Who's had their second jab?
Re: Who's had their second jab?
Having my second stabbing on Sat 22nd, at 11 weeks, they have been pestering me from 8 weeks, but thought I'd hang it out for max benefit.
Re: Who's had their second jab?
This article is from 19 January 2021. The study showing reduced transmission that is cited above was published after that date.
Jonathan
Re: Who's had their second jab?
Re: Who's had their second jab?
No, of course it doesn't. That study found that the vaccine roughly halved transmission.
That's an enormous contribution to health and happiness. But only made by the people who accepted the invitation to be vaccinated.
Jonathan
Re: Who's had their second jab?
I'm "contesting":
1 Your denial that vaccination protects against death.
2 Your assertion that vaccination only "alleviates symptoms". 1503.
3 Your assertion that vaccination "doesnt stop you spreading it". 1438.
4 Your description of "sterile" vaccines. 1503.
Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 17 May 2021, 4:26pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Who's had their second jab?
I hate to point out the obvious, but you've just directly conceded three of those and the other by implicationJdsk wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 4:23pmI'm "contesting":
1 Your denial that vaccination protects against death.
2 Your assertion that vaccination only "alleviates symptoms".
3 Your assertion that vaccination "doesnt stop you spreading it"
4 Your description of "sterile vaccines".
Re: Who's had their second jab?
I don't know what you mean.
Is that because you think that it's only protection if it's 100%?
Jonathan
Is that because you think that it's only protection if it's 100%?
Jonathan
Re: Who's had their second jab?
Il try again, possibly for the last time, but who knows its a,dull afternoon
It's very good at stopping people from dieing, with the rider that only a very small % of people were in any real danger of death to start off with, or rather the attrition rate among the over 70s was huge, a lot less so for youngish people
However it's not very effective at either,stopping you from contracting it or passing it on, il accept it reduces it, by an unknown amount, you say 50% let's run with that
If your one of the people who cant have the vacines because you have,a compromised immune system, your still at serious risk of catching it from those who have had the vacine AND as you already have a,compromised immune system, a very real risk of being very seriously I'll if you do
Re: Who's had their second jab?
Thank you.
Agreed: the vaccine protects against death.
Since we're now agreed that vaccination protects other people from infection please could you remind us why you chose not to accept the offer?
Thanks
Jonathan
Agreed: the vaccine protects against death.
It's highly effective at protecting you from serious illness. Agreed?
OK. But I'd call that highly effective.
Since we're now agreed that vaccination protects other people from infection please could you remind us why you chose not to accept the offer?
Thanks
Jonathan
Re: Who's had their second jab?
I wonder if some people think too simplistically about the impact of a 50% spread reduction - i.e. they only see that they are 50% less likely to catch it from somebody else. But they overlook the broader picture that they can only catch it from somebody who has Covid and a 50% reduction means not only that they are 50% less likely to catch it from somebody with Covid but also that there will be far fewer people around with Covid to spread it in the 1st place .........Jdsk wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 5:11pm Thank you.
Agreed: the vaccine protects against death.
It's highly effective at protecting you from serious illness. Agreed?
OK. But I'd call that highly effective.
Since we're now agreed that vaccination protects other people from infection please could you remind us why you chose not to accept the offer?
Thanks
Jonathan
Ian
Re: Who's had their second jab?
Maybe, but we have been starve of assessment onfo from the beginningPsamathe wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 5:19pmI wonder if some people think too simplistically about the impact of a 50% spread reduction - i.e. they only see that they are 50% less likely to catch it from somebody else. But they overlook the broader picture that they can only catch it from somebody who has Covid and a 50% reduction means not only that they are 50% less likely to catch it from somebody with Covid but also that there will be far fewer people around with Covid to spread it in the 1st place .........Jdsk wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 5:11pm Thank you.
Agreed: the vaccine protects against death.
It's highly effective at protecting you from serious illness. Agreed?
OK. But I'd call that highly effective.
Since we're now agreed that vaccination protects other people from infection please could you remind us why you chose not to accept the offer?
Thanks
Jonathan
Ian
A 50% reduction sound impressive, but 50% of what chance of catching it in the first place
Re: Who's had their second jab?
I think you have confirmed my point above about not appreciating the complexity of how an e.g. 50% spread reduction actually affects the risk of catching the disease. It is far more involved that your individual chance of catching it from an infected person (as e.g. you chance of coming across an infected person is also reduced, etc.)jo' bo wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 5:26pmId call 50% the toss of a coin, I doubt many people would do many things if they only had a 50% chance of escaping unscaved, highly effective is not an adjective I'd use in that context, maybe slightly effective would be closer to the markJdsk wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 5:11pm Thank you.
Agreed: the vaccine protects against death.
It's highly effective at protecting you from serious illness. Agreed?
OK. But I'd call that highly effective.
Since we're now agreed that vaccination protects other people from infection please could you remind us why you chose not to accept the offer?
Thanks
Jonathan
And that's with out drilling down into the figures, it may be 50% effective with coughing in a supermarket queue, but not at all effective if you get up close and breath on your elderly mother and who going to take a 50% chance on killing their mother anyway
What we have agreed is that those with compromised immune systems are not save from me or from those who are vaccinated, the only safe course of action for them is to stay in and wear a mask, quite possibly for ever
Ian
Re: Who's had their second jab?
That 50% isn't the chance of you transmitting it to someone else. It's the reduction in the chance that you will.jo' bo wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 5:26pmId call 50% the toss of a coin, I doubt many people would do many things if they only had a 50% chance of escaping unscaved, highly effective is not an adjective I'd use in that context, maybe slightly effective would be closer to the markJdsk wrote: ↑17 May 2021, 5:11pm Thank you.
Agreed: the vaccine protects against death.
It's highly effective at protecting you from serious illness. Agreed?
OK. But I'd call that highly effective.
Since we're now agreed that vaccination protects other people from infection please could you remind us why you chose not to accept the offer?
As Ian observes halving transmission would be massively beneficial to the population.
Jonathan
Edited: Crossed with Ian's.
-
- Posts: 11041
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Who's had their second jab?
It reduces transmission to others by 50%. In epidemiological terms, that's huge.
...and I with yours Jonathan
...and I with yours Jonathan
Re: Who's had their second jab?
We have now seen a massive relaxation of NPI and are likely to see an end many more restrictions soon. Relaxation of NPIs make catching Covid more likely (even if you don't go to the pub because the person behind you in the supermarket queue may have been to the pub or their son was in the pub ...). Relaxation of rules means the chances of spread have to be reduced by other means or we'll quickly be outstripping Brazil or India (again). And vaccination is what does that (through the compounding effects or reduction in chances of catching it plus the reduction in risks of spreading it reducing the R value, etc. ...).
It's more complex that the way you are interpreting the 50% figure.
Ian