Where is the mandate?

One died of blood clots and four from Covid, and you're saying you want to pick the latter "poison." Not the logical or safe choice.

 

All 4 covid victims had health problems. 3 were morbidly obese with diabetes and the 4th was 9 years into a heart transplant. One of the 3 was vaccinated. I had covid 15 months ago and test every 8 weeks for the antibodies. I've accidentally had prolonged exposure to 2 coworkers who later that day tested positive for covid. I don't look to test my immunity, but I'm doing pretty well with it.

 

It doesn't exist yet and as soon as that ETS is issued, the lawsuits will be filed and injunctions against enforcement will be issued. Courts do not like ETS's which is why they are almost ever issued to begin with. They want OSHA to go through the proper rules making process which takes 6 months to a year and by then, there may be no rationale for the rule.

 

Meanwhile, COVID-19 kills healthy people as well as those with health problems. It also causes lasting harm to many of the survivors.

Should you get the Johnson & Johnson vaccine?
It’s important to remember that for the vast majority of people, the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine outweigh the harms, Dr. Meyer says. The blood clots have been very rare and unusual. The fact that the vaccine requires only one shot is an important benefit for many people. “There are other advantages of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine as well. It has less refrigeration requirements than the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, so it’s amenable to pop-up facilities—and in Connecticut there have been a lot of mobile health deliveries that carried Johnson & Johnson prior to the pause,” Dr. Meyer says.

Dr. Bona agrees. “I don’t mean to minimize the effect of the clots on the people who get them, because obviously for those people it’s a devastating consequence,” he says. “But this is going to be infrequent, while the clotting rate is going to be much higher among those who have a COVID-19 infection.” Dr. Chun adds that people are more likely to develop a serious blood clot if they are infected with COVID-19 than they are from a vaccine to prevent the disease.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-clots​

 

Uncle Joe is fresh outa that.

 

Would be interesting to see some kind of study or other data confirming the 99% claim. You aren’t making it up are you?

 

Oops

 

Oops.

 

"I've known two people" is not the best way to statistically look into this. Coincidentally you know two people, but statistically, these cases are happening in a tiny fraction; in the case of the J&J vaccine, 0.00028% (35 cases in 12,500,000 doses of the vaccine). For the Moderna, 0%. For the Pfizer, 0%. For the AstraZeneca it's more than that but that one is not even approved in the United States.

Also, blood clots happen in the general population for a number of other causes (birth control pills, hormone replacement pills, other medications, even taking an airplane trip) and in many cases the frequency of blood clots is not higher (or is just a very tiny bit higher) among the vaccinated population as compared to the general population, so not all blood clots you see are caused by the vaccines (far from it); they can be merely coincidental. Frankly, if you know 2 of the 35 cases that did occur because of the J&J vaccine, the odds of this are very tiny; most likely the two people you know had them because of other causes. And if the two people you know took the Pfizer or the Moderna, then, sorry, their blood clots were not caused by the vaccines; they are not occurring with the mRNA vaccines.

The other side of it is that an infection with Covid-19 causes blood clots in 20% to 40% of people. When you say pick your poison, compare that to 0.00028%. If you are concerned about blood clots but you have an opportunity to choose what vaccine you'd want, taking the Pfizer or the Moderna doesn't increase your risk for blood clots. Here, read this:

https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/postings/2021/07/blood-clotting-covid19.php

Studies have shown that having the natural infection, then taking just one mRNA vaccine shot, confers ideal protection against re-infection with the Delta. Given that the mRNA vaccines are extremely safe, I think you should consider them.

If you are a male younger than 30, then you should aim for the Pfizer. The Moderna is slightly riskier for males younger than 30 (could rarely cause myocarditis that is generally mild and transient; about 1 case in 4,000; again, the virus itself causes myocarditis in 16% to 30% of healthy young adults - up to 3 in 10 people; compare that to 1 in 4,000); this happens less with the Pfizer, which is dosed at one third of the dose of the stronger Moderna. If you're older than 30, then it's not a concern.

You say you're not looking for guarantees, but rather for freedom. Being free of the possibility of reinfection with Delta increases your freedom (you'd be able to frequent bars, restaurants, sports events, concerts, etc., with much decreased odds of getting sick). A 5-minute trip to your neighborhood pharmacy doesn't impact on your freedom.

While you are not in a vulnerable class for dying of Covid-19, nobody is not in a vulnerable class for experiencing non-fatal organ damage from Covid-19. Death is not all that can happen to someone who catches Covid-19. The latest studies showed over 50% of survivors of Covid-19 with at least one symptom of longer-term organ damage, often more than one. Covid-19 can cause, even in healthy young people, damage to lungs, kidneys, brain, pancreas, heart, and the coagulation system. Sure, you may say, "I caught it already and I'm fine" but you don't want to catch it again and risk cumulative damage.

 

It's not 99%. With Delta, the latest studies have shown that the odds of catching Covid-19 decrease 5 fold for the vaccinated. From this, it is obvious that it's not just 1% of the vaccinated who are catching Delta. Still, we need to continue to realize that the vast majority of the vaccinated who catch it, have a very mild case.

 

While Dr. Bona is right, the doctor is not emphasizing it enough. The frequency of blood clots for the J&J vaccine is 35 in 12,500,000 doses or 0.00028% while the incidence of blood clots among people with Covid-19 is 20% to 40%. It's not just "more likely" but literally more than one million times more likely (divide 30% by 0.00028%). That's how insane it is to avoid the vaccine for fear of blood clots. Not to forget, the Pfizer and the Moderna don't cause it; only the J&J.

 

Yes. The vaccinated are most certainly less likely to have a bad outcome. My problem is with the incessant claims only the unvaccinated are infecting others. With the information we have on viral load of infected vaccinated individuals we know this can’t be any more true than the 99% claim. Yes, the vaccinated will infect LESS people if they don’t engage in excess risky behavior, but I’m not a fan of claiming they aren’t driving transmission. The more asymptomatic infected vaccinated individuals we have, the transmission rate can actually increase, especially when those individuals believe they can not infect others and behave accordingly, ignoring the fact that behavior can lead to them infecting more people than if they were unvaccinated and more careful about behavior.

I’m afraid vaccination is no longer seen as a single tool in the toolbox of pandemic mitigation and is becoming nothing more than a virtue signal. The vaccinated don’t seem to care who they infect by their actions outside of vaccination. Like being vaccinated gives some license to behave in any manner they choose even when that behavior puts others at risk. And even when their past and current behavior makes the vaccination less or not at all efficacious for them.

You know I’m against telling these people they MUST pay attention to their behavior. They have the right to infect others through their behaviors and they are exercising that right. I just wish they would stop misrepresenting the facts and acknowledge they are partaking in the same rights every day they say they wish to strip from others.

 

What happened to the 'my body my choice' war cry? Only applicable in limited circumstances?

 

That's why there are no laws comparable to Texas's violation of women's civil rights. If you're okay with that, then how can you claim freedom over a simple vaccination?

 

99% of the cases in our hospital are unvaccinated, only 1% have had 1 or 2 shots, mostly just 1 to lazzy to get the second. County Vaccination figure is still around 50% and incident figure per 100k per week is 550.
Its now the pandemic of the unvaccinated.

 

It is correct that seemingly, the vaccinated can infect others if they catch a breakthrough case, given initially similar viral load. But after the viral load information came up, subsequent research showed that while the initial viral load is similar among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, this doesn't last: viral load drops dramatically and rapidly for the vaccinated, due to their faster secondary immune response. So the vaccinated remain infections for a shorter period; and they are only infectious if they actually catch the virus to start with.. So, the 5-fold decrease in the odds that they will catch the virus, plus the shorter infectiousness period, does make of the vaccinated a group that biologically speaking is less likely to infect others.

However you are correct in the fact that behavior may be even more important. If a vaccinated person is only going from home to work, wearing a mask, staying 6ft from co-workers, and staying home most of the time, that person will be very unlikely to catch and spread the virus to others; another vaccinated person who thinks that the vaccine is a free pass to go nightly to crowded bars unmasked, is more likely to catch the virus and infect others.

So it's hard to know the percentage of contagion fostered by the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. One thing, though: accepting the vaccine is already an indication of concern about the virus and prudence. Usually those are the folks who mask up and adopt social distancing. The ones who refuse the vaccine often come from a mindset that the virus is no big deal and masking up is for cowards and sheeple. So, I'd guess that statistically speaking, these are more likely to be reckless, as they don't take the virus seriously.

Of course now with mandates we're likely to get a third group: those who don't believe in the virus' seriousness but are vaccinated anyway, against their will, for working in a job that mandates it. Maybe those will fit more what you said in your post.

 

This may be true but it doesn't mean that only 1% of the vaccinated catch a breakthrough case of Covid-19. Given that they are overwhelmingly likely to not end up in the hospital, no wonder 99% of the people there are unvaccinated.
--------
I don't have national data on me because the CDC chose to only track breakthrough infections when people are hospitalized (which is stupid in my opinion), but I found this Minnesota page that is updated weekly that tracks the non-hospitalized ones too, last updated on 10/18/21, and then, the rate of breakthrough infections there was 1.441% (actually smaller than what I thought it would be):

https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/stats/vbt.html

Hospitalizations in this group, 0.068%. Deaths, 0.008%.

---------

Hm, I may be mistaken. It does seem like the percentage is smaller than I though and closer to what you said (1%):

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/09/22...ected-to-become-more-common-in-coming-months/

From this, we get 0.72% in Washington, DC, and 0.5% in Delaware.

And from this:

https://www.masslive.com/coronaviru...2-of-new-cases-among-unvaccinated-people.html

we get that in Massachusetts, the rate was 1.02%.

So if we get the average of these 4 states for which I found data, that's 1.44 + 1.02 + 0.72 + 0.5 = 3.68 divided by 4 = 0.92%.

--------

So, OK, I stand corrected. Seems like your 1% was correct, after all. @557 may want to look at this, too.

 

The truth about this virus is that most infections are what we might term mild. They don't result in hospitalization or death and it was that way before the vaccines came on the market. Now we are attributing ALL mild infections to the vaccines and hospitalization and deaths to the unvaccinated. I think we should get vaccinated because it offers some degree of safety that we don't get from any other place but the exaggerations and lies that have been and are still part of the campaign have done a lot of damage to the credibility of our govt health organizations. People who are skeptical have good reason to question official doctrine.

 

You are conflating breakthrough infection rate with percentage of total infections that are in the vaccinated.

From your link:

The breakthrough infection rate and the percentage of total cases that are vaccinated are entirely different metrics.

From the Massachusetts link.

This means 38% of cases are in vaccinated, not 1% as you and @gnoib are claiming based on breakthrough infection rates.

 

Yep.

 

My state's latest:

 

Who says I'm OK with Texas' abortion law?

 

You may be technically right about the breakthrough infection rate but that's a piece of information that is pretty meaningless. I did say to Gnoib when he said 99% of hospitalized people are unvaccinated. "This may be true but it doesn't mean that only 1% of the vaccinated catch a breakthrough case of Covid-19. Given that they are overwhelmingly likely to not end up in the hospital, no wonder 99% of the people there are unvaccinated."

So I set up to discover what's the true percentage of vaccinated people who get sick, as an additional and more meaningful piece of information than the one brought up by gnoib.

What is important, is what percentage of fully vaccinated people are getting the virus, and it does seem to hover around 1%, to my surprise.

38% of new cases being in vaccinated people doesn't mean that 38% of vaccinated people get the virus.

You do have to plot that to the total number of vaccinated people in that geographic entity to find out what's the percentage of vaccinated people who are catching the virus. Without the denominator, the number is meaningless.

If in a given geographic entity most people are vaccinated (some places if you only consider eligible adults, get close to 90%) then no wonder the percentage of people who get new cases is higher for the vaccinated than in other places. But without knowing what percentage of the total vaccinated population in that area get the virus, again, that's not meaningful to gauge the protection the vaccine yields.

 

@557 this lay press article does have hyperlinks to some studies. These studies show evidence that the vaccinated who catch Covid are less likely to infect others, than the unvaccinated.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...kely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583

There is some suggestion that it's not just the viral load dropping, but also, an idea that maybe the virus present in the organism of the vaccinated is already weakened and less infectious, due to the barrage of antibodies that the viral copies face. So, some of these may already have had their spikes knocked out, and they'd still be counted in a viral load count but would not be infectious.

 

Some anecdotal evidence to this too. All of my friends are fully vaccinated. But there have been cases where a group of my friends became infected at the same time from an unknown source (happened three times so far). But none of these groups passed on the virus to any others even though we met up with them and others after they became infected and before they knew they were infected. So appears either the viral load is lower or the virus was weakened.