All things CoronaVirus

[Typical Lax Dad]

the numbers games do not factor in the unknowable number of covid survivors with acquired or natural immunity.

Is that natural immunity against all COVID-19 cases, including the mutated version(s)?

[old salt]

the numbers games do not factor in the unknowable number of covid survivors with acquired or natural immunity.

Is that natural immunity against all COVID-19 cases, including the mutated version(s)?

yes, in survivors of earlier mutated versions.

[Typical Lax Dad]

the numbers games do not factor in the unknowable number of covid survivors with acquired or natural immunity.

Is that natural immunity against all COVID-19 cases, including the mutated version(s)?

yes, in survivors of earlier mutated versions.

OK

[wgdsr]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

[RedFromMI]

Good Twitter thread from Andy Slavitt:

COVID Update: I’ve had dozens of people ask me with Delta here, what is the COVID end game.

Because I don’t know, I interviewed 6 experts on various elements— variants, vaccines, global, policy, ev biology & historical precedence.

Will break it down here.

First of all, one truism is that when cases are rising, more say the virus is here forever. When cases are dropping, people tend to believe it’s over. We’re all caught up in that still which makes objectivity harder to find. Still, we have learned a lot with Delta’s emergence that seems to change the game.

Some theories seem more right than wrong to me….

1- The virus & science will continue to have a long battle with a virus continually mutating for survival. How long? We are still seeing mutations from the 1918 flu 103 years later.

2- Given Delta’s contagiousness & the fitness of future mutations in order to beat it, this means SARS-CoV-2 will be contagious enough that everyone will get the virus. The aim is simply that more people get it be vaccinated when they do so fewer get COVID.

3- The virus & the disease are not the same thing. The mRNA vaccines are a godsend & will help us minimize COVID-19 even while there remains an abundance of SARS-CoV-2.

I will explain that further.

The vaccines don’t work like sunscreen, stopping the virus from entering your body. They fight for our cells. What they do is train our immune system to recognize the virus, attack it, & fight it to a state where it minimizes damage. This is why there are many harmless breakthrough cases. Stick a swab in your nose while your immune system is waging the fight & you will test positive.

This also explains a few things we see in Delta:
---immunosuppressed people need more vaccine
---higher Delta viral loads cause symptoms by making the fight harder
---while the immune system reacts, Delta can live in your nose for a short period & infect others

3- Can the vaccines keep up with future variants? Most experts appear confident in the mRNA platform— even when a variant potentially beats a current vaccine.

Here’s how & why from my understanding…

The science of the virus itself makes it a good target with the spike protein. And so long as the virus creates an immune response, mRNA can be adapted to simulate it. It’s one reason why there isn’t an HIV vaccine. The body can’t mount a response on its own. Not so for SC2.

mRNA is also most easily scaled & manufactured & can react to new mutants in 90 days. Regulations from FDA & other bodies are being adapted to keep up. We need nimble manufacturing & distribution as well.

4- All of this means likely waves of COVID— regionally & seasonally— depending on community vax status. It means some less safe periods of time— when vaccines are catching up to mutations, when prevalence is high. And safer times.

Here are some implications & immediate priorities.

1- Accelerate global vax effort. Instead of 70% by Dec 2022, we need 70% by March 22. The difference in giving the virus less time as we attack it is critical. A slow attack means more time for it to find ways to adapt.

2- US pockets of low vaccination are a critical priority. We are rapidly falling behind the ROW in vax levels due to hesitancy. Vax requirements will eventually be fairly common place. The difference between this happening this year & next could be profound.

3- The development of an oral anti-viral is an essential tool. Along with better ventilated buildings, we can keep transmission low & make infections shorter & milder.

4- Research & development of treatments for long COVID must begin now & there is reason for hope that we will find both symptom relief & clues to better treatment quickly if we put our minds to it.

So if the picture I pieced together from experts is close to right. And we execute against these 4 priorities, what does our new normal look like? In many ways it looks like the old normal for much of the world that we have so far largely avoided in the US & parallels how we deal with other challenges.

These are things we should be willing to tolerate:

---Masks when we travel & in heavy seasons
---Staying home when we’re sick— always
---Weather reports as there on for smog or allergy seasons
---Periodic outbreaks
---Caution around key populations
---Showing we are vaccinated/tested

But there is something we can decide not to tolerate:

Preventable deaths.

100 people die every day from the flu in a bad season, mostly elderly & kids. We should not accept this. And we should not accept even more from COVID. We can science our way through most of it. But we have to manage our way there as well— and that’s where the challenge lies. Our ability to have a productive debate on these issues will need to get better.

Domestically one can imagine 2 political parties— one for protecting the public, one for “liberty.”

The global cooperation & leadership needed for this is profound. Protectionism would lead us down a predictably more difficult path. Investments in basic research, in providing support for people with jobs which expose them to risks & for accessibility for people at risk or sick will expensive. But necessary.

But if I think about what matters, it’s this— to create a future where we all of us get to have as bright a future as possible. Small sacrifices & winning some big arguments are part of building that future.

[wgdsr]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article from a post i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article that i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

I believe the concept of needing a booster has been discussed from the outset. That suggests 98, 99, 99.5% effectiveness isn’t forever. Those effective rates were for trials not involving the Delta variant….Unless scientists and doctors are misleading everyone, a vaccinated person is still likely to have a better outcome than the unvaccinated. Do you believe that is not true or do you you have reason to believe it’s not true?

[wgdsr]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article that i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

I believe the concept of needing a booster has been discussed from the outset. That suggests 98, 99, 99.5% effectiveness isn’t forever. Those effective rates were for trials not involving the Delta variant….Unless scientists and doctors are misleading everyone, a vaccinated person is still likely to have a better outcome than the unvaccinated. Do you believe that is not true or do you you have reason to believe it’s not true?

i believe it's true for now and i effectively answered that above though the question was phrased differently.
hopefully, it continues to be true especially with boosters around the corner and then whatever variants are next.
our vaccines it's been said many times are more than we could hope for out of the box.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article that i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

I believe the concept of needing a booster has been discussed from the outset. That suggests 98, 99, 99.5% effectiveness isn’t forever. Those effective rates were for trials not involving the Delta variant….Unless scientists and doctors are misleading everyone, a vaccinated person is still likely to have a better outcome than the unvaccinated. Do you believe that is not true or do you you have reason to believe it’s not true?

i believe it's true for now and i effectively answered that above though the question was phrased differently.
hopefully, it continues to be true especially with boosters around the corner and then whatever variants are next.
our vaccines it's been said many times are more than we could hope for out of the box.

I took the gists of those articles to mean that the current surge is disproportionately impacting the non vaccinated when it comes to lethality. You may have been focused on something else in the articles.

[wgdsr]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article that i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

I believe the concept of needing a booster has been discussed from the outset. That suggests 98, 99, 99.5% effectiveness isn’t forever. Those effective rates were for trials not involving the Delta variant….Unless scientists and doctors are misleading everyone, a vaccinated person is still likely to have a better outcome than the unvaccinated. Do you believe that is not true or do you you have reason to believe it’s not true?

i believe it's true for now and i effectively answered that above though the question was phrased differently.
hopefully, it continues to be true especially with boosters around the corner and then whatever variants are next.
our vaccines it's been said many times are more than we could hope for out of the box.

I took the gists of those articles to mean that the current surge is disproportionately impacting the non vaccinated when it comes to lethality. You may have been focused on something else in the articles.

yes. i was focused on the wva article talking about all the deaths (and cases) since the beginning of the pandemic and not since meaningful vaxx uptake.
and then completely fumbling even those numbers (.006% of the 2974 deaths would be 18% (or less than 1/5) of one person.

so as the fence sitters start hearing how 15, 20, 30, and more percent of hospitalizations and deaths are vaxxed (as is happening now) and compare to what was described as "98-99+%" effective... today, not trial results from 9 months ago. it's being described that way today...
skeptics may turn more skeptical. maybe the ethical skeptic will make a comeback.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article that i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

I believe the concept of needing a booster has been discussed from the outset. That suggests 98, 99, 99.5% effectiveness isn’t forever. Those effective rates were for trials not involving the Delta variant….Unless scientists and doctors are misleading everyone, a vaccinated person is still likely to have a better outcome than the unvaccinated. Do you believe that is not true or do you you have reason to believe it’s not true?

i believe it's true for now and i effectively answered that above though the question was phrased differently.
hopefully, it continues to be true especially with boosters around the corner and then whatever variants are next.
our vaccines it's been said many times are more than we could hope for out of the box.

I took the gists of those articles to mean that the current surge is disproportionately impacting the non vaccinated when it comes to lethality. You may have been focused on something else in the articles.

yes. i was focused on the wva article talking about all the deaths (and cases) since the beginning of the pandemic and not since meaningful vaxx uptake.
and then completely fumbling even those numbers (.006% of the 2974 deaths would be 18% (or less than 1/5) of one person.

so as the fence sitters start hearing how 15, 20, 30, and more percent of hospitalizations and deaths are vaxxed (as is happening now) and compare to what was described as "98-99+%" effective... today, not trial results from 9 months ago. it's being described that way today...
skeptics may turn more skeptical. maybe the ethical skeptic will make a comeback.

I would focus on out of the total vaccinated people going to the hospital how many are dying versus not dying. And out of the unvaccinated people that go to the hospital, what percentage are dying.

If 100% of the people are vaccinated, 100% of the deaths would be vaccinated people…no matter if its 25,000 in a year versus 600,000.

[wgdsr]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article that i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

I believe the concept of needing a booster has been discussed from the outset. That suggests 98, 99, 99.5% effectiveness isn’t forever. Those effective rates were for trials not involving the Delta variant….Unless scientists and doctors are misleading everyone, a vaccinated person is still likely to have a better outcome than the unvaccinated. Do you believe that is not true or do you you have reason to believe it’s not true?

i believe it's true for now and i effectively answered that above though the question was phrased differently.
hopefully, it continues to be true especially with boosters around the corner and then whatever variants are next.
our vaccines it's been said many times are more than we could hope for out of the box.

I took the gists of those articles to mean that the current surge is disproportionately impacting the non vaccinated when it comes to lethality. You may have been focused on something else in the articles.

yes. i was focused on the wva article talking about all the deaths (and cases) since the beginning of the pandemic and not since meaningful vaxx uptake.
and then completely fumbling even those numbers (.006% of the 2974 deaths would be 18% (or less than 1/5) of one person.

so as the fence sitters start hearing how 15, 20, 30, and more percent of hospitalizations and deaths are vaxxed (as is happening now) and compare to what was described as "98-99+%" effective... today, not trial results from 9 months ago. it's being described that way today...
skeptics may turn more skeptical. maybe the ethical skeptic will make a comeback.

I would focus on out of the total vaccinated people going to the hospital how many are dying versus not dying. And out of the unvaccinated people that go to the hospital, what percentage are dying.

If 100% of the people are vaccinated, 100% of the deaths would be vaccinated people…no matter if its 25,000 in a year versus 600,000.

i had seen this morning out of louisiana:
https://www.wbrz.com/news/after-months- ... -vaccines/
so the state had held back info (not nefarious on its face), was now releasing some and rightly has concerns about how it's digested.

to wit on your focus:
for one data point in time:
14% of hospitalizations, and then in a somewhat coincident timeframe, 16% of deaths.

la had a <33% vaxx rate. using their numbers if i'm doing it right, that's ~66% protection against hosp and ~61% against death. what i just calculated there is not close to how the real number is calculated, i am sure. doesn't account for age breaks, older getting more vaxxed, etc. so it's higher protection. even if you just took away ages 1-11 who wouldn't be a large # of either hosp/death %, the numbers bump to ~77% and ~71%.

and it's one week. we saw some info out of mass that suggested case rates were less protection for than hosp and death. la suggests the opposite, but this is small numbers stuff and plenty of confounding going on. however to your focus... just with hosp vs death -- mass and la small samples don't suggest a greater win % for death with vaxxers if you check into a hospital. hopefully, with bigger numbers that turns out to actually be the case.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article that i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

I believe the concept of needing a booster has been discussed from the outset. That suggests 98, 99, 99.5% effectiveness isn’t forever. Those effective rates were for trials not involving the Delta variant….Unless scientists and doctors are misleading everyone, a vaccinated person is still likely to have a better outcome than the unvaccinated. Do you believe that is not true or do you you have reason to believe it’s not true?

i believe it's true for now and i effectively answered that above though the question was phrased differently.
hopefully, it continues to be true especially with boosters around the corner and then whatever variants are next.
our vaccines it's been said many times are more than we could hope for out of the box.

I took the gists of those articles to mean that the current surge is disproportionately impacting the non vaccinated when it comes to lethality. You may have been focused on something else in the articles.

yes. i was focused on the wva article talking about all the deaths (and cases) since the beginning of the pandemic and not since meaningful vaxx uptake.
and then completely fumbling even those numbers (.006% of the 2974 deaths would be 18% (or less than 1/5) of one person.

so as the fence sitters start hearing how 15, 20, 30, and more percent of hospitalizations and deaths are vaxxed (as is happening now) and compare to what was described as "98-99+%" effective... today, not trial results from 9 months ago. it's being described that way today...
skeptics may turn more skeptical. maybe the ethical skeptic will make a comeback.

I would focus on out of the total vaccinated people going to the hospital how many are dying versus not dying. And out of the unvaccinated people that go to the hospital, what percentage are dying.

If 100% of the people are vaccinated, 100% of the deaths would be vaccinated people…no matter if its 25,000 in a year versus 600,000.

i had seen this morning out of louisiana:
https://www.wbrz.com/news/after-months- ... -vaccines/
so the state had held back info (not nefarious on its face), was now releasing some and rightly has concerns about how it's digested.

to wit on your focus:
for one data point in time:
14% of hospitalizations, and then in a somewhat coincident timeframe, 16% of deaths.

la had a <33% vaxx rate. using their numbers if i'm doing it right, that's ~66% protection against hosp and ~61% against death. what i just calculated there is not close to how the real number is calculated, i am sure. doesn't account for age breaks, older getting more vaxxed, etc. so it's higher protection. even if you just took away ages 1-11 who wouldn't be a large # of either hosp/death %, the numbers bump to ~77% and ~71%.

and it's one week. we saw some info out of mass that suggested case rates were less protection for than hosp and death. la suggests the opposite, but this is small numbers stuff and plenty of confounding going on. however to your focus... just with hosp vs death -- mass and la small samples don't suggest a greater win % for death with vaxxers if you check into a hospital. hopefully, with bigger numbers that turns out to actually be the case.

Vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, or so it’s being reported. Not sure if those numbers are capturing vaccinated versus fully vaccinated. Have you seen anything that suggest people got one shot but not two? I haven’t looked for it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.mass.gov/doc/daily-covid-19 ... 1/download

I will give it another month to determine if vaccines are no more effective than no vaccine.

[wgdsr]

bob (repeatedly): "those trials never said protection lasts forever, and anyway that wasn't against the delta variant. more transmissable and evading vaxxes better".

days later....
xander: " well, it looks like those trials against the original strain aren't holding up to quite the degree. not surprising as it's the delta variant, after all. still very good to date. we're lucky."

bob: "i can't believe you think vaccines aren't effective at all".

[wgdsr]

Ok. I am interested in anything that improves my chances of staying alive. I want to be around for my wife and kids. I let others take their chances. If a person loses, ain’t no next game or rematch.

https://wchstv.com/news/local/dhhr-wva- ... vaccinated

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cines.html

the 98, 99, 99.6 numbers you'll here for awhile don't mean much.
they're going by of course march 2020 or whenever. if you're interested in numbers, it's the last couple months.
should inform on how good you should feel about protection. seek out the last month or 2 of data.

Are you suggesting thats there is no meaningful difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated outcomes?

of course not. you linked an article that i quoted from wva that made my head hurt.
when you are hearing that 98, 99% of these outcomes are unvaxxed, it seems clear now that is not accurate with delta. across the world and across the u.s. not in real time. they're using a denominator (beginning pandemic, or beginning year) that isn't stating how things are now.

gun to my head, they're using them to inspire the confidence and shake trees on the fence sitters. as more accurate info continues to accumulate, that tact has the potential to backfire, maybe famously.

more to the point of my suggestion to the proverbial tld walking the streets... don't go around thinking you're necessarily 99% bulletproof. the real tld doesn't need to worry about this because he already takes precautions, but his neighbor may not.

I believe the concept of needing a booster has been discussed from the outset. That suggests 98, 99, 99.5% effectiveness isn’t forever. Those effective rates were for trials not involving the Delta variant….Unless scientists and doctors are misleading everyone, a vaccinated person is still likely to have a better outcome than the unvaccinated. Do you believe that is not true or do you you have reason to believe it’s not true?

i believe it's true for now and i effectively answered that above though the question was phrased differently.
hopefully, it continues to be true especially with boosters around the corner and then whatever variants are next.
our vaccines it's been said many times are more than we could hope for out of the box.

I took the gists of those articles to mean that the current surge is disproportionately impacting the non vaccinated when it comes to lethality. You may have been focused on something else in the articles.

yes. i was focused on the wva article talking about all the deaths (and cases) since the beginning of the pandemic and not since meaningful vaxx uptake.
and then completely fumbling even those numbers (.006% of the 2974 deaths would be 18% (or less than 1/5) of one person.

so as the fence sitters start hearing how 15, 20, 30, and more percent of hospitalizations and deaths are vaxxed (as is happening now) and compare to what was described as "98-99+%" effective... today, not trial results from 9 months ago. it's being described that way today...
skeptics may turn more skeptical. maybe the ethical skeptic will make a comeback.

I would focus on out of the total vaccinated people going to the hospital how many are dying versus not dying. And out of the unvaccinated people that go to the hospital, what percentage are dying.

If 100% of the people are vaccinated, 100% of the deaths would be vaccinated people…no matter if its 25,000 in a year versus 600,000.

i had seen this morning out of louisiana:
https://www.wbrz.com/news/after-months- ... -vaccines/
so the state had held back info (not nefarious on its face), was now releasing some and rightly has concerns about how it's digested.

to wit on your focus:
for one data point in time:
14% of hospitalizations, and then in a somewhat coincident timeframe, 16% of deaths.

la had a <33% vaxx rate. using their numbers if i'm doing it right, that's ~66% protection against hosp and ~61% against death. what i just calculated there is not close to how the real number is calculated, i am sure. doesn't account for age breaks, older getting more vaxxed, etc. so it's higher protection. even if you just took away ages 1-11 who wouldn't be a large # of either hosp/death %, the numbers bump to ~77% and ~71%.

and it's one week. we saw some info out of mass that suggested case rates were less protection for than hosp and death. la suggests the opposite, but this is small numbers stuff and plenty of confounding going on. however to your focus... just with hosp vs death -- mass and la small samples don't suggest a greater win % for death with vaxxers if you check into a hospital. hopefully, with bigger numbers that turns out to actually be the case.

Vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, or so it’s being reported. Not sure if those numbers are capturing vaccinated versus fully vaccinated. Have you seen anything that suggest people got one shot but not two? I haven’t looked for it.

pretty sure and my understanding is when these vaxxed numbers get thrown around, they're only counting fully vaxxed people. so the partially vaxxed is helping the unvaxxed numbers some (studies overseas), and skewing in the other direction how well "vaxxed" is doing. but without data, impossible to tell to what degree but almost certainly doesn't make up for the bend on big numbers vaxxed in older/compromised if you're just blending vaxxed/unvaxxed. the vaxxed issues are in huge numbers older/compromised, as pre-vaxx. boosters hopefully help.

what was seen in polling was 10% of the peeps were gonna get 1 shot, not 2, for now. there has been a much larger and stubborn gap closer to 20% even as we vaxx much fewer people weekly as a % of pop. maybe they've been doing their own research. or heard bad reactions to 2nd shots and they're scaredy. delta and looming restrictions on themselves might make them more scaredy.

[ggait]

https://www.mass.gov/doc/daily-covid-19 ... 1/download

I will give it another month to determine if vaccines are no more effective than no vaccine.

It is beyond stupid to keep talking about and focusing on breakthrough infections (which should be rebranded as "nothing burgers" or "NY Yankee non-infection infections") and deaths among the vaxed.

Mass says they had 100 vaxed people die of Covid. That's a surprisingly high number. But that's completely missing the forest for the trees.

Over the time studied (mid-Jan thru July 31) Mass had 4,573 deaths. Which means the 4.3 million vaxed had 100 deaths. And the 2.8 million unvaxed had 4,473. So 39.4% of the pop had 97.8% of the deaths. And 60.5% of the pop had 2.2% of the deaths.

Once you get into the hospital (vaxed or not), you are at big risk. Because, by definition, you are doing really bad.

[wgdsr]

^^^ exhibit a

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.mass.gov/doc/daily-covid-19 ... 1/download

I will give it another month to determine if vaccines are no more effective than no vaccine.

It is beyond stupid to keep talking about and focusing on breakthrough infections (which should be rebranded as "nothing burgers" or "NY Yankee non-infection infections") and deaths among the vaxed.

Mass says they had 100 vaxed people die of Covid. That's a surprisingly high number. But that's completely missing the forest for the trees.

Over the time studied (mid-Jan thru July 31) Mass had 4,573 deaths. Which means the 4.3 million vaxed had 100 deaths. And the 2.8 million unvaxed had 4,473. So 39.4% of the pop had 97.8% of the deaths. And 60.5% of the pop had 2.2% of the deaths.

Once you get into the hospital (vaxed or not), you are at big risk. Because, by definition, you are doing really bad.

Yep. I am doing everything I can to reduce my risk. I haven’t seen anything that suggest getting vaccinated offers no help. I remember when it was 50/50 that if you went to the hospital, you weren’t coming out. That was when a lot of people were going to the hospital. I would take 50/50 today, even if the hospital admits were down just 50%