Covid-19 Thread

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, action said:

if they reduce transmission by 1%, it's a reduction too, and science is not lying.

it's also a whole lot of bollox.

transmission after vaccination was NOT researched by pfizer, prior to bringing it on the market.

the benefits of the vaccines in regards to reduction of transmission, is marginal at best.

the benefits were better with the alpha variant, but lessened with each subsequent variant. This is the accepted scientific consensus.

the anecdotal evidence of people infecting other people after being double vaxxed, can not be ignored either.

your stance is a niche opinion, not backed by science

That vaccines reduce transmission is proven by scientific studies. 

[SoulMonster]

41 minutes ago, action said:

(like you bluntly asked in in PM the other day)

What? 

[Rovim]

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, most people interpret the allegory as a message on epistemology, like you describe at the end of this post, and not to be about how to a principle on social discourse and conduct, like you suggested in your previous post. Maybe you actually did some more reading on Plato between these two posts, as you suggested to @actionthat you would? 

Anyway, I could look more into the various interpretations of this allegory but reading philosophy right after having lunch is not a good idea.

Btw, happy you decided to not leave us after your last few tantrums 

just a suggestion but maybe read Plato's cave allegory again and in general and read already written interpretations as well cause it seems it would be cool for you need to take a second look at it  sorry, back on topic

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Rovim said:

just a suggestion but maybe read Plato's cave allegory again and in general and read already written interpretations as well cause it seems it would be cool for you need to take a second look at it  sorry, back on topic

"The main idea of this allegory is the difference between people who simply experience their sensory experiences, and call that knowledge, and those who understand real knowledge by seeing the truth. The allegory actually digs into some deep philosophy, which is not surprising since it comes from Plato. Its main idea is the discussion of how humans perceive reality and if human existence has a higher truth. It explores the theme of belief versus knowledge. "

Source: https://becomeawritertoday.com/allegory-of-the-cave-summary/

That's epistemology and not principles on social conduct. And as far as I will bother to read about Plato. 

[Rovim]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

"The main idea of this allegory is the difference between people who simply experience their sensory experiences, and call that knowledge, and those who understand real knowledge by seeing the truth. The allegory actually digs into some deep philosophy, which is not surprising since it comes from Plato. Its main idea is the discussion of how humans perceive reality and if human existence has a higher truth. It explores the theme of belief versus knowledge. "

Source: https://becomeawritertoday.com/allegory-of-the-cave-summary/

That's epistemology and not principles on social conduct. And as far as I will bother to read about Plato. 

k was only meant as a friendly suggestion, just in case it didn't seem like that in text.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Rovim said:

k was only meant as a friendly suggestion, just in case it didn't seem like that in text.

It certainly sounded like you thought I got it wrong. Which could be possible. Although epistemology, and the philosophy of science, is one of the more interesting branches of philosophy so I felt pretty certain I remembered it correctly. 

No worries and thanks for the suggestion

Back on topic? Sure: The vaccines are shown to reduce transmission, although less so for new variants of the virus. The vaccines were not developed specifically to reduce transmission, though, nor were they tested for this during clinical trials, but this is not something that has been covered up and only recently disclosed, it was known from the beginning and discussed in the press already back in 2020, and Pfizer has been open about it from the beginning. 

What else is people confused about? What else needs debunking? 

[AxlisOld]

18 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, it obviously bears repeating that we vaccinate ourselves not necessarily to protect ourselves but to limit the spread of the disease onto the weak and frail. 

 

18 hours ago, EvanG said:

Regarding this? All the people who did get vaccinated to help protect the vulnerable in our society.
Who is selfish? You are.

I never had any symptoms of anything. As vaccinated people were still fully able to get the virus, a vaccinated person showing no symptoms standing next to me would have the same chance of infecting someone frail and vulnerable. You're welcome to bend over and let them stick you with as many things as you want, but get the fuck outta here with that "you're selfish" bullshit.

[action]

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

 

Back on topic? Sure: The vaccines are shown to reduce transmission, although less so for new variants of the virus. The vaccines were not developed specifically to reduce transmission, though, nor were they tested for this during clinical trials, but this is not something that has been covered up and only recently disclosed, it was known from the beginning and discussed in the press already back in 2020, and Pfizer has been open about it from the beginning. 

 

[SoulMonster]

4 hours ago, AxlisOld said:

As vaccinated people were still fully able to get the virus, a vaccinated person showing no symptoms standing next to me would have the same chance of infecting someone frail and vulnerable. You're welcome to bend over and let them stick you with as many things as you want, but get the fuck outta here with that "you're selfish" bullshit.

Was the first sentences meant to substantiate your conclusion that it is not selfish to not get vaccinated? Because a vaccinated person is not "fully" able (as in equally able) to get the virus as unvaccinated people and a vaccinated person does not transmit the virus as efficiently as an unvaccinated person. 

Here's a fact check on the claim that the Covid vaccines don't reduce chance of getting infected and transmitting: Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines protect against infection, transmission (usatoday.com)

Will you actually read it or just dismiss it off hand?

So now, knowing that the vaccines actually reduce transmission of the virus, and especially so with early variants when most people actually got vaccinated, is it right to say that people who don't vaccinate themselves are selfish? YES, absolutely.

Although that comes with a disclaimer: some don't get vaccinated because they believe the lies about side effects and actually fear the vaccines, some are really afraid of needles and can't man themselves up to get the shot, some believe conspiracy theories that the vaccines contain microchips. Which type are you?

[EvanG]

4 hours ago, AxlisOld said:

 

I never had any symptoms of anything. As vaccinated people were still fully able to get the virus, a vaccinated person showing no symptoms standing next to me would have the same chance of infecting someone frail and vulnerable. You're welcome to bend over and let them stick you with as many things as you want, but get the fuck outta here with that "you're selfish" bullshit.

Well, I rather listen to doctors and scientists than some random users on the GnR forum who don't seem to know what they're talking about. I guess I'm kinda kooky that way.

[action]

16 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Was the first sentences meant to substantiate your conclusion that it is not selfish to not get vaccinated? Because a vaccinated person is not "fully" able (as in equally able) to get the virus as unvaccinated people and a vaccinated person does not transmit the virus as efficiently as an unvaccinated person. 

Here's a fact check on the claim that the Covid vaccines don't reduce chance of getting infected and transmitting: Fact check: COVID-19 vaccines protect against infection, transmission (usatoday.com)

Will you actually read it or just dismiss it off hand?

So now, knowing that the vaccines actually reduce transmission of the virus, and especially so with early variants when most people actually got vaccinated, is it right to say that people who don't vaccinate themselves are selfish? YES, absolutely.

 

 

9 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

 

Back on topic? Sure: The vaccines are shown to reduce transmission, although less so for new variants of the virus. The vaccines were not developed specifically to reduce transmission, though, nor were they tested for this during clinical trials, but this is not something that has been covered up and only recently disclosed, it was known from the beginning and discussed in the press already back in 2020, and Pfizer has been open about it from the beginning. 

 

it seems you're struggling to accept the new reality that the vaccines don't significantly reduce transmission.

the alpha variant is not dominant anymore, it hasn't been for more than a year. Even when the vaccines first entered the market, a year into covid, alpha was already replaced by newer variants

your conclusion is based on dated scientic knowledge.

stop spreading false information

[SoulMonster]

Why so many presumed sane people refused to take the vaccine has of course been the topic for various studies. Here's one of them: Why some people do not get vaccinated against COVID‐19: Social‐cognitive determinants of vaccination behavior - Han - Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being - Wiley Online Library

The main finding was:

"However, religiosity, right-wing political orientation, conspiracy beliefs, and low trust in government regarding COVID-19 were negative predictors of vaccination intention and behavior (p < .05). Our findings highlight the importance of attitude toward COVID-19 vaccines and also suggest that certain life-long held convictions that predate the pandemic make people distrustful of their government and likely to accept conspiracy beliefs and therefore less likely to adopt the vaccination behavior."

And here's another study: What are the reasons for refusing a COVID-19 vaccine? A qualitative analysis of social media in Germany | BMC Public Health | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

With this result:

"Based on 333 posts written by 323 contributing users, we identified six main categories of reasons for refusing a COVID-19 vaccination: Low perceived benefit of vaccination, low perceived risk of contracting COVID-19, health concerns, lack of information, systemic mistrust and spiritual or religious reasons. The analysis reveals a lack of information among users and the spread of misinformation with regard to COVID-19 and vaccination. Users feel inadequately informed about vaccination or do not understand the information available. These information gaps may be related to information not being sufficiently sensitive to the needs of the target group. In addition to limited information for the general population, misinformation on the internet can also be an important reason for refusing vaccination."

[EvanG]

8 minutes ago, action said:

 

it seems you're struggling to accept the new reality that the vaccines don't significantly reduce transmission.

the alpha variant is not dominant anymore, it hasn't been for more than a year. Even when the vaccines first entered the market, a year into covid, alpha was already replaced by newer variants

your conclusion is based on dated scientic knowledge.

stop spreading false information

Ok, so, even if the vaccines reduce transmission by 20% (hypothetically speaking, I don't know what the real number is), it's still not enough for you to get vaccinated? Why is it always all or nothing with you? It's the same with discussions, you change your opinion from one extreme to the other. On the first ten pages of this thread you were completely freaking out and couldn't wait to get vaccinated, you even said without jest that you want to get vaccinated for every disease in the world. Read back if you don't believe me. Now you are one of the biggest anti-vaxxers in this thread.

[SoulMonster]

29 minutes ago, action said:

it seems you're struggling to accept the new reality that the vaccines don't significantly reduce transmission.

the alpha variant is not dominant anymore, it hasn't been for more than a year. Even when the vaccines first entered the market, a year into covid, alpha was already replaced by newer variants

your conclusion is based on dated scientic knowledge.

stop spreading false information

Read this: Infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections and reinfections during the Omicron wave | medRxiv The study provides evidence that the vaccines significantly reduce the spread of various virus variants, including Omicron by 20-40%.

Can you counter the scientific study above with actual evidence supporting your claim that the vaccines don't significantly reduce transmission of the virus or can I look forward to a new meme, some irrelevant nonsense, or a new way you have failed to understand simple science?

[SoulMonster]

If we are going to talk science, let's get the words right: Significant refers to statistically significant which just means that it is statistically proven that there is a difference. A difference of 10% can be significant, or 1%, or 0.00001%, if the uncertainty is just proportionally lower. In more laymen talk it is better to use the term substantial, which means a large change.

As for transmission, 20-40% reduction is significant, and most people would likely also agree it is also a substantial reduction. As for epidemiology, it is also extremely important because although some naively might hope it would be closer to 100%, it is still effective at reducing spread, especially taken together with other measures like reducing contact, face masks, etc.

And this is the estimated reduction in transmission for newer variants, for older variants it is likely substantially higher. Meaning that at the time when people were offered the vaccines, in 2020-2021, when older variants were circulating, getting vaccinated meant a much higher protection of other people, both because the transmission efficiency were even more reduced and because other people had by then not received second dose or booster doses so they needed more protection.

[action]

21 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Read this: Infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections and reinfections during the Omicron wave | medRxiv The study provides evidence that the vaccines significantly reduce the spread of various virus variants, including Omicron by 20-40%.

Can you counter the scientific study above with actual evidence supporting your claim that the vaccines don't significantly reduce transmission of the virus or can I look forward to a new meme, some irrelevant nonsense, or a new way you have failed to understand simple science?

I won't challenge that 20-40% number, though from experience I believe the true number is more to the 20 figure, rather than the 40 number.

the ethical problem with "get vaccinated for others" slogans, is they don't make that specification. to someone reading that slogan, it doesnt appear that transmission is reduced by 20-40%, it appears that the reduction is 100%.

you may argue, that is a naive thought. Sure, but I argue that the majority of people are naive, and have effectively been vaccinated under the wrong assumptions. This has created a dangerous situation, where people thought they could not infect people anymore, so they did not mind being in the proximity of frail people. This is not backed up by scientific data, because no scientific research was done in this regard. A pity, because the time spent in investigating why people chose not to be vaccinated, could have been spent on this question, and would have probably saved lives.

I am sure, that vaccinated people have infected far more people, than antivaxxers did. (antivaxxers were excluded from social activities thanks to QR codes)

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, action said:

I won't challenge that 20-40% number, though from experience I believe the true number is more to the 20 figure, rather than the 40 number.

the ethical problem with "get vaccinated for others" slogans, is they don't make that specification. to someone reading that slogan, it doesnt appear that transmission is reduced by 20-40%, it appears that the reduction is 100%.

I knew from the start that it's not 100%. What kind of stuff are they telling you in Belgium? And what does that have to do with your argument not to get vaccinated? Because you don't like the ''slogan'', you refuse to get vaccinated, I see. Selfish at all?

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, action said:

I won't challenge that 20-40% number, though from experience I believe the true number is more to the 20 figure, rather than the 40 number.

the ethical problem with "get vaccinated for others" slogans, is they don't make that specification. to someone reading that slogan, it doesnt appear that transmission is reduced by 20-40%, it appears that the reduction is 100%.

you may argue, that is a naive thought. Sure, but I argue that the majority of people are naive, and have effectively been vaccinated under the wrong assumptions. This has created a dangerous situation, where people thought they could not infect people anymore, so they did not mind being in the proximity of frail people. This is not backed up by scientific data, because no scientific research was done in this regard. A pity, because the time spent in investigating why people chose not to be vaccinated, could have been spent on this question, and would have probably saved lives.

I am sure, that vaccinated people have infected far more people, than antivaxxers did. (antivaxxers were excluded from social activities thanks to QR codes)

That was a much more measured response than I expected, and for that I owe you an apology.

You definitely have a point: Communication has not been good enough, and this is also evidenced by the two studies I posted about earlier today where both pointed to overcoming distrust in the public and targeted communication with such people as a big challenge and a failure to do so effectively is one of the recognized reasons why people have decided to not get vaccinated. But it has to be stated, in parallel to this you have the actions of antivaxxers who have deliberately spread lies, conspiracy theories, and twisted the public communication. 

Personally, I think the communication here in Norway has been more or less spot on. Which, combined with our trust in the government, means we are among the countries with the highest vaccination coverage. I never got the feeling that the vaccines would make me 100% immune to the disease, nor that it would mean I couldn't infect others. But then I also had some benefit from knowing a bit about viruses and diseases from before. Still, I don't think most Norwegians ended up with this information, either. 

As for your specific comment that the 20-40% reduction in transmission should have been communicated: Have you already forgotten that when the vaccines were rolled out it wasn't known how they affected transmission? It was widely believed they reduced transmission, it was a scientifically sound assumption, but the only message that could be given was that it was believed to be the case. And that was the message I heard. In fact, there are articles in the public press from 2020 about the unknowns about the vaccines, including the unknowns regarding transmission. If people didn't get this information, then it is also reasonable to ask: Did they even pay attention? Did they follow credible news sources or get their information from Facebook and Youtube?  There is a great deal of responsibility on individual in democracy to pay attention, all cannot be blamed on governments who, for the most part, did a great job in communicating the knowns and unknowns at a time when information was scarce and quickly developing. Did you not read any of these articles yourself or are you so isolated in your own echo chamber? Aren't you the one bragging about not paying attention to mainstream media? 

Regardless, it was a good assumption to make based on strong scientific backing, and in hindsight it turned out to be correct, too: The vaccines greatly reduced transmission and much more so than 20-40% with the earliest variants. So no, people weren't vaccinated under "wrong assumptions", as you claim, people were vaccinated because it was known they would then receive strong protection against severe disease, and because it was strongly believed vaccination would greatly reduce transmission. The latter was an assumption, but it wasn't a wrong assumption, as you claim, it turned out to be a correct assumption.

[action]

communication was the word, during this pandemic.

we learned, or rediscovered, terms, like "fact checking", "fake news", "debunking", "scientifically sound", etc

you couldn't put on the television, or the radio, without hearing the word "covid"' within five minutes, followed quickly by the word "vaccines"

yet, unless I'm stupid or something, NEVER, on any of these outlets, was there ever mentioned that "beware, the vaccine, with regards to transmission of the virus has a less than 50% effectivity"

what did we see in stead?

vaccinated people partying like there was no tomorrow (and infecting themselves on a more than 50% chance ratio), excluding the anti vaxxers from social activities, creating the biggest division in society since world war II, and so on, and so on.

that's the reason I slowly began to distrust science. The damage done to my trust in science and the government, is irrepairable.

Edited December 8, 2022 by action

[EvanG]

...

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, action said:

yet, unless I'm stupid or something, NEVER, on any of these outlets, was there ever mentioned that "beware, the vaccine, with regards to transmission of the virus has a less than 50% effectivity"

Again, blaming them for not putting a percentage on the reduced transmission at the time when this had not been quantified experimentally, is not fair at all. What was communicated was that the effect of transmission was at that time unknown, but that the vaccines were assumed to be effective at reducing spread. Which ended up being correct.

I have already linked to articles from the time that discussed the uncertainty in transmission. Here they are again:

Here's article from November 2020 where scientists caution that although the results seem strong for the vaccines protecting against severe disease, it was not known to what extent they protected against transmission: Pfizer, BioNTech initial vaccine results impress, but scientists remain cautious | Reuters

And here's published result on early results from the vaccines, not discussion transmission at all: EU drug regulator says it is assessing early data from Pfizer COVID vaccine | Reuters

And heres' BioNTech saying straight out that they don't know for sure if the vaccines prevent transmission, from February 2021: Israeli studies find Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission | Reuters

And lastly, here's Pfizer's CEO in January 2021 saying directly that they don't know if their vaccine prevents transmission in humans (but that they it does in animal models): Pfizer CEO says there is 'encouraging' data on whether its vaccine stops Covid transmission (thejournal.ie)

And here's EMA directly stating that reduction of spread was unknown (December 2020) Comirnaty, COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (nucleoside modified) (europa.eu)

And if you prefer more typical mass media, here's BBC in September 2020 talking about how the vaccines may not stop transmission: BBC World Service - Science In Action, Why Covid -19 vaccines may not stop transmission

What more do you need?

In conclusion, I don't think it is right of you to complain about media here when it is obviously you who were incapable of accepting this information, either because you deliberately shy away from mainstream media or, as per your own hypothesis, that you are "stupid or something". You have to take some own responsibility for being ignorant when the failure lies at your ability to accept information that is conveyed to you or freely available.

[SoulMonster]

EDIT: Deleted a duplicate post. Difficult to post a reply when the site goes down

Edited December 8, 2022 by SoulMonster

[Scream of the Butterfly]

10 hours ago, EvanG said:

Ok, so, even if the vaccines reduce transmission by 20% (hypothetically speaking, I don't know what the real number is), it's still not enough for you to get vaccinated?

If the probability that I will catch covid and infect other people (much less vulnerable people) within a certain time frame is let's say 0.0001 and getting vaccinated reduces it by 20% to 0.00008, then, no, it's still not enough for me to get vaccinated. I don't know what the actual probability is (which varies from person to person) but I do know that it is so small that reducing it by 20% or even 40% isn't of much significance. It's been almost three years and I haven't infected one single person (although I have myself been infected by a vaccinated person). I get the feeling that you operate under the false premise that the probability of any unvaccinated person spreading the disease at any given time is 100% and that vaccines reduce it to 80% but that of course isn't the case.

If you really think this is about protecting other people, shouldn't you be getting a booster shot every two months or even more frequently considering the protection against transmission apparently wanes in a matter of weeks?

[action]

33 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

If the probability that I will catch covid and infect other people (much less vulnerable people) within a certain time frame is let's say 0.0001 and getting vaccinated reduces it by 20% to 0.00008, then, no, it's still not enough for me to get vaccinated. I don't know what the actual probability is (which varies from person to person) but I do know that it is so small that reducing it by 20% or even 40% isn't of much significance. It's been almost three years and I haven't infected one single person (although I have myself been infected by a vaccinated person). I get the feeling that you operate under the false premise that the probability of any unvaccinated person spreading the disease at any given time is 100% and that vaccines reduce it to 80% but that of course isn't the case.

If you really think this is about protecting other people, shouldn't you be getting a booster shot every two months or even more frequently considering the protection against transmission apparently wanes in a matter of weeks?

science tells him to get vaccinated, so he does.

he's a model citizen.

[EvanG]

56 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

 

If you really think this is about protecting other people, shouldn't you be getting a booster shot every two months or even more frequently considering the protection against transmission apparently wanes in a matter of weeks?

I don't know how often I should get one to be honest, unlike you, I am not a scientist or doctor. But yes, I've been getting my booster shot.

21 minutes ago, action said:

science tells him to get vaccinated, so he does.

he's a model citizen.

And you're a selfish prick. I've seen you whine about being called the ''forum idiot'' by many posters on here, but you only have yourself to blame for that. 
Everytime someone debunks all the nonesense you post on here with actual evidence, like SoulMonster did three posts ago, you either don't react at all or you respond with some vague post without addressing what was actually said. You do this all the time. You are either a fucking troll or the dumbest person on here. Or maybe both.

Edited December 8, 2022 by EvanG