6 Americans, 4 of Them Vaccinated, Test Positive for COVID After Royal Caribbean Cruise

Seems to me you haven't kept up with the news on how the newest variant appears to be infecting some people who are vaccinated.

 

Maybe you should have read my post immediately after that one that addressed this.

 

Yes, the difference is that you're trying to use a small sample of deaths to indict a large mass of people, whereas I'm using the large mass of people to defuse your inflated claims of the small sample.

 

This is simply not true.

1) We did not have vaccines - such that what you are suggesting was even possible
2) Even if we were able to vax everyone immediately - you would still get varients as the vaccines are not that effective (as you later suggest)
3) I agree that vaccines help reduce serious illness - "to a point" - and in some people. You do not really understand how the virus causes illness/death. For example something like 9 our of 10 people who die from "Covid" do not actually die from Covid per say .. they die from Pneumonia .. which is bacterial .. not viral. .. and the vast majority of these poeple would have died regardles of whether it was Covid - a regular flue - or any number of other factors which weaken the immune system - allowing the bad bacteria to get a foothold.

 

We had the vaccine before delta became prevalent in the US. Though there is some truth in that the first delta cases were identified around the time I was vaccinated, and I was early. I'm sure we could have had the vaccine out even earlier. Perhaps the vaccine could have been made available earlier, but in the particular case of delta it would have been a hard race to win, so I'll have to half-concede. The point that being unvaccinated increases the risk of new variants for everybody else still stands, though. And the combination of precautions and vaccination could have prevented delta from coming to the US.

They were effective enough against the original covid to reach herd immunity without additional precautions. Note that the vaccine is only one tool available, though certainly the least unpleasant one. And even short of herd immunity, the less transmission the fewer opportunities for variants. Each person who is unvaccinated increases the risk of others around them getting sick, and of new variants causing more problems. The controversy in a less stupid America would be whether we should be funding vaccinating all of Africa, not whether our own people need to be vaccinated.

Not to a point, almost completely. It's not impossible, but it's rare for a vaccinated person to have serious disease compared to unvaccinated. In forensic pathology, death is seen as a sequence of events with contributing factors. If you beat up somebody and they are bed bound, and die of a pulmonary embolism as a result 2 weeks later (resulting from a DVT, the risk of which is increased by being immobile), the manner of death is homicide because you set off the sequence of events that caused their death.

Now, pneumonia can be viral or bacterial. But if covid damages the lungs and allows a bacterial pneumonia to take hold, the ultimate cause of death is still covid. Death certificates likely underestimate covid as a cause of death, though sure if you just go by people who are covid positive dying that would be an overestimate.

You don't have to be on death's door to be at risk of dying of covid. Somebody with asthma or who is pregnant, covid is very dangerous to them, but they could have lived decades more without covid.

 

No .. your point does not stand .. very few were vaxed when Delta arrived ..
They were effective enough against the original covid to reach herd immunity without additional precautions.

This is completely false - what part of .. "The vaccine is not stopping transmission" as in 75% of the Massichussets outbreak were vaccination .. do you not undertand ?

We are talkin gabout Transmission .. nor serious disease/death. and no the vax did not reduce the rate of hospitalizaton in Massechussets .. so false and false.

no idea what you are trying to say here.

You have no clue what you are talking about .. deaths due to covid are consistently "Over Estimated"

Your statment (in bold) is a nonsense statement .. which is mostly false. There is a small chance you will die from a bee sting .. no need to be at deaths door ..

The fact remains that the vast majority who do die from Covid - are at deaths door -- and the chance of someone who is not at deaths door dying from the newer variants is that of a normal flue.

 

yes it does. The next variant could be worse. Variants are more likely if people do not get vaccinated and take precautions. Delta wouldn't have existed if people, universally, took precautions until the vaccine came out, and used the vaccine and whatever other precautions were necessary to stop the spread. Against original covid, the vaccine alone would have been enough of a precaution, but until the vaccine and with variants like delta more is needed.

Was referring to stopping serious disease, which is what your post was referring to.

You had suggested people who die of covid would have died anyway of something else soon. That's what I was saying is false.

I don't think that's true either. Definitely a minority of people who die of covid would have died this year.

 

You are talking out your backside - making stuff up as you Go ..

1) The probability is that the next varients will be Less - not more toxic - as that is the natural course of a virus
2) Delta is much less toxic than previos
3) Yes - if we took "Universal Precautions" - Locked everyone in their homes and made sure the few we did let out were in space suits .. we can stop transmission.
4) your claim that the vaccine alone would have been enough for the original covid is patent nonsense - showing your lack of understanding of how viruses work.. The "Original Virus" existed for a very short period of time .. as a virus mutates very quickly.. you are not quantifying any of your statements .. which makes them complete nonsense given your "defacto claims" You have no clue what you are talking about.

The vaccines do not stop serious conditions

That the majority of folks who die from covid were 1) 80+ and 2) had 3 or more comorbidities is a fact .. You have no clue what you are talking about.

That was your first mistake .. and once again you are talking out your backside. Tell me what the death rate due to Influenza/Pneumonia is in an average year - and compare the Delta death rate ? .. If you don't know this - you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

Not talking out my backside. This is microevolution in action. Strains become prevalent when they have some kind of advantage over other strains. Delta is prevalent because it is more contagious than the original covid. It is not less toxic and I have no idea where you get the idea of that being the natural course of anything. The virus doesn't care if its toxic or not, so it's true the next successful strain wouldn't necessarily be more deadly as long as it has an advantage over other strains in propagating.

Not that extreme. Masks and distancing are pretty good.

I have medical training, but not in virology. This isn't about virology, but epidemiology, which I do have training in. The vaccines were tested against the original covid and found to be over 90% effective in stopping transmission. That is enough on its own for herd immunity. Sure, viruses mutate all the time, but those mutations die out if they do not give the new strain an advantage, and so the original covid was predominant until a handful of other strains showed an advantage, with delta being the current winner.

Death rate or total deaths? It's death toll that matters here, not rate, because the number of people infected matters when its a debate about vaccination and precautions. You're just getting defensive because you're losing I think. You did originally have a valid point though, that delta was here before the vaccine. I guess I understated my previous point. I am completely certain that a majority of those who died of covid would not have otherwise died this year. 80 year olds have a high risk of death, but not 50% per year. And no, not all of them were 80, just a much higher risk at 80 just like a higher risk with asthma, pregnancy, etc. But not 50% of asthmatics die every year. Not 50% of pregnant women die every year. They weren't just going to die soon anyway, in most cases.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about .. training or no training.. absolutely talking out your backside - giving no support for your moronic false claims backed up by nothing.

1) You have no clue about Mutation or the natural course of a virus which is to become more contageous and less toxic.. and stop projecting your "defensive" gibberish onto me - creating strawmen so you have something to argue against. Where did I say the death rate was 50%/year .. and YES - a virus does care whether it is toxic or not - and Yes Delta has been far less toxic. You have no fking clue what you are talking about .

2) Social distancing and Masks are "Pretty good" - what scientist talks like this ? certainly not myself nor none that I hang with. Masks and SD have - as practiced - did very little to contain the spread of Covid.

3) 74% of cases in the Massachussets outbreaks were .. ding ding ding "vaccinated" and since variants occur very quickly - the effectiveness against the original strain - and yes this is "micro-evolution"

4) You don't undestand basic math. It is the death rate that matters .. not the death total w/r to how toxic a virus is.

What part of - "what is the ave death rate" did you not understand ? If you don't know that .. you have no way to know wheather someone would have died this year or not .. Never said anything about 50% a year .. what kind of moronic nonsense is this .. that you have to make up nonsense and put into your opponents mouth because you have no argument - and who said 'All of them were 80" .. what part of the word "Most" did you not understand ?

15 per 100000 die every year (2018 stat) from influenza/pneumonia - most of which are old with 3 or more co-morbidities. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184574/deaths-by-influenza-and-pneumonia-in-the-us-since-1950/

 

Delta is not known to be less toxic. Where is your evidence? Studies have fallen on either side, so we cannot come to a conclusion on whether it is more or less deadly. Until you show some kind of great evidence, the presumption is no difference.

This just looks like an angry rant. What was your point? Covid killed many times more people than influenza or bacterial pneumonia. Sorry, but the number infected is not irrelevant. The only thing rate will get you is the ceiling of how many deaths it could cause if as many people got infected as susceptible, and we don't want to be there.

here's info about delta from experts: 5 Things To Know About the Delta Variant > News > Yale Medicine

 

Your link does not support your claim of more deaths -- what a moronic joke .. posting a link that does not support claim.

Delta is not killing many times more people ..
Texas for example is its 3rd wave .. in wave 1 ave deaths were ~200/day .. wave 2 350/day .. wave 3 40/day

No clue what you are talking about.

 

Um yeah my link wasn't about that at all. The link was to educate you on how delta seems to be different from the original pandemic strain. Over 600k Americans have died of covid. That's more than have died of bacterial pneumonia or influenza in that same time period. If you really need links to believe that I guess I could get it, but google can resolve it for you quickly.

Still don't know what your point was, other than a strong desire for me to be wrong about something.

 

complaining about being wrong ? really now. You are the one needs educating mate - so take off that teacher hat - Delta is more contageous but less lethal .. approaching the lethality rate of a normal flue - and has been there for a long time for those not pnuemonia impaired - is even less lethal if one is vaxed .. however .. this incremental boost is over a small population - those succeptible - which most of us are not .. at least 70% having natural immunity to this thing.

The risk of the vax is also something to consider .. as this - if used over time - is approaching presenting a greater risk - that the ever weakening varients.

 

The main point of the source I cited was that is it not known whether delta is more, less, or the same lethality as the original. And this is coming from a professional medical source. You think you know better? Why? I am not sure if there's a point in continuing the conversation, but you've made many assertions without anything to back them up.

Lethality rate is misleading because it is so much more contagious than the regular flu. Not citing this as a specific figure, but a disease with a 1% mortality rate that is extremely contagious can still kill many millions of people if it spreads widely enough. 1% sounds like almost nothing, but millions of deaths are a lot.

Becoming less lethal can be an advantage for a virus to spread more easily, depending upon many factors, but it is not something to rely upon. It is not something that always happens.

Don't assert there's some significant risk of the vax without real data to back it up.

 

Lethality rate misleading" cause more contageous .. what nonsense ..

"it can still kill millions" - so does the flue .. more nonsense .

And yes .. we do know .. it has infected enough people for us to quantify the death rate .. which gets lower with each mutation .. approximating the lethality of the average flue. So don't need to hide under the desk quivering that the bomb is comming.

 

Okay well at least now I see where you're coming from. No, the flu does not kill millions of Americans each year because it infects far fewer people than covid (and in older people covid really is more dangerous). The Spanish flu, however, was definitely worse. Minimizing the dangers of the flu doesn't improve your point, but the regular seasonal flu is less of a big deal than covid because it is not as widely and easily transmitted. If we go to the other extreme and take something like ebola with a high fatality rate, why isn't it as big of a deal as covid? It's way more lethal, but because it is not as widely transmitted its kill count is limited.

Taking precautions to save lives isn't the same as hiding under the desk. I can see you wish things could just go back to normal asap, but I'd prioritize lives over the convenience of throwing away the masks.

 

Nor did Covid kill millions. in the first year ? not even close. Get your numbers straight . we are at 640 thousand dead since the start ..
You make these claims but give no support for these claims "Its way more lethal" - NO it "was" more lethal.

20/100,000 x 365 million = 73 thousand per year - this is "Normal" 200/day .. 1400/week.

So how many in the first year ? was most - a number you were supposed to come upwith - but call it 500,000 .. which is clearly much worse than a normal flue 7 x the deaths ... mind you if we go with a bad year .. 100,000 deaths .. a more conservative number is 5 x.. but no matter - still bad.

It is a fact that in the beginning this thing was far more lethal .. the death toll in the first 6 months is huge - then the second wave is even bigger .. still high lethality and way more poeple getting it. Lethality in the third wave however is way down .. and despite being more transmissible - it has gone through most of the people without natural immunity - which is maybe 25% to begin with - higher than an average flue season .. which goes through 10-20% of the population.

200/day is the average .. the distribution is skewed towards flue season th highs in flue season will be 7 day ave of 500/day .. where in the low season it will be 50.

the latest 7 day average is 616/day - and we are in the middle of the Third wave -- Sorry mate .. but while I agree that in the beginning this thing was particularly nasty ... right now - not so much.

Then when you consider risk for a normal person - not 80 with 3 comorbidities .. that is an order of magnitude less .. and not having a pneumonia succeptibility is another order of magnitude less risk.

Now tell me how many deaths we are seeing from the vaccines - and serious adverse reaction.

 

You assume it's less lethal, but there isn't good evidence for that. It could seem less lethal now because many of the most susceptible people got vaccinated or infected already, and so infection after that results in less serious disease. Here's some info from a virologist:

"Does the Delta variant cause more serious disease?
There’s not yet consensus on whether the Delta variant makes people sicker. The internal CDC document cited studies from Canada and Singapore (not yet peer-reviewed) that found higher odds of hospitalization and death, and a study from Scotland that found double the risk of hospitalization compared to the Alpha variant, which had been the dominant variant in the U.S. before Delta’s rise.

This is concerning as the Alpha variant was already demonstrated to cause more severe COVID-19 than the original virus, said Roan." https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/08/421171/how-dangerous-delta-variant-heres-what-science-says

Not very high on the serious reactions as far as I've seen and heard. Are you implying you know otherwise?

 

The claim about Canada seems specious - and once again we have no numbers. It matters not whether a claim is from the CDC - or from yourself - it is worthless without support - Ad Hom fallacy in this case.

I gave you the numbers - "numbers" are not addressed by Ad hom fallacy - some link claiming X-Y claiming some internal study. When Rand Paul stands up and makes a claim - like or hate the guy - he gives numbers.

The above mentions Canada. You Might be familiar with the province of Alberta Canada if you have been following the news .. like some of the States this province is resisting mandates .. but never mind the politics .. what do the numbers tell us.

https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#total-cases

The first link gives Total Cases - you can a small wave in the beginning - then two big waves 2 and 3 - which are roughly the same size/number of cases - the third being slightly bigger.

Wave 2 was mostly Alpha wave - wave 3 mostly Delta .

The next link gives you the number of deaths - In wave 2 - during the peak they were averaging 23 -27 deaths.

Estimate for me what the average death rate is for the second wave ?
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#severe-outcomes

You tell me which wave was more lethal. A) wave 2 - Alpha B) wave 3 - Delta.

Then pick a state randomly - not one you know the data for cause you found some link - Preferably one that has had 2 big waves for easier comparision .. and see what we find ?

 

No that would be appeal to authority fallacy. Ad hominem is when you insult your opponent. And it's not appeal to authority because he cited studies. The results of the canada one were: "Results Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."

Rand Paul is a destructive clown bringing the rest of society down and making doctors look bad (example of ad hominem).

Numbers matter but require context. Over half of adults are vaccinated and many have been ill. A raw death rate controlling for nothing doesn't tell the whole story.

No, your methods are flawed. Death rate must be controlled for comorbidities, age, and vaccination/infection history at a minimum. Older people are more likely to get vaccinated because they are a lot more likely to die. Children aren't even eligible for the vaccine, die at lower rates, and are more likely to get delta now because it's more contagious. This is why studies need to be peer reviewed. Methods matter.

 

You were not insulted - and your numbers are not linked .. nor put in contexed .. Delta varient where -- at what time .. and what are we comparing against ? - Results compared to what ? - "something other than a specific SARS strain ?

What you posted is gibberish without that information.

I gave you actual numbers - no need to figure out what some study did .. which is your fallacy - "appeal to authority" - as the information given is not complete .. so I am just to accept what you think the data means - because you read "Some Study" and made some interpretation I am supposed to accept.

This is not how we do it mate - post the link or get the missing info.

Correct on the Ad Hom .. Rand Paul is a hero to the people.

and yes .. numbers require context - what I am telling you above .. which is why I gave you context ..

We did not use a raw death rate - clearly you did not understand what you were looking at - we also used Case numbers - controlling for Delta vs Alpha - relative case numbers was also a control.

What other other controls did you have in mind - none .. obviously - so you are just talking out your backside - trying to sound "scientific" - in pretend land - where self deception is beautiful all the time - if it is to support some partisan narrative.

No they don't .. but I did control for these things .. What part of 90% were over 80 with comorbidities did you not understand in my analysis... which clealrly you did not bother to read.

What part of "Older people shold be the ones getting vaxed" did you not understand..

What a mess .. "Methods Matter" - we agree on that - but there is no Method to anything you are saying other than .. to "Be Right" .. and uphold the propaganda narrative you have been ingesting - unable to deal with the glaring reality - that folks have been stringing you along .. big time.

Show me a piece in the Mainstream that has put context to the death count -at times when it is at or near normal ? - 99% of the time this is left out - "Except in situations where the numbers are nasty" which happens in pockets .. this is not a straight line ..

I also controled for seasonal variation - factored succeptibility to pneumonia into the equation ..

Go back and read - rather than try to tell me what I already told you.

 

A good conversation between Giftedone and LiveUninhibited, but it's been known since last year early that the numbers have been cooked. The books have been cooked, and the numbers are almost meaningless.

More, and essential part of the plan in the Plandemic was using/abusing the PCR tests for diagnostic purposes, in violation of their stated purposes and design.

In truth the Phantom Virus is about as lethal as the flu. We have all been duped, and quite a few still don't realize they've been duped.

 

It used to be worse- Alpha was about 5 times worse than a normal flue in terms of daily deaths in my region when the second wave peaked (keeping in mind that 90% were very old ave 80 - with numerous comorbidity - note that normally you will have more of this group die)

In the third wave - which was about the same size as second - but Delta instead of Alpha - was a little bit more than normal - a 400% decrease.

The fourth wave - going on now - the deaths are less than a normal flue season.. despite the fact that the majority that get hospitalized are unvaxed .. "No Protection" - .

Yet - the left wing media is in a frenzy - "The next wave is coming - duck and cover - save the children" - even though we now know that the vax does not prevent transmission - and in fact is horribly poor at it - getting worse by the day as this thing mutates further. - but hey .. just blame the unvaxed.

 

I wasn't talking about me being insulted. You accused me of "ad hom" and I was responding to that.

I could have made it easier, but you could have found it if you tried. In your prior post you had alluded to the Canada information cited by the expert in my post before that. This was in response to that - it was the information from the Canada study that the expert had cited. It was available as a link within the prior link from post 69, but here it is again. Progressive Increase in Virulence of Novel SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Ontario, Canada | medRxiv

And I explained why your actual numbers do not say what you think they do. Just because the most recent wave is going to be smaller doesn't mean that delta is less virulent. Many factors come into play when you look at raw, whole-population numbers rather than an actual controlled study.

I had been under the impression you read my prior link, but sure sorry I didn't make it easier.

Not in the sense I was saying. Context as in confounding factors. Raw population-level numbers have many confounding factors to deal with. Variables to control for.

lol... I explicitly said age, comorbidities, and vaccination/infection history. Your 1st link from COVID-19 Alberta statistics | alberta.ca, this gives raw death numbers by a geographic area and time. It does not control for age, vaccination status, or vaccination/infection history. Your 2nd link at least has data about age, but no it does not give an age-adjusted death rate.

I don't think you know what control for means. It means the study uses a statistical method like multivariate regression to eliminate the effect of variables we're not interested in to make sets of data comparable for what we're interested in (virulence). If a larger proportion of people in the first wave were over 60 than in the 3rd wave, then the death rate of the first wave will appear more severe than the 3rd wave in part because of age. But we're not interested in whether age is associated with more severe disease if we're studying virulence. If we want to know virulence, we need to hold age constant by controlling for it in statistical analysis. If we want to know virulence, we have to figure out all of the variables that increase the death rate and control for them to isolate the effect of virulence.

For example, the canada study again: "Methods We created a retrospective cohort of people in Ontario testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and screened for VOCs, with dates of test report between February 7 and June 22, 2021 (n=211,197). We constructed mixed effects logistic regression models with hospitalization, ICU admission, and death as outcome variables. Models were adjusted for age, sex, time, comorbidities, and pregnancy status. Health units were included as random intercepts." Progressive Increase in Virulence of Novel SARS-CoV-2 Variants in Ontario, Canada | medRxiv

So, the studies that the expert I cited are more valid than just looking at population data because they control for age and comorbidities. But the expert also admitted there was no consensus - he was just citing studies he was aware of that suggested delta is more severe. So a scientific person would say there is not enough evidence to conclude whether delta is more virulent or not. Note that I am not holding up the Canada study as the final answer or even as a great study - but at least it's a study that controls for important variables.

Your links gave raw alberta numbers, and one table stratified by age but that isn't the same as controlling for even age let alone pneumonia. What equation? Maybe I missed something, but it wasn't in the post I quoted.