Israel - Vaccination Rate Doesn’t Seem To Impact The Infection Rate

[Aldebaran]

Because you can only spread the virus if you are first infected, and the vaccinated are much less likely to get infected. Even still, a vaccinate person can still spread the virus. But we must distinguish between a possibility and a probability. The advice on not wearing a mask was a calculated risk, taking into account the cost to society of advising that everyone wear masks. That calculation changed with the delta variant, which is why the thinking on masks is beginning to change.

There will be other variants as well. Trust me. Imagine how many more regulations and mandates will be created when they come along. Get the shot, get the booster, get another booster and keep wearing a mask--two masks, in fact. Stay home, lose your business, let no crisis go to waste, etc.

 

[Andrewn]

If it is deemed necessary I would probably get one too. Though my vaccines were more on the order of a booster shot for me.

I received my 1st shot on 4/29 and the 2nd on 6/17. According to Pfizer's recommendations, I should get a 3rd shot between 10/29 and 12/17.

But I got Moderna, and it has a higher dose of the vaccine. Perhaps immunity lasts longer? We'll have to wait for future studies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I received my 1st shot on 4/29 and the 2nd on 6/17. According to Pfizer's recommendations, I should get a 3rd shot between 10/29 and 12/17.

But I got Moderna, and it has a higher dose of the vaccine. Perhaps immunity lasts longer? We'll have to wait for future studies.

I got Moderna as well too.

 

[sfs]

There will be other variants as well.

Quite possibly. So what do you do when unfortunate things come along? Whine about them or take the steps needed to respond?

Imagine how many more regulations and mandates will be created when they come along. Get the shot, get the booster, get another booster and keep wearing a mask--two masks, in fact.

No, just one mask. Get an occasional shot and wear a mask when transmission is high in your area -- poor us. Previous generations only had to fight world wars and survive dust bowls and a great depression and fight a civil war, but we have to wear cloth on our faces sometimes. Truly we are the saddest generation.

Stay home, lose your business, let no crisis go to waste, etc.

Huh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quite possibly. So what do you do when unfortunate things come along? Whine about them or take the steps needed to respond?

No, just one mask. Get an occasional shot and wear a mask when transmission is high in your area -- poor us. Previous generations only had to fight world wars and survive dust bowls and a great depression and fight a civil war, but we have to wear cloth on our faces sometimes. Truly we are the saddest generation.

Huh?

But I could not do the Chicken Dance for a day after my shot (the arm flapping). And masks make my nose itch!

That is about as strong as arguments against the vaccine are.

 

[whatbogsends]

And even with the vaccine the delta variant is covered better than with no vaccine at all. if we had a sane vaccination rate the delta variant might not ever have gotten a foothold in the country.

One of the major concerns about this virus is that people would not get vaccinated enough soon enough and that variants would evolve that could get around the vaccine.

And delta originated in India, before vaccines were even available to the public in the US.

One of the major talking points trying to shame the vaccine hesitant is laying the blame for variants at their feet, when the reality is, no variants of concern have even arisen in the US.

Delta also escapes the protection of the vaccines fairly well. "if we had a sane vaccination rate the delta variant might not ever have gotten a foothold in the country" is purely wishful thinking. Israel has high vaccination rates and delta gained a foothold there quite easily.

 

[whatbogsends]

I received my 1st shot on 4/29 and the 2nd on 6/17. According to Pfizer's recommendations, I should get a 3rd shot between 10/29 and 12/17.

But I got Moderna, and it has a higher dose of the vaccine. Perhaps immunity lasts longer? We'll have to wait for future studies.

It wasn't too long ago (3 weeks, to be precise) where i was questioning the duration of the protection provided from vaccines, and talking about the likely necessity of boosters, and was given such claims as this:

No government or scientific body is recommending a booster vaccine for COVID-19 at this time. The evidence is that the antibodies will last for years, short of some new, unforseen mutation of the virus.

And, of course, they're the ones "following the science".

 

[Subduction Zone]

And delta originated in India, before vaccines were even available to the public in the US.

One of the major talking points trying to shame the vaccine hesitant is laying the blame for variants at their feet, when the reality is, no variants of concern have even arisen in the US.

Delta also escapes the protection of the vaccines fairly well. "if we had a sane vaccination rate the delta variant might not ever have gotten a foothold in the country" is purely wishful thinking. Israel has high vaccination rates and delta gained a foothold there quite easily.

The delta variant is not the fault of science deniers. But the current infection rate is their fault. One can still get infected by the delta variant if one has been vaccinated, but the odds are far less than that of unvaccinated people. So yes, the shaming is well deserved.

 

[whatbogsends]

The delta variant is not the fault of science deniers. But the current infection rate is their fault. One can still get infected by the delta variant if one has been vaccinated, but the odds are far less than that of unvaccinated people. So yes, the shaming is well deserved.

Those who are vaccinated and have high social contact are spreading the virus more than those who are unvaccinated and are continuing to used distancing and limit social interaction.

Those who extensively socialize, vaccinated or not, should be the object of your shame.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those who are vaccinated and have high social contact are spreading the virus more than those who are unvaccinated and are continuing to used distancing and limit social interaction.

Those who extensively socialize, vaccinated or not, should be the object of your shame.

Perhaps. That is debatable. The problem is that the unvaccinated are also the sort that ignored recommendations about social distancing. You need to look at what most people do. Cherry picking is always an error.

 

[sfs]

Those who are vaccinated and have high social contact are spreading the virus more than those who are unvaccinated and are continuing to used distancing and limit social interaction.

Evidence?

 

[whatbogsends]

Evidence?

The evidence that the vaccinated spread the virus at a high rate is right in the data for Israel's infection rates.

The evidence for how virus is spread in different social situations is well known.

 

[sfs]

The evidence that the vaccinated spread the virus at a high rate is right in the data for Israel's infection rates.

The evidence for how virus is spread in different social situations is well known.

And the evidence that vaccinated people who aren't limiting social contact are spreading the virus more than unvaccinated people who are social distancing is where?

 

[whatbogsends]

And the evidence that vaccinated people who aren't limiting social contact are spreading the virus more than unvaccinated people who are social distancing is where?

It's an assessment.

Firstly, to be clear i didn't simply say "unvaccinated people who are social distancing", i specifically talked about limiting social interaction.

With limited social interaction, the capacity for spread is low. You can't infect someone you don't come into contact with.

With high social interaction - specifically indoor venues with large numbers of people - even with vaccines that reduce transmissibility, you have a much higher capacity for spread.

You're free to disagree with that assessment, and your free to cite any evidence you have which contradicts my assessment.

 

[whatbogsends]

Perhaps. That is debatable. The problem is that the unvaccinated are also the sort that ignored recommendations about social distancing. You need to look at what most people do. Cherry picking is always an error.

I agree that the unvaccinated should not be ignoring other recommendations about social contact. I also agree that there are a number of unvaccinated individuals who do precisely that. I would agree that with two individuals engaging in the same behavior, the unvaccinated person carries a larger risk of spreading Covid than a vaccinated person, although i think it's still unclear by what amount.

That being said, in my area, many of the vaccinated are treating vaccination as a license in which they can now ignore the risk of Covid spread. To be fair, it was marketed as such for a period of time, though they're now walking that back.

 

[sfs]

You're free to disagree with that assessment, and your free to cite any evidence you have which contradicts my assessment.

I don't know what the relative rates are -- I was hoping you had some evidence on the subject. No doubt it depends on just how isolated and non-isolated the two groups are.

 

[whatbogsends]

I don't know what the relative rates are -- I was hoping you had some evidence on the subject. No doubt it depends on just how isolated and non-isolated the two groups are.

Level of social interaction/isolation is likely absurdly hard to fully quantify. Moreover, even if quantifiable, there will likely be conflicting information about which activities/venues are the most risky/dangerous and what best practices are.

While vaccination status is more easily quantifiable in its simplest terms (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) determining individual protection, infectability, etc. it also complicated, and even within an individual it will vary over time (i.e. building up weeks after vaccination, then slowly fading away after cresting).

There's absolutely more nuance to it, and i was hasty to make a blanket generalization rather than discussing the nuance (which, of course, the post i was responding to did as well, and i responded in kind rather than taking the extra time to elaborate).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Nope not a r"rubbish excuse ". You screwed up and use a logical fallacy incorrectly.

Try again.

No, you rejected the information because the source was "too new and didn't have a reputation yet". That is a genetic fallacy. You are in error here, not the original poster.

But how about we discuss the subject matter?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What does the data show with regards to hospitalizations, deaths, and overall severity of cases when comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated?

I would reiterate (as I have in many other threads), in a highly vaccinated locale, "cases" becomes a somewhat meaningless metric.

The original goal of the vaccines as never the total removal of covid, it was to reduce hospitalizations and deaths (and lower the severity of cases when you did catch it). It just happened to be a pleasant surprise when the mRNA vaccines were so effective and overall transmission prevention.

If the vaccines make it so that virus, that once carried the risk of a weeks long fever and potential need for supplemental oxygen, now presents a threat that's neutered to point of "having the sniffles and loss of taste for a few days", then the vaccines have done their job well.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

What does the data show with regards to hospitalizations, deaths, and overall severity of cases when comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated?

I would reiterate (as I have in many other threads), in a highly vaccinated locale, "cases" becomes a somewhat meaningless metric.

The original goal of the vaccines as never the total removal of covid, it was to reduce hospitalizations and deaths (and lower the severity of cases when you did catch it). It just happened to be a pleasant surprise when the mRNA vaccines were so effective and overall transmission prevention.

If the vaccines make it so that virus, that once carried the risk of a weeks long fever and potential need for supplemental oxygen, now presents a threat that's neutered to point of "having the sniffles and loss of taste for a few days", then the vaccines have done their job well.

"7 days to flatten the curve".

Seems like a lifetime ago.

OR, alternatively, those "sniffles and loss of taste" happened anyway (and would have continued to happen), as they did to millions, that now have natural immunity. We can't exclude them from the conversation, as the Administration seems insistent on doing.

Some were definitely unlucky and in danger from either choice.