Most people infected in Provincetown Covid outbreak were vaccinated, CDC shows
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Sorry that I don't have a better source for it
Reducing the symptoms if someone is actually infected is fantastic. You know what would be way more impressive? If the vaccines actually stopped the spread of COVID-19. The way I'm reading this and Fauci's statements about having equal viral load is that the unvaccinated and vaccinated both spread the virus, likely at the same rate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9839697/Fauci-say...
Guess we won't be able to blame the unvaccinated for recent spread anymore.
Covid outbreaks are not a good thing, not sure why you would claim that? Even when they demonstrate the relative effectiveness of the vaccines.
> you know what would be way more impressive? If the vaccines actually stopped the spread of COVID-19
Again, I'm no sure what your point is. Given that we have 80% effective vaccines, what should we do, use them or not?
> Guess we won't be able to blame the unvaccinated for recent spread anymore.
To be clear, are you suggesting that _lower_ vaccination rates would result in less spread of COVID? Yeah, have another think about that.
The rest of the diagram is just arithmetic. The results are counter-intuitive, but it's not calculus.
FYI, No point in linking to The Daily Mail UK, it is not in any sense a serious publication. Wikipedia wont take it, we shouldn't either.
Lol, here I can walk you through it.
Sentence number #1 of the Twitter post:
"NEW: people worry when they hear "40% of hospitalisations are fully vaxxed", but this chart shows that's actually good news."
I can change my reply from its actually a good thing to its actually good news if that will help you.
> Again, I'm no sure what your point is. Given that we have 80% effective vaccines, what should we do, use them or not?
Whoa, 80 percent effective? Sorry friend, they are 93% effective. My point is it would be much better if they actually stopped the spread of the virus. Up until now this was solely blamed on the unvaccinated. If the vaccines were better, we wouldn't have to blame the vaccinated as well now.
By all means use them, except now it's less of a "help the herd! for the greater good!" thing and more of a selfish thing. Definitely get vaccinated if you haven't previously had the infection though.
> FYI, No point in linking to The Daily Mail UK, it is not in any sense a serious publication. Wikipedia wont take it, we shouldn't either.
Says the one who used Twitter as a source? Dude you are cracking me up. Here's the video from the Daily Mail article on Twitter (because I know how much you like it):
https://mobile.twitter.com/ciclbh/status/1420734568861155331
A twitter post which is _not_ specifically abut the Provincetown outbreak, the one that you called "this rather serious disaster". A post from before that outbreak is by definition not spin of that outbreak, and that was your claim.
> Sorry friend, they are 93% effective.
Sorry friend, that varies by vaccine (there are several) and virus variant (there are several). You did notice the "80% efficacy against infection" on the diagram. Quoting a higher number is anyway irrelevant, it does not exactly disprove my point.
> My point is it would be much better if they actually stopped the spread of the virus.
No fooling, but you have to use what you have so there's no point in raising that.
> Says the one who used Twitter as a source?
I think I made it as clear as possible that the Financial Times of London was the ultimate source of that graphic?
Anyway, I don't think that you have much of interest to say, so have a nice day!
1 in 5 people infected with COVID develop long COVID. That's not an acceptable risk.
Even a 0.000004% reduction in the risk of long COVID is worth the risk of a blood clot. Blood clots are a lot less scary than long COVID.
Umm, yeah, blood clots are worse.
"The incidence of CVT in the two weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis was ... significantly higher than in a matched cohort of people who received an mRNA vaccine"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...
"an 8 fold increase after diagnosis of COVID-19"
Besides, here in Western Kansas, I know of no one in two counties with long-term COVID complications, but I know many people with long-term VACCINE complications.
Get the Vaccine and you will suffer for it.
I agree, you mostly likely have watched "too many" of those videos. The other problem is that you believe them uncritically, and won't stop spreading the rubbish that you absorbed. YouTube and FaceBook is not an education.
Does HN have a policy against straight-up actual false, scaremongering COVID public health statements like the "I know many people with long-term VACCINE complications. Get the Vaccine and you will suffer for it" one?
Which COVID-19 vaccine was "Get the Vaccine and ..." referring to, anyway? There are several, with different modes of operation.
Unfortunately no. They also allow straight-up actual false, scaremongering COVID public health statements like the "I know many people with long-term COVID complications. Get the vaccine or you will suffer from them".
See the problem? They could both be false, or they could both be true. But if they're both true, what your suggesting is the censorship of not misinformation, but the actual account of a real life vaccine injury.
The could not. One of them, the first one, is at variance with reality. Read it again, they did not claim a real life vaccine injury, they claimed "many people", "long term" and also "it will happen to you". This is, I repeat, nonsense.
Ok here you go..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxqC9SiRh8
The community of people injured by the vaccine, mentioned in the video.
Second, IIRC is a clearing house for self-reporting unverified claims. Not a group of people that OP personally knows.
Basically a big old nothingburger, thanks for wasting 5 minutes our time.
Also, a question to everyone who come across this.
Do you think the people in the first video, who took part in trials and suffered injuries, deserve medical/financial support from the government or the companies who did the trials?
Look, for me it does not add up. I mean, what is their end game? If the whole thing gains public support and popularity, which we have to assume their intention is, the people in the video can be easily followed up and their claims validated (I am pretty sure the opposition would love to do it, which would be also quite easy). Which will ultimately backfire on themselves, which make it unlikely to be their (at least the senator's) endgame..
So what is it?
Also, why is there no fact check that "debunks" the whole thing?
Will it? Are you sure? US media is now so polarised that the various echo-chambers almost never intersect. The US right anti-covid train has been going for an appallingly long time, why would it stop now due to mere facts. There have been facts all long, that hasn't made a difference. To that topic or others that I could name.
> Also, why is there no fact check that "debunks" the whole thing?
Are you sure that there isn't? Have you looked? I linked to an article "debunking" the same character, upthread. I know their name and their position, but I do not follow all their antics: Circus clowns gonna circus clown. It's not on me to research a debunking of that specific performance.
Pretty sure. Why do you think the opposition won't take care of it?
>Are you sure that there isn't?
It would help if you ignore the politician in it. I am taking about the actual people in the first video, who claim to have suffered AEFIs.
As I said above, recent track record. This is not a thing that we see happening, so why would it start happening now? Do you not think that the media spheres are disjoint, as I said above?
> I am taking about the actual people in the first video, who claim to have suffered AEFIs.
So then, are you sure that there isn't a fact check that "debunks" that? Have you looked?
I asked a specific question about opposition not interested in "debunking" the "dubious" claims of those people organized by the senator. You seem to be talking about some "anti-covid train".
So may be it will help if you address my question.
> Have you looked?
https://www.wisn.com/article/sen-ron-johnson-holding-milwauk...
Does not mention or doubt the legitimacy of the victims of AEFI.
What that seems to translate to is "I regurgitate propaganda videos and claim that they're my first-hand knowledge"
Which is pretty sad, TBH.
Why do it need to be first hand knowledge, if it is legitimate?
Why did they claim first-hand knowledge? because immediacy feels more convincing. A story in first person is more visceral. Why did they feel the need to "make it more convincing" like that? it's a tell.
I don't think they did.
The phrasing is intended to give the feeling of immediacy.
Also, what does this mean? Please explain.
It’s funny how this pandemic started as a health problem but ultimately became an IQ problem.
Yes, and if no-one in the US was vaccinated against COVID-19, then the number of blood clots would be higher than that. Why? because it seems that the risk of blood clods after getting COVID-19 is higher than after getting vaccinated
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3886421
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...
As an argument against vaccination, "but blood clots" falls flat. I mean, even after cherry-picking this one specific harm and systematically ignoring all others, it still fails to be a valid point.
The data speaks for itself.
The VAERS dataset vendors explicitly warn against doing exactly what openvaers is doing because of the likelihood of drawing false conclusions.
Were does this number come from? If it is from VAERS, this number should be multiplied by 100, to offset the under reporting, (only 1% of the actual events are reported, but even that is speculation, and truth is, we have no real idea)
So 1 in 2500. And this is just one AEFI, blood clots.
Also, in addition to keeping VAERS powerless to capture high quality data, things like this
https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/defining-away-vaccin...
Does not inspire much confidence..
The takeaway is that even vaccinated people should wear masks.
If they get infected. Which is less likely.
But yes, the Delta variant is worse, we have to stop it spreading by all means, so mask up!
Only if they catch COVID, which is much less likely after vaccination.
What, are you assuming that everyone is carrying COVID in their noses all the time?
There's no 'if' about "should people, even fully vaccinated people mask up" - yes they should because they _might_ be carrying the COVID-19 virus, albeit at a lower chance of infection than unvaccinated people.
And if they are infected. which is less likely but does happen, they will still carry and spread COVID. That's where the "if" goes.