If 99.97 percent of people were fine but 0.03 died from ridiculous democrats policy?
Question to the unvaccinated
- Thread starter NashWarEagle
- Start date
Let me put this another way to see if my point becomes clearer.Yeah, it's a really hard thing to determine, but seroprevalence studies seem to indicate that a 20% guesstimate is not completely out of the question, especially considering that the antibodies these tests target are not always present even for those who have been infected and who have immunity. Some possibly relevant links below. I guess my main point is that a statement that we are nowhere close to herd immunity is not well supported and is somewhat speculative. We very well could be within 10-15% of that level. Even if not, we are swiftly headed there thanks to delta.
Estimated SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in the US
This cross-sectional study examines the prevalence of persons with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies across the US and changes from July to September 2020.jamanetwork.com
SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in US Patients Receiving Dialysis 1 Year After COVID-19
This cross-sectional study uses data from a dialysis organization in the US to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among patients receiving dialysis and to estimate the seroprevalence among the adult population 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic.jamanetwork.com
If you take all the vaccinated people of the equation, you're left with 20% - by an estimation - that may have had COVID and may have enough natural immunity from residual antibodies. That doesn't get us anywhere near herd immunity. Does it contribute some? Sure. But the numbers aren't high enough (or solid enough) to depend on it. What will get us there are people being vaccinated. If we're waiting/hoping on enough people catching COVID and having natural immunity to get there, we better settle in for a while because we'll be doing this same shit for another year. Does that make more sense?
What are you trying to say? I'm calling you a selfish asshole because you choose to bitch about politics instead of saving your entire family. Think about that. You have chosen to complain about politics (you mistakenly believe I'm a Democrat because I said the vaccine works?) Instead of saving your entire family. Can you give me any information about your family? I'd love to let them know you don't think they're worth saving, they need to know what a selfish asshole you are if they don't already
I'm not saving my entire family hypothetically because I do not believe the virus is a major threat. I just said if someone has an upper respiratory infection or the flu, I would stay away. I do not fear asymptomatic people that may or may not be covid positive. My family will be just fine with zero respect to covid. It's been 2 years. It's no big deal. If you think it's a big deal, you can get a free vaccine. Isn't that perfect? Why do you feel the need to call me an asshole? You're not being logical.
So, are you saying that you either know people that you've spoken to since yesterday, or you've polled most of the folks who said their sole reason for not getting vaccinated, was the FDA approval since yesterday, or you're full of stuffing and just rolling out pablum that'll get you some likes from drones???
I doubt you've spoken to a single person who was saying their ONLY reason for holding out was the lack of FDA approval.
First, the guy you're speaking to is demonstrably NOT an anti-vaxxer. He's taken all kinds of vaccines that are out there. Stop it. It's stupid to play the silly blame game trying to create peer pressure to get people to get vaccinated. Use logic, reason and rationale, and provide balanced information so that they can make an informed decision.
The rest of your post is pure crap if you really believe the decision to vaccinate or not is a reliable indicator of whether someone is selfish or not. Again, it's just another way of playing the silly blame game that some of you insist on playing, (and which is being encouraged by the narrative).
I will start here - the CDC has proven to be highly politicized and changed stances so often over the last year I can't take them seriously. No recommendation from them carries any weight with me at this point and frankly even there it's still a recommendation. I'm looking for actual scientific studies.
The health line report reference the CDC recommendation from a study of about 240 infected people from Kentucky and "reaches the opposite conclusion of a pre-print study the Cleveland Clinic released in July" which covered over 1300 infected patients. That study concluded the following -
In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity). Conclusions. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination".
So UChicago says "we're not sure" and "we're still learning" about the value of natural immunity. But we know about the effectiveness of vaccines so get one. Not a study cited.
And the science news article calls the vaccination "a leg up" for those previously infected and cites the CDC recommendation.
None of that is emphatic to me. Again, I have no issue with the vaccine. All three of my kids had covid and they still got vaccinated to go back to school. At some point, I bet I get vaccinated because I want to travel out of the country and don't feel like taking 28 tests coming and going and it may even be required. But I don't take any unnecessary drugs or shots. I don't get the flu shot, I don't take anything stronger than Tylenol/advil and even that is pretty damn rare. There is nothing definitive out there that says it is necessary for me, so I won't take it at this point because I consider the risk from covid for me to be greatly lower than the risk of simply getting out of bed in the morning and I'm happy to shoulder that risk until I absolutely have to get a vaccine for some other reason.
I want to be embarrassed for you but really I just hope you get the opportunity to realize how wrong you are, just like the many other people who's last dying wish was for their family to get vaccinated since they chose not to and are now dead because of it.
I already said I replied to a person yesterday who had previously stated we shouldn't be giving the team an unapproved vaccine. That person still believes the team shouldn't get the vaccine. I don't really know what else to tell you. Yes of course there are absolutely people who didn't trust the government last week and now still don't trust the government this week.
There is indeed increasing momentum to mandate that everyone take the new vaccine, and it's not the right thing to do. You simply cannot, (or at least, you SHOULD not), force someone to take something that is essentially experimental.
We all have our opinions on whether every human on earth should get vaccinated with one the mRNA vaccines, but NO ONE can articulate an iron-clad argument, making the case that we should FORCE anyone to get a treatment that we have NO DATA on for the mid-term or long-term, (so it's basically experimental).
Despite your position, everyone should recognize that even doctors and scientists who are recommending the vaccine can only use projection and hypothesis to advise, but it is NOT based on scientific fact since we have no actual data to support the opinion. Therefore, you just can't mandate that everyone take it, if you are of sound mind, being fair, and still able to use reason. We can get through this without reacting in a panicked, emotionally driven way that is not based on the BEST logic, rationale and reason, (and/or science).
you must have meant to respond to someone else b/c i have no idea what you are responding to in my post. hopefully you made a mistake and didn't actually type all that out to respond to me.
You can hope, but that's silly. There is no threat. I understand 0.03 percent of people are dying. But that's not counting the millions untested. You are an idiot if you think it's such a big deal you need to fight online. Look outside asshole. There's nothing going on. 800 people nationwide might die this week with co morbidities. That's not that bad. There's 300,000,000 people. Plus millions more undocumented immigrants.
You're an asshole, and a selfish stupid one at that. If you truly would not be interested at all in saving a family member from a disease, them you're even worse than just an asshole.
But since I've already engaged your dumbass, I'll ask follow-up questions. What diseases, if any, do you think are worth protecting your family from? If could guarantee someone in your family wouldn't die of cancer by taking a pill, would you want them to take that pill?
You're out on a limb buddy. Why are you so concerned with my hypothetical family? My real family is fine. You have mental issues. You're a sheep. They're using you. Stop being a government mouthpiece.
you are wasting your time with that dude...he almost got himself a permanent vacation to chile his first day here ranting about COVID not being a threat. he says such outlandish stuff that there was debate on whether or not he was trolling.
I asked a very serious question and I'd love to hear your response. What diseases do you think are worthy of a vaccine? Do you go to bed at night terrified of the measles? You got a vaccine for it so it must be a huge deal
Oh I'm very aware he's an idiot, I enjoy seeing idiots prove their idiocy
You are stupid. Don't put words in my mouth. PeRmAnEnT vAcAtIoN foh with that childish nonsense. Ignore it. I haven't engaged with anyone calling them a fvcking idiot. Do you know what I would do to someone in the street if they acted like their online persona? Stop being a fake p#### and let people be. I have my beliefs and you've done a poor job trying to scare me. It is no big deal period.
I do not give a fvck about hypothetical. If my family in real life dies. Too bad. I believe in God. I will see them soon. What is your mission? You're doing a poor job.
I used numbers in my original post. I assumed (incorrectly as stump pointed out) that 70% are vaccinated. If 20% of the rest have natural immunity, that would mean that 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.06 or 6% plus the other 70% = 76% immune, which is not very far away from the 80-85% herd immunity threshold for delta.
However, as stump pointed out, the 70% number is for adults. Only about 56% of the country overall is vaxxed, so the numbers would be 0.2 x 0.44 = 0.088 or 8.8% plus the other 56% gives about 65% currently immune. That is further off from the HIT, but still not a huge distance from it (IMO) and quickly shrinking every day with all the infections and (hopefully) vaccinations. And of course all these numbers, including the necessary HIT, are vague estimates. We could be better or could be worse by a decent amount. We just can't say with any certainty that we are "nowhere near" herd immunity.
What we can be more certain about is that there is no waiting/hoping needed to get to the HIT. No need to settle in. This delta variant is going to infect most everybody, regardless of precautions, and it is going to happen pretty quickly. Even a good many who are already vaxxed are going to get it. We're not going to be dealing with this a year from now regardless of what people do. Either the vaccines are going to get us to herd immunity or delta is. Anyone who doesn't believe infections are going to significantly contribute to herd immunity is either a lot more optimistic about people getting vaxxed or isn't paying attention to what is happening. The only reason it might not is if there truly turns out to be some seasonality to this thing and the number of infections starts dropping significantly. Of course, that is going to happen anyway as we approach the HIT.
I understand if I get the vaccine, the survival rate goes up to 99.99999, but 99 975 is good enough for me.
That wasn't a hypothetical question. Do you think measles is a hypothetical disease or something? Maybe you're just dumb. My mission was to find out what diseases you do think are worthy of a vaccine. If you have children you'll be forced to vaccinate them, so I'm curious about your thoughts on that
Not covid. That's my answer. If I was vaccinated for east Mississippi virus as a kid I guess it turned out good, but I wouldn't get it as an adult. There are actually vaccines made and properly tested. Covid vaccine is not one of them. It's actually the worst.
Hey fAUckface, take a breath. I don’t think ole buddy is selfish and I don’t care to play blame games. Was simply an observation.
You probably have the measles vaccine. If you have children, they'll get the measles vaccine. Before the measles vaccine existed, there were approximately 400-500 people that died per year of the measles. What is your opinion on the measles vaccine being required even though that disease was significantly less impactful than covid?
Additionally, no vaccine in history has had more test data available before approval than the covid vaccine. Saying it wasn't properly tested during approval is just factually incorrect, unless you believe there's never been a fully tested vaccine in history.
If the vaccine took more than a year to develop and nobody died from it or had a miscarriage, sure. I would wait a year or 2 then get it.
It's obvious for those who are looking at ALL of the clues, and smoke. The leading authorities have an agenda/desire for every person to take the mRNA vaccines. We've conveniently found ways to include every demographic to justify them saying, "You should be vaccinated"...., even those who have had COVID, and can prove that they have antibodies.
Any balanced, fair person who is still able to reason, and who have their eyes open, should understand that those with proof of antibodies SHOULD be counted towards herd immunity, and more importantly, treated the same as those who are fully vaccinated, IF the only goal is to see if we can get to herd immunity as soon as possible, (as that's NOT a guarantee). Give them a vaccine passport too, and be done with it.
The length of time argument is one posed by only the stupidest of people. The entire world came together to find a cure as quickly as possible and you think they should have slowed down because you're too insecure with your tiny brain to comprehend scientists working in tandem to accomplish a goal.
What would you do if the government told you they were going to put something in the water to help treat an infection disease. Would you drink that water?
Yes they should have slowed down. How could they have gotten any proper data? They have no idea of the long term or even short term effects. Why in the world can you still get covid after a shot? You need 2? Then a booster? And you can still get it? It's botched. Start completely over. We will be fine while we wait.
Slowing down would have killed more people you idiot. Some people literally would not be fine, they would literally be dead. So your idea is objectively a bad one. The measles vaccine has been given for 50 years and you can still get it after getting the vaccine. Should all vaccines require 50+ years of study before being given?
I asked a question about the government adding stuff to your water supply, what would be your response if they did that?
Whatever you're trying, I'm not participating. I've already told you idgaf about hypothetical. Try harder troll
This isn't a hypothetical. It actually happened. The government actually put stuff in your water to help make you healthier. You're just a sheep going along with drinking the governments poison water. You should stop drinking anything at all for a couple months to cleanse your system
Idgaf about flouride silly. I am not being kept out of establishments because of my choice in water fool.
The government one day decided they're going to put fluoride in your water. You are here saying you don't want a vaccine that isn't 100% effective even though you've already been given multiple vaccines that aren't 100% effective. You would whine like a little bitch if someone told you today they were adding something to the water to make it healthier. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You'd ask for 50 years of data and then ask why it's not 100% effective then piss your pants you were scared of what it might do to you
You're a pussy ass bitch that's afraid of a needle. End of story
Similar threads
