Cornell University - Vaccination not Preventing Infection

[Tom 1]

Well it's up to each person to judge what is good information and what isn't

There are objective standards. It’s not a free for all. There appears to be a lack of any kind of instruction in critical thinking over there.

 

[tall73]

That's true. But hospital populations can be viewed that way; seperated by vaccine status. So why not use that data to address the spread through either population of vaccine COMPARED to unvaccinated?

Because hospitalizations are only a sub-set of infection.

Which is why we can see from that data the benefits of vaccination with regards to hospitalization. But it doesn't tell us as much about total transmission or spread. Less severe infection is still infection. But less severe imfection likely wouldn't show up in hospitalizations other than those going for other reasons who are screened

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

At least one "vaccine expert" was pushing the concept of 70-75% vaccination would achieve return to normalcy.

MACCALLUM: When do you think we'll reach herd immunity in the United
States? Back to normal life?

FAUCI: You know, it's not necessarily going to be a matter of time, but a
matter of the percentage of people in the country who decide they do want
to get vaccinated.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

FAUCI: You know, after what we just mentioned about the confidence of the
people, the estimate is that you will need about 70 percent, maybe 75
percent of the people in the country vaccinating to get that umbrella of
herd immunity that will get us really on the road very close to being
normal. The sooner we do that, the better.

Fauci: America will reach herd immunity when 70% get COVID vaccine

When that article was written and by extension when Fauci said it, the Alpha strand of COVID-19 was most prevalent. With it’s R0 of 3, 70% would be what would be needed to achieve herd immunity. The Delta strand however has now become more prevalent. It has an R0 of 6 so we need to be around 85% to achieve herd immunity.

 

[whatbogsends]

When that article was written and by extension when Fauci said it, the Alpha strand of COVID-19 was most prevalent. With it’s R0 of 3, 70% would be what would be needed to achieve herd immunity. The Delta strand however has now become more prevalent. It has an R0 of 6 so we need to be around 85% to achieve herd immunity.

Then perhaps Rambot should have been more specific when he said:

But has that point ever been argued? I'm pretty sure most vaccinations experts have always said we need a pretty significant portion of the population (like WELL over 90%).

Moreover, when Fauci said 70% he was being disingenuous. He admitted in a New York Times that he said lower numbers because he didn't think the public was ready to hear the real numbers.

Regardless of what Fauci said, we're not going to get herd immunity from the vaccines that only reduce transmission 40-80%. Populations with 95+% vaccination are still significantly spreading the virus. These vaccines aren't preventing the spread of Covid. At best, they're slowing it down somewhat.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If a person is inhabited by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't his gut instinct be to do what the Spirit nudges him to? Or to believe what the Spirit tells him has merit?

That is the false doctrine of Enthusiasm. The Spirit does not speak to us except by the external word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rambot]

Because hospitalizations are only a sub-set of infection.

Which is why we can see from that data the benefits of vaccination with regards to hospitalization. But it doesn't tell us as much about total transmission or spread. Less severe infection is still infection. But less severe imfection likely wouldn't show up in hospitalizations other than those going for other reasons who are screened

Fair point.

 

[rambot]

Then perhaps Rambot should have been more specific when he said:

No. I was likely just wrong here. It is what I remember; but that was almost a year ago.

Moreover, when Fauci said 70% he was being disingenuous. He admitted in a New York Times that he said lower numbers because he didn't think the public was ready to hear the real numbers.

Really? Do you have a source or something for this? Because I gotta say, I REALLY think that was a foolish call on his part.

Regardless of what Fauci said, we're not going to get herd immunity from the vaccines that only reduce transmission 40-80%. Populations with 95+% vaccination are still significantly spreading the virus. These vaccines aren't preventing the spread of Covid. At best, they're slowing it down somewhat.[/QUOTE]There are populations with a 95%+ vaccination rate???

 

[stevil]

Well it's up to each person to judge what is good information and what isn't

Forums like this are good (in theory) to get input and challenges from multiple people.

Certainly I see articles and studies provided by many people that I wouldn't have found by my own devices.
Also there are points and considerations that I wouldn't have come across with just me looking.

Although, typically you have the For crowd and the Against crowd, and typically people don't change their opinions. We probably leave discussions just thinking that the other side have fallen for propaganda or are partisan to a particular political party or a particular celebrity or a particular conspiracy.

We probably don't do enough open conversation, not enough inquisitive questioning and listening and probably too much trying to win or convince others.

 

[rambot]

At least one "vaccine expert" was pushing the concept of 70-75% vaccination would achieve return to normalcy.

MACCALLUM: When do you think we'll reach herd immunity in the United
States? Back to normal life?

FAUCI: You know, it's not necessarily going to be a matter of time, but a
matter of the percentage of people in the country who decide they do want
to get vaccinated.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

FAUCI: You know, after what we just mentioned about the confidence of the
people, the estimate is that you will need about 70 percent, maybe 75
percent of the people in the country vaccinating to get that umbrella of
herd immunity that will get us really on the road very close to being
normal. The sooner we do that, the better.

Fauci: America will reach herd immunity when 70% get COVID vaccine

Those numbers are in reference to a different strain, for context.

 

[rambot]

Forums like this are good (in theory) to get input and challenges from multiple people.

Certainly I see articles and studies provided by many people that I wouldn't have found by my own devices.
Also there are points and considerations that I wouldn't have come across with just me looking.

Although, typically you have the For crowd and the Against crowd, and typically people don't change their opinions. We probably leave discussions just thinking that the other side have fallen for propaganda or are partisan to a particular political party or a particular celebrity or a particular conspiracy.

We probably don't do enough open conversation, not enough inquisitive questioning and listening and probably too much trying to win or convince others.

I also wonder about whether people have a HEALTHY relationship with PEER REVIEWED data that disagrees with their view.

I think some people just dismiss it or ad hominem it away. That's a poor choice. I kind of wish people would/could wrestle with that information a bit and let it seep into their matrix of knowledge; EVEN if they don't get into a big discussion of it.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

As far as I understand it.

A vaccinated person is 8 times less likely (than a person without immunity) to get infected and pass the disease on to others
A vaccinated person is 11 times less likely to require hospital treatment.

The person with natural immunity will not transmit it or contract it.

 

[KCfromNC]

At least one "vaccine expert" was pushing the concept of 70-75% vaccination would achieve return to normalcy.

MACCALLUM: When do you think we'll reach herd immunity in the United
States? Back to normal life?

FAUCI: You know, it's not necessarily going to be a matter of time, but a
matter of the percentage of people in the country who decide they do want
to get vaccinated.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

FAUCI: You know, after what we just mentioned about the confidence of the
people, the estimate is that you will need about 70 percent, maybe 75
percent of the people in the country vaccinating to get that umbrella of
herd immunity that will get us really on the road very close to being
normal. The sooner we do that, the better.

Fauci: America will reach herd immunity when 70% get COVID vaccine

You could have mentioned that this interview happened before the emergence of the much more contagious delta variant showed up and saved us all a mouse click.

 

[KCfromNC]

The person with natural immunity will not transmit it or contract it.

No, they just have a lower chance of doing so than people not previously infected.

 

[renniks]

There are objective standards. It’s not a free for all. There appears to be a lack of any kind of instruction in critical thinking over there.

Lol objective standards about what a person is allowed to think?

 

[renniks]

That is the false doctrine of Enthusiasm. The Spirit does not speak to us except by the external word of God.

-CryptoLutheran

Well that's your unscriptural belief. It's not mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The person with natural immunity will not transmit it or contract it.

That is false. By the way, no one has "natural immunity" to this. One can get "acquired natural immunity". That means that one can catch the disease, recover from it, and then have a higher resistance to it. You may be confused about the terms that you are using. Even so some people that have had it once have come down with it again.

 

[Bradskii]

You don't understand what I'm saying then. Thinking about something and then going with intuition has served me well. It's not perfect, but nothing in this world is. If you think it means not thinking, you are incorrect. For everything in life, we choose who to believe. Even if I do something as a trade, I can never live long enough to figure out everything on my own. So I take everyone's ideas into account and end up forming my own opinions on what works. That's the same thing we do with almost any subject if we are honest about it.

Taking someone's ideas and forming an opinion? System 2. Going with intuition? System 1.

Intuition doesn't follow from conscious thought. It's automatic. So you can't think about something and therefore each an intuitive decision. It will work the other way around though.

 

[renniks]

Taking someone's ideas and forming an opinion? System 2. Going with intuition? System 1.

Intuition doesn't follow from conscious thought. It's automatic. So you can't think about something and therefore each an intuitive decision. It will work the other way around though.

What do they call this now? Binary thinking? Your formula isn't real life.

 

[Bradskii]

What do they call this now? Binary thinking? Your formula isn't real life.

Well, it won a Nobel prize:

'In October, Princeton University psychologist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his groundbreaking work in applying psychological insights to economic theory, particularly in the areas of judgment and decision-making under uncertainty.

Kahneman is recognized for the pioneering research and theoretical work he conducted with colleague Amos Tversky, PhD, who died in 1996. While Tversky was acknowledged in the announcement, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences does not award prizes posthumously. "Certainly, we would have gotten this together," said Kahneman on the day of the announcement. "There is that shadow over the joy I feel."

The team's findings have countered some assumptions of traditional economic theory--that people make rational choices based on their self-interest--by showing that people frequently fail to fully analyze situations where they must make complex judgments. Instead, people often make decisions using rules of thumb rather than rational analysis, and they base those decisions on factors economists traditionally don't consider, such as fairness, past events and aversion to loss.

His work has inspired a new generation of researchers in economics and finance to enrich economic theory using insights from cognitive psychology into intrinsic human motivation," said the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' announcement. That's evidenced by the fact Kahneman and Tversky's seminal paper "Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk," has the highest citation count of all articles published in Econometrica, arguably the most prestigious economic journal.'
Psychologist wins Nobel Prize

You should read his book: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

 

[Pommer]

Well, it won a Nobel prize:

'In October, Princeton University psychologist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his groundbreaking work in applying psychological insights to economic theory, particularly in the areas of judgment and decision-making under uncertainty.

Kahneman is recognized for the pioneering research and theoretical work he conducted with colleague Amos Tversky, PhD, who died in 1996. While Tversky was acknowledged in the announcement, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences does not award prizes posthumously. "Certainly, we would have gotten this together," said Kahneman on the day of the announcement. "There is that shadow over the joy I feel."

The team's findings have countered some assumptions of traditional economic theory--that people make rational choices based on their self-interest--by showing that people frequently fail to fully analyze situations where they must make complex judgments. Instead, people often make decisions using rules of thumb rather than rational analysis, and they base those decisions on factors economists traditionally don't consider, such as fairness, past events and aversion to loss.

His work has inspired a new generation of researchers in economics and finance to enrich economic theory using insights from cognitive psychology into intrinsic human motivation," said the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' announcement. That's evidenced by the fact Kahneman and Tversky's seminal paper "Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk," has the highest citation count of all articles published in Econometrica, arguably the most prestigious economic journal.'
Psychologist wins Nobel Prize

You should read his book: https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555

Oh, my library had the audiobook!