I'm not sure, probably, but considering that the vaccines effectiveness against high viral loads infections drops to 16%, and most people are vaccinated anyway, the difference isn't going to be huge, the mutations will occur regardless.
mutation may occur, but this has always been about risk and rate.
vaccines reduce the risk of mutations, and vaccines reduce the rate of mutations
increased vaccine rates then discourage mutations due to
all this reduction in virus replication reduces the chances of mutations
saying "the difference isnt going to be huge" is just an off the cuff remark.
the vaccines are reducing spread to a great enough degree that we can begin our normal lives again. id consider that difference to be pretty huge to be honest.
I'm not disputing that. It would circulate. It would circulate less however and it would therefore also mutate less. So you claim seems to be a contradiction.
How can it be encouraging mutation when it is circulating less?
So then if the majority of doctors aren't lying when they say you should get th vaccine, why do you believe your opinion is more accurate than theirs?
I didn't say the vaccine encourages mutation, I said circulation does. My points is not "don't take the vaccine because of mutation", all I'm saying is with the current vaccine, mutation is coming, it doesn't stop circulation like a lot of vaccines basically do, slower, faster, whatever, its coming.
Most doctors are focused on the current problem, Delta variant is killing large numbers of old and obese people, if everyone got vaccinated it helps fight the Delta variant battle. The doctors who encourage everyone to take the vaccine are right to do so, their opinion and mine are in agreement, if my job was to fight the delta variant I'd say the same. Their job is do what is for the greater good, I'd have told the masks don't work lie too, I'd have hidden the ages of the deceased so people didn't get the "wrong" idea, but I probably wouldn't have taken the vaccine unless my job depended on it.
I think doctors will also almost universally agree that natural immunity is stronger than immunity from the vaccine. I'm not saying it's safer, I'm saying if you take somebody with natural immunity and somebody vaccinated, the person with natural immunity will have stronger, broader, more mutation resistant protection than the vaccinated person. Would you agree with that?
But there'd be less circulation, therefore less mutation, right?
And no, I wouldn't agree with your statement as the study you posted directly stated that natural immunity wasn't safer and that the vaccines were important. The more people who wait for "natural immunity" the longer it will take for the population to become immune. The more people who wait, the greater the chances are of circulation and mutation. At the saame time, there's going to be more people who get sick with more dangerous symptoms which would not occur if they had the vaccine, which means more stress on already strained medical infrastructure.
It simply does not make sense as an argument I'm afraid.
You are also making a lot of assumptions about the motivation of doctors. Do you have anything to suggest that this is actually their motivation or are you making it up?
You are also still implying that doctors are lying when they say that everyone should get the vaccine. I wish you'd make up your mind here.
When doctors are telling you that it is recommended for you to get the vaccine, you believe they are wrong.
What are you basing this disagreement on?
You're just dodging the questions you don't want to answer now, and completely ignoring what I'm saying, so it's time to agree to disagree.
Well no, I addressed your question directly and clearly.
There's no other question in your post for me to respond to. If you think i've jsut missed it, could you point it out and I will answer it.
You however have been ignoring my question.
If there was less circulation of the virus, would this lead to less or more mutation?
"I'm not saying it's safer, I'm saying if you take somebody with natural immunity and somebody vaccinated, the person with natural immunity will have stronger, broader, more mutation resistant protection than the vaccinated person. Would you agree with that?"
I've already answered your question, I said mutation probably decreases with reduced circulation, but I'm not sure if it's linear. Circulation and mutation will continue because this vaccine is not effective at stopping it, obviously it will circulate faster is with less vaccination.
You keep repeating that I'm implying doctors are lying about taking the vaccine the right thing to do, I have repeated multiple times that I do not think they are lying, I really can't be more explicit about that. But doctors also say drinking is bad, do you ever drink? My dentist says don't drink sugary drinks, they are really bad, I still drink them, "climate scientists", say don't drive or fly, but we all do them. Dieticians say limit red meat, f**k that it's delicious. Are they all lying, by your logic if you ignore them you're calling them liars? Somebody doesn't have to be lying for you to choose to ignore their advice and decide what's best for yourself.
Ok. So you agree that people not taking the vaccine increases circulation and mutation.
You also agree that doctor's advice to take the vaccine is both correct and good, you're just choosing to ignore it.
Why are you taking the more dangerous option when it offers no benefit?
It makes no sense.
At least if you believed that doctors were lying to you, it would have been logical.
Just ignore my question again?, and continue asking your own! isn't that something you routinely criticize other people for doing on this forum?
What question, man?
Do you mean your rethorical question about drinking against the advice about doctors? Then yes, I drink.
If you're asking if I agree with your claim that it's better to wait for natural immunity, then I already told you that I disagree with that argument and I explain why.
I don't see a question in your post and I've asked you previously to just state what your question is.
If you believe I've missed a question please point it out and I will answer it.
Then maybe could you go back and address mine?
I didn't ask if it was better was better to wait for natural immunity, I asked...
Then yes, I agree that's what the study you posted shows. I haven't seen any other studies on that topic, so I am not confident to say more than that.
What point were you trying to make with this then if you aren't arguing that it's better?
You're just ignoring doctor's advice that you agree is true and supported, ignoring the fact that not getting vaccinated leaves you open to greater risks and that it leads to more circulation and mutation of the virus... for no real reason?
Again, you're not making a very sensible argument here.
Okay we're making progress.
I think we're in agreement then that the safest way of gaining robust protection against current and future strains of Covid is to get vaccinated, and then get Covid, I think you would you agree with that, correct me if I'm wrong, the current vaccine is not a long term solution, we're all getting Covid.
The other way of getting robust protection against future strains, which is advised against by doctors, is by just getting Covid without any vaccine. There is varying risk based on age, weight, co-morbidities etc. Any doctor worth his salt will recommend the first option, just as they would all recommend we don't smoke, or drink too much, or eat fast food. But we take doctors advice onboard and make personal decisions all the time, ignoring risks.
Below is an example of some chances we have of dying from various things. Just like with Covid a lot of these things may not kill me, but could do lasting harm to me, and that obviously won't be captured below, these are chances of dying only.
Based on the risks below, I would be much better served by not driving anymore, in fact just staying away from roads altogether. I could blend all my food to avoid choking, I should sell my guns, and stay sway from Water, and stay indoors in summer time for fear of Bees and Sun. All of those things would serve me much better than getting the vaccine.
Yes not getting vaccinated is against the advice of doctors who have the best of intentions. And there are risks associated with it, but life is risky. I might even get the vaccine, I'm not ruling it out, if I need it for travel I'll probably get it, if I need it for work I'll probably get it. But the side effect profile of the vaccine is high, the effectiveness is dropping and will probably continue to do so, its probably not effective against future variants, the risk of the disease is extremely low to me, I have the information from doctors, I'm grateful for all their work, but I'm happy to take my chances with the virus, and I might just pass on this vaccine, it's marvelous, it's saved millions of lives, but realistically it will make FA difference to me if I take it or not.
What risks from the vaccine are you referring to?
What are the chances of them occurring compared to the list you've produced.
And no I don't agree with your statement there as it's not what actual doctors say.
You are also fudging things by ignoring the side effects of covid beyond just death. Why are you ignoring this side effects?
The study you posted about "natural" immunity from Israel also emphasizes multiple times that it is far safer for someone to be vaccinated than to be exposed to SARS-COV2 without a vaccine and that having a vaccine after infection also significantly boosts the immune system, the whole paper is basically pro-vaccine yet you are using it to back a "I won't take a vaccine view". The actual numbers post infection seem to be about 50% efficacy about 9 months after infection based on figures from the UK. Getting infected with a specific variant does offer better protection than vaccine against that variant in the future, but doesn't hold true for other variants, the very strong response generated by vaccines to the spike protein offers protection against all variants encountered so far, this also seems to be why SinoVac/Pharm (whole inactivated virus vaccines) aren't as effective as mRNA as the response they generated isn't as strong (and why some asymptomatic low viral load people can catch and develop severe COVID-19 reinfections as their body isn't sufficiently primed for a robust response to the virus).
I'm not denying your chances of severe disease due to COVID numbers per age group, but the fact is that the vaccines reduce the chances of this even further to negligible figures, people don't know if they are susceptible to COVID until they've had it and by then it's too late, it's not a roll of the dice, it's you will suffer a lot (or die) or you won't, in a room of X people, some predetermined people will develop severe COVID-19, the others won't, viral load is the other factor here and we saw young fit doctors and nurses die in the early days due to high exposure rates (which is something that you can't control).
Chance of dying in a car crash in a lifetime in Ireland is 240/1, when estimating chances, you have to account for the length of time for that event to occur, the chances of dying from SARS-COV2 due to exposure is greater than your chance of dying in a car crash on a particular day. The 110/1 figure is for people in the US over a lifetime (maybe you live there) but also shows where you are getting your sources.
Your small risk of COVID-19 is made negligible by a vaccine.
The paper you quote says multiple times to get a vaccine.
Health experts and doctors all recommend getting a vaccine and have taken the vaccine themselves.
Billions of people have safely received the vaccine.
So, why specifically, given the rational numbers above, are you not getting a vaccine?
AND AGAIN, your original point was about giving money to pharma companies, so all of this is whataboutery, but please, clear this up precisely why you won't get a vaccine without going off on a tangent so we know to ignore you when you start talking about pharma companies again (for example).
AND accept that you are one of the reasons that restrictions are still in place, if you and others who can get vaccinated, would get vaccinated, our hospital numbers would be 50% less and we could open the country faster, YOU are driving the temporary measures.
"There is now a growing body of literature supporting the conclusion that natural immunity not only confers robust, durable, and high-level protection against COVID-19, but also better than vaccine induced immunity (1-5). Yet most scientific journals, media outlets, self-proclaimed health experts and public policy messaging continue to cast doubt"
I didn't mention anything about risks from the vaccine, however I do know people who were hospitalized from the vaccine itself, but I didn't mention that. And those people were still right to take it, they were high risk from Covid.
It might not be what the doctors you choose to believe say, but don't pretend that all doctors agree with you (see above). And I'm sure you regularly do plenty of things that most doctors advise against anyway, lets be honest.
That's not fudging the numbers, most of those things on that list have non fatal side effects too, you can get paralyzed in falls and car crashes, you can survive sun stroke and get skin cancer, you can be burned in a fire and survive. My chances of hospitalization are around 1.6% from Covid, that's low enough that I don't really care, probably similar to my chances of being hurt in car crash, I'm still going to drive.
People go on and on about how unvaccinated should be protecting others, they're 50% of hospitalizations. If 78% of hospitalizations are obese, why are we not seeing a massive push to get people in shape? There's probably obese people on this forum complaining that the unvaccinated aren't doing enough to protect them. Wouldn't everybody be better served if they were out for a jog? I'm not saying they should, they are free to make their own health decisions, just as I am free to make mine.
Sorry you have dodged the question. You absolutely did bring up the side effects of the vaccine as a concern.
So please state the percentage chance of being hospitalized due to vaccine side effects.
Are they greater or lesser than the potential of being hospitalized due to covid?
Also you still haven't explained your rationale for ignoring the advice of doctors. What is it? Why are you reluctant to state it?
Chosing not to get the vaccine when you agree that it's safe. effective reduces harm and reduces risk and all for no reason is not rational. It's a bit ridiculous.
From a risk perspective it does make a difference.
If you vaccinate your risk of getting Covid is lower, the risk of it being severe is lower and the risk of transmitting it is lower. This has already been explained.
By not vaccinating you are also putting those around you at higher risk (if you get Covid unvaccinated, and are unaware, you put family/friends/etc at higher risk during that period)
If you don't want to vaccinate, okay, but don't infer the risk "is the same", it's not.
Remember also that getting the vaccine and reducing its circulation also reduces its chances of mutation. This was a concern a few posts ago.
>... however I do know people who were hospitalized from the vaccine itself...
Actually know people, or have read articles about people? Assuming that the number of people who you "know" is around about the Dunbar number of 150 and "people" means more than 1, then that is a massive outlier for number of people being hospitalised due to the vaccine.
Give or take a bit you are claiming that among your group of friends over 2% of them have been hospitalised by the vaccine?
There are risks, admittedly small from the vaccine, but I don't recall mentioning them, maybe you're misunderstanding something I've said? I did say it has a large side effect profile before, is that what you mean?
I have no idea about hospitalization risk from vaccines, the UK yellow card data for the Pfizer vaccine says 526 deaths, and lots of other side effects which most likely resulted in hospitalization, but it's not broken down that way, I don't know how many doses that is from, probably 10's of millions. But either way I'm not saying I'm not getting the vaccine entirely because of the side effects. If I felt I needed it I would get it regardless of side effects.
The chances of being hospitalized from the vaccine are less than being hospitalized with covid, much less.
Why do you drink? Have you ever smoked? Do you ever eat fast food? Have you ever done any extreme sports? Or driven a car fast? I guarantee you that most people regularly do things that ignore the advice of Doctors or other authorities, would you not agree?
I have always done lots of things that ignore the advice of doctors, recently I'm doing one more, and its significantly less dangerous than a lot of the other things I've always done. If self preservation becomes my primary concern in life, there's a few things on that list than I need to worry about getting around to before taking the vaccine.
So you agree then that the vaccine side effects are much less of a concern than the effects of covid which you are also not concerned about. Cools.
But you're still not answering the question I asked. Drinking and smoking and fast food etc are pleasurable activities so there is a reason to not completely follow the advice of your doctors.
Are you claiming that not getting the vaccine is somehow fun for you? That makes even less sense.
And no, I wouldn't drive a car fast just because it's pleasurable to me, because driving dangerously also endangers other people. Similarly if I smoked, I would not do so in public spaces for the same reason. So again, you analogy doesn't really make a whole bunch of sense.
So why are you ignoring the advice of doctors when not getting the vaccine is of no benefit to you?
Yea. It's weird how often we seem to hear from people who have had people they know personally adversely affected by vaccines.
A few months ago someone was claiming their friend dropped dead because of the vaccine.
Weird coincidence I'm sure.
One is a relative, she had an MRI because she immediately started having severe memory issues, she was told she's fine, but not to take any boosters if offered
One is a parent of a work colleague, who I don't personally know, they had bells palsy and temporary paralysis on one side of their body and were hospitalized for a few days.
And another is just somebody who I know, who also had bells palsy, but they weren't hospitalized.
I personally don't know anybody who was hospitalized from Covid, I actually only know 1 person who even tested positive.
Not getting the vaccine is easier for me, not fun. I just don't care enough. My wife just got her second dose and was out of work sick the next day, just a fever and headache, nothing serious, I don't fancy that. I don't think the vaccine will stop me from getting Covid, I think the best case if I get the vaccine is I still get Covid and suffer milder side effects from Covid, side effects which I'm also not worried about, 80% have mild symptoms or are asymptotic, so I i thinks its fair to say, the vaccine will most likely make FA difference to me. You clearly have a different risk tolerance than I do, that's your prerogative.
You like a drink because it's pleasurable right? Alcohol causes cancer, results in antisocial behavior, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, drink driving and puts a huge strain on the emergency services. Would you be in favour of banning it since you're so concerned about the general public? What if Doctors and the Government recommended prohibition, would you support it then?
You didn't fancy a possible day off sick with vaccine... But are OK with possibly days or weeks off sick with covid? There's some warped logic right there.
Anyway, all of this is off topic... What covid restrictions are going to be permanent and why?
Why is it easier? Because you don't have to go out and get it?
That's just plain laziness. You aren't getting the vaccine because you are lazy.
As you've said, you aren't bothered by the potential dangers of the covid, yet still go on about the side effects of the vaccine which has a much lower risk as you've agreed.
You aren't arsed to reduce the chances of it circulating in other people and you aren't actually bothered about the rate of mutation.
All your prior points are all undermined and rendered moot by the fact your real reason is just laziness and selfishness.
The rest of your post about drinking is just a nonsense tangent.
You are putting a lot of reliance on your age, fitness level and general health right now. I’m healthy, fit, in a low risk age bracket and I got covid in January. I got it quite bad. Just avoiding going into hospital as my doctor said I’d probably have to on two occasions. I lost 3 weeks of my life to it at the time, and since then I’ve been unwell more often than I’ve ever been in my life. 8 months later every now and again my body just shuts down and I have to sleep for an hour or two. The exhaustion is not as common as it was initially thankfully.
I think your cockiness about the whole thing is ridiculous. You think you’re invincible, when the truth with this virus is that you just don’t know how your body will react.
It's irrational, it's a lot of whataboutery to get around that at the centre of it all is an irrational person who can't come to terms with their irrationality, whose partner is more rational then they are and a big need to double down on it and post misinformation to get others into the same irrational boat as themselves to feel better about it.
However, all this started with a statement that all this was to generate money for pharma and even the person pushing that has given up on that tangent and is now just trying to big up the danger of vaccines while dismissing the dangers of COVID-19 entirely.