a Christian only topic of vaccine mandates

[The Barbarian]

These studies involve testing of vaccinated and unvaccinated people for coronavirus, and then comparison how many people are vaccinated and have it vs how many are unvaccinated and have it. And again, populations of vaccinated people are significantly less likely to be infected. And this includes testing of asymptomatic people as well. By in large, the point is that vaccinated people are significantly less likely to have the virus, suggesting that vaccination is efficacious at stopping infection.

Denial is strong in the antivaxxers.

 

[The Barbarian]

ohns Hopkins, which initially reported a 1 in 5,000 breakthrough infection rate, now says that recent studies show it might be more like 1 in 100. Or perhaps it's more like 4 in 10, like we saw with the Cal football team. Who knows! Science can be so fickle...

Comes down to the data. And as you learned, it is very low.

To further buttress the point that vaccines work, CDC reports about 35,000 symptomatic cases a week out of 162 million vaccinated Americans, which is 0.02%. Also, more than 90% of patients hospitalized with COVID are unvaccinated. Furthermore, vaccination is associated with a 40-50% reduction in COVID cases among an infected person’s household contacts.


The delta variant is now responsible for most infections, and it is nasty, spreading much more easily than the original virus. Studies show that vaccinated individuals carry as much of this variant in their nose as the unvaccinated, suggesting that they can spread the virus. They can indeed, but are still less likely to do so than the unvaccinated since they are less likely to be infected in the first place. Another boost for vaccines comes from just-released Israeli data demonstrating that a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine among the over 60 offers greater protection than after two vaccines by a factor of four!
The Statistics Behind “Breakthrough” Infections

 

[Bobber]

I know, right?
An "oldtimer" Hockey league, just outside of Toronto, just had all it's participants contract COVID and one died... all were vaccinated.

Apparently 14 of the vaccinated came down with covid. 14!

Organizer of fully vaccinated Ontario hockey league where COVID-19 outbreak hit looks for answers | CTV News

York region medical officer stated,
"You can get some transmission and particularly in situations where people are not wearing a mask, they are very active and breathing heavily so that increases the potential for exposure."

Hockey certainly is a sport where you'd see this occur but really....14 vaccinted in the same place get covid. It becomes an ever increasing stretch of the mind to believe the vaccines are effective at all but they still saying they are. It can put one in a place where they just don't know what to believe anymore.

We Canadians are far more accepting of having our rights stepped on.

Sure. We Canadians somebody can step on us and we'll generally turn and say we're sorry maybe I had a part in offending you . Most likely I got what I deserved.

Did they not state that, in Ontario, by March 25th, there will be no stipulations or need for "proof of Vax"... if all goes well?

So Ford claims. I think most just say I'll believe it when I see it and certainly not count on it.

 

[probinson]

So here's an interesting article that says "many experts" believe that EVERYONE is likely to get COVID-19 at some point, regardless of their vaccination status. In other words, a 100% breakthrough infection rate;

Vaccinated or not, everyone is likely to get COVID-19 at some point, many experts say – Orange County Register

So as much as people have tried to paint this as "anti-science" and other pejoratives (since they apparently can't debate on the merits of their arguments alone), you can see that there are indeed "many" scientists and epidemiologists that are saying that the vaccines aren't going to protect you from infection.

Again, by using terms like "effective" and stating that they "work", they conflate multiple efficacies. Yes, the vaccines are holding up well against severe illness and death, but they are not stopping infections, nor are they stopping transmissions. And "many experts" believe that whether you're vaccinated or not, it's just a matter of time before you get infected.

 

[probinson]

York region medical officer stated,
"You can get some transmission and particularly in situations where people are not wearing a mask, they are very active and breathing heavily so that increases the potential for exposure."

Gotta love it. When the vaccine fails to protect you from infection, it's your fault for not wearing a mask. A vaccine so "effective" at stopping infections, it's completely thwarted by you simply not wearing a mask.

The gaslighting is strong.

 

[probinson]

It's not subjective.

Yes, the word "sufficiently" is in fact subjective.

The public trust has taken a beating not because they deserve it, but because of the extremely active misinformation campaigns that have infected so much of the public that they stop trusting real science and instead trust these purveyors of lies.

That's just not true. In the surveys I posted, 77% of MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS (doctors and nurses) said that their trust in the CDC and FDA had decreased. Here it is again;

Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic

Do you honestly believe that 77% of medical professionals have been "infected" by the "purveyors of lies" and that's why they trust the CDC less?

Here's a comment from one of the nurses surveyed;

“I do not question, doubt or disagree with the mission(s) of the agencies,” one nurse wrote in a comment on the Medscape poll. “I do (within the last 2 years) question the degree to which leaders of those institutions are able to truly implement scientifically sound and public health-centric recommendations and practices free from political influence and bias.”​

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, the word "sufficiently" is in fact subjective.

It is objectively true that there exists levels of viral exposure at which vaccine effectiveness is much less than at smaller levels of exposure. Team players interacting in close quarters without masks, especially yelling and at high levels of physical exertion are bound to generate higher levels of respiratory droplets and viral exposure than people in normal social settings where most of us are. Applying the results of vaccine effectiveness from sports teams to the public at large is scientifically flawed.

That's just not true. In the surveys I posted, 77% of MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS (doctors and nurses) said that their trust in the CDC and FDA had decreased. Here it is again;

The survey you quote had three choices for this question:
1. Trust increased
2. Trust remained the same
3. Trust deceased
Those who chose #3 did so because it was the best choice between 1, 2, and 3. That is, their trust decreased by some indefinite amount (or as you would say, by some "subjective" amount). Since the amount of decrease is subjective, it is easy to see how those who wish to support the over-the-top claim that CDC and FDA is a joke would take that subjective amount and make it whatever they need it to be to support their claim. There is no evidence that any significant portion of medical professionals thinks the CDC or the FDA are a joke.

Here's a comment from one of the nurses surveyed;

Curated anecdotes are not adequate to support a claim that applies to a group as a whole.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes. The vaccines are designed to keep you from serious illness and/or death. Which they do very effectively. Thank God.



Several reasons. First, there is a small, but real possibility that they could still infect and kill a vaccinated person.

So can a common cold or flu. Car accident, smoking, over eating, alcoholism, drug abuse...

We don't hold these to this stringent of action.

Second, there are people who for legitimate medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated.

So the rights of all are removed for the chance that a few that may.... may be affected.. The few that are already at risk anyway?
What next? Mandatory permanent masks? Biannual shots for ever?

Third, the ICUs often fill up with anti-vaxxers who fill beds needed by people with illnesses they didn't bring upon themselves.

There are over 80% of many populations who are fully vaccinated. Of the 20% who are not, only a few will need hospitalization. The greatest amount vaccinated is in the elderly who are most at risk.

I know someone who works in a hospital and the ICU at their hospital has not been overwhelmed since the onset. It is now, ironically fairly quiet as many are afraid to go their unless they have real emergencies.

Anti vaxers are not likely to "clog" the ICU's IMO. Their numbers are to small of a percent and too spread out.

But those people seem so entitled that they don't care who they hurt.

Again, if your vaccinated.. they really cannot hurt you much.... you stated so yourself as it is very rare that a vaccinated person gets hospitalized.

I am vaccinated. Fully. But I feel absolutely no threat from someone who is not. They are at risk... not me.

Their body, their choice.

 

[The Barbarian]

So can a common cold or flu. Car accident, smoking, over eating, alcoholism, drug abuse...

Common cold and flu doesn't normally kill 3/4 of a million Americans. When there is a strain that does, the country took stringent action.

We take rather stringent action against people smoking where it can affect others.

We take extremely stringent action against drunk driving.

I'm not sure how you think overeating hurts other people.

We take extremely stringent action against drug abuse.

Your point is that there are other things we should also restrict? Good for you.

I know someone who works in a hospital and the ICU at their hospital has not been overwhelmed since the onset.

Ah anecdotes. Not effective against data...

It was a major public health problem. People who don't get vaccinated are much, much more likely to end up in ICU, taking beds away from people who need them.

Anti vaxers are not likely to "clog" the ICU's IMO.

See above. Opinions don't mean much; data matters.

 

[The Barbarian]

So here's an interesting article that says "many experts" believe that EVERYONE is likely to get COVID-19 at some point, regardless of their vaccination status. In other words, a 100% breakthrough infection rate;

So a newspaper told you this. How... newsy. Got a peer-reviewed article by a real epidemiologist that says so?

So as much as people have tried to paint this as "anti-science" and other pejoratives (since they apparently can't debate on the merits of their arguments alone), you can see that there are indeed "many" scientists and epidemiologists that are saying that the vaccines aren't going to protect you from infection.

There is a doctor in Houston that a president touted, who thinks so. She also thinks gynecological issues are caused by having sex with demons.

On the other hand, it seems pretty hard to find even one such opinion in the scientific literature. For reasons we all understand.

“I do not question, doubt or disagree with the mission(s) of the agencies,” one nurse wrote in a comment on the Medscape poll. “I do (within the last 2 years) question the degree to which leaders of those institutions are able to truly implement scientifically sound and public health-centric recommendations and practices free from political influence and bias.”

Out of nearly 2,000 U.S. nurses surveyed on Medscape (WebMD's sister site for health care professionals) between May 25 and June 3, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased since the start of the pandemic, and 51% said their trust in the FDA has decreased. Similarly, out of nearly 450 U.S. doctors surveyed in the same time period, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased and 48% said their trust in the FDA has decreased.


She had good reason to be skeptical then:

"Because of the damage done by the prior administration, the @CDCgov and @CDCDirector were put in the position to earn back the public and scientific community’s trust. A basic tenant of trust is honest and transparent communication."
Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic (my emphasis)

The emails and transcripts detail how in the early days of 2020 Trump and his allies in the White House blocked media briefings and interviews with CDC officials, attempted to alter public safety guidance normally cleared by the agency and instructed agency officials to destroy evidence that might be construed as political interference. The documents further underscore how Trump appointees tried to undermine the work of scientists and career staff at the CDC to control the administration’s messaging on the spread of the virus and the dangers of transmission and infection.
...
Christine Casey, one of the leaders of the CDC team that publishes weekly scientific reports, also known as Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, told the House committee that at one point in August 2020 she received instructions to delete an email reflecting political interference.Casey said Paul Alexander, the former temporary senior policy adviser to the assistant secretary for public affairs at HHS, instructed her to stop publishing the weekly reports, insinuating her team was trying to make Trump look bad in public. After conversations with leadership at the CDC, including then-Director Robert Redfield, Michael Iademarco, one of the CDC’s leaders overseeing epidemiology and laboratory services, told Casey to delete the email.“I believe he said that the director [Redfield] said to delete the email and that anyone else who had received it, you know, should do as well,” Casey said in her testimony.
Trump Administration Suppressed CDC Reports, Messaging at Crucial Stage of COVID-19 Pandemic

With a Trump-appointed director attempting to suppress the truth, it's not surprising people became skeptical. Now, with new leadership and a more open agency policy, that trust will have be be rebuilt.

 

[probinson]

Those who chose #3 did so because...

Look at you, pretending like you know why 2,450 medical professionals chose the option they chose in a survey.

 

[probinson]

So a newspaper told you this. How... newsy.

Did you read the article? Epidemiologists are quoted.

Time will tell, but each day produces more and more verifiable breakthrough infections. Probably just a matter of time before everyone gets infected. Even the fully vaccinated, according to "many experts".

With a Trump-appointed director...

Esquire? Really? And you're criticizing my sources for being a "newspaper"?

Puh-lease.

The survey I posted was taken in June 2021, long after the prior administration was gone, and the survey makes absolutely no mention of the prior administration.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Look at you, pretending like you know why 2,450 medical professionals chose the option they chose in a survey.

If you read the survey that was linked in your reference, you would know too, because they tell you. Of course you have to register for Medscape to read that survey. Did you do that?

 

[probinson]

If you read the survey that was linked in your reference, you would know too, because they tell you. Of course you have to register for Medscape to read that survey. Did you do that?

Yes.

Did you bother to read any of the comments? Here's a sampling. Keep in mind these are all doctors and nurses;

My trust in CDC and FDA has decreased due to the obvious manipulation by politicians .

I trust the CDC but have no trust in the FDA. They are all about money and big pharma

What a mess with media misinformation and shady scare-tactic messaging. “Data” could always be manipulated and therefore weaponized. I just never thought I’d see the day it would silence the medical profession due to sheer fear. I thought that only happened in China and the Soviet Union.

The fact that the FDA/CDC/WHO have all shut down any discourse on the topic of COVID that deviates from the official approved narrative is in and of itself questionable, NOT scientific, and extremely misleading.

I do not question, doubt or disagree with the mission(s) of the agencies. I do (within the last two years) question the degree to which leaders of those institutions are able to truly implement scientifically sound and public helath-centric recommendations and practices free from pollitcal influence and bias.

I'm surprised the CDC hasn't stated that the Pandemic was caused by Climate Change. This whole thing was politically-driven. Even the studies, which they paid for, already had the outcome stated and the studies were structured to support that outcome. I trust nothing that comes out of the CDC, anymore.

As a former FDA consultant/panel member for many years, on many topics and panels, I had always been aware of the political pressures and bureaucratic recourse to self preservation and obstinacy. However, the C19 pandemic revealed a new depth to the inappropriateness of the reactions of both the FDA and CDC. One cannot help but ponder the mischief of direct political influence on Federal institutions.

Neither can be trusted, as it has been evident that they cave to political pressures and can't give Americans straight answers. When you have a health agency taking advice from a teacher's union president about when they should say what, then you know we're in trouble.

It is sad to see what once was a highly credible organization being coerced by money and politics. The world has looked up to our CDC and FDA. Now they are looking sideways and wonder, 'what happened?'

Their allegiance is political rather than professional.

These agencies lost their credibility once they bowed to political pressure to advance the fear agenda. They flip flop daily on masks and which vaccine is safe. sadly, I no longer feel I can trust them at all. This goes double for the WHO, whose behavior at the onset of this was nothing short of criminally negligent. It is really a sad day for medicine.​

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you read the article? Epidemiologists are quoted.

Time will tell, but each day produces more and more verifiable breakthrough infections.

As more and more people are vaccinated, there should be more breakthrough infections. Twenty percent of 100 million is more than 20 percent of 4 million.

 

[The Barbarian]

Did you bother to read any of the comments? Here's a sampling. Keep in mind these are all doctors and nurses;

My trust in CDC and FDA has decreased due to the obvious manipulation by politicians .

I trust the CDC but have no trust in the FDA. They are all about money and big pharma

What a mess with media misinformation and shady scare-tactic messaging. “Data” could always be manipulated and therefore weaponized. I just never thought I’d see the day it would silence the medical profession due to sheer fear. I thought that only happened in China and the Soviet Union.

Yeah, and here's why...

"Because of the damage done by the prior administration, the @CDCgov and @CDCDirector were put in the position to earn back the public and scientific community’s trust. A basic tenant of trust is honest and transparent communication."
Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic (my emphasis)

The emails and transcripts detail how in the early days of 2020 Trump and his allies in the White House blocked media briefings and interviews with CDC officials, attempted to alter public safety guidance normally cleared by the agency and instructed agency officials to destroy evidence that might be construed as political interference. The documents further underscore how Trump appointees tried to undermine the work of scientists and career staff at the CDC to control the administration’s messaging on the spread of the virus and the dangers of transmission and infection.
...
Christine Casey, one of the leaders of the CDC team that publishes weekly scientific reports, also known as Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, told the House committee that at one point in August 2020 she received instructions to delete an email reflecting political interference.Casey said Paul Alexander, the former temporary senior policy adviser to the assistant secretary for public affairs at HHS, instructed her to stop publishing the weekly reports, insinuating her team was trying to make Trump look bad in public. After conversations with leadership at the CDC, including then-Director Robert Redfield, Michael Iademarco, one of the CDC’s leaders overseeing epidemiology and laboratory services, told Casey to delete the email.“I believe he said that the director [Redfield] said to delete the email and that anyone else who had received it, you know, should do as well,” Casey said in her testimony.
Trump Administration Suppressed CDC Reports, Messaging at Crucial Stage of COVID-19 Pandemic

It's not a coincidence that distrust of government rose when corruption in the WH and federal agencies became rampant.

 

[probinson]

Yeah, and here's why...

Say it with me... 2021. The previous administration was gone when this survey was conducted.

 

[probinson]

As more and more people are vaccinated, there should be more breakthrough infections.

Right. And "many experts" believe that number will be 100%.

 

[The Barbarian]

Right. And "many experts" believe that number will be 100%.

Show us one epidemiologist who says that every human will be infected by COVID-19. What do you have?

 

[The Barbarian]

Yeah, and here's why...

"Because of the damage done by the prior administration, the @CDCgov and @CDCDirector were put in the position to earn back the public and scientific community’s trust. A basic tenant of trust is honest and transparent communication."
Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic (my emphasis)

Say it with me... 2021. The previous administration was gone when this survey was conducted.

Say it with me... 2021. Your article says that the damage was done by the prior administration. That was Donald Trump. Your article says the damage done by Trump and his appointees put the government in the position to earn back the public and scientific community's trust.

Did you really not read it?