United Airlines to fire 593 unvaccinated employees

[RestoreTheJoy]

That quote doesn't exactly specify what they are referring to. Are they referring to peak viral loads or average viral loads? There are different measures of the same thing, so we need to be clear on what they are referring to. Unfortunately, there is no link in that article to the study in question.

(This is also one of the problems with relying on news articles instead of the original studies. Things can and often do get lost in translation.)

Regardless what I said was based on this article here: How do vaccinated people spread Delta? What the science says, with reference to this specific study (preprint): Spiral: REACT-1 round 13 final report: exponential growth, high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and vaccine effectiveness associated with Delta variant in England during May to July 2021

One massive analysis of Delta transmission comes from the UK REACT-1 programme, led by a team at Imperial College London, which tests more than 100,000 UK volunteers every few weeks. The team ran Ct analyses for samples received in May, June and July, when Delta was rapidly replacing other variants to become the dominant driver of COVID-19 in the country. The results suggested that among people testing positive, those who had been vaccinated had a lower viral load on average than did unvaccinated people.
​

So no, not wrong.

First words under the headline: Emerging data suggest that Delta could spread more readily than other coronavirus variants among people vaccinated against COVID-19. But key questions remain.

From the article: "When early field data showed that vaccinating people cuts transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, researchers were cautiously optimistic. But they warned that many of those studies, although promising, took place before the fast-spreading Delta variant proliferated worldwide. Now, reports from various countries seem to confirm what scientists feared after the variant tore through India with alarming speed in April and May: Delta is more likely than other variants to spread through vaccinated people."

So yeah...wrong.

You can split hairs all day about how you really meant peak load or average load...but who cares when the result is what it is (at the moment)?

The point is that the vaccinated are spreading it! Yet they are pretending that the unvaccinated and/or recovered with immunity are some huge danger to others and punishing and blackmailing them on every turn for noncompliance.

The vaccinated are dangerous to others. But the unvaccinated are being blackmailed while the ones who are spreading it are going free, showing their papers. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[pitabread]

So yeah...wrong.

Nothing I said was wrong (based on the sources I quoted).

If you're so in need of "winning" this argument you can have it, but I stand behind what I wrote.

You can split hairs all day about how you really meant peak load or average load...but who cares when the result is what it is (at the moment)?

I was quite clear in what I said in my original post:

Peak viral load can potentially be the same. But average viral load is less, and the duration of the time a person carries the virus is reduced. And the risk of contracting the virus is also reduced.

You even quoted and bolded that part about average viral loads. So please don't pretend that what I said wasn't clear.

The point is that the vaccinated are spreading it!

But the other point (which you still don't want to acknowledge) is that the relative risk of transmission is still significantly reduced in vaccinated populations. Which means that even if vaccinated people can spread the virus, the amount of transmission will be reduced in vaccinated populations.

Yet they are pretending that the unvaccinated and/or recovered with immunity are some huge danger to others and punishing and blackmailing them on every turn for noncompliance.

The point is to reduce the transmission of the virus as much as we reasonably can. Vaccines are a way to do that. Plus all the other good stuff about reducing severity of illness, number of hospitalizations and risk of death.

Which is why everyone who can, should be getting vaccinated. This is not a reason to not get the vaccine.

The anti-vaxxers are grasping at straws.

 

[sfs]

From the article: "When early field data showed that vaccinating people cuts transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, researchers were cautiously optimistic. But they warned that many of those studies, although promising, took place before the fast-spreading Delta variant proliferated worldwide. Now, reports from various countries seem to confirm what scientists feared after the variant tore through India with alarming speed in April and May: Delta is more likely than other variants to spread through vaccinated people."

Yes. And Delta is less likely to spread through vaccinated people than through unvaccinated people. By itself, what you've quoted tells us nothing at all about whether vaccine mandates are likely to be useful or not.

You can split hairs all day about how you really meant peak load or average load...but who cares when the result is what it is (at the moment)?

Quite true. It's clear that at present, vaccinated people spread the virus less readily than the unvaccinated, that infection rates are higher where vaccination is less common, and that higher vaccination rates greatly reduced hospitalization and death rates. So we should be doing everything we can to encourage more people to be vaccinated.

The point is that the vaccinated are spreading it! Yet they are pretending that the unvaccinated and/or recovered with immunity are some huge danger to others and punishing and blackmailing them on every turn for noncompliance.

Anyone at all -- vaccinated, unvaccinated, recovered -- can be infected and spread the virus. Short of universal lockdowns, which no one favors, there is nothing we can do about that reality. It is equally true that the unvaccinated -- certainly the unvaccinated who were never infected, and probably a large fraction of the unvaccinated who were infected but not seriously ill -- pose a much larger danger to the public at large than the vaccinated. Your argument seems to be that because everyone poses some risk, we should ignore the much larger risk posed by a group that easily reduce the risk. In what world is that a logical argument?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

...
But the other point (which you still don't want to acknowledge) is that the relative risk of transmission is still significantly reduced in vaccinated populations. Which means that even if vaccinated people can spread the virus, the amount of transmission will be reduced in vaccinated populations.



The point is to reduce the transmission of the virus as much as we reasonably can. Vaccines are a way to do that. Plus all the other good stuff about reducing severity of illness, number of hospitalizations and risk of death.

Which is why everyone who can, should be getting vaccinated. This is not a reason to not get the vaccine.

The anti-vaxxers are grasping at straws.

You are just going in circles now with the same speculations.

The point is that the "unvaccinated" are being unfairly blamed for the pandemic and now blackmailed, at penalty of job loss (and whatever else the unhinged can get removed from them), while the "vaccinated" are being left to carry on, infecting people everywhere, so long as they show the papers.

You can say it any other way you want, but this is indeed happening, and it's crazy.

The early cases should have been widely treated with any and every medication possible to keep them alive. The vulnerable and anyone else who wanted to - who had not already had the virus and hence, immunity - should have taken the jab if their doctors recommended it. We'd be out of this mess by now if it had been properly handled.

At least the cases have dropped substantially and all indications is that this wave is dying out.


Global COVID-19 cases show substantial drop

 

[pitabread]

You are just going in circles now with the same speculations.

It's not speculation. It's what the data is showing.

Vaccinations reduce risk of transmission, severity of illness, rate of hospitalization and rate of death.

The point is that the "unvaccinated" are being unfairly blamed for the pandemic and now blackmailed, at penalty of job loss (and whatever else the unhinged can get removed from them), while the "vaccinated" are being left to carry on, infecting people everywhere, so long as they show the papers.

You can say it any other way you want, but this is indeed happening, and it's crazy.

It's not crazy, when you consider that vaccinations reduce risk of transmission, severity of illness, rate of hospitalization and rate of death.

As you appear to be unwilling to accept any of the latter is likely why all this seems "crazy" to you.

At least the cases have dropped substantially and all indications is that this wave is dying out.

This wave would arguably been optional in the first place had vaccine uptake (among other preventative measures) been a lot higher. It was largely avoidable.

 

[sfs]

The point is that the "unvaccinated" are being unfairly blamed for the pandemic

What's unfair about it? They're contributing disproportionately to the pandemic, and that's what they're being blamed for.

The early cases should have been widely treated with any and every medication possible to keep them alive.

They were. Most of those medications turned out not to do anything. That's one of the reasons for emphasizing vaccination: it slows down transmission and gives more time for better therapeutics to come along to protect the most vulnerable.

The vulnerable and anyone else who wanted to - who had not already had the virus and hence, immunity

Many of those who've had the virus are not immune.

We'd be out of this mess by now if it had been properly handled.

Nothing you've suggested would in any way have gotten us out of this mess.

 

[Bobber]

The point is that the vaccinated are spreading it! Yet they are pretending that the unvaccinated and/or recovered with immunity are some huge danger to others and punishing and blackmailing them on every turn for noncompliance.

The vaccinated are dangerous to others. But the unvaccinated are being blackmailed while the ones who are spreading it are going free, showing their papers. You can't make this stuff up.

Let's just assume this is true. I like to be practical and to decide just what is the best course to take for the unvaccinated. We can cry until the cows come home that IT ISN'T FAIR. Still won't do away with the fact that the vaxed far outnumber the unvaxed and major business, and careers and one's capacity to make a living for many are being crushed. What if TRUTH isn't found to be much on the vaxe's arguments?

Will it ever commonly be believed that's the case? Probably not for another generation for people groups NEVER, EVER like to admit that YES....they missed it. So what does one do who have to live in this world practically speaking? They still have to play the cards they're been dealt right? One can have an idealistic dream of how things should be but they're not that.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

What's unfair about it? They're contributing disproportionately to the pandemic, and that's what they're being blamed for.

They were. Most of those medications turned out not to do anything. That's one of the reasons for emphasizing vaccination: it slows down transmission and gives more time for better therapeutics to come along to protect the most vulnerable.

Many of those who've had the virus are not immune.

Nothing you've suggested would in any way have gotten us out of this mess.

Source for how early patients received any and all possible treatments that might work? That is not what is reported by the few not too afraid to speak out.

People keep repeating the mantra that "the unvaccinated" are the cause, and it is simply not true, particularly now that it is finally admitted that the vaccinated are spreading it also.

It is abjectly false that the recovered do not have immunity. In fact, their immunity is "durable and robust", as would be expected. Natural Immunity After COVID-19 Found Durable and Robust

 

[pitabread]

People keep repeating the mantra that "the unvaccinated" are the cause, and it is simply not true, particularly now that it is finally admitted that the vaccinated are spreading it also.

Do you still not understand that the relative rate of transmission is different?

Do you believe that the vaccinated and unvaccinated are spreading it equally? IOW, that the vaccinations aren't actually doing anything?

To use an analogy: if one car is accelerating at 2 m/s and another car is accelerating at a rate of 4 m/s, do you think this means they are going to be going the same speed after accelerating for the same amount of time?

The impression I get from your posts is that you think the answer to that question is "yes".

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Let's just assume this is true. I like to be practical and to decide just what is the best course to take for the unvaccinated. We can cry until the cows come home that IT ISN'T FAIR. Still won't do away with the fact that the vaxed far outnumber the unvaxed and major business, and careers and one's capacity to make a living for many are being crushed. What if TRUTH isn't found to be much on the vaxe's arguments?

Will it ever commonly be believed that's the case? Probably not for another generation for people groups NEVER, EVER like to admit that YES....they missed it. So what does one do who have to live in this world practically speaking? They still have to play the cards they're been dealt right? One can have an idealistic dream of how things should be but they're not that.

Thank you for a rational response and the willingness to actually consider this.

The question is: What does truth matter?

If ANYONE can contract or spread the virus, making you sick, but one segment complied with enriching a huge corporation based on incomplete information and the other simply recovered from the virus he caught from his front line job and has "robust, durable" immunity - what justification is there to treat them differently, and to penalize the latter group? There is no rational justification to do so.

Yet people are being fired by the thousands - even medical professionals - DURING a pandemic. How stupid is that? They were heroes last year, valiantly taking care of sick people 24/7 for a year and a half - and now they are fired for not taking a risk they don't need to take? The same flight attendants that flew all last year with masks suddenly cannot do so?

The same employees that have been going to the office or the factory or the warehouse for the last year and a half with a mask (if inside) suddenly cannot do so while those who are compliant - just as potentially able to spread the disease - are welcomed.

Remember the most vulnerable, the elderly and those with co-morbidities, have already largely complied, based on their doctors' recommendations. We can kind of remove them from the equation here.

But this is definitely not about logic or health, if one group is being heavily penalized while the other group, who also pose the same risk, is being left alone so long as they show you their papers (!!).

This is crazy.

Like they say, the difference between a "conspiracy theory" and the truth is just a few months or years. Or in the case of the Tuskeegee Experiment, decades.

 

[Will Joseph]

Is there treatment for syphilis? Asking for a friend...

There may be treatment for Syphilis. But keep in mind that a partner can lie about not having Syphilis or not know she has it. Combine this with the fact that Syphilis can invade the eyes or the nervous sytem at any point of infection. Now the disease becomes a nightmare.

Also know that some people have to pay for an STI exam. And then afterwards, they have to pay for STI treatment. I've been to the local hospital before and almost every bill is expensive, regardless of my duration at the hospital. For people without enough money, Syphilis could be a death sentence.

 

[pitabread]

If ANYONE can contract or spread the virus, making you sick, but one segment complied with enriching a huge corporation based on incomplete information and the other simply recovered from the virus he caught from his front line job and has "robust, durable" immunity - what justification is there to treat them differently, and to penalize the latter group? There is no rational justification to do so.

Once again, you're ignoring relative rates of transmission among different groups.

Your stubborn refusal to take this into account is driving an erroneous assessment and conclusion.

The same employees that have been going to the office or the factory or the warehouse for the last year and a half with a mask (if inside) suddenly cannot do so while those who are compliant - just as potentially able to spread the disease - are welcomed.

This is the part that is incorrect. That you refuse to correct this is, again, leading to an erroneous assessment and conclusion.

It's like you're claiming that 1+1 = 3 and then trying to solve a complex mathematical equation. You're going to get the wrong answer, but you don't appear to understand why.

This is where the disconnect is occurring.

Remember the most vulnerable, the elderly and those with co-morbidities, have already largely complied, based on their doctors' recommendations. We can kind of remove them from the equation here.

We can't remove them from the equation because they are still part of society and still at risk of contracting the disease from others.

 

[pitabread]

I have to wonder, does the fundamental disconnect with anti-vaxxers boil down to a basic understanding of maths?

In all the discussions I've had with anti-vaxxers, the idea of relative rates of transmissibility of the virus seems to be a sticking point.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I have to wonder, does the fundamental disconnect with anti-vaxxers boil down to a basic understanding of maths?

In all the discussions I've had with anti-vaxxers, the idea of relative rates of transmissibility of the virus seems to be a sticking point.

You've been corrected numerous times. Not an "anti-vaxxer" though of course you are using it as a label to ignore anything I say, rather than a descriptive reality.

In reality, one can indeed be pro-vaccine and anti-tyranny. Believe it or not. You'd never know it from the constant propaganda, but really....it's true.

I'm done with this nonsense you keep repeating. Out. Address me on another topic. Pretty sure we will disagree on a lot of them.

 

[sfs]

Source for how early patients received any and all possible treatments that might work?

Here's a good list of therapies that have been tried: Coronavirus Drug and Treatment Tracker.

People keep repeating the mantra that "the unvaccinated" are the cause, and it is simply not true

Don't respond to what 'people' are saying. Respond to what I wrote. I did not say that the unvaccinated are 'the cause' -- I said they are responsible for making transmission be higher than it has to be. They are a cause.

It is abjectly false that the recovered do not have immunity.

Well, yes. Since as far as I know, no one anywhere at any time has ever said that the recovered do not have immunity -- what the heck are you talking about? Could you respond to the actual points being made here, please, rather than sound bites? Yes, 'the recovered' have immunity. That is, most recovered people have immunity, which wanes in time. (Based on Previous COVID-19 may cut risk of reinfection 84%, it looks like infection provides 84% protection.) Likewise, most vaccinated have immunity, which also wanes in time (probably faster, at least with most current vaccines). It is also true that not all people who ave been infected have immunity, and that vaccination increases immunity even in those who have been infected -- see Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19... for this latter point.

 

[sfs]

I'm done with this nonsense you keep repeating.

The 'nonsense' s/he keeps repeating is the truth. Your response has consistently been to ignore what's being said and respond with irrelevant statements. I can't figure out if you're not reading what you're responding to, or if you're genuinely unable to understand that vaccination reduces transmission.

 

[Bradskii]

Again, Your "zero sympathy" for others is indeed misdirected...and rather inhumane, actually.

Next time I'm visiting a sick friend in the car park or talking to any nurses who are working 12 hours a day at no small risk to their own health - mental or physical, trying to keep people alive who couldn't bothered to protect themselves or others, then I'll be sure to pass on your thoughts.

 

[Bradskii]

There may be treatment for Syphilis. But keep in mind that a partner can lie about not having Syphilis or not know she has it. Combine this with the fact that Syphilis can invade the eyes or the nervous sytem at any point of infection. Now the disease becomes a nightmare.

Also know that some people have to pay for an STI exam. And then afterwards, they have to pay for STI treatment. I've been to the local hospital before and almost every bill is expensive, regardless of my duration at the hospital. For people without enough money, Syphilis could be a death sentence.

Will, thanks for your concern. We're all good.

 

[Bobber]

Next time I'm visiting a sick friend in the car park or talking to any nurses who are working 12 hours a day at no small risk to their own health - mental or physical, trying to keep people alive who couldn't bothered to protect themselves or others, then I'll be sure to pass on your thoughts.

Shouldn't you also consider that some of those nurses might be nurses who haven't been vaccinated themselves they've worked their 12 hours days and sadly are now probably going to be fired. Some time ago they were thought of as heroes. It seems now they're being thought of as zeros. Get rid of them is the order of the day.

 

[pitabread]

In reality, one can indeed be pro-vaccine and anti-tyranny.

If you're going to play the "vaccine mandates are tyranny" card, I (don't) hate to break it to you, but you've already been living that for over a hundred years.

I'm done with this nonsense you keep repeating.

All I've been seeking is an acknowledgement about the relative rates of transmission among vaccinated versus unvaccinated. You seem to think they are the same. The data suggests they are not.

This is the fundamental disconnect in your argument.