COVID's vaccine, by whom, when, effective? all around the vaccine
- Thread starter sene5hos
- Start date
U.S. man accused of killing his pharmacist brother wanted to confront him for administering COVID-19 vaccine: documents
A Maryland man accused of killing his pharmacist brother, his sister-in-law and an 83-year-old woman told his mother he wanted to 'confront' his brother over 'him administering COVID vaccines,' according to charging documents obtained from Howard County District Court.
A Maryland man accused of killing his pharmacist brother, his sister-in-law and an 83-year-old woman told his mother he wanted to "confront" his brother over "him administering COVID vaccines," according to charging documents obtained from Howard County District Court.
Jeffrey Allen Burnham, 46, also allegedly told a tipster "that his brother was 'killing people with the COVID shot,'" according to the statement of charges obtained.
Now that the booster is out, was wondering if we were going to start seeing Tripled Vaxxed, or Double Vaxxed++, instead of the regular silly 2xVaxxed.. Once the booster starts rolling on, the 4th is gonna start showing its tails.. Making also Vaccines to the youngest who are totally safe from COVID too.... Our kids are also going to start getting 2xvaxxed?? To top it all the silliest Slogan that Trudeau used "We are not safe until everybody is safe".. I mean WTF... It was 70, then 80, then 95, now he wants 100%. Vaccines, boosters, then I am certain they will start selling pills to maintain.. The fuck is that, like worst than the flat earth theory...
They Claim that the Vaccines increases your chances to 99%.. Good.. But the death rate before the Vaccine was 3 or 4%.. Which means our chances were around 95 to 96%, so the Vaccine just improved it by that much, and yet we all have to take it?!?!? Where with kids it is already closer to 100%, so why the Vaccine???
They Claim that the Vaccines increases your chances to 99%.. Good.. But the death rate before the Vaccine was 3 or 4%.. Which means our chances were around 95 to 96%, so the Vaccine just improved it by that much, and yet we all have to take it?!?!? Where with kids it is already closer to 100%, so why the Vaccine???
They predicted at the beginning of the pandemic that the heard immunity will be below or around 80% (vaccinated + contracted COVID). We have reached this number in several US states and some Canadian provinces. However, the issue of the heard immunity is evidently has been dropped from the public discussion. The reason is simple: immunity drops to about 20% after 4 months of vaccination and after 6 month you may forget about it. We will never reach heard immunity and will have to be vaccinated again and again. In addition, new variants will be emerging in many places in the world reducing effectiveness of the vaccine. Thus, relying solely on vaccination is not sustainable. I believe the emphasis should shift rapidly from vaccination to treatment to reduce the danger of death and then we can live with it. Instead, majority of western governments continue to press for vaccination purely for political reasons just to demonstrate government activity.
There is not such a magical number for so called "herd immunity". The 75-80% first stated, before the appearance of the delta variant, was making sense in relation with what was known generally about corona virus. When the delta variant, which is much more contagious than the original virus took all the place, everything changed. It is well known.
For now there is no sure treatment. For a $700 treatment with the Merck pills, you get 50% less deaths if the treatment is given in early days. This was tested on 300 people. For 2 doses at $20 each, you get a reduction of more than 98% of deaths and those vaccines were used in more than 1 billions people. Do the math! It is simple to figure out.
As for a third shot, it simply to help those who did not get a strong immune response from the first 2 shots, because their immune system is deficient or impaired from special medical conditions or advanced age. Nothing to debate here but a minimum of knowledge and/or common sense will help to understand this even without having done advanced science in school.
For now there is no sure treatment. For a $700 treatment with the Merck pills, you get 50% less deaths if the treatment is given in early days. This was tested on 300 people. For 2 doses at $20 each, you get a reduction of more than 98% of deaths and those vaccines were used in more than 1 billions people. Do the math! It is simple to figure out.
As for a third shot, it simply to help those who did not get a strong immune response from the first 2 shots, because their immune system is deficient or impaired from special medical conditions or advanced age. Nothing to debate here but a minimum of knowledge and/or common sense will help to understand this even without having done advanced science in school.
There is something that was discussed way earlier in the thread called the effective reproduction number (R0) which measures how easily the virus spreads.
It is well known the delta has a much much higher R0
There is actually a "magical number" for herd immunity and it is calculated as (1-1/R0). If R0 is 9 then 1-1/9 = 89%. That is where the 90% is coming from
With the original strain R0 was 3 ( 1-1/3 = 66% ) hence the original estimates.
Simple science. When you understand it, it really really helps accept and support some of the decisions being made rather than working oneself up based on false information.
Last edited:
Simple calculations of the heard immunity are based on the premise that effect of the vaccine is permanent. With reduction of the immunity over time confirmed now by the research in several countries, which started immunization earlier, the math is not so simple. If you, in addition, consider that vaccination and administration of the booster shots takes time the problem became really complex even mathematically. With the emergence of new variants that have larger probability of the break through infection the problem simplicity vanishes completely. There are no simple answers anymore, such as, for example, near 100% of immunization.
We should stop talking "did I get a 2nd dose/ am I fully vaccinated" and replace it with "is my immunization up to date".
You can get a feel for what percent of the population needs to have their immunization up to date.
I got a call from my doc, that I am due for my 10 year Tetanus shot. Vaccines lose effectiveness over time. As we learn more about the vaccine, and we tweek them they will last longer
The math of calculation of R0 is certainly not simple and considerations for other measures (masks, passports....) have to be taken. But the point is the doctors are not pulling these numbers out of their asses. R-effective is being tracked, and plans are continuously updated. Why can't we trust the people who are a LOT smarter than us.
Even very smart people do not always have answers. Many problems in science are not solved and some mathematical conjunctions stay unresolved for several centuries in spite of the simplicity of formulations. Let’s consider somewhat analogues problem of the fire in the prairie. To prevent it you need to cut grass on several strips say 100 yards wide through the affected area. However, your machinery has limited speed and its number is also limited. Thus, in some places grass will re-grow and can support fire even if you cut it sometime before. You thus need to calculate the amount of machinery required and the speed with which it must work to prevent the spread of fire with account to re-growing as well as probability that in some places it will re-grow faster than usual. If you can solve this problem the result may (or may not) show that your goal is not achievable with your resources. I believe we do not have the answer yet with this pandemic and resorting to a simplified problem that does not reflect reality is not helpful.
Last edited:
Scientists are smart enough to know they don't have THE answer but estimates that will evolve and be refined over time. So far they have predicted this one pretty well.
Also, and this applies to your grass cutting example, you can't solve a problem, but you can optimize or in the case of a pandemic limit damage.
My comments were based on another posters ridiculing of that change in targets of 70% to 90% vaccination rate. Reality is it was predictable IF the R0 increased which they knew could be the case with variants. These models and predictions are not new. They are well understood and the results of decades of research. They are not perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than the Covid-deniers approach to "let it rip" and it will be over with
Science is mostly based on logical observation and analysis. Mathematics are mostly to support ideas and theories, or the opposite. However, logic is simple and accessible to everyone, and it is the basis of any theory.
The argument that the Vaccine stops or reduce the spread falls apart when they are also required to follow the same hygiene procedures before their vaccination.
Of course, the second argument sweeps in to replace the first arguments: but it makes the virus less dangerous and prevents hospitalization. Well, the virus is dangerous for 4 or 5 % of the population only, so why should we all take the vaccine?
Revert to the first argument.....
We keep getting this silly circular arguments, and then try to complicate it by using formulas like above..
You can statistic anything you want, and use mathematics to complicate any issue, however, it is easy to spot what works and what does not.
When you see a Nurse, who has treated COVID patients, refuse the Vaccine on the basis of its safety, you really need to question what is being portrayed in the media.
We are an over-medicated society, we give pills to kids just for being kids (labelling them as hyper), and we have been tamed to just accept them as food.
Politicians want the easy way out, and think the Vaccine will provide it to them. They are afraid of the being labelled as not doing enough and lose their positions. It is understandable since most politicians are cowards anyway.
Is the Vaccine going to eradicate a Virus like COVID? I remember at the beginning of the Pandemic, all experts agreed that this kind of Virus cannot be eradicated as it mutates very quickly, and there is no way we can update as fast. I believe that somewhere along the way politicians realized that this line of thinking does not benefit them, and of course the big pharma companies. This mutual shared interest led to the situation we are in today: forcing a necessary Vaccine to only a small percentage of the population unnecessarily to almost all of the population using any means possible.
You are very correct.
Most hospitalizations, most ICU visits and most deaths are in people that are not vaccinated. PERIOD.
It is easy to spot what works and what does not.
A friend of mine is a nurse in ICU. I asked why one (of 12) of her colleagues refuse the vaccine.
She had no idea if it is safe or not, she assumes yes but believes there is a risk. I think we can agree.
She also measures the risk of contracting a serious form of the illness and she believes it's low. We can also agree.
So on an individual basis, this makes some sense. But on a basis of a society it falls apart as some miscalculate and the others pay the price with overrun hospitals and ICU.
She is free to not be vaccinated, but society has every right to not want her putting them at risk a) as a higher probability carrier b) as a higher probability burden on health care
OUPS....décision surprise...DUBÉ recule 
..reporte au 15 Novembre la vaccination obligatoire du personnel de la santé....pour éviter de foncer dans un mur... IMHO c'est une 1ère défaite....et pas évident comme décision car loin d'avoir l'assurance que les
non vaccinés vont changer d'idée...leur donne du laisse ...mais perd de la crédibilité....dommage avait un parcours '' quasi'' parfait....my 2 cents.
..reporte au 15 Novembre la vaccination obligatoire du personnel de la santé....pour éviter de foncer dans un mur... IMHO c'est une 1ère défaite....et pas évident comme décision car loin d'avoir l'assurance que lesnon vaccinés vont changer d'idée...leur donne du laisse ...mais perd de la crédibilité....dommage avait un parcours '' quasi'' parfait....my 2 cents.
OUPS....décision surprise...DUBÉ recule
non vaccinés vont changer d'idée...leur donne du laisse ...mais perd de la crédibilité....dommage avait un parcours '' quasi'' parfait....my 2 cents.
Il aurait simplement du dire "une dose, avec rendez-vous de 2eme dose booké avant le 15 Novembre, good enough". Il aurait du le declarer il y a une semaine pour donner le temps d'avoir la premiere dose. Ceux qui n'ont pas une première dose cette semaine auront pas leurs deux doses d'ici le 15 Novembre
Is this an affirmation of the second argument? Of course, the counter argument is that most people are not. Then we go back to the first Argument, yes but it helps reduce the spread.. And off we go again...
Lets take a different perspective, if a flu case is severe and hospitalized, will you suggest that everybody need to take the flue shot? Of course not, but the COVID
.I believe that the best way to fight COVID effectively is actually in the ICU. Make them better to accommodate more people, and give our immunity a chance to adapt and fight it naturally. This is the best way to reduce the Variants. The Vaccine will also become more effective for the people at risk, instead of having to keep taking Booster shots to deal with variants.
We pay for that damn health care, it is there to serve us, and putting who at risk? The Vaccinated? I thought we agreed that Vaccines eliminated the risks!!!
People that are affected by the Vaccines are not numbers.. They need to make that decision without the pressure that this Gov is putting, ESPECIALLY that the Vaccinated are no longer at Risk...
Someone not at risk, punishing another because he did not take the Vaccine, while he himself is no longer at risk.. People's life, freedom of choice, and opinions are no longer important?? I mean how is this so hard to understand! Would anyone undergo Chemotherapies as a safety measure to not get Cancer? I mean even though most people do not get cancer, there is still some portion that dies of it. Isn't that the logic followed here??