Biden Drops the Hammer on Unvaccinated

[KCfromNC]

Yes, there could additionally be side effects that don't manifest until later, but additionally, there are side effects that are happening now which are largely being ignored and marginalized.

Myocarditis, blood clotting, and Guillain-Barre syndrome weren't even identified as risks in the trials, but have definitely been linked now.

None of these are being ignored as your previous paragraph asserted. Instead, additional research has been done to quantify how rare they actually are.
It's the same problem as a lot of these similar anti-vaxx claims - assert there's a giant conspiracy to cover up side effects ... side effects which are only known because they're reported by health organizations and medical researchers supposedly involved in a cover up to keep them quiet.

 

[KCfromNC]

I tend to believe this guy:

Dr. Malone is an impeccably credentialed scientist. He helped pioneer the mRNA vaccine technology upon which the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are based.
"Every drug or vaccine is toxic at some level in some percent of people, and there’s pretty clear evidence that the spike protein expressed from vaccines is causing toxicity in a small subset of patients. The question is, How big is that subset, and how broad and bad are those toxicities? The honest truth is, we don’t know. And furthermore, there’s a lot of signs that that information is being withheld from us."

When was the quoted text written?

 

[TLK Valentine]

My hat is bread. Your vaccines are unproven.

Well, then... good thing the only people requiring you to take it are either your employers, or people providing you with luxury services.

 

[whatbogsends]

That was never my claim.

My question was around the notion of long-term side effects. IOW, get a vaccine today and 5 years later some side effect arises from it.

This was never about when side effects were being discovered. It was about how long it takes side effects to emerge.

Hopefully this is clear.

It's clear that you're being dismissive of side effects from the vaccine when, at best, that information is unknown. There are multiple risk signals for serious adverse effects, including, but not limited to, myocarditis, blood clotting, thrombosis, Guillane Barre syndrome and Bell's Palsy. The full extent of those known risks is not fully known and varies by age and gender of the person taking the vaccine.

From the data I've seen, the relative number of vaccinated individuals contracting the virus is much lower. Claiming that vaccinated people are being infected in a "high frequency" is misleading.

See this UK study for example: Risk factors and disease profile of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection in UK users of the COVID Symptom Study app: a prospective, community-based, nested, case-control study

The rate of infection following full vaccination was well under 1%.

Possibly, although I don't believe there is any definitive word on this yet.

Data up to 4 August from Imperial College London’s React study found that people who said they had received two vaccine doses were half as likely to test positive for covid-19, adjusting for other factors such as age and whether or not they had symptoms.3 The researchers estimated a 50-60% lower risk of infection from the delta variant if a person was double vaccinated.

The picture emerging from various countries does, however, suggest that vaccinated people are more likely to experience symptoms after catching the delta variant compared with earlier forms of the virus.

Data published by the Israeli government suggest that the Pfizer BioNTech jab’s efficacy against symptomatic infection fell from 94% to 64% after the delta variant began spreading in the country.4
...
But Riley points out that the PHE data to date are consistent with estimates that suggest—despite these drops in efficacy—vaccines in use in the UK (Pfizer BioNtech, AstraZeneca, and Moderna) all reduce the risk of death by more than 85%, regardless of variant.

Covid-19: How effective are vaccines against the delta variant? | The BMJ

50-60% less risk of infection of a disease with a high rate of infection will still lead to (and has already led to) vaccinated people being infected with high frequency.

 

[whatbogsends]

None of these are being ignored as your previous paragraph asserted. Instead, additional research has been done to quantify how rare they actually are.
It's the same problem as a lot of these similar anti-vaxx claims - assert there's a giant conspiracy to cover up side effects ... side effects which are only known because they're reported by health organizations and medical researchers supposedly involved in a cover up to keep them quiet.

At best, research is still in progress. They are trying to keep the pedal to the metal in vaccine distribution without even checking if there is still tread on their tires.

They are known because other medical professionals reported them, and the signal was too strong to continue to ignore. Those at pharmaceutical companies and the CDC are attempting to minimize these side effects.

They still don't acknowledge a causal link from Bell's Palsy despite a consistent 3.5-7X increased rate of incidence among vaccine recipients.

Bell’s palsy
People who have previously had Bell’s palsy may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Cases of Bell’s palsy were reported following vaccination in participants in the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not consider these to be more than the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination.

COVID-19 Vaccines for People with Underlying Medical Conditions | CDC

Independent researchers are exposing the side effects, and the pharmaceutical companies and the CDC are doing their best to cover them up, while paying lip service to investigating them.

 

[pitabread]

It's clear that you're being dismissive of side effects from the vaccine when, at best, that information is unknown. There are multiple risk signals for serious adverse effects, including, but not limited to, myocarditis, blood clotting, thrombosis, Guillane Barre syndrome and Bell's Palsy. The full extent of those known risks is not fully known and varies by age and gender of the person taking the vaccine.

Again, I'm talking specifically about the idea of side effects showing up years after a person has taken the vaccine. Everything you are talking about are side effects that show up relatively quickly.

You're just strawmanning my position and arguing against that strawman.

50-60% less risk of infection of a disease with a high rate of infection will still lead to (and has already led to) vaccinated people being infected with high frequency.

You appear to be conflating different concepts.

The study I linked to looked at relative proportion of infection relatively to the population as a whole (that they studied). What you're referring is the relative risk related to point-to-point transmission. These are *not* the same concepts.

This is also a case where changing the relative risk of transmission can actually result in a dramatic reduction of the relative number of infected individuals. I'll illustrate with an example.

Assumptions:

Unvaccinated risk of contracting COVID-19 after exposure: 90%
Vaccinated risk of contracting COVID-19 after exposure: 45% (50% reduction compared to unvaccinated)

One population fully vaccinated, one population fully unvaccinated.

1 infected individual exposes 5 uninfected individuals. Each individual goes on to contact 5 more individuals each. Those individual contact 5 more individuals each. And so on.

Scenario 1: Unvaccinated population

With 5 unvaccinated individuals and an 90% risk of infection, we expect 4.5 out of 5 to become infected after exposure to the infected person.

If we assume each of those individuals goes on to expose another 5 people each (all unvaccinated), this means an additional 20 people exposed of which we expect 16 to contract the virus.

Just after these two steps, out of 31 total people (1 + 5 + 25), we expect that 22.5 will be infected. Or in other words, ~73% of the population.

Compounding over 10 steps yields the following results:

Total population size: ~12M
Total number infected: ~4.4M (36%)

Scenario 2: Vaccinated population

In the vaccinated scenario, of the initial 5 individuals that are exposed we expect only 2.3 will become infected (45% risk of infection).

If each infected individual exposes 5 more vaccinated individuals apiece, we expect a further 5.1 infections.

In this scenario, out of the 31 total population size (1 + 5 + 25), we only wind up with 8.3 that are infected (1 + 2 + 4) or ~27% of the population.

Compounding over 10 steps yields the following results:

Total population size: ~12M
Total number infected: ~6,000 (0.05%)

Comparison of the two scenarios:

In the unvaccinated population, you wind up with ~4.4 million infections.

In the vaccinated population, you wind up with only 6000.

There are over 730 times the number of infected individuals in the unvaccinated population versus the vaccinated population. And all this from a 50% reduction in risk.

If we assume even a slightly greater reduction in risk (say 55%), the number of infected individuals in the vaccinated populations drops to ~2300. At 60% it drops to only 800.


Hopefully this illustrates the effect that something like a 50% reduction in risk of contracting a disease can actually have on a population at large. This is why it's so important that we get as many people vaccinated as possible.

If we could get the vast majority of the population vaccinated, the pandemic would be over.

 

[whatbogsends]

Again, I'm talking specifically about the idea of side effects showing up years after a person has taken the vaccine. Everything you are talking about are side effects that show up relatively quickly.

You're just strawmanning my position and arguing against that strawman.

You appear to be conflating different concepts.

The study I linked to looked at relative proportion of infection relatively to the population as a whole (that they studied). What you're referring is the relative risk related to point-to-point transmission. These are *not* the same concepts.

This is also a case where changing the relative risk of transmission can actually result in a dramatic reduction of the relative number of infected individuals. I'll illustrate with an example.

Assumptions:

Unvaccinated risk of contracting COVID-19 after exposure: 90%
Vaccinated risk of contracting COVID-19 after exposure: 45% (50% reduction compared to unvaccinated)

One population fully vaccinated, one population fully unvaccinated.

1 infected individual exposes 5 uninfected individuals. Each individual goes on to contact 5 more individuals each. Those individual contact 5 more individuals each. And so on.

Scenario 1: Unvaccinated population

With 5 unvaccinated individuals and an 90% risk of infection, we expect 4.5 out of 5 to become infected after exposure to the infected person.

If we assume each of those individuals goes on to expose another 5 people each (all unvaccinated), this means an additional 20 people exposed of which we expect 16 to contract the virus.

Just after these two steps, out of 31 total people (1 + 5 + 25), we expect that 22.5 will be infected. Or in other words, ~73% of the population.

Compounding over 10 steps yields the following results:

Total population size: ~12M
Total number infected: ~4.4M (36%)

Scenario 2: Vaccinated population

In the vaccinated scenario, of the initial 5 individuals that are exposed we expect only 2.3 will become infected (45% risk of infection).

If each infected individual exposes 5 more vaccinated individuals apiece, we expect a further 5.1 infections.

In this scenario, out of the 31 total population size (1 + 5 + 25), we only wind up with 8.3 that are infected (1 + 2 + 4) or ~27% of the population.

Compounding over 10 steps yields the following results:

Total population size: ~12M
Total number infected: ~6,000 (0.05%)

Comparison of the two scenarios:

In the unvaccinated population, you wind up with ~4.4 million infections.

In the vaccinated population, you wind up with only 6000.

There are over 730 times the number of infected individuals in the unvaccinated population versus the vaccinated population. And all this from a 50% reduction in risk.

If we assume even a slightly greater reduction in risk (say 55%), the number of infected individuals in the vaccinated populations drops to ~2300. At 60% it drops to only 800.


Hopefully this illustrates the effect that something like a 50% reduction in risk of contracting a disease can actually have on a population at large. This is why it's so important that we get as many people vaccinated as possible.

If we could get the vast majority of the population vaccinated, the pandemic would be over.

Except that in a vaccinated population spreading the virus, a virus like the coronavirus will mutate to escape the vaccines, as it still has a large number of hosts that it can infect. A vaccine that only prevents half of the infections won't yield herd immunity nor end the pandemic.

The lower infection rate increases the rate (quickness) of infection spread (assuming all other factors are equal), but doesn't necessarily reduce the number of infections in the long-term, as there is still enough transmission for mutation and infection in vaccinated individuals.

Similarly, behavior can influence rates of infection, just as vaccines can. People who avoid significant public contact reduce their own transmission vector, and thereby population transmission rates.

It's a false dichotomy to present the vaccinated as "doing their part" and the unvaccinated as "being part of the problem", as the size of ones vector is more important than the method they use to reduce their vector. Multiple people on this board blame me for spreading the virus, when they have acknowledge they have had Covid, while i've not only been tested negative for the virus several times, but negative for antibodies. I haven't spread the disease, and will continue taking cautions to reduce my risk vector.

 

[pitabread]

Except that in a vaccinated population spreading the virus, a virus like the coronavirus will mutate to escape the vaccines, as it still has a large number of hosts that it can infect. A vaccine that only prevents half of the infections won't yield herd immunity nor end the pandemic.

You're again completely misunderstanding the concepts here. Please read my example.

The 50-60% reduction is NOT referring to the number of infections. The 50-60% reduction is in the relative risk of transmission.

These are two different things.

A 50-60% reduction in the risk of transmission can have a huge effect on the number of infected individuals. We're talking multiple orders of magnitude in difference. Again, please read my example which illustrates this.

By dramatically reducing the amount of the virus circulating in population, in turn you reduce the chance of variants arising. It's all connected.

It's a false dichotomy to present the vaccinated as "doing their part" and the unvaccinated as "being part of the problem", as the size of ones vector is more important than the method they use to reduce their vector.

True, there are multiple factors at work. Though I've noticed that a common theme among anti-vaxxers is resistance to other methods (e.g. masks, social distancing, lockdowns) that are also involved in containing the outbreak.

Just based on a 50-60% reduction in transmission from getting the vaccine, the pandemic would be over if almost everyone got it.

Anti-vaxxers are choosing to continue the pandemic.

 

[pitabread]

I tend to believe this guy:

Dr. Malone is an impeccably credentialed scientist. He helped pioneer the mRNA vaccine technology upon which the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are based.

Yet you won't believe thousands of other impeccably credentialed scientists.

A classic example of confirmation bias.

 

[renniks]

Yet you won't believe thousands of other impeccably credentialed scientists.

A classic example of confirmation bias.

I haven't heard from thosands. We only hear the official story. You can find lots of qualified physicians who are not exactly pro vaccine.

 

[pitabread]

I haven't heard from thosands. We only hear the official story. You can find lots of qualified physicians who are not exactly pro vaccine.

And you can find lots of qualified physicians who are pro vaccine. But you won't listen to them.

 

[KCfromNC]

At best, research is still in progress.

Wait, I thought the claim was that these side effects are "largely being ignored". Now you're saying that they're actively being researched in a public enough way that even you know about it - by those organizations who you previously claimed were actively "marginalizing" those side effects. Why is it so hard to get a straight story here? Which one of your stories here are we supposed to believe?

These posts really read like an acknowledgement that the numbers coming from this research don't line up with the baseless anti-vaxx fearmongering about the risks. And instead of accepting that reality, we get posted rationalizations about cover ups, conspiracies and so on rather than just admitting that the vaccines are safe and moving on to talk about the real reasons for being hesitant to get vaccinated.

 

[renniks]

And you can find lots of qualified physicians who are pro vaccine. But you won't listen to them.

Everyone decides who to believe, just like any other topic.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Everyone decides who to believe, just like any other topic.

Yes, and all the medical professionals I know have told me that they support the vaccine. This county has a fairly low rate of people that have the vaccine and the main doctor who does the tests in the county (I go to him for other reasons as well) has like many in his field stated basically that it drives him CRAZY people will not take the shot. I was not planning to get the shot as soon as I did ( got my second one the last day of March, but several medical professionals I personally know and trusted got them, so I agreed to get them when it opened up to me (early in this state due to my CP) if I had not tensed up it would not have hurt at all.

 

[whatbogsends]

You're again completely misunderstanding the concepts here. Please read my example.

The 50-60% reduction is NOT referring to the number of infections. The 50-60% reduction is in the relative risk of transmission.

These are two different things.

A 50-60% reduction in the risk of transmission can have a huge effect on the number of infected individuals. We're talking multiple orders of magnitude in difference. Again, please read my example which illustrates this.

By dramatically reducing the amount of the virus circulating in population, in turn you reduce the chance of variants arising. It's all connected.


True, there are multiple factors at work. Though I've noticed that a common theme among anti-vaxxers is resistance to other methods (e.g. masks, social distancing, lockdowns) that are also involved in containing the outbreak.

Just based on a 50-60% reduction in transmission from getting the vaccine, the pandemic would be over if almost everyone got it.

Anti-vaxxers are choosing to continue the pandemic.

Leading epidemiologists beg to differ.

Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the Oxford Vaccine Group, told British lawmakers Tuesday that as Covid vaccines did not stop the spread of the virus entirely — with vaccinated people still able to be infected and transmit the virus — the idea of achieving herd immunity was “mythical.”

“I think we are in a situation here with this current variant where herd immunity is not a possibility because it still infects vaccinated individuals,” said Pollard, one of the lead researchers in the creation of the AstraZeneca-University of Oxford vaccine.

“And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated, at some point, will meet the virus. That might not be this month or next month, it might be next year, but at some point they will meet the virus and we don’t have anything that will stop that transmission.”
...
Pollard noted on Tuesday that Covid, and the current virulent delta variant, are different. “The problem with this virus is [it is] not measles. If 95% of people were vaccinated against measles, the virus cannot transmit in the population,” he told the U.K.’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on the coronavirus.

Pollard said that while Covid vaccines might slow the spread of the virus — because fully vaccinated but infected people appeared, in studies, to shed less virus, giving the virus less opportunity to spread — new variants were likely to emerge that would also spread.

“I suspect that what the virus will throw up next is a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting among vaccinated populations and so that’s even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine program around herd immunity.”

Herd immunity is 'mythical' with the Covid delta variant, expert says (cnbc.com)

 

[whatbogsends]

Wait, I thought the claim was that these side effects are "largely being ignored". Now you're saying that they're actively being researched in a public enough way that even you know about it - by those organizations who you previously claimed were actively "marginalizing" those side effects. Why is it so hard to get a straight story here? Which one of your stories here are we supposed to believe?

These posts really read like an acknowledgement that the numbers coming from this research don't line up with the baseless anti-vaxx fearmongering about the risks. And instead of accepting that reality, we get posted rationalizations about cover ups, conspiracies and so on rather than just admitting that the vaccines are safe and moving on to talk about the real reasons for being hesitant to get vaccinated.

I'm guessing you're not at all familiar with the phrase "at best".

I've been quite consistent in what i've said. There is reason to believe the CDC and pharmaceutical companies are conducting biased studies designed to minimize the side effects of the vaccines. They are being forced to acknowledge some of the side effects due to outside studies. There is limited transparency with the data.

The numbers aren't available, and the CDC uses VAERS data for it's numbers (rather than data collected directed from hospitals) in specific instances for it's studies (like myocarditis), while ignoring VAERS data for other safety signals (like deaths). It's folks like you who can't keep a consistent story, claiming that VAERS isn't worth looking at, only to cite a study based on VAERS data to show that the risks of myocarditis are small.

If i thought the vaccines were safe, i would have gotten it already. My only goal is the health and safety of myself, my family, and my community. I'm promoting the truth because it's being ignored in a sea of propaganda.

 

[KCfromNC]

“And that does mean that anyone who’s still unvaccinated, at some point, will meet the virus. That might not be this month or next month, it might be next year, but at some point they will meet the virus and we don’t have anything that will stop that transmission.”

When this sort of quote is the best anti-vaxx posts can bring up to rationalize not getting the vaccine, what more is there to say?

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm guessing you're not at all familiar with the phrase "at best".

Just goes to show that posts like this guessing about things don't lead to understanding.

I've been quite consistent in what i've said. There is reason to believe the CDC and pharmaceutical companies are conducting biased studies designed to minimize the side effects of the vaccines. They are being forced to acknowledge some of the side effects due to outside studies.

Wait, I thought "there are side effects that are happening now which are largely being ignored", now you're saying they're being acknowledged? Which is it?

The numbers aren't available

That's false. If they weren't, you wouldn't even know which extremely rare side effects to keep bringing up over and over and over in your posts.

and the CDC uses VAERS data for it's numbers (rather than data collected directed from hospitals) in specific instances for it's studies (like myocarditis)

They use both. In the past, you've posted references where they do exactly what you say they're not doing. Why do these posts keep changing the story?

while ignoring VAERS data for other safety signals (like deaths)

What you see as ignoring anonymous reports on the internet that agree with your preconceptions, others might look at as responsibly avoiding baseless fearmongering.

It's folks like you who can't keep a consistent story, claiming that VAERS isn't worth looking at, only to cite a study based on VAERS data to show that the risks of myocarditis are small.

Weird how your post continues to point to researchers looking at data you claim is "largely being ignored". Some might start to wonder if posted contradictions like that are intentional or not.

If i thought the vaccines were safe, i would have gotten it already.

I get that you've concluded that you aren't getting vaccinated. I just don't see why the facts you've posted lead to this feeling.

But I guess it doesn't really matter. More vaccines to people who care to be around for their families, I guess. And think of the goodwill we'll get internationally when the vaccines which are rejected by Americans get sent out to other countries. So I guess it isn't all bad, someone will get the benefit at least.

 

[whatbogsends]

When this sort of quote is the best anti-vaxx posts can bring up to rationalize not getting the vaccine, what more is there to say?

The quote you are quoting was from Sir Andrew Pollard, head of the Oxford Vaccine Group. He's extremely pro-vaccine. Characterizing him as "anti-vaxx" just shows how quickly you'll grasp at anything that you remotely believe supports your narrative.

Moreover, i'm not anti-vaxx. I'm pro-truth and vaccine hesitant regarding the Covid vaccines. I think misinformation and disinformation needs to be addressed, even when the intention is good.

 

[whatbogsends]

Just goes to show that posts like this guessing about things don't lead to understanding.

Wait, I thought "there are side effects that are happening now which are largely being ignored", now you're saying they're being acknowledged? Which is it?

Sometimes one, sometimes the other. There's a clear correlation between the vaccines and increased rates of Bell's Palsy. The FDA, CDC and pharmaceutical companies mention Bell's Palsy in their notes, but have an assessment grounded in a falsehood "the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not consider these to be more than the rate expected in the general population. They have not concluded these cases were caused by vaccination.".

In the case of myocarditis, they've had no choice but to acknowledge the causal link. It wasn't something that the CDC, FDA, or pharmaceutical companies acknowledges as a risk when the vaccines were released.

That's false. If they weren't, you wouldn't even know which extremely rare side effects to keep bringing up over and over and over in your posts.

Wrong. Why did i even research thrombocytopenia?

South Florida Doctor Who Passed Away After Receiving Covid Vaccine Died of Natural Causes: Medical Examiner – NBC 6 South Florida (nbcmiami.com)

Because this death of a healthy person which had onset symptoms of a rare disease 3 days after vaccination had this as the result:

"Given the history, autopsy, toxicology, and laboratory findings, the cause of death is complications of immune thrombocytopenia following receipt of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine," the report said. "Based on the circumstances as currently known, the manner of death is natural."

The reason i looked into Bell's Palsy is because a friend of mine got it. It's unclear if it was related to his vaccine, but his case was what caused me to even look into Bell's Palsy at all.

They use both. In the past, you've posted references where they do exactly what you say they're not doing. Why do these posts keep changing the story?

I'm not "changing the story". I'm describing a complex system with nuance. You, on the other hand, try to make every thing i say apply to every single thing, ignoring complexity and nuance, and simply trying to win an argument and push a narrative.

What you see as ignoring anonymous reports on the internet that agree with your preconceptions, others might look at as responsibly avoiding baseless fearmongering.

Weird how your post continues to point to researchers looking at data you claim is "largely being ignored". Some might start to wonder if posted contradictions like that are intentional or not.

I get that you've concluded that you aren't getting vaccinated. I just don't see why the facts you've posted lead to this feeling.

But I guess it doesn't really matter. More vaccines to people who care to be around for their families, I guess. And think of the goodwill we'll get internationally when the vaccines which are rejected by Americans get sent out to other countries. So I guess it isn't all bad, someone will get the benefit at least.

These posts really read like an acknowledgement that the numbers coming from this research don't line up with the baseless anti-vaxx fearmongering about the risks. And instead of accepting that reality, we get posted rationalizations about cover ups, conspiracies and so on rather than just admitting that the vaccines are safe and moving on to talk about the real reasons for being hesitant to get vaccinated.

Please, do provide even a hypothesis of what my "real reasons" for being hesitant to get vaccinated might be. My driving concern in navigating this pandemic is keeping me and my family healthy. 20+ months in, we've been extremely successful so far.

My wife is vaccinated, i'm not. She did so early, and i did nothing to try to dissuade her. I expressed my concerns to her, but told her that her decision was hers to make. That was fairly early on, and at that point i had planned to get the vaccines later, assuming my assessment of them was in line with their messaging of "safe and effective". What i found was a constant disconnect between the claims made by the CDC and pharmaceutical companies and reality, ranging from things such as false claims that the vaccinated can't spread the disease (such as this below) to false claims about rates of Bell's Palsy.

“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus – they don’t get sick,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday. That’s “not just in the clinical trials, but it’s also in real world data.”

CDC Data Suggests Vaccinated Don’t Carry, Can’t Spread Virus (msn.com)

Everything about the vaccination campaign has the look and feel of a propaganda campaign, just as the march to war and claims of WMD had in 2002-2003.