Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[oggsmash]

  I do love how people clamor there will be no mandates from government, but a private business can of course require medical procedures.  Here we are now, with a mandate from government.  What will it be now?  You do not have to get the vaccine, you can just take a test weekly.... which makes fuck all sense, if you can STILL get Covid and spread it with a vax, shouldnt EVERYONE have to get a weekly test?

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

  until the vaxed people are spreading it all about.   A better solution is if You are at risk, wear a respirator or gas mask.

[Pat]

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

Bolded part by me. You do realize that means it's not a vaccine, right? Vaccines do not just make it 'less likely'.

Yes, they do. Even the measles vaccine doesn't provide 100% immunity. The covid vaccines aren't nearly as effective as many of the traditional childhood vaccines, but they're still vaccines.

[Ghostmaker]

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

Bolded part by me. You do realize that means it's not a vaccine, right? Vaccines do not just make it 'less likely'.

Yes, they do. Even the measles vaccine doesn't provide 100% immunity. The covid vaccines aren't nearly as effective as many of the traditional childhood vaccines, but they're still vaccines.

Ah, that would be why the CDC stealth-edited the definition of 'vaccine'?

Just because they call it something doesn't necessarily make it so.

[Mistwell]

  I do love how people clamor there will be no mandates from government, but a private business can of course require medical procedures.  Here we are now, with a mandate from government.  What will it be now?  You do not have to get the vaccine, you can just take a test weekly.... which makes fuck all sense, if you can STILL get Covid and spread it with a vax, shouldnt EVERYONE have to get a weekly test?

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

Bolded part by me. You do realize that means it's not a vaccine, right? Vaccines do not just make it 'less likely'.

Yes, they do. We've been over this. You THINK the vaccines you've taken in life had 100% stoppage of the virus they were intended for. NONE of them were 100%. You just thought they were and never bothered to look them up. Literally zero vaccines had 100% efficacy. So stop the nonsense. You know better by now. Stop intentionally lying to people about how vaccines work.

[Gamecock City Gamer]

I am not an anti-vaxxer, but I am against the COVID-19 vaccination. The main reason is the time frame it took to develop it. I just don't believe that they were able to come up with a coronavirus vaccination that quickly, especially when we were still learning how to correctly identify it. And now, when did they have time to produce a vaccine for the Delta variant when the original vaccine had not been fully received yet?

Next, healthy people without medical/health issues had a 99.997% recovery rate with most only showing symptoms for 1-3 days (IIRC), so I'm not totally sure how it was determined that people's natural immunity didn't get them over the virus or the vaccine helped.

If you are one with other health issues, especially if you have something that has weakened your immune system, by all means, get the vaccine. If you don't have any health issues, then perhaps it is okay for you to skip this one.

[Pat]

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

Bolded part by me. You do realize that means it's not a vaccine, right? Vaccines do not just make it 'less likely'.

Yes, they do. Even the measles vaccine doesn't provide 100% immunity. The covid vaccines aren't nearly as effective as many of the traditional childhood vaccines, but they're still vaccines.

Ah, that would be why the CDC stealth-edited the definition of 'vaccine'?

Just because they call it something doesn't necessarily make it so.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella.

Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps.

That's not 100%. Are you arguing that the MMR shot everyone had as a kid isn't a vaccine?

[Mistwell]

Honestly hate the fact wearing masks was politicized by the left and ridiculed by the right... Wearing a mask certainly has perks.

Unfortunately, none of those perks involve being effective against COVID. That's why it is politicized. There's no actual studies, evidence, or data suggesting that masks work (actually the exact opposite). So if they don't work, how can the choice to force people to wear them be anything but political?

Over and over again studies show masks work. And over and over again you try to re-write history and act like they have not shown they work.

Here is the latest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/09/masks-randomized-study-bangladesh-covid/

Over and over again, you've claimed that masks work.

And over and over, we've pointed out that the studies overwhelmingly show masks had no or minimal effect, and that the studies that showed even a tiny effect were very low quality, with a minuscule number of subjects or very poor controls. The only solid study on the subject (Danmask) clearly shows no effect. We've explain the theories why masks don't work, covering things like particle size and aerosolization. And the last time you posted the Bangladesh study, we went over all the numerous methodological problems that invalidate its conclusions.

You never replied to any of these concerns. You keep popping up again and again to make the same claims, but every time we point out the problems with those claims, you vanish like a thief in the night.

It's whack a mole for you. The studies show efficacy in reducing the spread of larger particles. You then do things like spin it as "doesn't prevent you from getting the virus" when the study was focusing on spreading it, or you switch to "it's not effective at preventing all dosages" when you know covid doesn't work with "one particle and you're infected" like some viruses but requires a larger quantity. And then when all else fails you do that "it's not a perfect study so it must be entirely ignored" bullshit which is not a standard you'd apply to any topic which isn't politicized.

[Mistwell]

  I do love how people clamor there will be no mandates from government, but a private business can of course require medical procedures.  Here we are now, with a mandate from government.  What will it be now?  You do not have to get the vaccine, you can just take a test weekly.... which makes fuck all sense, if you can STILL get Covid and spread it with a vax, shouldnt EVERYONE have to get a weekly test?

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

  until the vaxed people are spreading it all about.   A better solution is if You are at risk, wear a respirator or gas mask.

Except it's an ongoing lie that "Age and Pre-existing Conditions are the only factors for risk" that you keep asserting. Healthy younger people are ending up in the hospital. Long Covid is a real thing which healthy younger people are getting. The vaccine and masks do help with both of these things.

[Mistwell]

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

Bolded part by me. You do realize that means it's not a vaccine, right? Vaccines do not just make it 'less likely'.

Yes, they do. Even the measles vaccine doesn't provide 100% immunity. The covid vaccines aren't nearly as effective as many of the traditional childhood vaccines, but they're still vaccines.

Ah, that would be why the CDC stealth-edited the definition of 'vaccine'?

Just because they call it something doesn't necessarily make it so.

Dude, your hot take was debunked. You repeating it without ever bothering to address the problem with your claim is persuading nobody anymore. You were wrong to think vaccines always stopped the virus they target. All of them had rates of effectiveness which were less than 100% and all of them had effectiveness decrease over time. It's true that the Covid vaccines have their rate of effectiveness decrease faster than many other vaccines, but that doesn't make them "not a vaccine".

[Pat]

Honestly hate the fact wearing masks was politicized by the left and ridiculed by the right... Wearing a mask certainly has perks.

Unfortunately, none of those perks involve being effective against COVID. That's why it is politicized. There's no actual studies, evidence, or data suggesting that masks work (actually the exact opposite). So if they don't work, how can the choice to force people to wear them be anything but political?

Over and over again studies show masks work. And over and over again you try to re-write history and act like they have not shown they work.

Here is the latest:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/09/masks-randomized-study-bangladesh-covid/

Over and over again, you've claimed that masks work.

And over and over, we've pointed out that the studies overwhelmingly show masks had no or minimal effect, and that the studies that showed even a tiny effect were very low quality, with a minuscule number of subjects or very poor controls. The only solid study on the subject (Danmask) clearly shows no effect. We've explain the theories why masks don't work, covering things like particle size and aerosolization. And the last time you posted the Bangladesh study, we went over all the numerous methodological problems that invalidate its conclusions.

You never replied to any of these concerns. You keep popping up again and again to make the same claims, but every time we point out the problems with those claims, you vanish like a thief in the night.

It's whack a mole for you. The studies show efficacy in reducing the spread of larger particles. You then do things like spin it as "doesn't prevent you from getting the virus" when the study was focusing on spreading it, or you switch to "it's not effective at preventing all dosages" when you know covid doesn't work with "one particle and you're infected" like some viruses but requires a larger quantity. And then when all else fails you do that "it's not a perfect study so it must be entirely ignored" bullshit which is not a standard you'd apply to any topic which isn't politicized.

How can it be whack a mole, when you've literally never addressed any of the citations or arguments I've made? You make the claim, and vanish.

Not to mention, your claims about what I've said aren't accurate. I've repeatedly talked about the importance of viral loads. I've talked about how masks block large droplets, but that large droplets don't seem to be a major vector of transmission.  And these aren't imperfect studies, they're either measuring something else (like all the studies prior to the pandemic, which either looked at clinical environments or were focused on non-respiratory diseases), or absolute crap. That was one of the biggest problems at the start of the pandemic. They were literally publishing studies based on 17 patients of one doctor. With an n size that low, you can't draw any conclusions, and that's without accounting for the massive selection bias. These studies were at the very bottom of the ladder of evidence based medicine.

That's why the Danmask study was important, because it's a solid study. And that's why the Bangladesh study is so disappointing, because it's even larger than the Danmask study, randomized, and based on superficial criteria it appears to be a high quality study. But it has a number of critical methodological problems that make it hard to give the study any credence.

It's not "spin" to assess the strength of the evidence. It's essential that we do that. It's how science works. It's the same standard we need to apply to all scientific studies.

[HappyDaze]

MIS-C is a thing too.

[oggsmash]

  I do love how people clamor there will be no mandates from government, but a private business can of course require medical procedures.  Here we are now, with a mandate from government.  What will it be now?  You do not have to get the vaccine, you can just take a test weekly.... which makes fuck all sense, if you can STILL get Covid and spread it with a vax, shouldnt EVERYONE have to get a weekly test?

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

  until the vaxed people are spreading it all about.   A better solution is if You are at risk, wear a respirator or gas mask.

Except it's an ongoing lie that "Age and Pre-existing Conditions are the only factors for risk" that you keep asserting. Healthy younger people are ending up in the hospital. Long Covid is a real thing which healthy younger people are getting. The vaccine and masks do help with both of these things.

    No one said it is  the only risk, they ARE BY FAR THE BIGGEST risks.   EXTREMELY rare cases of healthy young people do end up in the hospital.   Respirator or gas mask if you are worried.  The vaccines are MUCH less effective at preventing spread than the "childhood" vaccines because vaccinating for covid is harder than the flu and comparable to the difficulty of attempting to vaccinate for the cold due to rapidity of mutation (which of course Fraudchi said it did not mutate fast).     So sure it is a vaccine, just a very low quality one with regard to shutting down infection. 

[Ghostmaker]

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

Bolded part by me. You do realize that means it's not a vaccine, right? Vaccines do not just make it 'less likely'.

Yes, they do. Even the measles vaccine doesn't provide 100% immunity. The covid vaccines aren't nearly as effective as many of the traditional childhood vaccines, but they're still vaccines.

Ah, that would be why the CDC stealth-edited the definition of 'vaccine'?

Just because they call it something doesn't necessarily make it so.

Dude, your hot take was debunked. You repeating it without ever bothering to address the problem with your claim is persuading nobody anymore. You were wrong to think vaccines always stopped the virus they target. All of them had rates of effectiveness which were less than 100% and all of them had effectiveness decrease over time. It's true that the Covid vaccines have their rate of effectiveness decrease faster than many other vaccines, but that doesn't make them "not a vaccine".

Nobody cares what bootlicking fascists like you think.

[jeff37923]

We're looking for a better situation and not a perfect situation. If you are vaccinated, you are 1) less likely to get the virus, and 2) infectious for a shorter period of time if you do get it. Since we don't have the testing resources to test everyone every week, applying those testing resources to those who are more likely to get the virus and more likely to be contagious with the virus for a longer period of time is a smart application of limited resources.

Bolded part by me. You do realize that means it's not a vaccine, right? Vaccines do not just make it 'less likely'.

Yes, they do. Even the measles vaccine doesn't provide 100% immunity. The covid vaccines aren't nearly as effective as many of the traditional childhood vaccines, but they're still vaccines.

Ah, that would be why the CDC stealth-edited the definition of 'vaccine'?

Just because they call it something doesn't necessarily make it so.

Dude, your hot take was debunked. You repeating it without ever bothering to address the problem with your claim is persuading nobody anymore. You were wrong to think vaccines always stopped the virus they target. All of them had rates of effectiveness which were less than 100% and all of them had effectiveness decrease over time. It's true that the Covid vaccines have their rate of effectiveness decrease faster than many other vaccines, but that doesn't make them "not a vaccine".

So, what is it? An ineffective vaccine?

[Squidi]

Dude, your hot take was debunked. You repeating it without ever bothering to address the problem with your claim is persuading nobody anymore. You were wrong to think vaccines always stopped the virus they target. All of them had rates of effectiveness which were less than 100% and all of them had effectiveness decrease over time. It's true that the Covid vaccines have their rate of effectiveness decrease faster than many other vaccines, but that doesn't make them "not a vaccine".

Traditionally, vaccines caused inoculation by introducing into the immune system a weakened version of a disease, causing an immune response to that disease. These mRNA injections do not do that.

Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to offer any evidence that they ever worked in the first place. The original trials only had a difference in deaths from the control group to the mRNA group of 1 person - and then they gave the control group the vaccine anyway, so we can't even compare the two groups over a period of time to see if that protection lasts (such that it is) lasted beyond the few weeks looked at in the trial.

To make matters worse, they immediately changed how they test for COVID in vaccinated individuals (they are tested less and at lower cycle thresholds, so fewer false positives - which number in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, when you consider the base rate fallacy/false positive paradox). Having two different testing requirements makes it literally impossible to make a direct apples to apples comparison between the effectiveness of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in real world situations. They also don't count you as vaccinated until after 14 days after your second shot, so if you get sick and die of COVID 3 days after your second shot (which happens more than they want to admit), you are counted as an unvaccinated death.

So, how are they finding that the vaccines are becoming less effective? They are simply comparing data now with data before, then normalizing it to account for the difference in the number of vaccinations. But the problem with that approach is that COVID happens in waves which hits in different territories at different times, and if you normalize data over multiple months, you are comparing very different circumstances as if they were equal. In some cases, there is a very noticeable improvement early on, but it is generally only slightly statistically significant, and can easily be explain by the placebo effect (just like long COVID can largely be explained by the nocebo effect).

So, I could easily argue that the COVID shots never made a difference at all (ignoring all the negative side effects like heart attacks, blood clots, and deaths - almost all counted as unvaccinated because they generally happen within two weeks of getting a shot).

So, if you get a shot that literally makes no difference at all, does that still count as a vaccine?