Winston

It depends on what you mean by the obvious? You have proven by use of current stats, that the infected unvaccinated people would pose a higher risk in public than infected vaccinated people, by the severity of infection. What more can I say? I never stated this was untrue.

Great let us take say 3 weeks add up the numbers: Starting August 13 2021, to September 3 2021. Unvaccinated - 8728 tested positive, 1546 ICU, 2348 hospitalized ( those removed from public contact) Vaccinated - 4240 tested positive, 329 ICU, 731 hospitalized ( those removed from public contact) Unvaccinated infected 4834 possibly active in the public. ( assuming they all do not self isolate) Vaccinated infected 3180 possibly active in the public.( assuming they all do not self isolate) Out of 607 unvaccinated individuals, 1 is positive and may be contagious. 0.165 % chance of contact. These numbers assume all these individuals ignore direct orders to self isolate. Out of 3417 vaccinated individuals, 1 is positive and my be contagious. 0.0293 % chance of contact. These numbers assume all these individuals ignore direct orders to self isolate. "See your own calculation method PROVED my point stated earlier to which you disagreed" - No it did not, your point was Unvaccinated people are a higher risk to the public, incorrect. Rather your point should state infected unvaccinated people are a higher risk to the public by the numbers. Stating unvaccinated healthy uninfected people are a higher risk to the public is not correct. How many people do you interact with on a daily basis? More than 600? If like most people you interact with under 100 people per day, your risk of contact is incredibly small. Now given most of the infected individuals will self isolate once tested positive for Covid, the risk goes to near 0 for the general uninfected public. Thus, mandating restrictions or vaccination passports is not required. If anything is required it would be quick testing methods upon entry or daily testing. I am not in favor of either, since the risk is incredibly low for the general public we can open back up and continue life as per usual, maybe for safe caution keep the 6 ft distance. https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data https://data.ontario.ca/en/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ontario/resource/274b819c-5d69-4539-a4db-f2950794138c https://data.ontario.ca/en/dataset/covid-19-vaccine-data-in-ontario/resource/eed63cf2-83dd-4598-b337-b288c0a89a16

Based purely on my opinion and vaccine knowledge, I would say that vaccinations do lower viral infections. Vaccinations have a long history of success. What exact evidence are you looking for, case study, scientific paper, scientific article or vaccine manufacture study? What evidence would you consider not valid? Infected is not the same as confirmed cases, this much is already known.- What do you mean?

There are currently 3,867,902 unvaccinated individuals in Ontario(1), of that number there are 499 cases of unvaccinated individuals testing positive(2). That is 0.01290105% of unvaccinated individuals who tested positive. This means if you were to meet 7751 unvaccinated individuals, only 1 would have a known positive result and may be contagious. 7750 are untested and assumed uninfected, meaning 7750 can not transmit the virus because they do not have the virus. Thus, it is overkill to mandate restrictions, because 1 out of 7751 people can transmit the virus, that all 7750 people must refrain from public contact even though they have no known infection. 1 https://worldpopulationreview.com/canadian-provinces/ontario-population 2 https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data

Yes they are statistically more likely to be severely infected and thus shed more viral loads, I do not disagree. But, saying unvaccinated people have a higher risk of transmission the virus is untrue. Infected unvaccinated people have a higher risk of transmission, is true. Yes I am arguing the semantics, but publicly it seems that unvaccinated are more dangerous, when only they are more dangerous if and only if they are infected.

Of course people can read your post, you have the right to tell everyone on the forum what you think. You are right, the risk of being infected is significantly higher in unvaccinated people. But they only carry a much higher risk of transmission if and only if they are infected, otherwise they pose no risk. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Good to see you agree that obese people pose a risk to others purely by their health choices. Do you support a mandate on obese people to work out or a banning of them in public places unless they are not obese? If you do not how can you support a mandate on the unvaccinated? Cognitive dissonance? I was not talking about COVID, but disease in general. We never had mandates on obese people even though their choices actually place the public at risk of further spreading of disease. By this example, we should not impose mandates on unvaccinated people, just like obese people, we respect their decisions. " No, it is the responsibility of governments to make tough decisions for the good of citizens and vaccine passports is a step in right direction and a start." - Why do you think vaccine passports prevent total spreading? They do not, they create the illusion that everyone is safe. The only way to stop viral spreading in on the spot testing.

Please read what I wrote. "Unvaccinated people pose no risk to society, vaccinated people pose no risk to society." You just made the assumption that these people are infected, I never said they are infected. Only infected people pose a risk to society, a unvaccinated/vaccinated person poses no risk to society unless they are infected. Can you prove than a person not infected poses a viral risk to society? By what measures?

No this is incorrect CITIZEN_2015. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html Example of unhealthy life choices by individuals causing others to be harmed, as per the CDC, "Obesity is a common, serious, and costly chronic disease. Having obesity puts people at risk for many other serious chronic diseases and increases the risk of severe illness from COVID-19." - Thus unhealthy choices in lifestyle (obesity) is actually harmful to others as they have a higher risk of severe illness and spread diseases. By this very nature and your argument, should we be banning obese people from entering public spaces. We also should be mandating that obese people should be eating less and working out more, otherwise they are spreading disease, a safety risk to the public. I disagree with this argument, instead let people have free choice and recognize they are responsible for their choice.

I respectfully disagree, restrictions continue because it is in the best self interest of the decision maker, not the public. People had and continue to make their choices. Just like a person who chooses an unhealthy life style, they make their choice, we do our best to mitigate that poor decision, but not to the total detriment to the entire society, economy, or to environment. People are going to die, that is life. From an ethical standpoint we have no merit, 163,898 people die every day, by our inaction we do not "care" about their deaths or their wellbeing. Vaccine passports do not provide enough protection for the intended goal of a safe society. Only fast testing for all individuals entering a public space would provide such a result. Lockdowns seem to only temporary prevent infection, I agree they are not a useful long term method. No restrictions for all in general lower risk public spaces. Medical faculties would required fast testing upon entering the building for all. Unvaccinated people pose no risk to society, vaccinated people pose no risk to society. I believe we need to begin rebuilding our worn society.

The mask narrative review is an interesting read into examining how mask usage can prevent social transmission. A word of caution, this review does not cover SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but rather examines similar SARS, bacterial and other viral transmissions. Epidemiological evidence did not discuss cloth masks. Mask Use for other Respiratory Illnesses is inconclusive since there were no RCTs. Modeling is only as accurate as assumptions or preset parameters, hopefully future modeling maintains accuracy. Source Control, specifically Human Studies provided the most evidence and conclusive positive outcome of mask usage. A good read overall, learning something new every day, thank you for sharing and citing.

Vaccinated people can be infected. Unvaccinated people can be infected. Unvaccinated people have a greater chance of being infected than vaccinated people. "Unvaccinated people are 22 time more likely to be infected therefore they have a much greater chance of infecting others for this simple reason. " -We are forgetting one major point. The individual must be infected, if they are not infected there are no grounds for transmission. If an individual is infected they can and should self isolate, preventing infection. most unvaccinated people are not infected, most vaccinated people are not infected. Both can be infected, but we have the choice at this moment, either we assume everyone is infected or we do not assume everyone is infected. If the goal is to have a society where only uninfected people are allowed into public spaces, the only option would be to test all individuals upon entrance into the public spaces. This means vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals would get a quick test before entering a public space or possibly their homes.

1. A lack of vaccination or a lack of lockdowns did not change during the period of increased infection rate. If the lockdowns ended and 3 days later there was a direct increase in infection rate, one could argue that ending lockdowns may have caused the infection rate to increase. However, this is not what occurred in the past two weeks. Vaccination numbers have only increased, not decreased, thus how can it suddenly increase the number of infection rate? I do not accept your answers because they are not causal, if X occurs Y rate increases. In our case some variable(s) changed which resulted in a sudden increase in infections. I understand, answers are difficult to produce and I do not expect easy answers on a forum. I do expect the professionals in the industry to look at all the variable (s) that cause a sudden increase in infections. In engineering for example, if a engine does not start, the troubleshooting starts by finding underlying conditions that may cause the vehicle not to start. Jumping to replacing the engine or an entire component is improper and unprofessional. We must first explore why the engine does not start, keys in ignition, noise, power, battery voltage, starter engagement, fuel level, engine crank, spark plug condition, fuel lines, air intake. Jumping to solutions before understanding the problem is not effective, rather impulsive. I would not expect any less from professionals in any industry. I do expect the professionals in the industry to look at all the variable (s) that cause increase in infections. As a result, I am asking what data do we have that show how variable (s) change resulting in a sudden increase in infections? What are those variables? 2. "Surely you are not saying that this is because of vaccinations, do you? " - Not at all. I believe we are missing several variables in our data and as a result we are always playing "catch up" instead of mitigating the underlying problems.

Thanks for the cite, I was hoping to find out the test to positive ratios of each group. Out of how many of the 27,293 specimens were vaccinated group, partially vaccinated group and unvaccinated group? This would help understand the percentages per group and numbers tested positive ratio.

The delta variant was first discovered in Canada early April. This would not constitute a recent sudden rise in case numbers, especially when case numbers had dropped earlier last month. The delta variant is not a causal reason why there is a sudden rise in case numbers, otherwise there would have been a rise in case numbers since April. Why have case numbers increased since last week? What causes a rise in case numbers? If we do not know the answers to these questions ( ie the problem) how can we find a solution?

If empirical statistics are to be used as a comparison source of driving cases, the number tested (ratio) in each group must be known in order to make a conclusion. Is there a cite we can find that shows the ratio of tests to positive outcomes for each group? Hospitalizations for unvaccinated are much higher than for partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated.

I can appreciate that we want to jump to the nearest solution, but if we do not understand the problem how can we find a solution? As I said, what are we doing that is causing an increase in cases? Vaccination numbers have not suddenly decreases, if anything they have increased. Vaccinations are not the problem causing a sudden shift in increased case numbers. Lockdowns have been removed for some time, this would not cause a sudden increase in cases. Something is causing a sudden increase in cases, why are we not finding the root cause the sudden increase in cases?

Thanks for the clarification, the testing numbers did not increase yet the case numbers have increased. I am not sure why the testing ratios are not included on the data. I am more asking what is the underlying factor that causes an increase? ie what actions are we taking that is causing an increase?

Do we know why cases have increased? How many people were tested in last week vs this week? ie did testing increase?

The link that has no raw data, why? How was it determined they died "from covid" or died "due to covid"? There may also be errors in the number of deaths If PCR testing method was used. I am not convinced the number of deaths is accurate.

I can agree, but this still does not answer the question what is the exact problem? What is the exact realistic outcome we are targeting? What is the acceptable death rate, infection rate and hospitalization rate? " It has to, provably, effectively and efficiently reduce serious complications and mortality attributed to the epidemics without at the same time, unnecessarily restricting society and economy. " These two ideas are somewhat in conflict with one another. I think this is possible, but there will be risks.

Because 100 people testing positive out of 100 is different than 100 people testing positive out of 10000. If the data shows tests out of 100 people and that test is compared to another test which is out of 1000 people you would get higher resulting numbers from the 1000 people. If we tested 1000 vaccinated people and it showed that 100 out of the 1000 people were positive it would result in 100 people who are infected. if we tested 100 unvaccinated people and it showed that 10 out of the 100 unvaccinated people were positive it would result in 10 people who are infected. By the raw data it would seem than vaccinated people are more likely to test positive, but this is not true. We need to account for the ratios of testing vs positive results. "Whatever number who were tested of those tested positive an overwhelming majority were among the small minority who were unvaccinated." - The whatever number is important, if the number tested was say 1 million and only 400 were found testing positive that means only 0.04% of the unvaccinated were found positive. This is why the testing number is important. " Just make it clear what is that you are saying: Are you saying vaccines do nothing to reduce infections, hospitalizations and deaths? " No. "Are you saying vaccines are not safe in short and/or long term?" No. "What is that you are trying to prove?" I am not proving anything at this time, we need data that includes numbers tested, age of infected and underlying conditions of infected, before we reintroduce restrictions.

What is the exact problem? What is the exact realistic outcome we are targeting?

"Please analyze data carefully before posting misleading conclusions." - They are not misleading if you only look at the raw data cited, but you are correct it is misleading to just use the raw data and that is my point. If Elliott is using raw data, it can be misleading. Using data this way as a method of interpreting vaccination efficiency and infection rate numbers may be incorrect. cite : https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread Unvaccinated 485 ( out of how many were tested?) Partially vaccinated 83 ( out of how many were tested?) Fully vaccinated 147 ( out of how many were tested?) If we use the numbers cited, partially vaccinated is lower than fully vaccinated, we could claim that you are posting misleading statements based on this data. Again I am not in support of such claim because the data is generalized. However, the point is that this data does not make good comparisons. We need to be able to compare similar individuals before making statement on this data. I would estimate that if we segregated individuals who have underlying medical conditions from those that do not, the vaccinated hospitalization numbers would drop to possibly 0 for healthy individuals. In regards to generic population infection rate, how many individuals who are vaccinated are tested? How many individuals who are unvaccinated are tested? Why I ask this question. If 1000 vaccinated individuals are tested, and 100 come out positive that would be a 10 % positivity rate. If 100 unvaccinated individuals are tested, and only 10 come out positive that would be a 10% positively rate. Even though they have the same rate, just looking at the numbers, 10 vs 100 it would appear more vaccinated people tested positive, which is incorrect. Without this data, general infection rates are unknown. I am all for vaccinations, but we need to stop presenting raw data as though they are comparable.

The cited data indicates that more unvaccinated individuals are hospitalized than fully vaccinated individuals. More fully vaccinated individuals are hospitalized than partially vaccinated individuals. This data supports partial vaccination status not full vaccination. Based on the data, one is better off being partially vaccinated. If I were to guess, this data does not provide enough detail to support such a ridiculous claim. The data would need to include age, underlying medical conditions and severity of condition. A vaccinated person, with underlying medical conditions should not be measured against a healthy unvaccinated person with no underlying medical conditions. A vaccinated person who is 80 years old, should not be measured against a unvaccinated person who is 30 years old. If unvaccinated young individuals entire the ICU with no underlying medical conditions, this is far more concerning than elderly individuals entering the ICU with underlying medical conditions.