Hydelol
Banned
Just go away.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, because we know what that kind of precedent can lead to in the future.
Also, I don't think it has anything to do with ego.
Is that true?
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Yes.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Certainly doesn't seem to be the case around here at least, but then again, I would have to first know what you mean by "downplay."
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
What does "a problem" mean to you?
In the only country in which we know that the Delta variant is 99% of the cases, the case fatality rate is absolutely miniscule. It's gotten to the point that the focus of the fears has shifted to "long COVID."
Last edited by a moderator:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
That's a reductive way to view it. We will be learning about and dealing with the massive disruptions caused by and unintended consequences of the lockdowns for decades. The truth is if we knew the actual IFR in March 2020, we wouldn't have locked down in that fashion. Now some people can't let it go.
Raven117
Member
The data being that the overall hospitalization and death rate is quite small, especially for anyone under 60 and no pre-existing condition. Yes, there are many anecdotal events out there. Sadly, you have experienced them. But that doesn't change the fact that this virus does not kill alot of people from a percentage standpoint.
Was just acknowledging that Brazil did a particularly bad job by not taking a few precautions and that anger can be misdirected to the data itself.
Last edited:
Raven117
Member
The governments didn't have much of an answer for this....Its not like "if we just listened to what they said, no one would get sick and die." Thats a silly way to look at it.
Vaccine? That's actually different. While I do believe everyone should have a choice to take it, I believe it should be taken. That from a science standpoint clearly cuts down on transmission and severity.
Cyberpunkd
Member
Yes, and government and all the agencies responsible for medicine safety would get outsmarted by a pharmaceutical company because…????
Cyberpunkd
Member
Maybe for a conspiracy theorist it looks like a viable choice.
MisterFalcon
Member
Ah, the hypothetical horrors of the future which will inevitably come from having to wear a mask. And the cool thing is you can invent any number of deaths for it, enough to dwarf the most severe real world pandemic.
ManaByte
Gold Member
CDC: No masks in schools.
CA Teachers Unions: HOLD UP!
ktla.com
CA Teachers Unions: HOLD UP!
California to continue requiring masks indoors at schools despite new CDC guidelines for vaccinated students
Citing limitations of schools to accommodate physical distancing, state officials announced Friday that California will continue to require masks indoors at schools. The announcement came afte…
ktla.com
Raven117
Member
pArTy oF ScIenCE!CDC: No masks in schools.
CA Teachers Unions: HOLD UP!
California to continue requiring masks indoors at schools despite new CDC guidelines for vaccinated students
Citing limitations of schools to accommodate physical distancing, state officials announced Friday that California will continue to require masks indoors at schools. The announcement came afte…
DeepBreath87
Banned
I mean… that happens a lot. That part isn’t a conspiracy. Take the OxyContin scandal of last decade, where the FDA and DEA basically allowed Purdue to get 10-20% of the country hooked on opioids right out in the open. Or the numerous lawsuits for drugs that turned out not to be effective or had side effects the pharmaceutical companies hid from regulators. Big pharma is really good at fooling government entities to get what it wants. Especially in a crisis.
However, I don’t prescribe to the notion that vaccines are being purposefully limited to create a continuous cash stream. I wouldn’t say it is impossible. I just haven’t seen any evidence of it. But don’t fool yourself about Big Pharma. They will absolutely do anything to make money.
KeepYourHeart1989
Banned
You really have no idea how viruses work, do you?
Being a negationist isn't something to be proud of, people. Stop trying to think you know "the truth" because you read it somewhere in the internet. Seriously. You're grown ups, act like it.
Viruses mutate, masks are important, vaccines save lives. It's honestly outlandish and even infantile to believe otherwise. You aren't in the 1500's, people.
TheDreadBaron
Member
How could you miss the point? I’m directly entertaining your silly question about how could someone misinterpret data based in facts. I guess it wasn’t a serious question.
TheDreadBaron
Member
And here you’ve made a good case for how data that’s factual could be misinterpreted, also your dismissive attitude and insistence on labeling people as “negationists” (that’s a new one on me) is pretty hostile and not conducive to conversation.
Enhance your calm dude, insulting people by trying to associate legitimate concerns with flat earth conspiracies isn’t really “winning” you just look like you’re throwing a tantrum and it’s not cute.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Not a serious person. OK.
You really have no idea how viruses work, do you?
Being a negationist isn't something to be proud of, people. Stop trying to think you know "the truth" because you read it somewhere in the internet. Seriously. You're grown ups, act like it.
Viruses mutate, masks are important, vaccines save lives. It's honestly outlandish and even infantile to believe otherwise. You aren't in the 1500's, people.
What are you talking about? You just went on a character assassination tirade with zero substance. Take your own advice about "growing up" and address a point or argument instead of resorting to childish attacks.
Also, please don't bring up the efficacy of masks, because that discussion is prohibited and got the last thread locked.
TheDreadBaron
Member
No that’s just how every single person works, human nature you could call it. Some people think they’re immune though.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, sure. Looking at sets of data and inferring the possible takeaways sure is conspiracy theory territory. A real trashfire of freethinkers over here! We should all just log off and plug in to CNN.
Last edited by a moderator:
KeepYourHeart1989
Banned
Why in god's name would such a discussion be prohibited?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Here's the old COVID thread for your reference (the thread title was changed in its final days).
Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check
In actual virus-related news, a new kind of COVID-19 vaccine could debut soon. It works differently than the existing vaccines, and the manner in which they create it is fascinating. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/06/1003328413/new-type-of-covid-vaccine-could-debut-soon...
KeepYourHeart1989
Banned
You can't be serious. :lolHere's the old COVID thread for your reference (the thread title was changed in its final days).
Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check
In actual virus-related news, a new kind of COVID-19 vaccine could debut soon. It works differently than the existing vaccines, and the manner in which they create it is fascinating. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/06/06/1003328413/new-type-of-covid-vaccine-could-debut-soon...www.neogaf.com
Well: here's my take. Masks are effective. If you can use a N95, even better, much better. And that's not politics, that's simply a fact!
If someone reading this for some reason doubts on mask efficacies (or, even worse, vaccines), I... don't know what do say to you. I'm sorry, I guess. I just hope you get out of whatever hellhole of misinformation you've been to.
TheDreadBaron
Member
How brave of you to take a stand on masks when it’s literally just been explained there’s no discussion allowed.
Seems pretty clear your only motive is to feel superior to the wrong thinkers, do you think someone is gonna read your post and then suddenly realize they would be better off to let you do all their thinking for them?
KeepYourHeart1989
Banned
Did you really not notice I'm just here to laugh at you?
Pol Pot
Banned
Dude lost people. Let's not let that take away from the wholly politic discussion we're having.
You see, we're imbued with logic, like the Greeks of old, and the only way we're to engage a thing is through hard data.
But also!
We must interpret said data.
Which means, the immediate human cost is immaterial.
Monsters. That's how you get monsters.
You see, we're imbued with logic, like the Greeks of old, and the only way we're to engage a thing is through hard data.
But also!
We must interpret said data.
Which means, the immediate human cost is immaterial.
Monsters. That's how you get monsters.
TheDreadBaron
Member
Did you really not notice I'm just here to laugh at you?
Yeah, that’s what I just said. Well it’s working, everyone thinks you’re really smart now.
KeepYourHeart1989
Banned
Oh, you! You shouldn't have.
Umbasaborne
Banned
Will moderna work against the delta variant?
DeepBreath87
Banned
Dude is a troll. Anyone who "lost people" and still acts like this:
Is either full of shit or a disingenuous asshole. Either way, he's clearly baiting people with his bullshit. I don't even care about the mask discussion anymore, as I have not worn one in months. But the idea that anyone would be like "dude lost people" as some kind of defense for a guy who is admitted he's just a troll is ridiculous.Did you really not notice I'm just here to laugh at you?
Last edited:
Cyberpunkd
Member
Yes, both in reducing the transmission and from developing severe health complications if you catch it. Pfizer the same.
AZ seems to be the one with lower efficacy - 60 vs. 80-90% for mARM.
Umbasaborne
Banned
Thank you for the info. i was vaccinated back in February with moderna. Im curious if ill need a booster any time soon.
We are back at December last year numbers 
after our government let everything go, in just 2 weeks time .. 8 months of measures is thrown out of the window! Nice that Delta variation.. The Netherlands 
Good thing I had my first shot Pfizer .. it helps a bit against the idiots around me !
I hope the rest of the world has a good look and do exact oppositie.. with loosening restrictions.
after our government let everything go, in just 2 weeks time .. 8 months of measures is thrown out of the window! Nice that Delta variation.. The Netherlands Good thing I had my first shot Pfizer .. it helps a bit against the idiots around me !I hope the rest of the world has a good look and do exact oppositie.. with loosening restrictions.
Last edited:
12Goblins
Lil’ Gobbie
99.5% of COVID-19 deaths in the US are now in unvaccinated people, CDC head says
And cases and hospitalizations are up in areas where vaccination rates are low, Dr. Rochelle Walensky said.
Birdo
Banned
Very vague.99.5% of COVID-19 deaths in the US are now in unvaccinated people, CDC head says
And cases and hospitalizations are up in areas where vaccination rates are low, Dr. Rochelle Walensky said.news.yahoo.com
What are the ages of these people? What are their health status? Were they in the vunerable bracket? All we are given is "Unvaccinated". Lots of vital information is just left out.
Kilau
Gold Member
I'm not sure how that information would change the bottom line. They could all have been vulnerable aside from being unvaccinated. The common factor is vaccination and those that were vaccinated making up less than 1% of all covid deaths seems to be pretty clear.
Birdo
Banned
It would help to see if the new variants are more deadly or not. If the unvaxinated people dying are still the same demographics as before (Over 80s, Comorbid Conditions), then it would ease a few minds.
Instead, we just get a vague, sensational statement with no breakdown.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
99.5% of COVID-19 deaths in the US are now in unvaccinated people, CDC head says
And cases and hospitalizations are up in areas where vaccination rates are low, Dr. Rochelle Walensky said.
That is an absolutely insane discrepancy to England, which as I shared above, has seen only 36% of the Delta variant deaths in the unvaccinated. Only around 250 deaths total going back to February 1st, so a small sample size, but 64% of those deaths had at least one shot and 36% were fully vaccinated.
Assuming this statement is true, I really do wonder what could be the cause. Is it really just that the Delta variant (now 99% of cases in England) is that much weaker than previous variants that are still circulating the US?
edit: watching the press conference from which this quote came a bit, but does anyone know how the vaccine "effectiveness" shown on those slides is being measured? Fauci is claiming that data from England shows 92% effectiveness against hospitalization from the Delta variant for Oxford-AstraZeneca, but does anyone know what that actually means? Just that 92% of people who are fully vaccinated have not yet been hospitalized? I'm guessing that's not right, but what is it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Kilau
Gold Member
I guess the more important number is the CFR for delta variant.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Currently pegged at 0.02% ~ 0.03% (95% confidence interval) based on the data out of England where 99% of cases are Delta variant.
See table 3 for reference:
Raven117
Member
Yeah. It was an incredible over reaction.
Your risk of dying from COVID doubles every ~8 years of age, so the discrepancy could simply be down to the unvaccinated victims in the US having a much higher average age (say, if the Delta variant is rapidly spreading in communities with low vaccine penetration). From the UK study cited there, it looks like they are adding the reduction in your chance of being hospitalised given you are infected, to the reduction in your chance of being infected in the first place (https://khub.net/web/phe-national/public-library/-/document_library/v2WsRK3ZlEig/view/479607266). So an effectiveness of 92% would mean that you would expect 100 hospitalisations in an unvaccinated population, but only 8 in a vaccinated one, adjusted for age.
Again, it's important to remember that the vast majority of people in the UK population who would have been vulnerable to the virus have now been double vaccinated. So there simply isn't a large pool of unvaccinated individuals to feed into the figures. Think about the limit case where everyone has been fully vaccinated, and the virus is still spreading. Then all of the victims would be vaccinated.
Aesius
Member
Fear and weakness are virtues now.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Well, the data we have from England currently shows that of the hospitalizations (inpatient admissions) from the Delta variant, the completely unvaccinated represent about 62% of the total and vaccinated 36% (with the 2-dose group representing just 16%), so while 92% effectiveness seems a bit high, I think there's no doubt that 2 doses does provide significant protection.
The 92% assumes the population characteristics are the same between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. But the average age of unvaccinated individuals in the UK looks to be a lot lower than the average age of vaccinated individuals. If the risk doubles every 8 years, then you just need a ~8 year difference in average age to explain that discrepancy. (And this ignores the fact that the vaccinated group is bigger than the unvaccinated one)
Last edited:
BouncyFrag
Member
The social engineers know their stuff.
DeepBreath87
Banned
I agree completely. The idea that the head of the CDC would go on TV and talk about her "feelings of impending doom" at a time when the country was finally emerging from the worst of the pandemic is disgusting. Stick the the science and keep your feelings where they belong, with your therapist.
QSD
Member
They turn everything into a subscription service these days.*Tinfoil hat on* What if they make the vaccines weak on purpose, so they make money from constant top-ups