Vaccine or not?

#3,101
#3,101
bamawriter said:
You: The shows a problem with the vaccine.
Disagreeing Poster: You can't actually say that without knowing how many were vaccinated.
You: Yes I can.
Disagreeing Poster: You can't, because the more people that are vaccinated, the higher the percentage of cases will come from the vaccinated population.
You: None of it matters because Covid isn't a big deal.

You refuse to address the issue with the case you're making. Instead of trying to do so, you jump to Covid as a whole. But you can't say that Covid as a whole isn't a problem while also saying that cases amongst the vaccinated are.
Click to expand...
So lets forget that before the vax was a thing Covid effected 10% of the population...where was the focus...was it 10% or the 90%? It was the infected...so we focus on the infected....now with the vax you want move the goalposts back to the 49.6% that is vaxed...showing its effectiveness..while completely ignoring that those infected the numbers are equalizing with vaxed and unvaxed...and will trend towards the vax as it grows......so while you say only a smaller % of vaxed are infected proves vax effectiveness...i say the % of those infected show the vax is not needed...which i have the same argument that those infected are the focus other wise 90% of the population whi werent effexted proved a vax wasnt needed....
 
#3,102
#3,102
RockyTop85 said:
What % of the staff is vaccinated?
How many employees vs. how many confirmed cases?

You need those numbers for that statement to have any meaning. They could have 10,000 employees, 99% of whom are vaccinated, and only 70 cases. (So 14% of unvaccinated employees have cases while only .6% of unvaccinated people.

Or they could have 25% of employees vaccinated and have 1000 cases. So then you’ve got 800 cases coming from 2500 vaccinated employees.

One is newsworthy and concerning. The other is the vaccine working. Both have 80% infection rates among vaccinated employees.
Click to expand...

Did you read the story? They were reporting on two separate hospitals in SF.

As of August 2, 55 staff members out of over 7,000 staffers at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital are COVID-19 positive, and none of the infected staff have required hospitalization, a hospital spokesperson confirmed to Fox News. ABC7 reported that up to 80% of those infected were fully vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Center reported at least 183 infections among "employees or learners" out of 35,000 people, with 84% of cases in people who completed a full vaccination series and two vaccinated individuals infected with COVID-19 required hospitalization, the outlet reported.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#3,105
#3,105
bamawriter said:
It's only a problem if the vaccinated population doesn't heavily outweigh the unvaccinated population. If 90% of the 7,000 are fully vaxxed, then the fact that 44 out of 6300 fully vaxxed people got sick is not at all worrisome.
Click to expand...
Here is the issue. This vaccine was originally sold to people as a way to prevent from getting COVID. Those are the facts. Now, there is now a spin going around that the vaccine was NEVER sold as a way to prevent it, but we all know that is false. So the fact that we have as many breakthrough cases as we do is a matter of concern. The goalposts have been moved and it muddies the message.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol, NorthDallas40, Matt2496 and 3 others
#3,106
#3,106
RockyTop85 said:
You have a hypothetical group of 1000 people. 998 of them are vaccinated. There are 10 outbreak cases. 80% of the outbreak cases are among vaccinated people. You still concerned?
Click to expand...
..it would concern considering whats happening now is a pandemic of the unvaxed.
..
I was never concerned about a virua that infexted 10% of the population and most of that elderly...were you concerned then??
 
#3,110
#3,110
Rasputin_Vol said:
Here is the issue. This vaccine was originally sold to people as a way to prevent from getting COVID. Those are the facts. Now, there is now a spin going around that the vaccine was NEVER sold as a way to prevent it, but we all know that is false. So the fact that we have as many breakthrough cases as we do is a matter of concern. The goalposts have been moved and it muddies the message.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your argument as to how it was sold. It was never presented as guaranteed prevention. No vaccine has ever been able to offer such a guarantee. It was presented as effective at preventing infection, and even more effective at preventing serious outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinMichigan, ohhbother and MAD
#3,111
#3,111
RockyTop85 said:
You have a hypothetical group of 1000 people. 998 of them are vaccinated. There are 10 outbreak cases. 80% of the outbreak cases are among vaccinated people. You still concerned?
Click to expand...
You are ignoring his premise.

Of your 1000, only 100 get sick without the vaccine. Are you concerned?
 
#3,113
#3,113
LouderVol said:
You are ignoring his premise.

Of your 1000, only 100 get sick without the vaccine. Are you concerned?
Click to expand...

Again, this doesn't provide enough context. 100 unvaccinated out of 1000 total cases may not be sufficiently notable. However, if 85% of the total population is vaccinated, and 100 cases come of the remaining 15%, that's very worrisome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAD
#3,114
#3,114
whodeycin85 said:
..it would concern considering whats happening now is a pandemic of the unvaxed.
..
I was never concerned about a virua that infexted 10% of the population and most of that elderly...were you concerned then??
Click to expand...

Okay. If that’s what you’re going with on the numbers approaching 100%, I’m good with leaving it at that.

Based on that, I don’t really care what you’re concerned about or whether you believe me about how statistics work.

Either you’re being intentionally misleading or you’re unintentionally deflating the efficacy of the vaccine with irrelevant statistics in your own personal analysis of risks and benefits. Assuming it’s the latter, you owe it to yourself and any dependents to try to understand why you’re wrong and see whether it changes your analysis as to your own best course of action.

For me, yes, the situation pre-vaccine was concerning.
There is significant evidence that the vaccine has been effective at producing the results that an informed person would have expected and that a prudent person would desire from a vaccine.
Whether that efficacy reduces the risks to a level that it’s no longer a concerning situation remains to be seen, but I’m going to do that evaluation in a way that makes sense and suggest that you do, too.
 
#3,116
#3,116
RockyTop85 said:
Okay. If that’s what you’re going with on the numbers approaching 100%, I’m good with leaving it at that.

Based on that, I don’t really care what you’re concerned about or whether you believe me about how statistics work.

Either you’re being intentionally misleading or you’re unintentionally deflating the efficacy of the vaccine with irrelevant statistics in your own personal analysis of risks and benefits. Assuming it’s the latter, you owe it to yourself and any dependents to try to understand why you’re wrong and see whether it changes your analysis as to your own best course of action.

For me, yes, the situation pre-vaccine was concerning.
There is significant evidence that the vaccine has been effective at producing the results that an informed person would have expected and that a prudent person would desire from a vaccine.
Whether that efficacy reduces the risks to a level that it’s no longer a concerning situation remains to be seen, but I’m going to do that evaluation in a way that makes sense and suggest that you do, too.
Click to expand...
So for you pre vax 10% was you focus...the infected right??? So now when I focus on the same thing the infected but after vax...its intentionally misleading...hello kettle....your intentionally contributing to a vax push and misleading info...Focus has always been on infected numbers.

And now that those infected are majority fully vaxed even tho the smaller majority of population ia still unvaxed..rings hollow...you either focua on infected or you focus on population has a whole...anything is playing with stats....constantly moving the argument proves you have no valid argument...mine always been that 90% of the population has no issues...if that improves because of vax. Fine...great it was still not needed..
If your focus on the infected then you need be worried that those infected are becoming more and more fully vaxed
 
#3,119
#3,119
bamawriter said:
Again, this doesn't provide enough context. 100 unvaccinated out of 1000 total cases may not be sufficiently notable. However, if 85% of the total population is vaccinated, and 100 cases come of the remaining 15%, that's very worrisome.
Click to expand...
I think he’s saying, hypothetically, in a world where nobody has the vaccine, only 100 people get sick vs only 10 in a world with the vaccine.

I’m not sure where the idea that it only infects 10% of unvaccinated people comes from.
 
#3,120
#3,120
bamawriter said:
Biden is an idiot. But anyone who is not an idiot and can read the English language would not believe that statement.
Click to expand...
Obviously, I wouldn't expect 100 effectiveness nothing is perfect. But there are far too many of these instances now, even you have to admit, that can make anyone say that the vaccine is effective at anything significant.
 
#3,121
#3,121
whodeycin85 said:
So for you pre vax 10% was you focus...the infected right??? So now when I focus on the same thing the infected but after vax...its intentionally misleading...hello kettle....your intentionally contributing to a vax push and misleading info...Focus has always been on infected numbers.

And now that those infected are majority fully vaxed even tho the smaller majority of population ia still unvaxed..rings hollow...you either focua on infected or you focus on population has a whole...anything is playing with stats....constantly moving the argument proves you have no valid argument...mine always been that 90% of the population has no issues...if that improves because of vax. Fine...great it was still not needed..
If your focus on the infected then you need be worried that those infected are becoming more and more fully vaxed
Click to expand...
This is hard to read. I never focused on 10% of anything. I said the situation before the vaccine was concerning. It was. I don’t know where the 10% is coming from.
 
#3,122
#3,122
Rasputin_Vol said:
Obviously, I wouldn't expect 100 effectiveness nothing is perfect. But there are far too many of these instances now, even you have to admit, that can make anyone say that the vaccine is effective at anything significant.
Click to expand...

It is simply not true that the vaccine is not effective at anything. Why are you so dedicated to this bad faith argument?

Look at the numbers in the UK for July compared to January. That is evidence of a vaccine that is effective at reducing hospitalizations and death among infected people. Arguably it’s evidence of a vaccine that’s effective at reducing rates of infection, but I don’t know enough about delta variant to say that definitively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, VolinMichigan, bamawriter and 1 other person
#3,123
#3,123
bamawriter said:
Biden is an idiot. But anyone who is not an idiot and can read the English language would not believe that statement.
Click to expand...
But that disproves what you said about the vaccine not being sold as a way to prevent getting COVID. I'm certain that Biden wasn't the only one preaching this at the time, either. These guys all stay on message and on a script.
 
#3,124
#3,124
RockyTop85 said:
I think he’s saying, hypothetically, in a world where nobody has the vaccine, only 100 people get sick vs only 10 in a world with the vaccine.

I’m not sure where the idea that it only infects 10% of unvaccinated people comes from.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that's come from the fact that there have been roughly 35 million confirmed cases in the US. So, roughly 10% of the population.
 
#3,125
#3,125
RockyTop85 said:
This is hard to read. I never focused on 10% of anything. I said the situation before the vaccine was concerning. It was. I don’t know where the 10% is coming from.
Click to expand...
Lets scale it down...so lets say prevax 10 in 100 got infected...your focus was on those 10 people....so then the vax comes. And lets say 50 outta those 100 get the vax...now 10 people have become infected and 8 of those were fully vaxed....you now wanna focus on 8 outta 50 instead of 10 outta 100 like you did originally and ignore the 2 outta 50 that were unvaxed....your changing your focus....your focus should be on the 10 infected as it was before
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top