Are you of the belief that the covid virus can stay on the nose for up to 9 hours without infecting the lungs? That is exactly what the man on TV said so Answer the question? Do better , show me a link that states covid can infect the nose without infecting the lungs..
Provide a link to "nose type covid" ?
There's this.
https://www.jci.org/articles/view/151186
Cut and paste the part thats pertaining to the conversation?
A quick google throws up a lot of articles about symptoms. This one is pretty simple to read. 80% have mild symptoms confined to upper respiratory tract, 14% get inflammation in lungs. There are far more in-depth articles you can read.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/what-does-covid-do-to-your-lungs
It's a short viewpoint piece. Do you have ADD?
And none of them will match up to what the man on TV said.. Ive wasted enough time on you.. You were asked to produce links that specifically address what that man claimed.. You failed on every attempt. Busy body sheeple like you a a dime a dozen on this forum.. I can only blame myself for giving you attention.
Are you trying to tell me something about "nose covid" ? What is it , explain yourself?
Do you have a link to the video you are referring to? Who was the man in the video?
Please let it be a scientist using language so that simpletons would understand what he/she was saying.
I can't believe we're back to how the virus spreads on this thread.
But, the virus can live for a number of hours without a host, on door handles, surfaces. It can live on the skin or in droplets in the air. It can happily exist on the skin waiting for a chance to spread to soft tissues that are easier to infest such as mouth, nose or eyes (most commonly).
Masks reduce the chances of it spreading, vaccinated people will also significantly reduce it's spread.
An infected person can be asymptomatic and spreading virus without knowing about it, sometimes, they may develop symptoms later, sometimes they may not (depending on their immune system and their viral load).
When someone becomes infected, the virus can replicate, in a vaccinated person, the immune system will kick in fairly quickly with antibodies to kill the virus, in an unvaccinated person, the time to interact with the virus and start creating antibodies (in a functioning immune system) can be quite long, which gives the virus the chance to multiply exponentially, making the person both highly virulent and very sick, which can lead to death.
Thankfully I do not have any COVID deniers - and almost no vaccine hesitancy - in my social and family circles. But of the few I do have I hope they are not going to follow this story arc:
A higher proportion of fully vaccinated under 50s are dying in the UK than unvaccinated people due to the delta variant. Everyone's in the same boat.
Link?
Curious, what reputable source you got that from?
Have to laugh at "reputable sources" 😅 I would be surprised if even 5% of people in this thread had access to "reputable sources"
SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation (publishing.service.gov.uk)
Latest data from UK. You'll have to whip out Excel and work out proportions yourself though.
He is probably referring to this: SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation (publishing.service.gov.uk)
That's an older publication, they've updated figures, link in my post. Big changes since Delta has taken hold
Yes for sure - FWIW here is a better visual to show how the Kent Variant and Delta Variant compare (second wave v third wave):
The main difference apart from the variant is that the second wave started pre vaccine rollout...
My rough calculations showed that what you claim is not correct, so I had a quick Google to see why you would think that and found this.
Have you made a similar mistake to what is said there?
I'm not reading all that sh*t but I presume that this is the meme gotcha that keeps getting rolled out re: proportions. I said proportion, I suggest trying your calculations again, I don't think I'm incorrect.
I calculated that about 6% of those without the vaccine died and about 1.8% of those with the vaccine died. What have you calculated?
I said under 50s. A higher proportion of unvaccinated over 50s died.
And actually, now that you mention total cases, it seems even more stark. 0.855% of fully vaccinated people who presented with symptomatic Delta died, and 0.167% of unvaccinated people died. Although this is totally thrown off by the large number of unvaccinated people that presented but who didn't have a severe outcome. Regardless, a higher proportion of under 50s died fully vaccinated.
I don't get 6% and 1.8%, are you using the data from my post, page 18 and 19 in the pdf
That fact check is all over the place.
It starts out saying that the figures do translate to a 745% higher death rate in the infected vaccinated than the infected unvaccinated.
The verdict is that this is "missing context", and then they provide some quotes from experts:
___ “The data should be interpreted taking into consideration the context of very high vaccine coverage in the UK population. Even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated,” a spokesperson for PHE told Reuters via email. ___
But the article isn't about cases occurring in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. It's about the difference in mortality rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated who have contracted Covid.
It also presents this:
___“Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than because of COVID-19.”_
Since "with Covid" and "from Covid" deaths are not distinguished in the data, this is impossible to figure out. Nice to see one of the experts distinguishing between with and from though.
And then:
___"Moreover, analysis released by PHE in June found two doses of either the Oxford/AstraZeneca or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines were highly effective against hospitalisation with the Delta variant. This was calculated as 92% effective for the former; 96% for the latter."_
Well, okay, but "this earlier data says something different to this current data" isn't really saying anything about the current data in question.
In fact this entire "fact checking" article has checked precisely zero of the facts it set out to.
My guess (and it is purely a guess) would be that the people who are vaccinated and contracting covid, and getting serious disease, are those whose immune response is weak due to other conditions/age and so on. We know that people who are vaccinated can get infected, but we also know that the death rate in a healthy 30-year-old (for example) was always many hundreds of times smaller than the risk to a sickly 84-year-old. So a sickly 84-year-old who gets vaccinated, even factoring in the 95% (generously) reduced risk, is still at far greater risk than an unvaccinated, healthy young person.
But this fact check article just ploughs straight on dropping bullshit everywhere. It's a really big problem, and it's no wonder people have lost all faith in the media and are turning to alternative sources for sense-making.
You're making the same massive error as you've been making in many posts on this forum.
To determine the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing death (for instance) you need to look at deaths per capita of vaccinated vs unvaccinated subpopulations with similar risk profiles (age, comorbidities etc).
You are simply using CFR. CFR is a terrible measure because it excludes all the people who avoided becoming a case due to vaccination.
It's a bit like using CFR for facial trauma presentations resulting from motorcycle accidents to determine the effectiveness of full face motorcycle helmets. Obviously if someone has an accident so severe that their helmet is punctured and they have a facial injury, their "breakthrough" case is likely to be more severe than someone who presents having scraped their nose of the tarmac after an unhelmeted crash.
Well designed trials avoid these errors, and show good protection from Delta from vaccines.
My apologies, I thought you said over 50s. Yes, I would not expect the rate of deaths to be much different for the under 50s due to how infrequently that happens, and that is not the reason that I got vaccinated.
Are you therefore saying that you don't believe that people under 50 should get vaccinated to help protect people over 50? Do you believe that most people under 50 are getting it because they fear for their health, rather than in the hope that life gets back to normal?
Do you believe that people over 50 should be vaccinated?
I'm sure you've read this paper more than I have, but do they clarify what they mean when they say "Deaths within 28 days of positive specimen date"? Is it purely just that, or are those deaths that have been attributed to Covid? If not, what proportion of people under 50 are expected to die in a 28 period in general?
I'm not making that mistake, and I haven't made any such substantial mistakes in any post on this forum. You're just not reading correctly. I said that a higher proportion of under 50s that present with symptoms+Delta are dying, compared to the proportion of unvaccinated that present with symptoms+Delta, the end.
excludes all the people who avoided becoming a case due to vaccination.
Obviously
I agree that this post is badly worded, I think this one explains it better.
I think you're making the same false jump as above.
Can you clarify what you mean by proportion here?
i.e. if 10 people under 50 vaccinated get admitted and 1 dies, that's 10%, and 50 people under 50 non-vaccinated get admitted and 4 die, that's 8%, so 10 is greater than 8 proportionately?
What are the actual numbers involved here, and what is the conclusion you are trying to draw from the numbers?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d78fd5f5292e11c2974bcd779ad2a2f0.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0ff31c5efcae78d33c58211071909122.svg)