(10-26-2021, 03:04 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2021, 08:52 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]What's to laugh about is that you always think you have all the answers yet all of your answers are filtered through your cynicism. Sure a positive pressure room could help but we don't have a capacity of those and they do nothing to alleviate the need for care. Meanwhile, we have plenty of vaccines available that do alleviate that need for the overwhelming majority of people but folks are literally going to go to their graves refusing it.
Dude, I am not generally cynical, but when I see a system that fires people for not taking a novel vaccine with no longterm research, yes, it makes me cynical. When I see scientific dissent being quashed, it makes me cynical. When I see scientists resigning from their posts because the CDC isn't even listening to their recommendations, it makes me cynical. When I see policies being made that have no data to support them, it makes me cynical. When I see standards that are not being applied equally, guess what.... it makes me cynical.
I have asked you at least a half-dozen questions, maybe more, that you can't answer. You're a professional, and you either avoid or can't answer basic questions about policy. Even now, you completely sidestep the FACT that mandating this vaccine does not prevent the spread of the virus. You are going to get minimal impact as it pertains to your patients. You can't even acknowledge that your doing this primarily for liability reasons, and you know what? That also makes me cynical. Keep laughing, though.
The vaccine reduces the likelihood of transmission though the effect wanes over time, hence the boosters. And I can't admit what is not true.
I tell you what... I'm not going to make you think. I'll do it for you.
Covid can be transmitted by aerosolized particles that can hang in the air for HOURS, especially in dry, cool climates. Even though there's a possibility fully vaccinated individuals carry the delta variant for less time than unvaccinated, asymptomatic patients, it's undeniable they are still carrying a high viral load while they have it. They are still breathing millions of virus particles in the air that lasts for hours that accumulates with each breath. How do you think that stacks up over the course of an 8 hour day? Every single patient, unvaccinated or not, is contributing to it. The studies that look at the spread of the virus are inferring that the vaccinated will spread it less because they have a smaller viral load, but they don't take into account the accumulation of virus into the air. There's a reason Delta spread through Jax like wildfire. It's highly contagious, so I don't really care that doctors or nurses carry it for a slightly shorter duration, because any person that has it, unvaccinated or not, is putting massive amounts of contagion in the air we breathe. Your believing the vaccine is going to make a dent in that is laughable.
The vaccine mitigates the risk for individuals. That's conceded. There is no evidence is significantly reduces the spread. Show me where I'm wrong.
(10-26-2021, 05:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I tell you what... I'm not going to make you think. I'll do it for you.
Covid can be transmitted by aerosolized particles that can hang in the air for HOURS, especially in dry, cool climates. Even though there's a possibility fully vaccinated individuals carry the delta variant for less time than unvaccinated, asymptomatic patients, it's undeniable they are still carrying a high viral load while they have it. They are still breathing millions of virus particles in the air that lasts for hours that accumulates with each breath. How do you think that stacks up over the course of an 8 hour day? Every single patient, unvaccinated or not, is contributing to it. The studies that look at the spread of the virus are inferring that the vaccinated will spread it less because they have a smaller viral load, but they don't take into account the accumulation of virus into the air. There's a reason Delta spread through Jax like wildfire. It's highly contagious, so I don't really care that doctors or nurses carry it for a slightly shorter duration, because any person that has it, unvaccinated or not, is putting massive amounts of contagion in the air we breathe. Your believing the vaccine is going to make a dent in that is laughable.
The vaccine mitigates the risk for individuals. That's conceded. There is no evidence is significantly reduces the spread. Show me where I'm wrong.
There you go again. Just because you think you understand it doesn't mean you're right. In fact, Eyre, Taylor, et al have a preprint out from the first of this month that demonstrates that vaccination reduces transmission even in the case of Delta, though as I said, the effect lessens over time. Of course it's pre-print which I tend to stay away from, but in this case it seems pertinent to your assertion of not quite fact. I'm sure you can't wait to let them know how they're wrong, so I'll leave you to it.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...21264260v2
I'll look into this. However, you're the one that's claiming to know something when it's very clear you don't. There are already multiple studies on this and the result is mixed. Cherry picking one that sides with your point of view is exactly what it is. I base my information on previous information and newly collected information. When Delta is ripping through a city that has up to 75% of it's population either vaccinated or recovered from covid, you have to ask how it's spreading. Knowing the mechanism for spread is important, knowing how long it stays in an area is also important, who can spread it is important, and how much do they spread it. All of those are necessary pieces of information. Up until now, every study I've read completely fixates on viral load, which is only a small part of the equation. In fact, this is one of the major failings I'm seeing in the healthcare community. There's lots of myopic studies with very few people who are aggregating that data.
Dude, I'm barely into this study and it's saying almost exactly what I said. Did you bother reading this or did you just look at the abstract?
(10-26-2021, 03:34 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2021, 03:28 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Well, the "science" is probably much clearer now that two of their members resigned due to power struggles with the Biden administration.
Our elementary school announced today masks being optonal starting 11/1. Masks were only required indoors up to this point. This decision was based on data and facts and it is interesting to see this coincide with vaccinations being available to 5-11 year olds. I can't imagine forcing this on my child and being able to sleep at night.
Blue states will mandate this next year. It is going to be a total [BLEEP] show.
It's about time. Masks are the dumbest thing to ever be "mandated" by anyone. The rule in the building that I work in is "masks are a must", but those that
somewhat follow that rule wear the mask on the chin with the nose and mouth exposed. The rule and compliance basically separates those on the left and those on the right.
Nobody is going to tell me that a cloth mask does anything for anyone when underwear can't even stop a fart from smelling.
It's my science.
(10-26-2021, 06:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, I'm barely into this study and it's saying almost exactly what I said. Did you bother reading this or did you just look at the abstract?
It says exactly what I said it says, the vaccine reduces transmission with declining efficacy over time. You said "The FACT is that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of the virus" which this study disproves. So if it's saying exactly what you said then which time were you wrong?
P.S. - I'm going to move these posts to the Covid thread, this is pretty far from the topic.
Haha. Such great science.
And flsprtsgod, that is not what that paper said. It's a small portion of it, but that's not what it said. Especially not as it pertains to the Delta variant.
(10-26-2021, 07:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2021, 06:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, I'm barely into this study and it's saying almost exactly what I said. Did you bother reading this or did you just look at the abstract?
It says exactly what I said it says, the vaccine reduces transmission with declining efficacy over time. You said "The FACT is that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of the virus" which this study disproves. So if it's saying exactly what you said then which time were you wrong?
P.S. - I'm going to move these posts to the Covid thread, this is pretty far from the topic.
You guys are saying pretty much the same damn thing but using different words.
Reducing something doesn't eliminate it. Only by elimination could the spread be prevented.
UK weekly report last week showed vaxed people have lower antibodies after getting infected.
Strange bugs going around and hospitals are filling up in the NE .... but it's not covid and they are vaxed
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(10-27-2021, 12:17 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]UK weekly report last week showed vaxed people have lower antibodies after getting infected.
Strange bugs going around and hospitals are filling up in the NE .... but it's not covid and they are vaxed
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Why do people make these supposed ‘statements of fact’ and provide no link as reference?
(10-26-2021, 11:01 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2021, 07:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It says exactly what I said it says, the vaccine reduces transmission with declining efficacy over time. You said "The FACT is that the vaccine does not prevent the spread of the virus" which this study disproves. So if it's saying exactly what you said then which time were you wrong?
P.S. - I'm going to move these posts to the Covid thread, this is pretty far from the topic.
You guys are saying pretty much the same damn thing but using different words.
Reducing something doesn't eliminate it. Only by elimination could the spread be prevented.
Yeah, he's twisting words. Even so, I could support his position if it reduced transmission enough to be justifiable, but I specifically stated that wasn't the case with the Delta variant. He ignores that tidbit, and links to a study that shows there is almost no difference in reduction with the delta variant, which makes me suspect he didn't actually read that study. Long story short, that study doesn't disprove anything.
Here's a few points, that support my argument, all taken from the study he posted: It was far more effective at reducing the spread with Alpha, but not so much with Delta. Delta was far more likely to spread similarly regardless of vaccination status. Vaccine efficacy only lasts for 3 months. For some reason, the older the person, the better the reduction in spread, but that decreased with age. From that, we can infer that younger people are NOT more affected by the vaccine... a point I have repeatedly claimed on this board. They didn't see a correlation of reduction at work, but they did so at home, which was the primary place the virus was spread. Also, they say several times that they don't know why there is a reduction. There were also limitations to the study, primarily that it relied on people getting pcr testing after being exposed to someone with Covid.
When you consider when the study was made, this was at the time when they thought the vaccine was far more effective than it is. They were claiming it offered full protection. They were also saying there was only a 2% chance of breakthrough cases back then. Whoops.
A reasonable hypothesis is that households were more likely to share vaccination values, so the primary place of spread would have been less noticeable and/or people wouldn't get tested when being exposed to a vaccinated person because they assumed it was a false positive. What's not likely is that a person who is carrying the same viral load just magically doesn't emit virus particles into the air. That's not a reasonable conclusion, and if you end up there, there is a good chance you're twisting data to support your view.
Now, if you can show me the mechanism that causes a person to emit less virus into the air because they're vaccinated, I'm all for it. Show me that.
I forgot to mention that they do hypothesize that vaccinated individuals have more inactive particles that are being picked up by the pcr test, which could be a potential explanation for less spread, but they don't have any way of proving that. It's just a guess. I think if they do show that, it's at least getting in the ball park, but is still largely negated by the fact that Delta is contagious enough to overcome that differential.
"Using large-scale contact tracing data, we show that BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccination both reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals infected despite vaccination. However, reductions in transmission are lower for the Delta variant compared to Alpha for BNT162b2 and likely lower for ChAdOx1 too. Vaccines continue to provide protection against infection with Delta, but to a lesser degree than with Alpha in large population-based studies, particularly for infections with symptoms or moderate/high viral loads.8 Therefore, Delta erodes vaccine-associated protection against transmission by both making infection more common and increasing the likelihood of transmission from vaccinated individuals who become infected."
You just can't help yourself, even when the words clearly say what I said you still have to disagree with them. It's almost a pathology for you at this point to disagree with anything I say.
My turn to lol.
I'm out and about, but hopefully you can rreead what you posted and recognize your mistake.
(10-27-2021, 10:03 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]My turn to lol.
I'm out and about, but hopefully you can rreead what you posted and recognize your mistake.
Have fun!
Hey FSG,
Have you heard anything new about the NovaVax vaccine? Whether it's even viable or just a pipe dream? I think a lot of people reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine would take the NovaVax if it actually does as advertised. I'm not "in the know" on these types of things and would assume a new vaccine would be something the healthcare industry would be looking at very intently.
(10-27-2021, 10:42 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Hey FSG,
Have you heard anything new about the NovaVax vaccine? Whether it's even viable or just a pipe dream? I think a lot of people reluctant to take an mRNA vaccine would take the NovaVax if it actually does as advertised. I'm not "in the know" on these types of things and would assume a new vaccine would be something the healthcare industry would be looking at very intently.
It's certainly viable. The difference from the other vaccines is that NovaVax contains the spike protein rather than forcing the body to produce it. We currently have the mRNAs and then J&J, AstraZeneca and Sputnik who use vector/adenovirus where both types force the body to first create the spike protein, so having a more traditional vaccine would almost certainly persuade those who are uncertain about the newer delivery platforms. My understanding is that Nova is currently having production/development problems where they can't get the purity levels up over the required 90%, but if they can do that then they should be on their way.