Vaccination Status Is Meaningless
The CDC have confirmed that there are 1000s of cases of fully vaccinated people who have nevertheless become Covid-Positive, who have been infected with Covid and who have had symptoms. Many were hospitalised and some died. [1]
These are referred to as "Breakthrough Cases" which might sound like something wonderful (i.e. wow we've had a breakthrough !!) but it isn't. It means Covid broke through the vaccination protection.
The CDC has reports of 5814 Breakthrough cases though obviously this will be a very TINY subset of the true number out there. We have already seen throughout the pandemic that the vast majority of people DO NOT report their illnesses and instead just deal with them at home themselves. This is why in the UK for example the Government reports the number of "Confirmed Cases" as 4.3m when in fact we know that the TRUE number of cases that have occurred is around 30 million (42% of the population [2]).
So we can be sure that there must be magnitudes more Breakthrough cases that just the 5814 that have been reported.
What is more interesting and important is to see the NATURE of those Breakthrough cases.
Remember these are fully vaccinated people.
The CDC says that:
7% of them resulted in the vaccinated person being hospitalised (though some were hospitalised for reasons not related to Covid)
1% of them resulted in the vaccinated person dying (though 12% or less of that 1% didn't die directly from Covid)
ONLY 29% of the Breakthrough Cases were asymptomatic
What this means then is that 71% of Covid infections in vaccinated people have symptoms. That in turn means they could spread their germs to other people.
I think this is significant because it essentially means that Vaccination Status, as any kind of restrictive / sanitary measure, is a misnomer.
Vaccination clearly does not guarantee that a person can't or won't spread Covid, but most already knew that I think.
Vaccination doesn't guarantee that a person won't still get Covid though it does prevent them getting serious Covid illness in the main.
So really what use is vaccination status as any kind of societal control mechanism? It's patently useless and any restriction of life activities and liberties based on vaccination status is clearly highly flawed and wrong and discriminatory against the naturally immune demographic who are likely far safer people than the vaccinated.
A bigger worry here is that many vaxxed people have this preconceived notion that once they are vaxxed they can't get Covid. They don't know about these 1000s of Breakthrough cases.
So when they get ill, and start getting symptoms, they are likely to convince themselves that they just have a bit of a cold or Flu, especially if it coincides with winter Flu season. Those people might therefore still go out and about spreading Covid virus to others instead of dutifully self-isolating.
Bottom line for me is that requiring people to be vaccinated to undertake travel or activities (like say cinemas or theatres or concerts) is a total nonsense and has no basis in science.
Vaccination is no guarantee of anything, except that the vaccinee will most likely be spared getting serious Covid illness.
Any restriction of societal freedoms/activities should only be done (if at all!) on the basis of LEVELS OF IMMUNITY rather than on the basis of just vaccination. People with "Levels of immunity" will and must include BOTH the naturally immune and the vaccinated.
Either way however I still don't condone such Orwellian dystopian restrictions because they would also discriminate against Covid-negative people.
Anyone who does not have Covid, who is Covid negative, can not be a threat to anyone else.
Hence in the end TESTING is the only true and accurate way to determine which people represent a risk.
Vaccination cards are essentially worthless bits of paper.
I certainly would not want to take the risk of sitting next to a fully vaccinated person as they could easily be spreading Covid. I would want to know reliably if they were Covid-positive or not.
Sources:
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html
[2] - https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19220824.covid-herd-immunity-reached-within-days-uk/
These are referred to as "Breakthrough Cases" which might sound like something wonderful (i.e. wow we've had a breakthrough !!) but it isn't. It means Covid broke through the vaccination protection.
The CDC has reports of 5814 Breakthrough cases though obviously this will be a very TINY subset of the true number out there. We have already seen throughout the pandemic that the vast majority of people DO NOT report their illnesses and instead just deal with them at home themselves. This is why in the UK for example the Government reports the number of "Confirmed Cases" as 4.3m when in fact we know that the TRUE number of cases that have occurred is around 30 million (42% of the population [2]).
So we can be sure that there must be magnitudes more Breakthrough cases that just the 5814 that have been reported.
What is more interesting and important is to see the NATURE of those Breakthrough cases.
Remember these are fully vaccinated people.
The CDC says that:
7% of them resulted in the vaccinated person being hospitalised (though some were hospitalised for reasons not related to Covid)
1% of them resulted in the vaccinated person dying (though 12% or less of that 1% didn't die directly from Covid)
ONLY 29% of the Breakthrough Cases were asymptomatic
What this means then is that 71% of Covid infections in vaccinated people have symptoms. That in turn means they could spread their germs to other people.
I think this is significant because it essentially means that Vaccination Status, as any kind of restrictive / sanitary measure, is a misnomer.
Vaccination clearly does not guarantee that a person can't or won't spread Covid, but most already knew that I think.
Vaccination doesn't guarantee that a person won't still get Covid though it does prevent them getting serious Covid illness in the main.
So really what use is vaccination status as any kind of societal control mechanism? It's patently useless and any restriction of life activities and liberties based on vaccination status is clearly highly flawed and wrong and discriminatory against the naturally immune demographic who are likely far safer people than the vaccinated.
A bigger worry here is that many vaxxed people have this preconceived notion that once they are vaxxed they can't get Covid. They don't know about these 1000s of Breakthrough cases.
So when they get ill, and start getting symptoms, they are likely to convince themselves that they just have a bit of a cold or Flu, especially if it coincides with winter Flu season. Those people might therefore still go out and about spreading Covid virus to others instead of dutifully self-isolating.
Bottom line for me is that requiring people to be vaccinated to undertake travel or activities (like say cinemas or theatres or concerts) is a total nonsense and has no basis in science.
Vaccination is no guarantee of anything, except that the vaccinee will most likely be spared getting serious Covid illness.
Any restriction of societal freedoms/activities should only be done (if at all!) on the basis of LEVELS OF IMMUNITY rather than on the basis of just vaccination. People with "Levels of immunity" will and must include BOTH the naturally immune and the vaccinated.
Either way however I still don't condone such Orwellian dystopian restrictions because they would also discriminate against Covid-negative people.
Anyone who does not have Covid, who is Covid negative, can not be a threat to anyone else.
Hence in the end TESTING is the only true and accurate way to determine which people represent a risk.
Vaccination cards are essentially worthless bits of paper.
I certainly would not want to take the risk of sitting next to a fully vaccinated person as they could easily be spreading Covid. I would want to know reliably if they were Covid-positive or not.
Sources:
[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html
[2] - https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19220824.covid-herd-immunity-reached-within-days-uk/
(edited 3 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Napp
The thing is, how do you intend to prove tis bar mandating daily tests? Which seems a touch more 'orwellian'..
TBH personally I wouldn't be worried about it, just as we've never previously worried about people carrying and spreading Flu, or Norovirus or any other bug. It's part of life. As far as you know the next time you go to the supermarket the person next to you might have traveled from Africa and have eBola. You never previously worried about that or wanted anyone tested at the door for eBola. Every winter we see thousands of cases of winter vomiting bugs. Those bugs can and do kill weaker vulnerable people but we've never worried about them before. We all just take our chances. We take our own precautions because at the end of the day we are all responsible for our own health.
For some people those precautions take the form of vaccines. For others they take the form of living a healthy lifestyle, eating good foods, rejecting bad foods, not smoking, not drinking excessively, not taking drugs, not getting obese and so on and facing bugs and viruses head on to thereby gain strong natural immunity going forward. Each to their own.
This is always going to be the case and any notion that actually we should be medically screening everyone all the time is frankly absurd. There are perhaps some specific cases where it's important to screen people. Astronauts going to the space station for example. But do we really need to be constantly screening everyone just to take a 2 hour flight or a 2 week cruise?
Personally I say no but it's clear that the globalists are hell bent on ushering in digital ID using the pandemic as the excuse.
If people HAVE to be tested then they should be tested for the presence of Covid at that moment in time and also tested to establish if they have levels of immunity gained either from Covid itself or from vaccination. But that's not really a world I want to see. The whole move towards using "sanitary status" to establish digital ID and control is a dystopian nightmare.
In my view, everyone should make their decision whether to get vaxxed or not. Once done they should be happy with their choice and get on with their lives and not be concerned with what anyone else has chosen to do. If they want to get on a plane then just get on a plane and don't be concerned about anyone else as you've made your choice as to how you want to deal with Covid.
(edited 3 years ago)
Obviously vaccination status is meaningless just as vaccination passports are. And unnecessary.
There is nothing one must have to prove when it comes to vaccines. Humans can survive and be very well without vaccinations. That's how the human species has survived over hundred of thousands of years.
Those who believe in the principle of mandatory vaccinations or vaccination passports and vaccine certificates are just buffoons.
There is nothing one must have to prove when it comes to vaccines. Humans can survive and be very well without vaccinations. That's how the human species has survived over hundred of thousands of years.
Those who believe in the principle of mandatory vaccinations or vaccination passports and vaccine certificates are just buffoons.
Original post by Napp
The thing is, how do you intend to prove tis bar mandating daily tests? Which seems a touch more 'orwellian'..
The State just has to abandon any idea of vaccination or Covid Status. As if Covid is the most lethal virus that our species has come across. Covid is not Ebola or the Spanish Flu.
Its mortality rate is very low although it's very infectious. However given the number of vaccinations and the natural immunity developed over the past year or so, there is no need for any of these 'proofs' and certificates.
Bonanza for the Pharmaceutical Companies these vaccines. This is where my mind goes...
I think this is a bit skewed in terms of statistics.
According to (Admittedly limited) data, your first vaccination is a coin flip - 50% chance - Of providing protection to COVID. The second one ups it to a 90% chance of protection.
What that means is that there SHOULD be people still getting seriously sick and dying of COVID. Just far... Far less. This in turn will allow THEM to pass on fewer infections.
A 90% protection is not a 100% protection. There will still be people affected.
According to (Admittedly limited) data, your first vaccination is a coin flip - 50% chance - Of providing protection to COVID. The second one ups it to a 90% chance of protection.
What that means is that there SHOULD be people still getting seriously sick and dying of COVID. Just far... Far less. This in turn will allow THEM to pass on fewer infections.
A 90% protection is not a 100% protection. There will still be people affected.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
I think this is a bit skewed in terms of statistics.
According to (Admittedly limited) data, your first vaccination is a coin flip - 50% chance - Of providing protection to COVID. The second one ups it to a 90% chance of protection.
What that means is that there SHOULD be people still getting seriously sick and dying of COVID. Just far... Far less. This in turn will allow THEM to pass on fewer infections.
A 90% protection is not a 100% protection. There will still be people affected.
According to (Admittedly limited) data, your first vaccination is a coin flip - 50% chance - Of providing protection to COVID. The second one ups it to a 90% chance of protection.
What that means is that there SHOULD be people still getting seriously sick and dying of COVID. Just far... Far less. This in turn will allow THEM to pass on fewer infections.
A 90% protection is not a 100% protection. There will still be people affected.
However, vaccinations together with natural immunity which is underplayed a lot in the media, do eventually reduce significantly the number of infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. But there can be no expectation of zero Covid, or zero infections, or 100% protection from vaccines. The expectation should be a significant reduction on all the above discussed. Which is the case.
Original post by Bushyasta
However, vaccinations together with natural immunity which is underplayed a lot in the media, do eventually reduce significantly the number of infections, hospitalisations, and deaths. But there can be no expectation of zero Covid, or zero infections, or 100% protection from vaccines. The expectation should be a significant reduction on all the above discussed. Which is the case.
Yes. Thank you for clarifying my statement.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
What that means is that there SHOULD be people still getting seriously sick and dying of COVID. Just far... Far less. This in turn will allow THEM to pass on fewer infections.
A 90% protection is not a 100% protection. There will still be people affected.
A 90% protection is not a 100% protection. There will still be people affected.
Yep. Which is why any notion of mandated vaccinations or mandated vaccination passports is a complete nonsense and should be opposed.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
Yep. Which is why any notion of mandated vaccinations or mandated vaccination passports is a complete nonsense and should be opposed.
No vaccine should be mandatory.
However, unless your back is twisted by polio it seems a very disingenuous argument to say that vaccines are nonsense.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
I think this is a bit skewed in terms of statistics.
According to (Admittedly limited) data, your first vaccination is a coin flip - 50% chance - Of providing protection to COVID. The second one ups it to a 90% chance of protection.
What that means is that there SHOULD be people still getting seriously sick and dying of COVID. Just far... Far less. This in turn will allow THEM to pass on fewer infections.
A 90% protection is not a 100% protection. There will still be people affected.
According to (Admittedly limited) data, your first vaccination is a coin flip - 50% chance - Of providing protection to COVID. The second one ups it to a 90% chance of protection.
What that means is that there SHOULD be people still getting seriously sick and dying of COVID. Just far... Far less. This in turn will allow THEM to pass on fewer infections.
A 90% protection is not a 100% protection. There will still be people affected.
Indeed. The "A 90 % effective vaccine is not providing 100% protection!!!!" seems one of the most pointless arguments I have seen in some time.
Incidentally, the effectiveness of a single dose varies with type, and can is between 52% with Pfizer, 64% with Astra-Zeneca, and 80% with Moderna.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
No vaccine should be mandatory.
However, unless your back is twisted by polio it seems a very disingenuous argument to say that vaccines are nonsense.
However, unless your back is twisted by polio it seems a very disingenuous argument to say that vaccines are nonsense.
Are they the same?
Are they now saying that Covid vaccines will stop you catching it? Last I read ( and I haven't been following it that closely) was that it doesn't prevent you catching it but it stops you getting a bad case of it.
I never got polio because my jab stopped me getting it, not reduced how bad it was.
My daughters never got mumps measles or rubella because the MMR jab stopped them getting it, not reduced how bad it was.
Original post by ThatOldGuy
No vaccine should be mandatory.
However, unless your back is twisted by polio it seems a very disingenuous argument to say that vaccines are nonsense.
However, unless your back is twisted by polio it seems a very disingenuous argument to say that vaccines are nonsense.
Never said vaccines were nonsense. Strange that you make that statement.
Vaccine passporting is a nonsense
From the BBC website
Most vaccines don't fully protect against infection, even if they can block symptoms from appearing. As a result, vaccinated people can unknowingly carry and spread pathogens. Occasionally, they can even start epidemics.
"Effective" or "sterilising" immunity
There are two main types of immunity you can achieve with vaccines.....
One is so-called "effective" immunity, which can prevent a pathogen from causing serious disease, but can't stop it from entering the body or making more copies of itself.
The other is "sterilising immunity", which can thwart infections entirely, and even prevent asymptomatic cases. The latter is the aspiration of all vaccine research, but surprisingly rarely achieved.
Most vaccines don't fully protect against infection, even if they can block symptoms from appearing. As a result, vaccinated people can unknowingly carry and spread pathogens. Occasionally, they can even start epidemics.
"Effective" or "sterilising" immunity
There are two main types of immunity you can achieve with vaccines.....
One is so-called "effective" immunity, which can prevent a pathogen from causing serious disease, but can't stop it from entering the body or making more copies of itself.
The other is "sterilising immunity", which can thwart infections entirely, and even prevent asymptomatic cases. The latter is the aspiration of all vaccine research, but surprisingly rarely achieved.
5814 cases from 130,000,000 people vaccinated? Using vaccines that don't guarantee immunity?
This is a classic case of why figures should be expressed in proportions.
It is the norm in science. It's a skill taught at GCSE level.
It is not the norm among conspiracy cranks on the internet who deliberately and dishonestly attempt to misrepresent data to give a false sense of alarm.
This is a classic case of why figures should be expressed in proportions.
It is the norm in science. It's a skill taught at GCSE level.
It is not the norm among conspiracy cranks on the internet who deliberately and dishonestly attempt to misrepresent data to give a false sense of alarm.
Original post by Contested Claim
5814 cases from 130,000,000 people vaccinated? Using vaccines that don't guarantee immunity?
This is a classic case of why figures should be expressed in proportions.
It is the norm in science. It's a skill taught at GCSE level.
It is not the norm among conspiracy cranks on the internet who deliberately and dishonestly attempt to misrepresent data to give a false sense of alarm.
This is a classic case of why figures should be expressed in proportions.
It is the norm in science. It's a skill taught at GCSE level.
It is not the norm among conspiracy cranks on the internet who deliberately and dishonestly attempt to misrepresent data to give a false sense of alarm.
The same applies to the data and interpretations given at an official level where Covid was promoted from a low mortality disease to the Spanish Flu and the Bubonic Plague.
The misinterpretation of data is not s trait that can be attributed only to cranks and conspiracy theorists.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
Never said vaccines were nonsense. Strange that you make that statement.
Vaccine passporting is a nonsense
Vaccine passporting is a nonsense
I extrapolated from you saying that 'Mandated vaccines' were nonsense.
But I may have misinterpreted. If you weren't saying vaccines were nonsense, then you must have been saying the 'Mandatory' part was nonsense. You could claim that it was tyrannical, but 'Nonsense'?
If I was wrong about your stance on vaccines, I'm very puzzled. Can you confirm how making it mandatory lessens its effectiveness?
Original post by ThatOldGuy
I extrapolated from you saying that 'Mandated vaccines' were nonsense.
But I may have misinterpreted. If you weren't saying vaccines were nonsense, then you must have been saying the 'Mandatory' part was nonsense. You could claim that it was tyrannical, but 'Nonsense'?
If I was wrong about your stance on vaccines, I'm very puzzled. Can you confirm how making it mandatory lessens its effectiveness?
But I may have misinterpreted. If you weren't saying vaccines were nonsense, then you must have been saying the 'Mandatory' part was nonsense. You could claim that it was tyrannical, but 'Nonsense'?
If I was wrong about your stance on vaccines, I'm very puzzled. Can you confirm how making it mandatory lessens its effectiveness?
Yep you appear confused and your statement was expressed without the "word" mandatory which is why is was wrong.
The point being made here, and indeed the very subject of the thread, is not remotely about whether vaccines are good, bad or indifferent. The thread is about the use of someone's "vaccination status" as a way of determining that person's perceived threat or safety to other people. That is the aspect that is a nonsense. The vaccines are what they are. They are not 100% effective which means a significant number of people will be poorly protected, at best 1 in every 20 vaccinated but it could be 1 in 10 in some cases and even worse than this.
Thousands of Breakthrough cases highlight that fully vaccinated people can and do still get symptomatic Covid.
Therefore any notion of restricting people's activities and freedoms based on their vaccination status is simply a nonsense, is wrong and should be opposed imo.
TBH I don't really understand why you have any confusion in regards to what I am saying here, it's a fairly straightforward concept.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Contested Claim
5814 cases from 130,000,000 people vaccinated?
Sigh
No it's not 5814 cases. That's just a tiny subset of the real number of Breakthrough Cases. As I explained in my post.
UK Government website still lists Covid cases as just 4.3 million and that's because what they are counting is just a TINY subset of the true number of cases. They are talking only about the "Confirmed cases" the ones where people reported their illness to a GP or hospital etc. We now know that in fact there have been around 30 million cases or more in the UK, not 4.3 million.
Thus in similar fashion the fact that the CDC has details of 5814, "Reported Cases" in no way means that's how many there actually are. The true number will be many multiples of that.
Original post by Bushyasta
The State just has to abandon any idea of vaccination or Covid Status. As if Covid is the most lethal virus that our species has come across. Covid is not Ebola or the Spanish Flu.
Its mortality rate is very low although it's very infectious. However given the number of vaccinations and the natural immunity developed over the past year or so, there is no need for any of these 'proofs' and certificates.
Bonanza for the Pharmaceutical Companies these vaccines. This is where my mind goes...
Its mortality rate is very low although it's very infectious. However given the number of vaccinations and the natural immunity developed over the past year or so, there is no need for any of these 'proofs' and certificates.
Bonanza for the Pharmaceutical Companies these vaccines. This is where my mind goes...
Except the vaccines are tending to be sold at cost, at least for the most part. After all, vaccines have never been a money spinner as opposed to a load of useless prophylactics. The common cold being a case in point there.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Gf mad over liking someone's picture
- Chinese students at bristol
- Help with Dual Nationality and Residential Category in UCAS application!!!!!
- Child Nursing
- Clearing at DMU: Student Perspective
- Full mark Tissue poetry essay, feel free to ask questions :)
- The aerospace engineering at Uni of Bristol on hold me
- Covid 19 vaccine
- Immunity testing & getting childhood vaccines as an adult
- Unable to get MenACWY vaccine before uni
- Pre-Acceptance Medicine Survey Help
- Do student vets/vet nurses have to have the rabies vaccine?
- Blood tests for occupational health?
- Malaria vaccine for children
- COVID vaccines as a NHS worker
- occupational health live vaccines adult nurse degree
- (Official) St George's, University of London A100 Offer Holders 2023 Entry
- COVID vaccination for medical application
- British passport holder, British citizen, Live in EU. Need student loan for home fees
- Ocr A Gcse Physics Paper 1 j249/03 25 May 2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
