Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

What was the hoped for accomplishment?

Getting to where most people didn't have to worry much about COVID-19 and could go back to normal.

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

does anyone think the local CVS, Rite Aid Walmart jab clinic followed the rather precise storage and handling specifications of the Pfizer formulations? I have my doubts

If you're concerned, maybe you should inquire with the retailers and the local health department.  Ask detailed questions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Getting to where most people didn't have to worry much about COVID-19 and could go back to normal.

If you're concerned, maybe you should inquire with the retailers and the local health department.  Ask detailed questions.

 

Are saying that the jabs function was only to ameliorate worry ?

That safety and effectiveness were secondary or non-relevant concerns? That EUA's were granted in order to quell panic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Are saying that the jabs function was only to ameliorate worry ?

That safety and effectiveness were secondary or non-relevant concerns? That EUA's were granted in order to quell panic?

No, I am saying that if enough people get vaccinated, the situation will improve to the point that most people will have no good reason to worry.

Worry is a secondary concern at most.  The extent to which people have reason to worry is one way of measuring success in dealing with a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.

A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiNzpbyvJv0AhWKhP0HHfk3Cn4QFnoECAMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-021-02689-y&usg=AOvVaw12ZnDpzq1fqp0SP7Z0MYOR

"On par with the likelihood..."

--within 3 months of vaccination, transmission of Covid, comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, becomes equalized, according to nature.com. recently

Evidence that vaxxes are extremely limited at obtaining population immunity, merely slowing the spread a little (like the results of lockdowns and masking proved).

To protect yourself, fine and good, which is the purpose of a vaccine - the sake of an individual recipient; to do it needlessly (by the fit and/or young) and unwillingly, for the supposed protection of the mass of society is senseless and sacrificial.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I didn't say you wrote eradication of the virus.  You wrote eradication of transmission and of viral mutations, and I questioned whether anyone has claimed either, and I pointed out the point is significant reduction, not eradication.

Better late than never.

Nonsense.  The purpose is not eradication of spread or of anything else, but significant reduction of spread and of the potential for viral mutation.

How good is "so good" and why are you trying to make an issue of it?  No one is claiming that vaccination completely eliminates anything.  It significantly reduces the chances of infection and spread.  In those cases where infection still takes place, it greatly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death.

I am not advocating lockdowns, which are a much more drastic step.  The biggest reason vaccines have not accomplished as much as hoped is that a lot of people haven't gotten vaccinated.

Four excerpts from the article you linked:

 even small pockets of unvaccinated people can drive transmission. In Ireland's population of 5 million, around a million are still not protected.

 Ireland's deputy Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told CNN that unprotected people are "causing a lot of the trouble" -- and that Ireland "wouldn't be imposing the restrictions we are imposing now" if everyone was vaccinated.

The difference between vaccination rates of 70% and 80% is huge, experts say, because each extra percentile further isolates the virus and eases pressure on hospitals. But McConkey said that given the transmissibility of the current Delta variant, no country can truly consider themselves "highly vaccinated" -- he argued that until they inoculate a percentage in the mid-90s of their total population, unvaccinated pockets of society would still drive transmission.

Vaccines continue to dramatically reduce the likelihood of serious illness and death, he noted -- and they have therefore changed the make-up of those needing treatment in intensive care units. There are far fewer admissions than in previous waves, and "it's now mostly unvaccinated young people, or very elderly people,"

 

"...not accomplished as much as hoped is that a lot of people havent gotten vaccinated".

Nonsensical. From the type of biased CNN (etc.) reporting of those ignoramuses who proclaim:

"This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated!". Despite evidence.

Look what is happening when EU nations (e.g. Iceland, Ireland, Portugal) have double vaccinated from 70% to the early 80's% of people  -- but are experiencing fresh winter surges approaching previous infection peaks. Near those before vaccines were available.

But it is the unvaccinated remnants we must hold responsible!

 

Be logical, and be sceptical about the popular sources you read. As you can see in the previous nature.com article, the Delta virus transmission averages 67% ... by the UN-vaxxed. It drops to the 40's and 50's percentile with the (newly) vaccinated, according to product used. An improvement, sure. (Except that this level is short-lived).

Anyway, with +/- one out of five people (in e.g. Ireland) unvaccinated - who do you think is alone in driving the upsurge in 'cases'? That minority?

Despite the probabilities of close contact *far* favoring someone vaccinated to someone vaccinated, and far lesser contact with the non-vaxxed.

Plus - given a relatively small and waning transmission differential (~50% to 67%)?

Therefore, "the pandemic of the unvaccinated" is pure rubbish  - there is probably as much and more transmission from vaxxed-to-vaxxed, by only the weight of numbers.

But it is this irrationality by 'experts' which stigmatizes and is punishing the unvaccinated for disallowing us our 'return to normal'.

When 95% have been pressured into vaccinations and the virus keeps returning, who will be the convenient culprits then?

(The other five per cent, I guess; then, by that collectivist logic, sub-five yo infants will have to also get the jab).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reuters Covid Tracker is a useful quick source of data, country by country.

Here for Iceland:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjJhKCLsqv0AhULhlwKHfIWCfcQFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgraphics.reuters.com%2Fworld-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps%2Fcountries-and-territories%2Ficeland%2F&usg=AOvVaw2tQC8f0YpRida1MyK0rd3S

This for South Africa:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjC-MfXuav0AhVYi_0HHSkpDxoQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fgraphics.reuters.com%2Fworld-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps%2Fcountries-and-territories%2Fsouth-africa%2F&usg=AOvVaw3ZsBOEMrT0gMn69AlaC0IY

Does anyone detect any correlation between case numbers and vaccinations?

Iceland - at 84% double-vaxxed and at 92% infections of peak at present

SA - at a low 21% d-vaxxed and now at 3% of peak.

If anything, it would 'appear' that the higher the vaccinations, the more the present infections! A tempting conclusion which will be simplistic and false.

BUT, the graphs raise a lot of doubt about the efficacy of vaccinations to reduce transmission. It indicates there are many other factors which drive infections up - other than the unvaxxed.

AND, the above comparison mounts a huge opposition to the tactics of intimidation by Gvt's, some scientists, some media and the pharma people to get everybody vaxxed, by any means.

The vilified unvaxxed are not the problem nor pose any threat to anyone.

"We have a pandemic of the unvaccinated": a downright lie.

The graphs also indicate much reduced mortality figures, and that is the significant purpose of vaccines.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus.

A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time".

 

Sounds like when the effects of the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccines wane, they still reduce the probability of spread.

Do these statistics take into account the reduced chance of getting infected in the first place?

These data also support the need for boosters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

The difference between vaccination rates of 70% and 80% is huge, experts say, because each extra percentile further isolates the virus and eases pressure on hospitals. But McConkey said that given the transmissibility of the current Delta variant, no country can truly consider themselves "highly vaccinated" -- he argued that until they inoculate a percentage in the mid-90s of their total population, unvaccinated pockets of society would still drive transmission.

whYNOT ignores this excerpt from the article he linked.

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Anyway, with +/- one out of five people (in e.g. Ireland) unvaccinated - who do you think is alone in driving the upsurge in 'cases'? That minority?

Yes, the unvaccinated are the primary drivers of the surge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If anything, it would 'appear' that the higher the vaccinations, the more the present infections! A tempting conclusion which will be simplistic and false.

BUT, the graphs raise a lot of doubt about the efficacy of vaccinations to reduce transmission. It indicates there are many other factors which drive infections up - other than the unvaxxed.

There have been 2,929,862 infections and 89,574 coronavirus-related deaths reported in the country since the pandemic began.

There have been 16,800 infections and 34 coronavirus-related deaths reported in the country since the pandemic began.

That is from your links. The percentage of the peak is higher in Iceland because the peak itself is significantly lower than it is in South Africa. All you did is show that you don't know how to interpret data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tadmjones said:

The graphs may show reduced mortality in reported covid death and that could be attributed to the jabs, but what is happening with total excess death ?

 

Your link indicates that excess deaths are somewhat lower this year than last, and they aren't sure why the difference isn't greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/22/2021 at 7:37 PM, Eiuol said:

There have been 2,929,862 infections and 89,574 coronavirus-related deaths reported in the country since the pandemic began.

There have been 16,800 infections and 34 coronavirus-related deaths reported in the country since the pandemic began.

That is from your links. The percentage of the peak is higher in Iceland because the peak itself is significantly lower than it is in South Africa. All you did is show that you don't know how to interpret data.

I think you don't follow. This has to do with the relative peaks specific to each country, but draws a common conclusion.  Interpret the data from about every country in the world on e.g the Reuters site, you will find that infections recently came close to their previous peak for a while (and do presently) ~ at the same time as ~ vaccinations were in the 75-90% range and rising, in all of them. While not to be taken as a correlation, I repeat.

But it portrays overwhelmingiy that vaccinations don't stop infection and transmission. (They are evidently effective at reducing severity and hospitalization and fatality, for anyone who medically etc. needs them, yes).

The uncontroversial fact is scientific common knowledge, admitted for months by even the vaxx promoters and mandators. Not that it's slowed them down.

And that, the ongoing spread by the vaxxed mainly to the vaxxed, is why there is no logic in and much future harm with a universally mandated vaccination. Does anyone believe achieving, say 99.9% globally vaccinated and every child and healthy adult vaccinated will magically eradicate Covid?

Note this doesn't touch upon the arguments raised questioning the long term safety of these vaccines.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

you will find that infections recently came close to their previous peak for a while (and do presently) ~ at the same time as ~ vaccinations were in the 75-90% range and rising, in all of them. While not to be taken as a correlation, I repeat.

But it portrays overwhelmingiy that vaccinations don't stop infection and transmission.

You are not taking into account the increased transmissability of the new variants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

You are not taking into account the increased transmissability of the new variants. 

Has the mechanism that increased the transmissability been defined ? Higher viral loads? Spike protein increased 'binding' site (s) ? What would the data look like if the transmissability stayed the 'same' but the vaccines were ineffective against transmission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

No one anywhere was claiming that they literally halt infection and transmission. 

Of course no one was saying introducing leaky vaccines during initial spread would halt transmission. But no one was saying these are leaky experimental vaccines , no ‘sanctioned’ health officials anyway.

But the idea that the jabs would end the pandemic was the narrative being pushed by all sanctioned officials. Government officials are pressuring the large media groups to suppress discussions that point to the levels of ineffectiveness and the fact that there are no known long term safety perimeters.

If the data shows case/infection rates near ‘peak’ levels attained prior to introduction of the jabs , that is a far cry from allowing some transmission. Perhaps no one literally said the jabs would sterilize 100% of the recipients , but the guidance certainly said , more than intimated , that spread would dramatically decline.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If most eligible people had gotten vaccinated and boosted, the spread would have dramatically declined, and the nature of the pandemic would have changed.   

Would Israel be an example of this changed nature ? My impression is that that population has most eligible people included in that level of vaccination. I think they have fairly controlled travel so as a group the population could be view as an isolated population and the data can be a clearer picture of at least large signals for cause and effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2021 at 11:28 PM, Doug Morris said:

You are not taking into account the increased transmissability of the new variants. 

Yes, but any virologist at the start could have told you and some did try to warn that "new variants" which will escape vaccine immunity - are the given, inevitable with any virus. Natural adaptation and mutation is how they survive. Further mutations, which eventually become less lethal, while often more transmissable, is a fact. How the common cold and influenza that were very dangerous viruses once, still hang around, undefeated. One doesn't aim to eliminate a new virus, one "manages" it to reduce its harm, protecting or self-protecting those whom scientists had early knowledge would be most susceptible. Instead the world got the placatory half-truths and spin from 'experts' and gvts. and alarmism by media which led much of the public to believe that a. every individual was in equal danger and infections or 'cases' a virtual death sentence, and b. corona could be wiped out - if we all "did our bit". (And all equally submitted to the harsh measures: blanket lockdowns and blanket vaccinations, regardless of one's own negligible or sometimes very high risk).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 1:55 AM, Doug Morris said:

If most eligible people had gotten vaccinated and boosted, the spread would have dramatically declined, and the nature of the pandemic would have changed.   

Nope, that's the whole point. Vaccines and boosters visibly are not stopping the spread in the most highly vaccinated regions, in some smaller places the double doses given exceed the population numbers.

Finally, one receives the shot by choice, entirely and rationally for one's own health safety evaluation, not to - perhaps - lessen transmissibility among the great mass of public.

If anything, I could counter that high vaccination rates are as prone to causing fresh outbreaks (from mutations 'learning' to evade the vaccines and boosters), thereby changing the course of the pandemic for the worse. As yet I'm unsure of this argument - we shall see as the science comes out.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...