didjathinkmess

> Covid outbreaks are not a good thing, not sure why you would claim that?

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

>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?

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.

Thanks, I was wondering how this rather serious disaster was going to get spun. Will be on the lookout out for "it's actually a good thing!" posts like the Twitter one.

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.

Sounds like goal post shifting honestly. The mRNA clinical trials were done with 2 doses. It was sold as 90%+ effective on the 200 people they studied (erroneously claimed as over 40,000 people but I digress - that's information for only detailed oriented people to discover).

Now suddenly a 3rd is necessary? What happens when that fails, a second booster? A yearly vaccine like the flu shot (which barely works anyways)? Unfortunately for us humans, nature finds a way.

Speaking of nature, you know what confers full immunity? Having the infection and then recovering or having cross reactive immunity from a previous coronavirus strain.

Natural immunity is the undisputed champion of immunity.

"The delta variant is now the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 in Israel, where researchers now estimate that the two-shot Pfizer vaccine is only 39% effective in preventing an infection within the country."

Source: https://www.salon.com/2021/07/28/pfizer-vaccine-less-effecti...

Um yeah, they're great.

I guess they're expecting the vaccine to, you know, confer immunity? Like how nearly every vaccine except the mRNA ones do

Maybe they're expecting the vaccine to stop the transmission of the virus to others? Like how nearly every vaccine except the mRNA ones do

There wasn't a set of unvaccinated health care workers as a control so the science doesn't prove that TLDR. The fact that there was no severe symptoms is encouraging though.

I'm also very happy that studies like this are being done. We need a whole lot more studies looking at this, long term immunity with B and T-cells, and comparing neutralizing antibody levels between vaccinated and unvaccinated who have been infected but show little or no symptoms.

We have absolutely no idea because on May 1st the CDC stopped counting breakthrough cases that don't result in hospitalizations or death.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm

And then over 10000 deaths within days of the vaccine in the US alone? (CDC's own data) Those must be coincidence as well.

Using that logic, there's only a few hundred COVID deaths then. Everyone else died with COVID, not because of COVID.

Your post seems to ignore natural immunity completely. As in people who have had covid already and are immune, or already have cross reactive immunity from a coronavirus strain in a previous cold season.

This Doctor in the Wall Street Journal last month brings attention to herd immunity gained through previous infection.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-power-of-natural-immunity-1...

Cyberpolygon already? Thought we had at least a month or two

Sure, works for me. Stop PCR testing of the asymptomatic vaccinated. As long as you also stop testing asymptomatic people who have already had the virus and the asymptomatic unvaccinated.

Oh, you only want to stop testing and counting asymptomatic vaccinated? Sounds like another way to skew the numbers yet again to make vaccines look more effective than they are. Yet again you say? Yes:

-Just like in January when the WHO reminded test facilities if the symptoms don't match the PCR test results, you should re-test. Look at how much the case numbers dropped after that.

-Or in May when the CDC stopped counting breakthrough cases that didn't require hospitalization or deaths. So you can test positive, get sick but stay home, asymptomatically spread the virus to others. You could actually be a super spreader but nobody recognizes your case because you're invisible to the data being collected.

If the author gets their wish, Here's what's likely to happen: health authorities stop testing altogether for the vaccinated only (even though they can still contract, get sick from and spread COVID - albeit with less viral load so there's less of a chance of spread). Data will show that 100% of COVID cases comes from the unvaccinated. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated are asymptomatic, have very low possibility of transmission, but can still infect you and can still spread. But one group is accounted for in the data and one is invisible. Now does this sound like a good idea? It's anti-science quackery.

The author's other points are sound. Make this more about viral load than about detecting a single viral particle, I'm all about that. Without a change like this, the pandemic goes on forever they correctly observe.

Where was the author a year ago? Honestly a view like this would have probably been censored back then. There's still time to make common sense changes in testing like measuring viral load instead of searching for a single viral particle with a high cycle count. But not testing or tracking the vaccinated who can still spread is lunacy.

Sorry, I said "source" when I should have specified "medical study". Your link reads more like marketing towards vaccination fence sitters than actual science. That isn't your fault though, there just isn't science to share. Why? Because we don't have future traveling time machines.

There is something quite amazing about your link however. The piece (about long term side effects from vaccines) notes the polio vaccine from the 1950s. It somehow omits mentioning Simian Virus 40, the cancer causing virus that was found in the polio vaccine. This vaccine was given to 100 million children and its estimated that 10% to 30% of those doses were contaminated.

I'm sure the doctors assured their parents back then that there were no side effects and certainly laughed off any mention of long term side effects. The price to be paid for trust in these vaccines? Their children growing up to develop brain cancer in their 50s and 60s, decades after they were assured how safe they were.

>Those autoimmune conditions will either manifest in 90 days or they will not.

Source? For the long term autoimmune effects of these vaccines, that is.

No? Well that's because that information is unavailable because it hasn't been studied long term hence it can't be known.

There are no long term studies. Hence the reluctance of many to get vaccinated. So that quoted statement can probably be banished to the world of pseudoscience for now. Or post your sources from subjects unrelated to the COVID vaccine that make you think that.