and being vaccinated does not stop you from being infected or passing the virus to others

Ah yes, enter my sister who had the wonderful distinction of being a "breakthrough" case. For those just tuning in my sister is a 69 year old Caucasian woman and being the good little citizen she is got her vaccination and of course her booster. This was around March / April 2021 timeframe. Back in July both of my sisters decided to drive from Columbus, Ohio to Califon, New Jersey to visit an aunt. This venture placed them about 3 feet apart for 9 hours there and 9 hours back. Upon their return exactly one day after their return Cindy began feeling awful, really awful. No contact with anyone since their return. Actually she was 68 at the time, turned 69 in August. So she went to the doctor, got tested and sure enough tested positive. Being the good citizen she quarantined herself to her house for 14 days, just her and Tilly her dog. The sister who traveled with her? Nothing, nada absolutely no symptoms. They did mention that her positive test was likely the new strain. While she was miserable for a few days losing sense of smell and taste the symptom left as quickly as their onset.

So here is how this entire mess has played out. Initially the US Government told me that if I were vaccinated I would be safe from the COVID virus and that I would not be infected nor would I spread infection. That is what they screamed much like other governments. Oh my, enter a new strain which apparently nobody responsible figured could happen. OK, suddenly all bets are off. I figure I was lied to since the same guys pushing vaccination were now backpedaling with a new line to feed me. Forget the fact the first line was pure nonsense. However Dr. Fauci who had it all wrong was now selling more garbage. During 1972 as a naïve 22 year old I was sent to Vietnam by my government, I was told I was there to halt the spread of communism in a peaceful land. We know how that lie played out. Over 50,000 American lives lost and for what? I won't even get started on Afghanistan since while neither has to do with COVID both show an example of deceit and lies. I have seen the word fool tossed around in this thread. Well based on my own personal life experience anyone who places stock in what their government tells them without applying due diligence is a fool. Anyone who places stock in any government numbers less due diligence is a fool. There is no checks and balances, what you see is what you get so really how valid are those numbers?

My wife and I did get vaccinated after doing some homework and on the advice of out primary healthcare provider a doctor who we have come to trust for over 20 years now and who always got it right as to diagnosing our health issues. My grandfather was a doctor and a very good doctor. I had an agreement with him, he would not screw with the electricity in the old brownstone in Brooklyn, NY and I would not practice medicine. That worked out well. I listened to his advice because I placed my trust in him. Too bad I don't trust the US Government.

Much like anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for a lawyer anyone who places stock in what a government tells them is also a fool. People should be bright enough to make their own decisions and when in doubt place trust in those they trust. Sorry but based on experience I see anyone who places stock in what a government promulgates is a fool and deserves the consequences.

Because a successful nation with a growing economy and bright futures doesn't happen with a shrinking population.

While that is absolutely true about now all I see is a shrinking economy and inflation so what country are you speaking about? Pretty sure it is not the US. I also see endless "Help Wanted" signs.

Ron

 

ditto

 

So here is how this entire mess has played out. Initially the US Government told me that if I were vaccinated I would be safe from the COVID virus and that I would not be infected nor would I spread infection.

No, that is completely wrong. The CDC has always said the Pfizer and Maderna vaccines are 95% effective. For some reason, even engineers forget how to do math in biology class. 95% means 1 in 20 will get infected. Not might get infected, it means statistics are not wrong and 1 in 20 vaccinated people will get infected.

 

...
Much like anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for a lawyer anyone who places stock in what a government tells them is also a fool. People should be bright enough to make their own decisions and when in doubt place trust in those they trust. Sorry but based on experience I see anyone who places stock in what a government promulgates is a fool and deserves the consequences.
...
Ron

+1

I do make a distinction between political policy government and societal government. We were once both tools of government policy that knowingly lied and used disinformation, shocking, well not too shocking due to history. Only a fool would trust those guys at their word. Some lowly GS-1x at CDC in the collection and publishing of vital medical statistics works in societal government. Those people are just Joe's doing a honest days work. To intermix them (that vast majority of government workers) in some high official conspiracy of a vaccine cover-up is madness IMO.

 

No, that is completely wrong. The CDC has always said the Pfizer and Maderna vaccines are 95% effective. For some reason, even engineers forget how to do math in biology class. 95% means 1 in 20 will get infected. Not might get infected, it means statistics are not wrong and 1 in 20 vaccinated people will get infected.

And 95% of those infected will not need hospitalization, and of those hospitalized 95% will leave the hospital alive.

 

And 95% of those infected will not need hospitalization, and of those hospitalized 95% will leave the hospital alive.

Those are very good odds. Give me those odds on a craps table in Vegas, please.

 

No, that is completely wrong. The CDC has always said the Pfizer and Maderna vaccines are 95% effective. For some reason, even engineers forget how to do math in biology class. 95% means 1 in 20 will get infected. Not might get infected, it means statistics are not wrong and 1 in 20 vaccinated people will get infected.

To be fair they were really only quoting the numbers provided to them by the manufacturer. Further studies have already shown that efficacy drops dramatically over time. According to this Time article for example a single jab of Moderna wears down to something like 36% after 12 months or so. (And likely much sooner than that.)

 

To be fair they were really only quoting the numbers provided to them by the manufacturer. Further studies have already shown that efficacy drops dramatically over time. According to this Time article for example a single jab of Moderna wears down to something like 36% after 12 months or so. (And likely much sooner than that.)

No, read the article.
It says,

...people vaccinated within the last eight months had 36% fewer breakthrough infections than those who were vaccinated a year ago.​

for the people with mathematical abilities, it translates to (assuming breakthrough cases are 1%)...
People vaccinated a year may get 1% breakthrough cases. People vaccinated in the last 8 months would get 0.64% chance of a breakthrough case.

Do you see how 0.64% is 36% less than the 1% getting breakthrough cases? I realize math is hard and percentages of a percentage can be really confusing. But trying a little harder can get you a long way.

 

+1

I do make a distinction between political policy government and societal government. We were once both tools of government policy that knowingly lied and used disinformation, shocking, well not too shocking due to history. Only a fool would trust those guys at their word. Some lowly GS-1x at CDC in the collection and publishing of vital medical statistics works in societal government. Those people are just Joe's doing a honest days work. To intermix them (that vast majority of government workers) in some high official conspiracy of a vaccine cover-up is madness IMO.

Oh no, don't misunderstand me on this note. I am simply saying people should do their own due diligence on this and not take what any government tells them as gospel. That is assuming people are bright enough to decide things for themselves. Personally not being a medical type my choice, along with my wife and pretty much family was to take the advice of our doctors who we trust. I believe what is important is having confidence and trust in those whose advice we follow. I am just fine with the lowly GS employee doing their job and crunching numbers. It's those well above them I tend to distrust. Political affiliation matters not to me.

Ron

 

Oh no, don't misunderstand me on this note. I am simply saying people should do their own due diligence on this and not take what any government tells them as gospel. That is assuming people are bright enough to decide things for themselves. Personally not being a medical type my choice, along with my wife and pretty much family was to take the advice of our doctors who we trust. I believe what is important is having confidence and trust in those whose advice we follow. I am just fine with the lowly GS employee doing their job and crunching numbers. It's those well above them I tend to distrust. Political affiliation matters not to me.

Ron

By political I don't mean party, I mean

Politics: “Poli” a Latin word meaning many and tics meaning bloodsucking creatures.


Robin Williams

 

why do you think rest of the population is unwilling to get the shot?

Because they do not understand that being unvaccinated is like suicide.

 

No, read the article.
It says,

...people vaccinated within the last eight months had 36% fewer breakthrough infections than those who were vaccinated a year ago.​

for the people with mathematical abilities, it translates to (assuming breakthrough cases are 1%)...
People vaccinated a year may get 1% breakthrough cases. People vaccinated in the last 8 months would get 0.64% chance of a breakthrough case.

Do you see how 0.64% is 36% less than the 1% getting breakthrough cases? I realize math is hard and percentages of a percentage can be really confusing. But trying a little harder can get you a long way.

Fair enough. I misread the article. I'm still not entirely convinced mind you. I'll take a closer look at it when I have the time...

 

hi,
I ask people who will not get vaccinated why they wear a seat belt while travelling in a vehicle.

I get some strange ummm's and arrrr' s replies.

I remember when seat belts became law, people came up with all sorts of fanciful objections, now they will not travel without them.!

E

 

try another comparison...

nobody is wearing seat belts to protect others. they do it to protect themselves or their wallet (fines).
also wearing seat belt does not put anything in your body or make you (potentially) sick.

 

Because they do not understand that being unvaccinated is like suicide.

.

So why worry about it? Now taking ones life with reckless abandon is another story.

Ron

 

try another comparison...

nobody is wearing seat belts to protect others. they do it to protect themselves or their wallet (fines).

The company I consult are large enough that the health insurance companies are administrators, not really insurers. So all medical costs are re-billed to the company plus an administrative fee. One company will not pay for Covid-related illness for any employee or their family member after Jan 1 unless they have traceable proof of vaccination.

The Typical Covid hospitalization was $50k and the highest has been $1M. Is that enough incentive? A seatbelt ticket is about $50.

also wearing seat belt does not put anything in your body or make you (potentially) sick.

Things put in your body to make you sick..,? Do you mean like Ivermectin? Or do you mean like Covid-19 virus?

 

Do not put anything (the vaccine) in your body that will make you (potentially) sick.

You and all the other antivaxers understand it backwards. It is the virus that makes you sick without being vaccinated.
The vaccine reduces your possibility of catching the virus and reduces the symptoms a lot if you do catch it.

Medical experts say that 99% of Covid-19 cases that are hospitalized are unvaccinated people. The few vaccinated people who catch the virus have symptoms that are so minor that they do not know they have the virus.

 

Fair enough. I misread the article. I'm still not entirely convinced mind you. I'll take a closer look at it when I have the time...

Not "fair enough". You flat out spread mis-information because of laziness or ignorance. If you're going to have an opinion, put a bit effort into your "opinion" - stop the laziness.

 

Thanks for that comment. I refuse to accept this argument that “I will do research”. The sources that you have available like Dr Mercola and Joe Rogan are all well documented misinformation distributers. These folks have killed thousands of people with their lies. It’s time for this to stop. This disease could have been stopped more than a year ago but idiots have kept it going. Why?

 

Thanks for that comment. I refuse to accept this argument that “I will do research”. The sources that you have available like Dr Mercola and Joe Rogan are all well documented misinformation distributers. These folks have killed thousands of people with their lies. It’s time for this to stop. This disease could have been stopped more than a year ago but idiots have kept it going. Why?

How could it have been stopped a year ago? Look at countries that started vaccination early and where they are today. There is no end to this until our immune systems adapt population wide. Prior similar outbreaks show a cycle of up to 5 years and even longer. Vaccination may make this process slower, not faster (this is one theory as no one knows).

A comment on ivermectin (at least it wasnt called horse dewarmer) - there is very little harm in taking it (as per established protocols). What is interesting is that there is no quality study available to assess its effect. There are analysis of not very well run studies available that point to potential benefit. There is certainly no harm.

But why would CDC promote use of cheap existing potential prophylactic when 2 companies are introducing new treatments onto the market?