Enough is enough. Ban protests outside hospitals.

[myata]

45 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Because people can't be vaccinated against smoking, diabetes, heart disease etc.  A vaccination is a low-risk, easy and effective way of staying out of the hospital.

This is called circular logic: I want vaccines so vaccine it has to be. There's no risk at all in quitting smoking or starting a healthy lifestyle and it's effective in preventing serious disease. So why wouldn't you apply the same standard to those who make a conscious choice not to?

[Infidel Dog]

It's a key thing that Covid is almost as transmittable, as transmittable or perhaps even more transmittable in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Any of the above makes any vaccine mandate worthless. 

So if anybody  can prove it's less than that then fine, prove it. But if you can't, don't be thinking you can take this stance where you pose like superior virtue allows you to push for the abuse of others and can't be challenged.

[Yzermandius19]

9 minutes ago, myata said:

It's in the literature for reported cases 4.5 times lower, including unreported and non symptomatic has to be (much?) less. Note that vaccinated population by now is several times if not a full order of magnitude greater than non vaccinated.

note that in Israel

the most vaccinated nation on the planet

this isn't true at all

the vaccinated actually are more likely to get covid according to their data

Edited September 14, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Infidel Dog]

It's different with the variant. I posted info above showing:

"Delta infection results in high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in both vaccinated and unvaccinated"

And Delta infections are what caused the cry for mandates. That matters.

The idea Delta is transmittable by both the vaccinated and unvaccinated is born out by steep rises in the  infected vaxxed in Israel, the UK, Iceland, Gibraltar and Taiwan.

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[myata]

23 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

note that in Israel

the vaccinated actually are more likely to get covid according to their data

Are we talking the number of cases, or cases per capita (vaccinated vs non vaccinated)? If the latter I would be interested to see it. But the numbers in the published US studies are consistent with higher cases in vaccinated simply because they are more numerous.

Edited September 14, 2021 by myata

[Infidel Dog]

Got a link? I want to see how old the study was and if they're talking about variants. Bet they're not.

[myata]

14 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

It's a key thing that Covid is almost as transmittable, as transmittable or perhaps even more transmittable in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Any of the above makes any vaccine mandate worthless. 

I would agree with that. The rationale for all mandatory vaccinations so far has been strong suppression or eradication of the disease. If this is not the case here we cannot make any steps toward mandatory vaccinations without detailed examination of the evidence and possible outcomes, and until it's done it's voluntarism bordering on blatant irresponsibility. Suggesting and encouragement are fine; forcing like in the cited case, a no-no unless justified and defended as necessary in a specific situation like working with vulnerable population (and again vaccines do not prevent infection, so it would still be a question).

In a normal country the matter will be before courts in no time. But do we have them here?

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

This is called circular logic: I want vaccines so vaccine it has to be. There's no risk at all in quitting smoking or starting a healthy lifestyle and it's effective in preventing serious disease. So why wouldn't you apply the same standard to those who make a conscious choice not to?

The unvaccinated aren't being forced to take the vaccine, any more than an obese person is being forced to eat or a smoker is forced to smoke.  However choices have consequences; an obese person has their quality of life reduced in many ways.  The unvaccinated can choose not to take the vaccine, but there are consequences to that choice that will reduce their quality of life.

Consequences are a natural part of life.  Unvax say their willing to accept the risk of dying as a consequence of their choice, but balk at being refused entry to a restaurant, ballgame or concert.  Weird.

[myata]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The unvaccinated aren't being forced to take the vaccine, any more than an obese person is being forced to eat or a smoker is forced to smoke.  Weird.

Isn't it weird that we were talking about how hospitals (can/should) be denied to non vaccinated but not to smokers etc and now it's moved to something else? Who decides what "the consequences" should be, and how do we do that? Do they do crystal-balling or shaman dancing? If not then surely it can be explained in plain human language?

[Infidel Dog]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The unvaccinated aren't being forced to take the vaccine, any more than an obese person is being forced to eat or a smoker is forced to smoke. 

Here's an example of why you're wrong.

Quote

The Ottawa Hospital and other hospitals in the city, as well as most across Ontario, announced employees must have received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine by Sept. 7 and their second dose by Oct. 15.

So in Ottawa and other Ontario hospitals you get both jabs or you lose your job.

I imagine they can still walk off the grounds to grab some beer, a smoke and a pizza though.

[Yzermandius19]

25 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Got a link? I want to see how old the study was and if they're talking about variants. Bet they're not.

[Infidel Dog]

The variant appeared early in Israel.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-israel-registers-eight-cases-of-covid-19-variant-first-seen-in-india/

That's another reason it's used as an example of what very well might be coming to this side of the Atlantic.

[dialamah]

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Here's an example of why you're wrong.

So in Ottawa and other Ontario hospitals you get both jabs or you lose your job.

I imagine they can still walk off the grounds to grab some beer, a smoke and a pizza though.

Consequences.  People who drink too much lose their jobs when it starts to affect their work.  People who are obese lose their jobs when they can't perform.  People who are too sick to work because of lung cancer or heart disease lose their jobs.  Healthcare workers who refuse to vaccinate are affecting their ability to do their job because they're putting their patients and colleagues at risk.  

[Infidel Dog]

7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Healthcare workers who refuse to vaccinate are affecting their ability to do their job because they're putting their patients and colleagues at risk.  

So they weren't back when we were banging our pots outside our doors to thank them for the great work they were doing but now they are because there's a variant that causes vaccinated to be possibly equal or more contagious than unvaccinated.

Huh?

I've posted support for that. Let's see yours saying the variant is not equally infectious. See, cause if you don't have that you lose your point.

Edited September 15, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[blackbird]

Health care workers are in a unique position.  They are in close contact with patients all the time.  If they are unvaccinated there is a greater chance they will spread Covid to their patients.  90% of them are vaccinated now.  The problem is the other 10%.  I give the government credit for forcing these people in B.C. to get vaccinated or be suspended without pay.  Unless someone can produce a medical reason why they can't be vaccinated, they should get the jab.  It is a privilege to take care of sick people, not a right if you aren't vaccinated.  It's a simple thing to do.  So if these protesters are unvaccinated medical staff and protesting in front of hospitals for the right to work while unvaccinated, they get no sympathy from me or millions of other citizens.  They should be stopped.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

There are math errors here I think.  What's the source ?  It looks like they took data from other sources.

[Yzermandius19]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are math errors here I think.  What's the source ?  It looks like they took data from other sources.

the sources are listed at the bottom

if you find any errors

let me know

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the sources are listed at the bottom

if you find any errors

let me know

I don't think that the %s quite match.  It makes me wonder if they did a combination of the two sources to achieve a result.

 

But I would need to see the source table, where they give the methods.  That way we can understand if we're dealing with sloppy amateurs, propaganda, or there's a way that the numbers work that aren't clear here.

Any of those 3 would be fine but I would really only be convinced by the one scenario.

[Yzermandius19]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that the %s quite match.

that's called confirmation bias

you expected a different result

but that doesn't mean that the numbers aren't real

 

if you find any proof that your confirmation bias is correct

feel free to point it out

the sources have been provided

if you want to look into it

and you can even check other sources that report Israel's numbers

if you are still skeptical

 

but the recent numbers out of Israel

do not line up with narrative that "this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated" and they are mostly responsible for the disease spreading

this is the most vaccinated nation on the planet

and still tons of the vaccinated are getting covid

there is no vaccinating our way out of this pandemic

despite the claims of many of those who support mandatory vaccine passports

Edited September 15, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[myata]

15 hours ago, blackbird said:

They are in close contact with patients all the time.  If they are unvaccinated there is a greater chance they will spread Covid to their patients.  90% of them are vaccinated now. 

This is correct but not entirely and that can be a problem. Vaccination almost certainly reduces the chance of infection but exactly by how much we don't know (including non symptomatic cases) because we haven't asked that question and haven't found out, while marching and drumming. And so a fully vaccinated medical worker can still carry a non-symptomatic infection and be a source of it for the patients. By how much is the risk reduced, and should anything else be done to reduce, and would it create a false sense of security, like walking with a mask on in a park then taking it off in a restaurant for two hours these are real and important questions. Who's asking though and who's thinking and who's trying to make sense, while everybody's gone vaccine marching?

Edited September 15, 2021 by myata

[Shady]

On 9/13/2021 at 6:14 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

who is attacking the sick people or the health care workers

by merely protesting outside a hospital?

there is no need to ban them, free speech hater

It’s amazing how many rights the Branch Covidians want to eliminate.  There’s no end.  As long as people are the proper distance away, and not impeding anyone coming or going. I don’t see a problem.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. that's called confirmation bias

2. you expected a different result

3. but that doesn't mean that the numbers aren't real

4. if you find any proof that your confirmation bias is correct; feel free to point it out

1. No, it's absolutely not.  Math is objective, not subject to bias.  If I write "2+2=3" there is no way for me to justify it and say I was right.  If the math is wrong, it's just wrong and you can't deny it.
2. No I didn't.  I read it to see what they were saying and found an apparent error.  I would like to check it is all.  I may have misunderstood.
3. Numbers could be real, but there could be errors or misinterpretations.  The latter is perhaps more subject to confirmation bias but I am not there yet.
4. I want to look at the source.  I will explain below why I suspect an error.

I deleted the rest of the post because it presupposes that I have an agenda here which I do not.

I'll explain in a separate post why I have questions then.

[Michael Hardner]

18 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

When I look at the totals: fully cases/total cases seems to be represented as such

Percent of Cases Fully Vaccinated =15634/(15634+3038)

That comes out to 83.7% not 86%.  Now the number of partially vaccinated cases is oddly omitted, but that will only add to the denominator of the formula so that the percentage of vaccinated cases would be lower.

Now - if I could see where the math from the two studies were assembled maybe we could understand the methods better.  But on the surface, and without any more context, this looks to me like a math error.

Unless I made one.  

Please just post where you got this thanks.

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, myata said:

This is correct but it's not entirely and that can be a problem. Vaccination almost certainly reduces the chance of infection but exactly by how much we don't know (including non symptomatic cases) because we haven't asked that question and haven't found out, while marching and drumming. And so a fully vaccinated medical worker can still carry a non-symptomatic infection and be a source of it for the patients. By how much is the risk reduced, and should anything else be done to reduce, and would it create a false sense of security, like walking with a mask on in a park then taking it off in a restaurant for two hours these are real and important questions. Who's asking though and who's thinking and who's trying to make sense, while everybody's gone vaccine marching?

I still can't convince you that with the Delta variant the vaccinated can be as infectious as the unvaccinated, eh?

Tell you what. I'll give you what I've got on it from the mainstream media. At least read the titles:

CDC FINALLY releases data behind mask guidance U-turn: Study claims vaccinated people infected with 'Delta' variant have same viral levels as the unvaccinated

Covid infection protection waning in double jabbed

Fully vaccinated people who get a Covid-19 breakthrough infection can transmit the virus, CDC chief says

Jabbed adults infected with Delta ‘can match virus levels of unvaccinated’

This one's not media. It's a paper from a medical journal:

Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination when the Delta Variant is Prevalent - Wisconsin, July 2021

Edited September 15, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

When I look at the totals: fully cases/total cases seems to be represented as such

Percent of Cases Fully Vaccinated =15634/(15634+3038)

That comes out to 83.7%.  Now the number of partially vaccinated cases is oddly omitted, but that will only add to the denominator of the formula so that the percentage of vaccinated cases would be lower.

Now - if I could see where the math from the two studies were assembled maybe we could understand the methods better.  But on the surface, and without any more context, this looks to me like a math error.

Unless I made one.  

Please just post where you got this thanks.

even by that math

percentage of population full vaccinated is 84.4% and percentage of covid cases of the fully vaccinated is 83.7%

meaning that the vaccinated are still responsible for a helluva lot of covid spread

and the idea that only the unvaccinated are spreading the virus is total anti-science horseshit

the people claiming this are either completely misinformed or deliberately lying to justify authoritarian government mandates

Edited September 15, 2021 by Yzermandius19