Coronavirus and the Washington Capitals Part 2

[g00n]

The rural people have been pissed on by the enlightened elites for a long time. Mocked and insulted for as long as I can remember. Can’t really blame them for ignoring the elites now, the one time the elites pretend to give a shit about them. Mocking and insulting them won’t get them to come around on getting vaccinated.

One way to prove you're a thick-headed podunk moron is to say "I'm not going to get a life saving vaccine just because my feelings are hurt by imaginary elites". Did they also refuse to get other vaccines? Or just the ones their leaders told them to shun?

Good lord.

 

[Eirikrautha]

One way to prove you're a thick-headed podunk moron is to say "I'm not going to get a life saving vaccine just because my feelings are hurt by imaginary elites". Did they also refuse to get other vaccines? Or just the ones their leaders told them to shun?

Good lord.

Yeah, because rural people who might come in contact with literally a dozen people in a month, living on land where they can't even see their neighbors because they are so far away, need to follow the same procedures as their "betters" who live packed like rats, pay six times as much for a postage stamp-sized home, and can't walk more than 50 feet without getting winded (since obesity is the #1 comorbidity for Covid). But they are "podunk morons" because they see 11/12 of the Washington Nationals players who just got Covid are vaccinated and say, "I'm in good health, have no one to spread the virus to, and really don't want to take an EUA vaccine... I'll wait and see." Someone in this conversation is a provincial zealot, but I don't think it's the rural folks...

 

[kicksavedave]

Yeah, because rural people who might come in contact with literally a dozen people in a month, living on land where they can't even see their neighbors because they are so far away, need to follow the same procedures as their "betters" who live packed like rats, pay six times as much for a postage stamp-sized home, and can't walk more than 50 feet without getting winded (since obesity is the #1 comorbidity for Covid). But they are "podunk morons" because they see 11/12 of the Washington Nationals players who just got Covid are vaccinated and say, "I'm in good health, have no one to spread the virus to, and really don't want to take an EUA vaccine... I'll wait and see." Someone in this conversation is a provincial zealot, but I don't think it's the rural folks...

Taking the whole cites vs rural pissing contest out of it for a sec (because there are cities in red states and rural parts of blue states and all that mixed up stuff)... the undeniable fact is that areas with low vaccination rates are seeing surges of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, on a per capita basis, above those areas with higher vaccination rates. One stat I read was death rates were ~98% unvax'd vs vax'd, nationally.

Sure, if you never leave the house you don't need the vaccine as much. But not all the anti vax folks live in the middle of the wide open country. They live all around, country, city, suburbs. And they are putting themselves and others around them at higher risk.

Finally, the idea that being vax'd means you can't get Covid or spread it is false. Generally speaking, if you are vaccinated, you're less likely to get sick and die from it, more likely to get completely over it faster, thus less likely to spread it if you do get it. One case at Nats Park doesn't disprove the overwhelming science, so long as you actually accept the real science and not the straw man myths being tossed around to make a case for why not to get vax'd. When you are vaccinated, your body can fight off the virus much faster, thus reducing the spreadable window and your chances of dying from it. It also reduces the virus ability to mutate into more lethal strains, which should be in everyone's best interest, but sadly as we see here, its not.

 

[usiel]

The rural people have been pissed on by the enlightened elites for a long time. Mocked and insulted for as long as I can remember. Can’t really blame them for ignoring the elites now, the one time the elites pretend to give a shit about them. Mocking and insulting them won’t get them to come around on getting vaccinated.

Well considering the outbreaks these days are primarily within the unvaccinated seems like just deserts though admittedly that is harsh.

 

[g00n]

Yeah, because rural people who might come in contact with literally a dozen people in a month, living on land where they can't even see their neighbors because they are so far away, need to follow the same procedures as their "betters" who live packed like rats, pay six times as much for a postage stamp-sized home, and can't walk more than 50 feet without getting winded (since obesity is the #1 comorbidity for Covid). But they are "podunk morons" because they see 11/12 of the Washington Nationals players who just got Covid are vaccinated and say, "I'm in good health, have no one to spread the virus to, and really don't want to take an EUA vaccine... I'll wait and see." Someone in this conversation is a provincial zealot, but I don't think it's the rural folks...

Well that's certainly a reasonable hypothetical that totally represents half the population in this country who just refuse to get a vaccine because their leaders and social media tell them not to. Sure.

If those people way the f*** out in the boonies aren't coming into contact with anyone then they're probably not spreading the virus. But SOMEONE is in these other areas, because the numbers are spiking. Who do you think it is? It's all these people gathering together without being vaccinated for the most part. You can piss and moan about a dozen baseball players but that's a red herring. This is about millions of people flaunting the science and data.

Look, this is straight up data and science driven. If people want to make up stories about whey they deserve special exceptions to that, or how their fee fees got hurt by "elitists", good luck. But the outbreaks and deaths are not to be argued with. They're cropping up in very specific regions with low vaccination compliance and they're typically rural areas who have political objections. They believe idiot conspiracy theories about microchip tracking or "vaccine shedding" and even talked about masking to protect against the vaccine!

You can get bent out of shape about provincialism but it's there and the people in the trenches know it.

In Alabama and Louisiana, partisan opposition to vaccine surges alongside Delta variant

 

[Eirikrautha]

Taking the whole cites vs rural pissing contest out of it for a sec (because there are cities in red states and rural parts of blue states and all that mixed up stuff)... the undeniable fact is that areas with low vaccination rates are seeing surges of cases, hospitalizations and deaths, on a per capita basis, above those areas with higher vaccination rates. One stat I read was death rates were ~98% unvax'd vs vax'd, nationally.

Sure, if you never leave the house you don't need the vaccine as much. But not all the anti vax folks live in the middle of the wide open country. They live all around, country, city, suburbs. And they are putting themselves and others around them at higher risk.

Finally, the idea that being vax'd means you can't get Covid or spread it is false. Generally speaking, if you are vaccinated, you're less likely to get sick and die from it, more likely to get completely over it faster, thus less likely to spread it if you do get it. One case at Nats Park doesn't disprove the overwhelming science, so long as you actually accept the real science and not the straw man myths being tossed around to make a case for why not to get vax'd. When you are vaccinated, your body can fight off the virus much faster, thus reducing the spreadable window and your chances of dying from it.

The rural vs urban comparison was the point of the previous discussion (see Wethog's post), so ignoring it is pretty much missing the point.

From the CDC, the best estimate for the IFR (infection fatality rate) of Covid 19 for anyone under 50 years-old is 0.5% (500/100,000) with the vast majority of the fatalities having serious comorbidities (602K/612K). The idea that a person in no danger of transmitting the virus, due to their location and lifestyle and who is of normal health, is a monster for not immediately getting vaccinated is highly irrational.

It also reduces the virus ability to mutate into more lethal strains, which should be in everyone's best interest, but sadly as we see here, its not.

This is not at all an established fact. One of the potential factors in the rise of the Delta variant in India was the use of several vaccines (A-Z & Sinopharm/Sinovac) that has 50-75% effectiveness rates, which may have accelerated the mutation of the virus (by only partially killing off the infections, much like some infections have gained antibiotic resistance due to overuse of antibiotics).

The problem that many folks have here is the same as many of the anti-vaxxers: an absolutist mentality that ignores circumstance and nuance and a near-religious devotion to simple solutions. Well, this virus is proving to NOT be simple...

 

[g00n]

The rural vs urban comparison was the point of the previous discussion (see Wethog's post), so ignoring it is pretty much missing the point.

From the CDC, the best estimate for the IFR (infection fatality rate) of Covid 19 for anyone under 50 years-old is 0.5% (500/100,000) with the vast majority of the fatalities having serious comorbidities (602K/612K). The idea that a person in no danger of transmitting the virus, due to their location and lifestyle and who is of normal health, is a monster for not immediately getting vaccinated is highly irrational.



This is not at all an established fact. One of the potential factors in the rise of the Delta variant in India was the use of several vaccines (A-Z & Sinopharm/Sinovac) that has 50-75% effectiveness rates, which may have accelerated the mutation of the virus (by only partially killing off the infections, much like some infections have gained antibiotic resistance due to overuse of antibiotics).

The problem that many folks have here is the same as many of the anti-vaxxers: an absolutist mentality that ignores circumstance and nuance and a near-religious devotion to simple solutions. Well, this virus is proving to NOT be simple...

You really, really need to unplug from whatever tainted sources you're reading.

No, COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Cause New Coronavirus Variants

 

[Eirikrautha]

You really, really need to unplug from whatever tainted sources you're reading.

No, COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Cause New Coronavirus Variants

You quote "healthline.com." I'll quote the NEJM:

Variants of concern have been evolving since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, with selective advantage generally favoring more transmissible variants. Variants of concern with resistance against natural or vaccine-induced immunity would probably supplant previously circulating strains only if this immune evasion capability resulted in increased fitness, including transmissibility. Given the emergence of immunity-evading variants even before vaccines were broadly deployed, it is hard to implicate vaccines or vaccine deployment strategies as the major drivers of immune evasion.

However, prolonged viral replication in the presence of partial immunity in immunocompromised persons or circumstances in which rapid transmission of high titers of virus occurs (e.g., crowded living conditions23) could have contributed to the development of variants that can at least partially escape human immune responses. The use of antibody-based treatments (e.g., monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma) in circumstances in which they are of limited or undemonstrated efficacy may further contribute to the evolution of variants of concern that could evade not only these but also other antibody responses.24 Partially effective interventions may therefore encourage viral evolution.

The bold-faced makes no claim that vaccines don't contribute, but that it is hard to implicate vaccines as "major drivers," based on the fact that some variants happened before vaccines were begun. This is "medical-speak" for "we don't think most variants come primarily from viral evasion of vaccination, but we can't rule out it happening." The second part CLEARLY spells out that ineffective or partial immunity could be responsible for the present or future development of variants.

Once again, for the zealots, the conclusion is not simple, clear-cut, or universal. The assertion that it is is highly irrational and unscientific.

 

[g00n]

The rural vs urban comparison was the point of the previous discussion (see Wethog's post), so ignoring it is pretty much missing the point.

From the CDC, the best estimate for the IFR (infection fatality rate) of Covid 19 for anyone under 50 years-old is 0.5% (500/100,000) with the vast majority of the fatalities having serious comorbidities (602K/612K). The idea that a person in no danger of transmitting the virus, due to their location and lifestyle and who is of normal health, is a monster for not immediately getting vaccinated is highly irrational.



This is not at all an established fact. One of the potential factors in the rise of the Delta variant in India was the use of several vaccines (A-Z & Sinopharm/Sinovac) that has 50-75% effectiveness rates, which may have accelerated the mutation of the virus (by only partially killing off the infections, much like some infections have gained antibiotic resistance due to overuse of antibiotics).

The problem that many folks have here is the same as many of the anti-vaxxers: an absolutist mentality that ignores circumstance and nuance and a near-religious devotion to simple solutions. Well, this virus is proving to NOT be simple...

The variant was emerging as early as October 2020 , well before the vaccines were widely available. At the time the spike started only about 1% of the population even had a single dose of any vaccine. By the time of the peak it was still less than 10%. Now they only have 25% of the population with one dose, and about 7% fully vaccinated.

So yeah, vaccination did not cause delta or make it worse. Ramping up vaccination and locking down again (iirc) probably reversed the spread.


Also, this nonsense about the delta variant spreading faster due to the vaccines doesn't match the actual data. The delta spike started ramping up in March and began declining in May.


The vaccine didn't create delta. It emerged in 2020 before the vaccines were even distributed.

 

[g00n]

You quote "healthline.com." I'll quote the NEJM:


The bold-faced makes no claim that vaccines don't contribute, but that it is hard to implicate vaccines as "major drivers," based on the fact that some variants happened before vaccines were begun. This is "medical-speak" for "we don't think most variants come primarily from viral evasion of vaccination, but we can't rule out it happening." The second part CLEARLY spells out that ineffective or partial immunity could be responsible for the present or future development of variants.

Once again, for the zealots, the conclusion is not simple, clear-cut, or universal. The assertion that it is is highly irrational and unscientific.

You're reading that completely wrong. It says the opposite of what' you're inferring. You conveniently omitted the next part:

In addition, the larger the number of infected persons, the greater the chance that new variants of concern will arise. Hence, effective public health strategies such as social distancing, the use of masks, and the targeted use of effective vaccines that reduce both infection and transmission can help to limit viral evolution. Limiting transmission in the general population is extremely important for slowing the emergence of additional variants of concern.


*womp womp*

Sorry but you're just inserting shit that isn't there. It's obvious that unvaccinated people who spread the virus more are where most of the variants come from. They say this.

In the part you're twisting to suit your narrative, within the context of their recommendations for vaccines and keeping the viral spread as low as possible, they're SPECULATING that someone who has some outlier immune response (likely unvaccinated as a result, and again based on context) could be one of those mutation points. They speculate that crappy, ineffective methods of treatment (NOT the vaccines) could also create similar situations.

So no. Vaccines don't create the variants. Viral spread does. And the vaccines stifle that.

Stop spreading disinformation.

 

[kicksavedave]

The rural vs urban comparison was the point of the previous discussion (see Wethog's post), so ignoring it is pretty much missing the point.

From the CDC, the best estimate for the IFR (infection fatality rate) of Covid 19 for anyone under 50 years-old is 0.5% (500/100,000) with the vast majority of the fatalities having serious comorbidities (602K/612K). The idea that a person in no danger of transmitting the virus, due to their location and lifestyle and who is of normal health, is a monster for not immediately getting vaccinated is highly irrational.

This is not at all an established fact. One of the potential factors in the rise of the Delta variant in India was the use of several vaccines (A-Z & Sinopharm/Sinovac) that has 50-75% effectiveness rates, which may have accelerated the mutation of the virus (by only partially killing off the infections, much like some infections have gained antibiotic resistance due to overuse of antibiotics).

The problem that many folks have here is the same as many of the anti-vaxxers: an absolutist mentality that ignores circumstance and nuance and a near-religious devotion to simple solutions. Well, this virus is proving to NOT be simple...

Um, yeah it is a well established fact that by reducing the vaccines ability to live unchecked in the population, its ability to mutate successfully is also reduced. Sorry you need to be able to put 1 and 2 and 3 together to get all this. Simplified: The vaccine reduces the virus ability to survive and replicate inside the vaccinated human's body because the vaccine makes the immune system better at spotting and killing the virus when it enters the body. Lower lifespan of the virus inside the body means less opportunities for it to mutate successfully. This is the fundamental science, these truths should be self evident.

But don't take my word for it. Here is Stuart Ray, M.D., vice chair of medicine for data integrity and analytics at Johns Hopkins. He's a leading expert in Covid and infectious diseases.

New Variants of Coronavirus: What You Should Know

Ray stresses that both vaccination and human behavior are important. “It is striking to note that 99% of COVID-19 deaths are now occurring in unvaccinated people, when most adults in the USA have been vaccinated,” he says. “The more people who are unvaccinated and infected, the more chances there are for mutations to occur. Limiting the spread of the virus through maintaining COVID-19 safeguards (mask wearing, physical distancing, practicing hand hygiene and getting vaccinated) gives the virus fewer chances to change. It also reduces the spread of more infectious variants, if they do occur.

Also, I'd love to see an actual study which shows that even a partially effective vaccine accelerated mutations, its almost not even possible for that to be true.

 

[Eirikrautha]

"Partially effective interventions may therefore encourage viral evolution."

I noticed you ignored the first part of the original post I made about the unreasonableness of the rural reaction, with CDC numbers. I guess attacking one disputed part of the post might help you hide the fact that Covid is NOT universally a threat and that circumstances matter. Whatever. I'll go argue with the anti-vaxxers. They're just as much zealots, but at least their density is entertaining...

 

[kicksavedave]

So no. Vaccines don't create the variants. Viral spread does. And the vaccines stifle that.

Stop spreading disinformation.

Its really just as simple as this. The disinformation campaign is raging strong but its lacking actual science behind any of it. Even a vaccine that only works 25% of the time, reduces the opportunity for the virus to mutate. It does not leave "stronger" viruses in its wake. Thats gibberish.

 

[kicksavedave]

"Partially effective interventions may therefore encourage viral evolution."

This is a false statement. The correct statement should be: "Partially effective interventions may therefore not sufficiently discourage viral evolution."

 

[Eirikrautha]

This is a false statement. The correct statement should be: "Partially effective interventions may therefore not sufficiently discourage viral evolution."

Uhhh, that's a direct quote. But you know better than the study's authors...

 

[kicksavedave]

Uhhh, that's a direct quote. But you know better than the study's authors...

Its simple logic. Take two identical people, with identical immune systems, and give one a partially effective vaccine and give the other nothing. Then give them identical doses of the virus.

Which one do you think is more likely to incur a longer infection, or a stronger infection? Now which one is more likely to allow a mutation to survive?

 

[kicksavedave]

Uhhh, that's a direct quote. But you know better than the study's authors...

Also a direct quote from the same article you posted:

Given the emergence of immunity-evading variants even before vaccines were broadly deployed, it is hard to implicate vaccines or vaccine deployment strategies as the major drivers of immune evasion.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Its simple logic. Take two identical people, with identical immune systems, and give one a partially effective vaccine and give the other a highly effective vaccine. Then give them identical doses of the virus.

Which one do you think is more likely to incur a longer infection, or a stronger infection? Now which one is more likely to allow a mutation to survive?

The A-Z and Sinovac/Sinopharm vaccines are notoriously ineffective for some of the present strains. Would you rather get one of those or the Pfizer/Moderna/J&J? Note which vaccines I mentioned in the original post. But, rather than reading, you saw a post that didn't fit your preconceived notions and pounced...

 

[Eirikrautha]

Since a throw-away at the end of a post is causing so much consternation, I'll withdraw it. Now back to the meat of the post:

The rural vs urban comparison was the point of the previous discussion (see Wethog's post), so ignoring it is pretty much missing the point.

From the CDC, the best estimate for the IFR (infection fatality rate) of Covid 19 for anyone under 50 years-old is 0.5% (500/100,000) with the vast majority of the fatalities having serious comorbidities (602K/612K). The idea that a person in no danger of transmitting the virus, due to their location and lifestyle and who is of normal health, is a monster for not immediately getting vaccinated is highly irrational.

 

[kicksavedave]

Since a throw-away at the end of a post is causing so much consternation, I'll withdraw it. Now back to the meat of the post:

The rural vs urban comparison was the point of the previous discussion (see Wethog's post), so ignoring it is pretty much missing the point.

From the CDC, the best estimate for the IFR (infection fatality rate) of Covid 19 for anyone under 50 years-old is 0.5% (500/100,000) with the vast majority of the fatalities having serious comorbidities (602K/612K). The idea that a person in no danger of transmitting the virus, due to their location and lifestyle and who is of normal health, is a monster for not immediately getting vaccinated is highly irrational.

Sticking to this point. Does this rural person stay home and not have any visitors at all? A completely self sufficient homesteader? Sure, skip the vax then. For the rest of the world, the vax is a simple protection against getting severely sick, or dying, or spreading it to others, or contributing to the increased chance of the pandemic worsening through mutation - overwhelming statistics prove this all to be true. Again, if anti vaxxers all lived in a rural commune with no public interaction, then fine, do what you want. But anti vaxers live in cities too. They live in suburbs. And people in rural areas are also getting Covid - the non vax'd ones at a ridiculously higher rate than the vax'd ones.

600,000 plus dead and counting just in the US, but hey, that's someone elses problem, all those city folks, right?

 

[g00n]

"Partially effective interventions may therefore encourage viral evolution."

I noticed you ignored the first part of the original post I made about the unreasonableness of the rural reaction, with CDC numbers. I guess attacking one disputed part of the post might help you hide the fact that Covid is NOT universally a threat and that circumstances matter. Whatever. I'll go argue with the anti-vaxxers. They're just as much zealots, but at least their density is entertaining...

I didn't ignore it, I addressed it. There is no logical conclusion to be reached from talking about places SO remote nobody has contact, and then worrying about some massive outbreak there. That's not the topic.

 

[g00n]

"Partially effective interventions may therefore encourage viral evolution."

This does not mean what you think it means. I left it out of my quote because you already quoted it, and it pertains to THERAPIES ("interventions") that don't really work.

So let's put this in simpler terms based on the full context: unvaccinated people who already have COVID but are given half-ass fake cures (like maybe hydroxychloroquine or whatever) might be doing more harm than good by providing a fertile ground for viral mutation.

There are examples of these "interventions" listed and they're treatments, not vaccines.

 

[Eirikrautha]

For the rest of the world, the vax is a simple protection against getting severely sick, or dying, or spreading it to others...

The italicized is absolutely accurate. The vaccine dramatically reduces negative outcomes of infection.

The bolded part is inaccurate. While a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the actual breakthrough rate is not known.

From the CDC website:

• If you are fully vaccinated and become infected with the Delta variant, you can spread the virus to others.

So vaccination does not automatically provide protection from spreading Covid (hence the CDC's revised recommendations).

 

[g00n]

Its simple logic. Take two identical people, with identical immune systems, and give one a partially effective vaccine and give the other a highly effective vaccine. Then give them identical doses of the virus.

Which one do you think is more likely to incur a longer infection, or a stronger infection? Now which one is more likely to allow a mutation to survive?

The A-Z and Sinovac/Sinopharm vaccines are notoriously ineffective for some of the present strains. Would you rather get one of those or the Pfizer/Moderna/J&J? Note which vaccines I mentioned in the original post. But, rather than reading, you saw a post that didn't fit your preconceived notions and pounced...

Yes you're such a victim here.

You're talking out of your ass. There is no evidence that the AZ vaccine is creating some breeding ground for variants. In fact it seems to be the opposite.

COVID vaccines work well against the Delta variant, study shows

If the AZ vaccine is even 64% effected at preventing even mild to moderate SYMPTOMS even when it fails, then it's way WAY ahead of an unprotected immune system, which means it's slowing the spread AND slowing mutation by reducing the viral load and impact.

You're not using "simple logic" you're repeating lies.

VACCINES ARE NOT CAUSING THE VARIANTS.

At least not the ones we need to be concerned about because mutations happen all the f***ing time. The "simple logic" here is that giving the virus less time and space reduces mutations and therefore reduces the chances of a serious mutation.

 

[kicksavedave]

The italicized is absolutely accurate. The vaccine dramatically reduces negative outcomes of infection.

The bolded part is inaccurate. While a vaccinated person is less likely to get Covid, the actual breakthrough rate is not known.

From the CDC website:

• If you are fully vaccinated and become infected with the Delta variant, you can spread the virus to others.

So vaccination does not automatically provide protection from spreading Covid (hence the CDC's revised recommendations).

Again lets try some logic. If you are mildly sick for a few days, are you more or less likely to spread the virus to others compared to if you are severely sick for many more days?

The virus spreads most readily when it has a nice happy breeding ground in which to replicate unfettered. The virus can still spread from an inhospitable host, but its just much less able to do so vs the person carrying a heavy viral load.

The warning that "it can still spread" does not in any way contradict the notion that its less likely to spread. So again, that quote doesn't say what you're implying it says.

Its the same faulty logic that people used for masks. If you can still get sick when wearing a mask, then masks must not be effective... that was the steaming rubbish we heard so much when the pandemic started. Never mind the fact that wearing a mask reduced the spread, if its not a 100% metaphysical guarantee, then that equals "it doesn't work" in some peoples twisted mindset.

Statistics show the vax reduces the spread. Just look at case loads where the vax is accepted vs rejected. The data is all right there.