Utopia Talk / Politics / Jergul's affliction

jergul large member	Wed Jul 07 05:42:12 Jergul: 50% after January 1st 2022 Ruggy: 50% before January 1st 2022 Sammy: 50% before June 1st 2021 - off 9% Fowyn: 50% before November 1st 2021 Habebe: 50% before July 1st 2021 - off 3% State Department: 50% by May 19th 2021 - off 12.2% Obam: 50% before May 15th 2021 - off 13.8%
jergul large member	Wed Jul 07 10:27:39 Seb Why does it seem so natural for you to default to CT explanations? Its not a conspiracy, it is simply a product of post-defacto justification. It being decided that children should be vaccinated, then it follows that this decision must be justified
jergul large member	Wed Jul 07 10:29:18 This is pretty much a rehash of you in 2003 where it being decided that Iraq must be invaded, then it followed that you must justify the decision to invade.
jergul large member	Wed Jul 07 10:34:35 Jergul 2003 and 2021: First, do no harm Westphalia and primum non nocere amount to the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
Rugian Member	Wed Jul 07 10:38:10 What the hell does Westphalia have to do with vaccinations?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 07 10:46:48 You can find elements of the "first do no harm" principle in the Westphalia principles.
jergul large member	Wed Jul 07 10:47:43 Ruggy Don't break shit. Seb is being wrong in the same way he was wrong in 2003 and at at every juncture where breaking shit was an option. Hell, he was probably wrong on breaking shit in Serbia too, but my memory does not go back that far.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 07 12:27:40 Jergul: Yes, what you are describing is a conspiracy: A cabal of people (who?) have decided children should be vaccinated (why?) and then (how?) arrange for regulators etc. who have hitherto operated independently to acquiesce (why?) and arrange and orchestrate (how?) for clinicians to have previously created misleading case reports (why? and when?) to justify it.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 07 12:32:53 The fact you are trying to draw comparison to Iraq is illustrative of conspiratorial thinking. Formulation of foreign policy is very different to public health policy, and national intelligence is centralised and secret; whereas public health is open and decentralised. One could indeed argue there was a conspiracy to invade Iraq, with the UK and British govts having decided at some point that it was desirable and then set about coordinating to assemble evidence for it to sell them public. This is your theory for dismissing and mischaracterising clinical evidence of risks in children from long COVID: that it is being assembled to justify a predetermined position. It's a theory, describing a conspiracy.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 07 12:34:19 So, in your theory of what is going on here, who is playing the role of Bush, Blair, Campbell, Cheney and Rumsfeld?
Seb Member	Wed Jul 07 12:35:55 Or, if the point is really starting the argument to the man, the only prior position on this board we need to understand your position is literally the first line of this thread: "Jergul: 50% after January 1st 2022 - I didn't mean minors dammit!"
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jul 07 19:55:27 Look at those fucking case rates in England.
Habebe Member	Wed Jul 07 20:03:51 This sounds like a made for TV movie. Jerguls affliction:The story of homosexuality and communism Next on the lifetime channel.
jergul large member	Thu Jul 08 02:03:00 Seb Anectdotal reports you mean on symptoms that can easily be explained by other factors. Like the epidemic or being sick at all is inherently depressing. Like d2p, lots of people believe that there is a duty to vaccine. its not a conspiracy. The difference here is mission creep where suddenly children have a duty to vaccine against the medical best interests, but for the sake of society. So that boomers may shop safetly. I am sure someone supports you, somewhere. But anyone following this thread? Your decent into pure adhoms is just a syptom of your abject surrender GG Seb.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 08 02:24:17 Sam: Yes, reducing control measures before the full adult population is fully vaccinated is beyond stupid. It creates a variant factory. This is what happens when you believe you are prioritising the economy over the pandemic Jergul: Annecdotal evidence is usually used to refer to unverified phenomenological reports. These are case reports - clinically certified and confirmed. The act of computing statistics does not magically endow these reports with authenticity and veracity, rather statistics draw their power from the clinical basis of the reports. Once again, you are falling into the Johnsonian fallacy of letting an expedient turn off phrase shape your thinking. "Your decent into pure adhoms" I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you decided to shift this argument onto a discussion of personal judgement, not I. Besides you have skipped over addressing why you have bizarrely decided to illustrate your claim not to be indulging in conspiratorialism with an example that cleaves very closely to a conspiracy model. In your "COVID vaccine is being pushed unethically" theory then, who plays the role of Dick Cheney, and what is the reason for so many regulators (not just the FDA, there's a fairly long list now) going along with this huge deviation from established practice and ethics? You might want to just revist your priors and accept - as with your estimate of US vaccine uptake - you didn't consider in enough depth the individual risks children face from the virus and focused too tightly on acute respiratory symptoms (which is the big threat and most salient to the boomer and late millennial group) and inadvertently discounted other disease presentations the virus appears to cause.
jergul large member	Thu Jul 08 02:43:44 Seb Framing remarks on a concensus on a "duty to vaccinate" as a conspiracy theory is bizarre. Case reports are exactly that. A report on one or more cases. Children long term covid waah. Sounds omnious. How many? Well, probably more than 2. We don't know. Symptoms of depression you mean? Well, the epidemic is depressing, but I suspect confirmation bias is the primary driver. Researcher are trying to find long term stuff. You would still have to establish that it is the virus, and not the immune reaction that is causing symptoms of depression over the long term. Because, as you know, the vaccines trigger immune reactions at a far higher rate than covid 19 given the certainty of getting a vaccine if you take it, but the mere chance of covid 19 if you do not. First, do no harm.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 08 04:57:53 Jergul, you appear to trying to turn the question of child vaccinations into a culture war. This "duty to vaccinate" is an entirely invented phrase of your own. So far as I know, no public health authority is making vaccination mandatory, bar a requirement for performing roles in provision of certain health and social care service. "How many? Well, probably more than 2. We don't know." Indeed (definitely more than 2, but stats require baselining which cannot be got from case reports) - so not annecdotal evidence, as you've misleadingly framed it - but stuff you can use to put bounds on probability and impact. There are studies ongoing. If you is really all about the ethics of vaccination (shall we call this vaccinator-gate?), then one most be mindful of the ethics of the discourse. Inventing terms and trying to lock to entirely different domains is classic bad faith framing. Address the issues directly, not by bad analogy. "You would still have to establish that it is the virus," If you looked into more detail, to would see in specific cases how clinicians have attributed to virus - the fact that symptoms can be attributed or manifest like depression makes high level statistical reporting hard. This means we carry more risk in the uncertainty, though you make the classic case of assuming hard to quantify risk can be discounted. As for immune reaction, the vaccines trigger an immune response but do not persist.
jergul large member	Thu Jul 08 06:12:54 Seb Do you, or do you not, think there is an obligation to vaccinate? Which can be coined "duty to vaccinate" Thank you for acknowleging my contribution to the public discourse :). The ethics of vaccinating children suck. You really have problems grasping the philosophical concept of "First, do no harm". Nice slight of hand there discounting the long term effects of an immune reaction from a vaccine, but highlighting the long term effects of an immun reaction from a virus. Neither of which have been established of course. Correlation does not equal causation. Here are the Norwegian numbers: Population: 5,3 million Reported cases: 132 361 Admitted to hospital: 4 635 Admitted to ICU: 879 Deaths: 796 Perhaps git gud at testing, contact tracing and isolating instead of using children as a crutch?
jergul large member	Thu Jul 08 06:23:41 As to culture war. Indeed. There is a duty to protect. But it is subordinate the principle of doing no harm. There has to be a substantial net game in security and well being. Since this is impossible to achieve through disrupting societies, Westphalian principles apply in regards to the absolute integrity of the nation-state. The same logic applies to the duty to vaccinate. Here use Lockes understanding of the integrity of self intead of Westphalia.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 08 07:07:58 Jergul: An obligation or duty on who to vaccinate whom? This is a non-sensical straw man framing of your own invention and I see no reason to engage in such. File it under "pet projects" and let us stick to reality. Vaccinations are by consent only. We are talking of whether the drugs are approved by medical regulators and grabbed license for use, and then whether vaccination is recommended by public health authorities. Even associated KPIs for vaccination programs talk of the number of people offered, rather than number of people vaccinated. This is why measuring declines are so important when chasing OKRs like coverage. There should be absolutely no question of these points and the fact you are apparently suggesting so is either evidence of incredibly poor comprehension skills (which we know is not the case) or extraordinary bad faith on your part. "Nice slight of hand there discounting the long term effects of an immune reaction" I've been clear on this point. There is no evidence for long term side effects from vaccination nor reason to think there would be one. There is evidence of long term chronic conditions arising from infection. Arguing that because the infection causes long term effects, we should see it in vaccines is baseless, and we certainly haven't seen that in adults to date, and we would never see it in children unless we had a longitudinal pharmacovigilence study with 100,000+ (more likely millions) which you can't do as a trial. You have convinced yourself the only ethical way to approve a medicine for use in children involves a method you cannot ever use (and which is indistinguishable from a mass vaccination campaign) that you are explicitly ruling out as unethical.
jergul large member	Thu Jul 08 08:50:57 Seb My God. The duty of the State to vaccinate its population. Curtailed only by: First, do no harm The sanctity of the individual There should be no question on these points. The problem you are having is that you still fucking think we should invade countries, so think I am suggesting there are forced vaccinations. The scope here is limited to children. Who are at order of magnitude less exposed to adverse effects from covid. If an immune response causes long term effects. then it does. The ethical threshold is very high for vaccinating children against something that is not dangerous to them. The threshold is not met because the side-effect from vaccines are too great, particularly when measured against the chance of getting covid. If you want to protect children ethically, then git gud at testing, contact tracing, and isolation. You are using children as a crutch because you suck. See Norway's data again.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 08 09:36:27 Jergul: "The duty of the State to vaccinate its population." The duty is to provide access to healthcare, in this case vaccination. That's not the same thing as a duty to vaccinate everyone. The first embeds consent. The second omits it. The state cannot force you to be healthy. "so think I am suggesting there are forced vaccinations." The problem here is your asinine and pointless conflation of public health with humanitarian intervention. I don't think bares any useful analogy here, these are orthogonal issues and I'm not sure why you persist in this utterly ludicrous attempts to do so. Whatever point you think you are making, it is just comes across as swivel-eyed bollocks. Go get a placard and camp outside Blair's house, but if your only able to approach any question of public policy through the lens of the run up to the Iraq war, I think what you really need is therapy. "Who are at order of magnitude less exposed to adverse effects from covid." No. Who are at an order of magnitude less exposed to *acute respiratory* effects from covid. "If an immune response causes long term effects" Laughably simplistic. The main way Covid kills in the acute respiratory condition is due to an immune response. Are you saying that there is a risk of this from the vaccines? The way the immune system responds is conditional and varies. But so far after millions of doses given over six months, there's no evidence that the vaccine triggers a long Covid type condition. There's basically no basis whatsoever for this strange assertion of yours. "The ethical threshold is very high for vaccinating children against something that is not dangerous to them." Again, the idea that the disease is not dangerous if you do not have comorbidities associated with severe cases of the acute respiratory condition is unfounded. Indeed it it's safe to say that it's contradicted by the available evidence. "the side-effect from vaccines are too great" The data doesn't support that, and the clinical and ethical judgement of many developed countries do not agree with you on this point. Your explanation of this disagreement being some odd conspiracy by independent regulators to throw out previous ethical and clinical practice in the name of political expediency doesn't hold water. It's just hubristic nonsense, and if you actually believe it, there's no actual ethical way that a regulator could licence medicines for children for anything but fatal conditions - you'd constantly he held up by the lack of longitudinal studies demonstrating no adverse reactions, which can only ever be done after licensing.
jergul large member	Thu Jul 08 10:01:13 Seb Incorrect in the case of contagious diseases. The duty then is to vaccinate and enact other health measures to protect the public in general. The only limit on that duty is First, do no harm The sanctity of the individual The point is that you have a history of supporting heavy handed interventions. Vaccinating children is just another one of those heavy handed interventions of yours. I feel you lack the objectivity to make calls on relevance. There are a few lurkers. Let them judge for themselves. Yes, yes. Your anectdotal evidence is surely much worse than things we actually have statistics on. Pure speculation on your part. The idea is that covid is less dangerous than the vaccine for children and is less likely to infect children than the certainty of being subject to a vaccination. The data does support it. We established this in the last thread. If you insist, then we can call it mass hysteria amongst regulators unable to otherwise control the disease. Something must be done. This is something. Argumentum ad absurdium ignored.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 08 10:30:54 Jergul: "The point is that you have a history of supporting heavy handed interventions" Point: it's you that's talking about a state duty, I've been clear on a number of times that vaccination has to be on the basis of consent Point: I don't see any parallels - these areas are totally different. Arguing that because you somehow, in your fevered mind, see a parallel between medical licencing and the Iraq War, that you can therefore infer something about my position, isn't very sound. In fact it's downright loopy. If you want to talk about objectivity, consider your own. You made an estimate of uptake, you defended it by announcing you meant full population and you didn't expect children to be vaccinated (effect though at the time phase 3 studies were underway to support any decision to licence the drug for 12-15 year olds), and you are linking regulators decisions on whether such license should be given to the Iraq war, which has little obvious connection bar the fact that I support both of these (I'm not sure that my position on the Iraq has much baring on the Danish or French drug regulator and public health authorities). Perhaps the issue here is your own lack of objectivity? "Your anectdotal evidence" Again, that's a dishonest use of the term anectdote, and a lack of baselined statistics isn't the same thing as a statistical result 0% - which is how you are treating it. By all means, decide not to vaccinate your children. You should not be arguing for the regulators to block access to the vaccine to children when there's no evidence of long term harm from the vaccine, but plenty of evidence that there's a risk of long term harm from infection.
jergul large member	Thu Jul 08 12:52:25 Seb You are actually not clear on consent at all. For example, children are unable to give consent, yet you outlandishly insist they should be vaccinated. This is why philosophical principles are needed you see. It keeps things principled, instead of degrading into an ad-hoc hogwash of techno-babble appeal to authority. I am just going to leapfrog over those two blocks of incoherent adhoms. There is evidence of long term harm from vaccination. Approval studies just stop looking at it after the cut off date. There is not meaningful evidence of long term harm from covid to healthy children. And again. 100% certainty of getting the vaccine if vaccinated. A relatively small chance per time unit of getting covid. Learn how to test, contact trace, and isolate. Stop using children as a crutch for your country's failures.
jergul large member	Fri Jul 09 09:29:27 More stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericarditis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myocarditis
Seb Member	Fri Jul 09 11:33:49 Consent is given by parents for minors where they are unable to consent (note, it is not uniformly the case that children under age of 16 are deemed unable to give consent for medical treatment), as it is for every other medical procedure. This is well known and doesn't need to be spelled out each time we talk of consent, and if you are grappling with this point of think that it's unclear and needs to be called out for special attention, you probably need to stop pontificating about the ethics of vaccination here.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 09 11:35:39 Jergul: "There is not meaningful evidence of long term harm from covid to healthy children." Simply not correct.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 09 12:20:46 "Consent is given by parents for minors where they are unable to consent" I am glad we have finally settled this.
jergul large member	Fri Jul 09 12:23:55 Seb Yes, yes. We know the mechanisms used. But you do not actually have the consent of the child being vaccinated. The point remains. You don't have a philosophical anchor, so you ad-hoc your way through life clad in technocratic gibberish. No meaningful. Statistical outliers are irrelevant.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 09 16:17:26 Jergul, it sounds like you are about to argue either that all medical treatment of children is unethical because it lacks consent; or argue that it's established legal and medical practice that no consent is required for medical practitioners to perform procedures on children. Neither is correct. So let's abandon this tiresome irrelevance. Vaccination is based on consent. And consent means, as you might say, just that.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 09 16:21:02 I should also point out that in many situations, someone aged 12-15 can give consent in their own right to medical procedures, you are taking the edge case where a child it's considered to not have the intellectual capacity to do so. This could be the case for very complex issues, or where the level of maturity of the child is an issue, or the child lacks the capacity. So it's not strictly true, as you seem to be suggesting, that vaccination of a child 12-15 would in most cases not have the consent of the child.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 09 16:38:10 Jergul: "Statistical outliers are irrelevant" Ah, so it's both annecdotal, but also a statistical outlier? 1 in 500,000 is the fatalitiy rate for children, with 1 in 50,000 requiring ICU treatment. Then there's PIMS, and emerging evidence on long Covid symptoms.
jergul large member	Fri Jul 09 21:38:34 Seb It sounds like you are about to use argumentum ad absurdium. The principle of consent in the face of deadly outbreak stems from the sanctity of the individual. This discussion is not an exact science. read anectdotal and outlier as synonyms. There is now statistical evidence of heart damage from the vaccine. Types of posted above.
jergul large member	Fri Jul 09 21:42:36 Seb Those numbers are gibberish without a number of qualifiers. What did I say to you about technibabble?
jergul large member	Fri Jul 09 22:02:52 http://ser...id-19-state-level-data-report/ 1:20 children have been registered infected by covid for a 7.5% infection rate per year. So 7.5:100k:year 1% of those hospitalised. So 0.75:100k:year 10% of those ICU. So 0.0075:100k:year 10% of those Dead. So 0.00075:100k:year http://ser...id-19-state-level-data-report/ Reference: 15:100k:year children die normally in the US. The epidemic has increased child mortality from 15 to 15.00075 per 100k per year. Blip, statistical outliers, anectdotes? Which term to you prefer?
jergul large member	Fri Jul 09 22:04:59 Fri Jul 09 22:02:52 http://ser...id-19-state-level-data-report/ 1:20 children have been registered infected by covid for a 7.5% infection rate per year. So 7.5:100k:year 1% of those hospitalised. So 0.75:100k:year 10% of those ICU. So 0.075:100k:year 10% of those Dead. So 0.0075:100k:year http://ser...id-19-state-level-data-report/ Reference: 15:100k:year children die normally in the US. The epidemic has increased child mortality from 15 to 15.0075 per 100k per year. Blip, statistical outliers, anectdotes? Which term to you prefer?
Seb Member	Sat Jul 10 04:25:37 Jergul: Do you dispute that vaccination is based on the principle of consent?
Seb Member	Sat Jul 10 04:41:45 Jergul: The stats I'm quoting are from the latest baselined study provided by a consortium of UCL, Kings and others to JCVI. "There is now statistical evidence of heart damage from the vaccine. Types of posted above." Yes, at a rate of around than 1 in 50,000 So far, with a 100% recovery rate in otherwise healthy younger adults and children, without a stay in ICU. "Blip, statistical outliers, anectdotes? Which term to you prefer?" Ah, I see, you are suggesting the baseline to measure the risk of a disease is the mortality rate from all other conditions. You realise if we used this as a baseline, we would argue highly dangerous but rare diseases are "outliers" from a treatment perspective. If you want to complain about reducto ad-absurdiam, probably best to stop making arguments that are so clearly based on absurd principles. This attempt to try and prove that the various regulators and public health bodies that have approved the vaccine for children are somehow corrupt is the very definition of quixotic. It's certainly one thing to support regulators that have decided not to do so. It's quite another to suggest that those that have decided to do so can only have done so due to serve the dark, coercive forces of the state and are behaving unethically.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 10 04:43:37 Mercifully, I'm off to the peak District today to somewhere with no WiFi and spotty mobile coverage - so we shall have to call it a day.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jul 10 05:32:05 ”with no WiFi and spotty mobile coverage” :,) they tell me such places still exists on this continent. I thought it was a myth.
Habebe Member	Sat Jul 10 05:37:52 Ok , I get that, BUT What if your a half Demon, that means when in a flight or fight instance you lose control and ypur demon blood overpowers and takes over to preserve your life, follow me so far? So then since ypur dad was a super powerful and massive dog demon, that blood is top strong for ypur human side, so it begins to feed on the human soul, so literally your adrenalized demon blood is eating your soul! Knowing this your dad has a sword forged from his huge fang that has the power to keep you from that fight or flight situation. It can also kill 100 demons in a single slash. But if your away from the sword and get out into that position, which is likely being a half dog demon kn feudal Japan who regularly wields a sword that can kill 100 demons in one swipe, ban, your soul gets eaten. Does the vaccine cover that? Also if ypur dad was so big, like the size of a small mountain, how did he bang a human woman?
jergul large member	Sat Jul 10 05:40:46 Seb Do you dispute that the principle of consent is derived from the concept "integrity of self"? The list of maladies from vaccination continue to grow. You are very suave about "no long term" How would you know? Reduce to absurd again. You cannot help yourself can you? Corrupt? Possibly. But that is not what I have been arguing. It is unethical and driven by "Something must be done, this is something" logic to cover up massive failings in testing, contact tracing and isolation. You really should git gud at that instead of using children as a crutch to save boomers and their shopping habits.
jergul large member	Sat Jul 10 05:42:33 Nimi The peak district is not on this continent really. An island off its shore.
jergul large member	Sat Jul 10 05:44:26 habebe Getting smitten by a half-demon is one of AstraZeneca's uncommon side-effects (less than 1:10 000)
nhill Member	Sun Jul 11 01:30:57 jergul Your links above aren’t working for me. Are you referring to this? > Children face just a one in 500,000 risk of dying from Covid, according to new UK study. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-57766717
nhill Member	Sun Jul 11 01:32:35 Actually, nvm. I see it now. Carry on.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jul 12 11:42:11 48.5% jergul. Lulz.
jergul large member	Mon Jul 12 12:29:03 Sammy Down to 600k vaccinations a day from a peak of 3 million. Lulz. And still not passed 50%. You know, when you should actually wait to lulz. My underlying point stands. I predicted the US would have huge difficulty vaccinating its population for psycological, not accessibility reasons. I was correct, though the actual degree of the debacle was less than I thought. Meanwhile in norway. Men aged 70-79 are 99% vaccinated. Meaning that 99% of men in that age group have been fully vaccinted. That is some stalinist voting numbers right there. 56.2% overall have gotten their first shot. Which is higher than in the US.
Hrothgar Member	Mon Jul 12 12:32:10 The reasoning for vaccinating small children and teens is/should be that while they rarely have effects worse than the common cold individually, they are fully capable of spreading it to many more people around them. Too much of this convo is focused on individual impact of the disease and not on population level impact. Too many citizens getting sick from a novel virus all at once, and that situation's impact on the hospital systems, is the over arching outcome that all of this discussion should be viewed through. If we can limit new infections to 100 per million people per day most places can handle that without seeing a major impact on day to day life even if at the individual level there will be some bad luck suffering/death. If we let it go uncontrolled into the 1000+ number of cases per day per million, hospitals will be crushed with demand and the overall impact to the population as a while will be much worse as response to other general health issues are negatively impacted.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jul 12 13:36:42 "Meanwhile in norway. Men aged 70-79 are 99% vaccinated." Thanks to the US.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 12 14:28:26 Nhill: Check out the link in the article and go to the baseline - baseline is UK population of children, not "of those infected".
Seb Member	Mon Jul 12 14:32:04 Nim: I had to actively look for it! It’s on an island, between two canals, next to an old pub, in a steep sided valley. I’m just on the way back from Alton towers.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 12 14:37:38 Hrothgar: We convered that earlier. Jergul believes that is unethical. However it was not the basis of the FDAs decision.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 12 14:43:17 Jergul: Unless you have an actual point to make, I’m going to ignore further discussion on consent . Pick an absurd baseline, I am going to be forced to highlight the absurd implications of it, yes.
jergul large member	Mon Jul 12 16:04:46 Seb You lost this discussion two threads ago. But nic gaslighting attempt.
jergul large member	Mon Jul 12 16:10:55 Hrothgar There are ethical issues with applying a vaccine that causes more harm to the individual than the disease itselt. But your logic holds for an adult population capable of consenting and of having some obligation to act for the common good. Another ethical concern is that children are getting vaccinated so that adults can enjoy the luxery of not getting vaccinated, or of adopting elementary precautions as part of their lifestyle. Norway is not yet even considering vaccinating healthy children. This no doubt in part due to very high vaccination rate expectations. Adults are stepping up, so there is no pressure to have children step up in their stead.
jergul large member	Mon Jul 12 16:13:50 Seb There is actually pretty large pharma-sponsored fund to finance research into odd and uncommon diseases. Philantropic of course, but it is interesting to note how the industry goes about addressing the absurdity you raised.
nhill Member	Mon Jul 12 16:23:34 A pretty good study design out of Israel, shows a 70% efficacy for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine. http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33956048/
nhill Member	Mon Jul 12 16:23:39 You have to find 'other' ways to access the study to see the results, but here's a good visual: http://i.imgur.com/ynPJrQ7.png
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jul 12 17:00:12 "A pretty good study design out of Israel, shows a 70% efficacy for the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine." For asymptomatic cases. For symptomatic cases, its still 97% effective.
nhill Member	Mon Jul 12 17:44:52 Yes, that was the point of the study, comparing differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Should have included that in the summary.
nhill Member	Mon Jul 12 17:46:36 It was shown to be >95% effective in Phase 3 trials. Assumed everyone here knew that already since it's been on blast for ~9 months now. But, you're right, never assume in UP.
Seb Member	Tue Jul 13 10:35:20 Jergul: If you had a point, I assume you’d have actually made it rather than talking around it. Vaccination is by consent only, and your complaint is that regulators are corruptly* in approving its use for children 12-15. * (your framing ‘Something must be done” implies regulators acting ultra vires to support the govt, compromising their independence, which is corruption)
Seb Member	Tue Jul 13 10:35:20 Jergul: If you had a point, I assume you’d have actually made it rather than talking around it. Vaccination is by consent only, and your complaint is that regulators are corruptly* in approving its use for children 12-15. * (your framing ‘Something must be done” implies regulators acting ultra vires to support the govt, compromising their independence, which is corruption)
Habebe Member	Tue Jul 13 11:03:00 http://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations So, the US appears to be at 51%, sometime recently we passed the 50% mark.
jergul large member	Tue Jul 13 13:34:27 Seb You gaslighting fuck. That was never the argument that you lost two threads ago.
jergul large member	Tue Jul 13 13:36:56 Habebe 47,62% on your link.
Paramount Member	Wed Jul 14 04:18:07 I read a Swedish news article and it says: About 48 percent of the population is fully vaccinated. But in several states, especially in the south, things are slower. And: In the US, as a whole, 99.2 percent of covid-related deaths in June are unvaccinated people.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jul 14 05:59:07 "99.2 percent of covid-related deaths in June are unvaccinated people." Insert picture of darwin smiling.
Paramount Member	Wed Jul 14 08:17:37 I have got my first shot of vaccine. I got Pfizer. I guess I owe America a thanks that they let Sweden buy this shit. So thank you America :) Maybe even Trump should get some credit for starting the ”Operation Warp Speed”. It he had anything to do with it, that is.
nhill Member	Wed Jul 14 08:56:54 You're welcome.
Habebe Member	Wed Jul 14 09:02:09 Jergul, Your Right, I think I mixed it up with thr UK.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jul 14 11:04:59 Cheers paramount.
Nekran Member	Fri Jul 16 14:04:14 I got my 2nd shot of Moderna yesterday, huzzah! We're at 46% of pop fully vaccinated and 67% with at least a first shot, now... shit's finally getting hopeful. I have to say I can't believe that it looks like we might well hit that 50% before the US... I stayed out of these threads mostly, but jergul has been uncomfortably close to being right. Much unlike my expectation, I don't mind admitting. Last data I see has the 1 dose percentage at 56% of the US population... that's scary low, considering it was at like 48% three months ago, when we were still at a miesely 33%.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jul 16 14:30:31 Ya we have a lot of antivaxxers... too many rednecks and africans. The real point always was the US is saving the world by creating all the best vaxes. Like your moderna shot...
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 16 16:34:00 CDC | Data as of: July 16, 2021 6:00am ET. Posted: Friday, July 16, 2021 2:32 PM ET % of Total Population One Dose: 55.9% Fully vaccinated: 48.4%
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 16 16:43:08 Everyone that wants one can get one. This has been true for three months. We had hit 20 million cases already by the end of the year. We're at 35 million now. Confirmed cases, likely twice that overall. Confirmed cases + fully vaccinated = 58.94%
nhill Member	Fri Jul 16 16:44:41 I noticed they even give away the shots in Wal-Mart now. Might be a very slow rise from here.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jul 16 20:07:25 So seb, while your shitty AstraZeneca vax is allowing a massive skyrocket of cases, it does seem to be doing OK to keep deaths down.
jergul large member	Fri Jul 16 21:12:40 Forwyn Its not additive. You can't assume that everyone who is a confirmed covid case has not also gotten fully vaccinated.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Jul 16 23:31:05 "You can't assume that everyone who is a confirmed covid case has not also gotten fully vaccinated." True, there is some overlap. But confirmed cases also undercount by about 5x, not 2. Some 75% of americans should have immunity at this time, at least against the original and UK strains. Figure 60ish percent against delta. Delta will spread.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 17 03:03:25 Sam: http://www...onaviruscovid19/latestinsights A reminder - people under 40 don't get AZ. Cases are overwhelmingly in the under 40s (most school aged children). So not being driven by lack of immunity due to AZ, being driven by lack of vaccination among the young. But yes, AZ will stop you going to hospital and dying - as I said weeks ago - and so is a good thing.
nhill Member	Sat Jul 17 12:09:27 In Europe we are seeing surges at many places where most of the population has already been vaccinated. At the same time, the 15 least vaccinated countries don‘t seem to face any problem. http://i.imgur.com/9fkAkS1.png Curious to hear people's theories on this. Without thinking to much, my theory is that probably because people think they are safe and throw caution to the wind upon being vaccinated.
nhill Member	Sat Jul 17 12:12:30 Also, the study I posted above found that the vaccine is only 70% effective against asymptomatic cases. Guessing that, along with the behavioral changes, explain the majority of it. Nothing to be concerned about at this point. It's cases, not deaths.
nhill Member	Sat Jul 17 12:14:43 The 7 day rolling average of deaths is increasing in the UK: http://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths Why there, but nowhere else? AstraZeneca vaccine?
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Sat Jul 17 12:17:47 problie has sumthin 2 do wit da blak guy whoze servicin ure wifes pussie wile ur @ work rofl wen r we gona c u on dis show rofl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7LY32PJbPg
nhill Member	Sat Jul 17 12:22:42 I don't go into work, I'm retired.
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Sat Jul 17 12:25:42 rofl how old r u sum1 old man rofl than shes takin da blak dik wen ure doin old ppl tings leik havin ure undarwere steemed
nhill Member	Sat Jul 17 12:30:00 lol
Seb Member	Sat Jul 17 16:34:34 Nhill: Because the UK is a few weeks ahead on Delta. We have a lot of traffic to and from India where Delta originated and our idiot govt decided not to put India on the quarantine list because Boris was due up fly out to start some trade deal talks with Modi, who is sort of Trump/Bolsanaro type figure in that he screwed up India's response so putting India on the red list would have been seriously embarrassing for him. In the end the whole trip was predictably cancelled, but not before thousands of people with cases of Delta had come to the UK. One of the main routes of Delta into Europe and the US has been via the UK. In particular Portugal, heavily reliant on UK tourists, was lent on heavily by the UK to not impose travel bans. UK tourists introduced Delta to Portugal. Once Portugals infection rate took off, we redlisted them. Ho ho. TLDR, UK death rate is rising because when your infection rate goes from <1000 a day to 40,000 a day, that will increase you death rate proportionately because whatever level of protection your vaccine gives (95% or 80%) is already baked in to your baseline death rate. What drives increase in death rates is infection rates with a c. 4 week lag.
nhill Member	Sat Jul 17 16:47:52 That sucks. Thanks for the info, stay safe out there.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jul 18 05:08:28 "and so is a good thing." Could be better. Could be pfizer.
Average Ameriacn Member	Sun Jul 18 06:28:53 Canada! This Is Biden's fault, Trump would have never let that happen! http://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1416450150705164288 Today's the day that Canada exceeded the US for fully vaccinated. And 15% points ahead in 1st dose.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 18 07:07:27 Sam: If there was more Pfizer or Moderna to be had. On the whole, the balanced portfolio the UK govt took was the right approach than putting all the eggs into one basket. It let us get well ahead on vaccination and thus mitigate much of the utter idiocy of the govts lockdown failures.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Jul 19 09:26:13 "If there was more Pfizer or Moderna to be had." There is now. Lesser nations such as yourself just needed to wait a few months.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 19 14:34:35 Sam: If we had done that, tens thousands of people would have died as having AZ protects will against serious presentations. You are as thick as Boris.
Forwyn Member	Mon Jul 19 17:23:38 CDC | Data as of: July 19, 2021 6:00am ET. Posted: Monday, July 19, 2021 2:16 PM ET % of Total Population One Dose: 56.1% (.2%) Full Vaccinated: 48.6% (+.2%)
Forwyn Member	Wed Jul 21 00:46:46 CDC | Data as of: July 20, 2021 6:00am ET. Posted: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 7:19 PM ET % of Total Population One Dose: 56.2% (+.1%) Fully vaccinated: 48.7% (+.1%)
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 23 22:20:29 CDC | Data as of: July 23, 2021 6:00am ET. Posted: Friday, July 23, 2021 4:15 PM ET % of Total Population One Dose: 56.5% Fully Vaccinated: 48.9%
Seb Member	Sat Jul 24 04:57:16 http://twi...tatus/1418696473177362432?s=19
	show deleted posts