 

 

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That being the case, I wish you had engaged with the numbers @NeuroTypical offered 


Why would I? It was beside the point I was making. I wasn’t arguing whether or not the vaccine is effective. 
 

My POINT is that dismissing discussion as to its effectiveness is rather silly when even logic alone raises questions about it. 
 

It seems you are wanting me to have a debate here and wanting me to take the side of the anti-vaxxers.  No thanks…. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

To be fair, some people don’t know their questions are loaded. Ie, if I don’t swim in the culture or haven’t been raised LDS, I’m simply not aware of what questions are sensitive or loaded. I’m speaking from personal experience here. Also, by labeling questions as “loaded” or questioning the askers intentions, it shows how you feel. It’s pretty defensive. 

Sure; but it also goes back to issues of whether their questions are running counter to commonly-known evidence or based in improper logical assumptions and presumptions.

And frankly, yeah; I probably am not being terribly charitable here.  When NT posits data showing that 96-99.9 of current COVID deaths are from unvaccinated folks even though nearly 70% of American adults have now been vaccinated, and someone comes back and says “but we don’t know for sure that the vaccine is effective”—I’m sorry, but unless you can attack the quality of the data (which @Colirio apparently insists he’s not doing) then that’s just a “who are you gonna believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?” situation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Colirio said:


Yes. The agenda is that there are unanswered questions regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine. There is a concerted effort on social media to silence any opposing discussion and the “definitive” statement NT made closely aligns with such silencing. 

 


Why would I? It was beside the point I was making. I wasn’t arguing whether or not the vaccine is effective. 
 

My POINT is that dismissing discussion as to its effectiveness is rather silly when even logic alone raises questions about it. 
 

It seems you are wanting me to have a debate here and wanting me to take the side of the anti-vaxxers.  No thanks…. 

So your question isn’t whether the vaccine is effective, but how effective it is?  You agree with me that the vaccine is, to a significant degree, effective?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

ure; but it also goes back to issues of whether their questions are running counter to commonly-known evidence or based in improper logical assumptions and presumptions.

And frankly, yeah; I probably am not being terribly charitable here.  When NT posits data showing that 96-99.9 of current COVID deaths are from unvaccinated folks even though nearly 70% of American adults have now been vaccinated, and someone comes back and says “but we don’t know for sure that the vaccine is effective”—I’m sorry, but unless you can attack the quality of the data (which @Colirio apparently insists he’s not doing) then that’s just a “who are you gonna believe, me or your own lyin’ eyes?” situation.  

:: snickers :: 

I’m gonna let you figure out for yourself what side of this argument I’m more sympathetic to. If you say “Anti vax” you also think I like FSU football and Celine Dion “music”. 
 

 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Colirio said:

There is a concerted effort on social media to silence any opposing discussion and the “definitive” statement NT made closely aligns with such silencing. 

Honestly, I agree with you more than I disagree with you here.  I'm not a fan of shouting down others or stifling public debate or free speech or anything like that.  So forgive me if my energetic audaciousness on the topic of vaccine efficiency came across as trying to silence anyone.   Maybe this will help:  Vaccine efficiency is hardly the only thing to consider, nor is it the only goal.  Not all efficient things are worthy or good.  For example - killing everyone is a far more efficient way of keeping people from getting COVID, because you can't catch a disease when you're dead.  Or a more plausible example: Quarantines, isolation, closing businesses, and public health orders, may be effective in slowing the spread.  But one must measure the cost in increased suicides/domestic abuse/divorce/economic harm/adult onset diabetes/heart conditions/etc that are brought on by such things.  Without that measure, one cannot be certain the shutdowns are worth the harm they cause.

 

Quote

I wasn’t arguing whether or not the vaccine is effective. 

I'm very glad to hear that.  Because it really does seem blindingly overwhelmingly obvious that measured in terms of hospitalizations and deaths, the vaccine is hugely effective.  I haven't seen the slightest hint of a worthy response to that obvious fact, and I'm glad to hear that what you have been saying wasn't arguing against the effectiveness.

Quote

My POINT is that dismissing discussion as to its effectiveness is rather silly when even logic alone raises questions about it. 

I don't wanna dismiss any discussion.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Because it really does seem blindingly overwhelmingly obvious that measured in terms of hospitalizations and deaths, the vaccine is hugely effective.  I haven't seen the slightest hint of a worthy response to that obvious fact, and I'm glad to hear that what you have been saying wasn't arguing against the effectiveness.

Correct. It’s getting to the point where saying “vaccines are effective” is like saying “water is wet.” Only dogmatic zeal/blindness would get you to another conclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

:: snickers :: 

I’m gonna let you figure out for yourself what side of this argument I’m more sympathetic to. If you say “Anti vax” you also think I like FSU football and Celine Dion “music”. 
 

 

Wait—aren’t the Gators the FSU mascot?  I’m confused . . . 
 

;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm very glad to hear that.  Because it really does seem blindingly overwhelmingly obvious that measured in terms of hospitalizations and deaths, the vaccine is hugely effective.  I haven't seen the slightest hint of a worthy response to that obvious fact, and I'm glad to hear that what you have been saying wasn't arguing against the effectiveness.

Indeed we have data for that NOW..  We did not have that when we started... as for the cost.. we still do not know if there are any long term negative impacts and might make it in retrospect a bad idea no matter how 'effective' it is.  (Thanks for being the experimental lab monkey on that one btw)  Yet from the beginning those people who recognized there was not enough data, and have concerns about possible long term effects were labeled anti-vaxers, and had the social media platforms censor and remove their content expressing this.  And when you have organizations doing such a hard core suppression it becomes natural to wonder what are they trying to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Colirio said:

Ah yes… the statistics. The graphs. More third and fourth hand info again. 

I'm curious.  How close to the numbers would you need to be to be more comfortable with the statistics?  Is it just the COVID stats you have issues with or is it in general, like the unemployment rates, GDP numbers, Nielsen's ratings for TV shows, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here - Imma try to address everything in this post:

18 hours ago, Colirio said:

Remember, all of the “effectiveness” that we hear is third and fourth hand at best. WE aren’t performing the experiments. WE aren’t documenting the results of testing. WE are simply relying on the information that is being passed on to the general public. Information that has, in several instances, changed direction as further testing has been performed. 

 

Ok. Yes, healthy skepticism is good.  Yes, biases and agendas are everywhere, and over the last year, they seem to have intensified in scale and dangerousness.  I hesitate to go too far down this rabbit hole though, because it's a line of reasoning that brings the flat earthers to where they are.  WE have never been to space.  WE have never seen the curvature of the earth.  WE are simply relying on government agencies like NASA and the NEA for our information and education of our children.  Information that has, in several instances, changed direction as further testing has been performed.  Do you see my hesitation?

 

Quote

 

1. The effectiveness of the vaccine does not mean that you won’t get COVID-19. 

- This first one has been stated over and over and has been proven true again and again. I have witnessed firsthand several people in my ward who have been vaccinated become sick and hospitalized with COVID-19. If the vaccine was effective in keeping the vaccinated from catching the sickness, then there would be no further need of masks or social distancing once vaccinated. 

 

I mostly agree, and I believe you are telling the truth about your firsthand accounts.   When you gather everyone's firsthand accounts, and compile them into measurable data, however, we find out some useful information.  When you look at people catching COVID who end up in hospitals and morgues, you find that very, very few of them are vaccinated.  You do the math on anyone's sets of numbers, and you end up with results like the vaccine makes you 100x - 300x less likely to need hospitalization or a morgue if you catch breakthrough COVID.

Yep, if you measure effectiveness in terms of catching the thing, it's still effective, but less effective than one might hope.  But if the vaccine means that it's suddenly no worse than the flu to a vaccinated individual, then there's no more need for any of the public health measures. 

I am not in favor of the CDC's recent reversed guidance, and all the masking up we're doing.  This is now a deadly pandemic of the unvaccinated, and those folks should be able to make their choices and deal with their consequences, without impacting the economy and our communities.  I get why the CDC is doing it - they have to react to occupied hospital beds and coffins, even if the people filling them are there because they're choosing to live with the risk.  I'm not happy about it though.

Quote

2. The symptoms will be lessened for those who get the vaccine who then catch COVID-19? 
- Is there a quantifiable way to judge this statement?  Because we were told for a year that the mask mandate was in place because we could be asymptomatic. In other words, for one year, we had to wear masks because we could have the virus and not even know it. How can our symptoms be made less than zero? 

 

 Pretty well addressed, IMO.  You quantify how lessened the severe symptoms are, by counting COVID hospitalizations and deaths, and counting how many of those people are vaccinated.  The result is striking and overwhelming.  If you wanna measure effectiveness by how many vaccinated people still get a cough or fever or transmit it, knock yourself out, but I don't care.  Don't bug me with your tales of fevers and fatigue.  Hospitalizations and deaths are worth acting on.

Quote

- So, if the symptoms are individualistic in their severity, how can any study “prove” that the symptoms would be lessened by having the vaccine prior to catching the sickness? Is there a quantifiable study that can judge the severity of symptoms an individual will have before vs. after a vaccination? 

Yes.  % of unvaccinated people who catch covid and go to hospitals or morgues.  Compared with % of vaccinated people who do the same.  These numbers are sometimes available to the public county by county, state by state.  Here's the math for the New Jersey article we discussed back on page 4: https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2021/07/49-people-who-were-fully-vaccinated-have-died-of-covid-in-nj-heres-what-we-know.html

Start with the numbers:

State population: ~8,800,000  

Unvaccinated: 40%, or 3,520,000 
# of unvaccinated COVID deaths: ~26,000

Vaccinated: 60%, or 5,280,000
# of vaccinated COVID deaths: ~50

Now do the math.  
What percentage of the unvaccinated population has died?  Answer: .7%
What percentage of the vaccinated population has died? Answer: .00095%

If you like, we can put it in plain English to make it a bit easier to understand:  For every hundred thousand unvaccinated NewJersians, 738 of them died of COVID.   For every hundred thousand vaccinated NewJersians, 1 of them died of COVID.

No, it doesn't measure headaches and nosebleeds.  

 

 

Quote

So, if by logic alone the above statements are disputable, then by what measurement is the vaccine so effective that no serious voice can be raised against it?

The measurement of hospitalizations and deaths. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

:: snickers :: 

I’m gonna let you figure out for yourself what side of this argument I’m more sympathetic to. If you say “Anti vax” you also think I like FSU football and Celine Dion “music”. 
 

 

 

FTR, this is a screenshot @LDSGator texted me of the music he was playing on his way to the grocery store.

 

Music-Now-Playing-1-384x740.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

We did not have that when we started... as for the cost.. we still do not know if there are any long term negative impacts and might make it in retrospect a bad idea no matter how 'effective' it is.  (Thanks for being the experimental lab monkey on that one btw)

You're welcome.  Just make sure, as I continue through my 5 year program, when I report health impacts like symptoms from my shingles shot 8 months later, or the impacts from my elective scar revision plastic surgery a year later, or (God forbid) if I catch breakthrough COVID anyway and die in October, just make sure you don't mistake them for a vaccine impact.  

 

Quote

  Yet from the beginning those people who recognized there was not enough data, and have concerns about possible long term effects were labeled anti-vaxers, and had the social media platforms censor and remove their content expressing this.  And when you have organizations doing such a hard core suppression it becomes natural to wonder what are they trying to hide.

I'm pretty much always against labelling, censoring, and suppressing.  I'll make an exception for people holding up forced ignorance as proof of a global conspiracy.  I'll point out that puts them in the flat-earther camp.  But I'm hardly going to censor or suppress them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Wait—aren’t the Gators the FSU mascot?  I’m confused . . . 

Also, Gator has been telling us this story of his wedding for a long time.  But his Gator cosplay passion makes me wonder if he's not actually in the background...

image.png.18480ba5c1601ed0419a2596082e86e1.png

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You're welcome.  Just make sure, as I continue through my 5 year program, when I report health impacts like symptoms from my shingles shot 8 months later, or the impacts from my elective scar revision plastic surgery a year later, or (God forbid) if I catch breakthrough COVID anyway and die in October, just make sure you don't mistake them for a vaccine impact.  

 

While I realize some people use such one offs to push there agenda, I am not one of them.. my only agenda is to protect me an mine as best I can.  Now if a majority of your group end up dying from breakthrough COVID, or shingles or elective scar revision, then I would be concerned (and more then a little confused by that last one).

 

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm pretty much always against labelling, censoring, and suppressing.  I'll make an exception for people holding up forced ignorance as proof of a global conspiracy.  I'll point out that puts them in the flat-earther camp.  But I'm hardly going to censor or suppress them.

I wish the more main stream media shared your restraint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply to showcase that concerns aren't unreasonable based on numbers people see I am sharing the following. I don't know what to make of the contrast of these numbers with what @NeuroTypical has presented for New Jersey, but Massachusetts appears to be telling a different story. Perhaps they have different metrics for collecting numbers, or different vaccines or dominant covid strains? I don't have the answers right now, but I totally understand people not simply buying into the narrative of vaccines are safe and effective when we get these kinds of conflicting results and one side tends to be censored so as not to alert the population of the concerns and failures.

Based on the numbers presented by NT clearly vaccines appear to be making a huge difference in NJ and I wouldn't fault anyone for wanting to ascertain that protection. On the flip side we have numbers like this out of Massachusetts (Cued to the sound of the Beegees :) :

https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/state/massachusetts

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of-people-infected-in-massachusetts-covid-outbreak-were-fully-vaccinated.html

What we are seeing here is that in a population with around 72% who have one dose of vaccine at least and 64% are fully vaccinated, that same 64% who are fully vaccinated are making up 74-75% of the new covid cases. Of interest:

Quote

The CDC also said the data has limitations. The agency noted that as population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of Covid cases. Additionally, asymptomatic breakthrough infections might be underrepresented because of detection bias, the agency said.

The CDC also said the report is “insufficient” to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the authorized vaccines against Covid, including the delta variant, during this outbreak.

With asymptomatic breakthrough infections being likely to be underreported that means almost certainly the actual percentage of cases is even higher still among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. At the very least, one would hope to see that the new case percentage was lower than the vaccinated percentage in the population as this would still indicate protection, but this paints the picture of the vaccine being a statistical wash at best for preventing disease (and the spread of it as the vaccinated are still contagious to others)  and at worst making people more vulnerable to infection than they would be if not vaccinated because the documented percentage of new cases is 10% higher among the vaccinated population than it should be without intervention. Perhaps it's a statistical anomaly, but it is understandably concerning to those who would take a more cautious approach to injecting foreign matter into their bodies that haven't been fully vetted.

Ahh but it's really just the serious cases we care about... 

Quote

Overall, 274 vaccinated patients with a breakthrough infection were symptomatic, according to the CDC. The most common side effects were cough, headache, sore throat, muscle pain and fever. Among five Covid patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated, according to the agency. No deaths were reported.

In this case, 80% of those being admitted to hospital were fully vaccinated (I'm curious if the other one was partially vaccinated or unvaccinated, but I don't see that info). This matches pretty closely with what would be expected from 3/4 of the cases had nothing been done. Now I can't explain the differences in what's going on in Massachusetts compared to New Jersey, but I think it's worth being aware of different data sets that people are seeing and clearly formulating opinions of which are better based on preconceived biases, which is human nature. 

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

Simply to showcase that concerns aren't unreasonable based on numbers people see I am sharing the following.

Yep, concerns are usually not unreasonable, especially when folks look for info to address those concerns.  We have no disagreement.

The statement that I'm entrenching myself and fighting to the death over, is "Measured in terms of hospitalizations and deaths, the COVID vaccines are wildly effective".  And your CNBC article even says as much:

Quote

While numerous studies have shown that the vaccines don’t work as well against the delta variant as they did against other strains, health officials say they are still highly effective, especially in protecting against severe illness and death. Roughly 97% of new hospitalizations and 99.5% of deaths in the U.S. are among unvaccinated individuals, U.S. health officials repeated this week.

 

And no, Massachusetts does not seem to be telling a different story.

image.thumb.png.4abd54aa82e5b46d4933839fe887988c.png

 

image.thumb.png.a9fc181d23ef9d79655b8d11d670e7b7.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 8:32 AM, NeuroTypical said:

State population: ~8,800,000  

Unvaccinated: 40%, or 3,520,000 
# of unvaccinated COVID deaths: ~26,000

Vaccinated: 60%, or 5,280,000
# of vaccinated COVID deaths: ~50

Now do the math.  
What percentage of the unvaccinated population has died?  Answer: .7%
What percentage of the vaccinated population has died? Answer: .00095%

This is in part why I am always concerned when anyone starts throwing numbers without more information provided. If you look at New Jersey and the age groups who have received the vaccine the vaccinated in comparison to death rate is what Facebook fact checkers would call missing context.

1) The age groups that have shown to be more immune to the virus add up to 2,358,386 (more than half) of the vaccines received. This tells me the percentage is skewed and isn't accurate because you have age groups that is already showing that if they receive Covid they will survive anyway.

2) The death for unvaccinated individuals is reporting the number of deaths since Covid pandemic started, which we know many have died with pre-existing conditions. Once again skews the Covid death percentage provided because these people actually were dying of something else.

3) With over a year, humans have already shown to be resilient as time passes with a virus. The easiest example is the Spanish Flu. With no vaccine the rate of death decreased, and the Spanish Flu was much more severe to humans (of all ages and health) than Covid (there were no arguments of having pre-existing conditions with the Spanish Flu. It took the healthy and unhealthy equally according to what I have read about it.). So, how do these numbers reflect the natural immunity that builds within the human species? According to every thing I read and hear about the Spanish Flu should have never ceased with the way people talk about Covid. So, when we say only 50 died, is that a direct result of the vaccine, or is there more to it? I am going to say there is more to it then just being vaccinated. The Spanish Flu and the natural herd immunity seems to give evidence to this.

Caveat. I was hoping to find the actual death statistics broken down by age groups for New Jersey. I couldn't find anything that would specify the deaths by age of the 26k given.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This is in part why I am always concerned when anyone starts throwing numbers without more information provided. If you look at New Jersey and the age groups who have received the vaccine the vaccinated in comparison to death rate is what Facebook fact checkers would call missing context.

Ok, forget New Jersey - here's more context.  The phenomenon is happening across the country (and probably the planet). Again: 

Quote

Deaths:
image.thumb.png.9bfd58e791de55bd44842aacd80e1039.png

 

Hospitalizations:
image.thumb.png.31b773d44717889a0564c301fcbb8396.png

Source:  COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Cases: Data from the States-kff.org

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/21/coronavirus-texas-vaccinated-deaths/ - Texas has seen nearly 9,000 COVID-19 deaths since February. All but 43 were unvaccinated people.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 - Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been and an indication that deaths per day — now down to under 300 — could be practically zero if everyone eligible got the vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html - "As of July 26, 2021, more than 163 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. During the same time, CDC received reports from 49 U.S. states and territories of 6,587 patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died."  That's 0.004%.   Compared to US unvaccinated deaths ranging from hundreds to thousands per day, and the conclusion is pretty obvious.

 

 

There are dozens of other links - feel free to google up as many as you like.  Honestly, at this point, anyone left out there who doesn't believe the vaccine is wildly effective, the burden of proof is on them to show why they think such things.   I've yet to hear any good answer.  Folks can be concerned about side effects, wonder if it's necessary, be ticked off at government, but nobody has really been able to counter the claim "vaccines are wildly effective".

 

 

Quote

3) With over a year, humans have already shown to be resilient as time passes with a virus. The easiest example is the Spanish Flu. With no vaccine the rate of death decreased, and the Spanish Flu was much more severe to humans (of all ages and health) than Covid (there were no arguments of having pre-existing conditions with the Spanish Flu. It took the healthy and unhealthy equally according to what I have read about it.).

A valid point.  What I've read about the Spanish Flu, that thing was actually worse for healthy young adults, while COVID mainly reaps the elderly and ill.  And yes, herd immunity comes from both everyone getting it and having natural immunity, or vaccines.  If you just let the virus rampage through humanity, it would eventually burn itself out.  

Pros:
- Over and done with.
- No delta variant and having to deal with things in '22 onward.

Cons:
- Global death toll in the hundreds of millions, as opposed to the ~4 million we've got now.  (I'm estimating: The Spanish Flu killed ~20-50 million, and the current global population of 80+ year olds is ~105,000,000.  COVID would probably take half or more, and kill a percentage of everyone else, more of the older, fewer of the younger.) 
- Long term health impacts in tens or hundreds of millions.
- Chaos, downfall of nations, and collapse of economies as hundreds of millions die all at once, overloading every city/county/state/nation's ability to handle the corpses.

It would appear to me that the Cons may just have a tiny edge against the pros, but I understand we're all sick and tired of this thing.

 

Quote

So, how do these numbers reflect the natural immunity that builds within the human species? According to every thing I read and hear about the Spanish Flu should have never ceased with the way people talk about Covid.

Not sure of your reasoning.  (You're making a point about "the way people talk", I honestly don't care how people talk about things - especially with so many ignorant or nefarious opinions out there.)

But yes, natural immunity is one of the two very effective ways to be protected against Coronavirus.  It's sort of part of the dictionary definition - you catch COVID and don't die, you end up with natural immunity.    But the Spanish Flu happened 100 years ago.  Since then we've upped our global healthcare game in areas like medical care, hygiene, food supply, and of course vaccines.  That last one is probably the biggest reason.  There are many reasons why COVID doesn't have to kill a huge % of humanity and lower life expectancy of everyone else by a dozen years.  The good old days of Spanish Flu eventually have every human get it, and the only humans left alive on the planet now are descended from the survivors. (source)  With the vaccine however, the people who survive COVID will be those who catch it and survive, and those protected by vaccines (4.3 billion humans vaccinated so far, and we're not done yet.)

A fun tangent: I have a lunch buddy (very much NOT a pro-vax guy).  He got COVID last year, and got better, like most folks do.  He was mad during lunch yesterday - between his fiance, pressure from work, and the way the laws are going, he bit the bullet and got vaccinated anyway.  Both of us agree he didn't really need to - because natural immunity should be at least as effective as the best vaccine.  I asked him if he had any side effects, and he said "just anger".  I sympathized, and told him I still held his principled stances in high esteem. 

 

Quote

So, when we say only 50 died, is that a direct result of the vaccine, or is there more to it? I am going to say there is more to it then just being vaccinated. The Spanish Flu and the natural herd immunity seems to give evidence to this.

Ok, so all the data and charts and links and stuff only deal with people who are hospitalized or die.  Yes indeed, both natural immunity (and vaccinated imunity) are keeping people from showing up in those numbers.  That is an important point, and yes, it's totally absent from my links.

I dearly, dearly, want to put this thing in our rear view mirror.  Both vaccinations and natural immunity will help us get there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share