Covid Passports - Yay or ney?

[Emcon Ecomcon]

Ah, you’re moving the goalposts, then accusing me of ad-homs. Highlighting how your poor use of English makes it difficult to understand your question is not an ad-hom attack, simply an explanation as to why I might be misunderstanding your question.

An ad-hom attack would be asking you to tell Yuri and Vanya, your script writers, to stop drinking the hand-sanitiser. However, this is a serious forum, so I wouldn’t do that.

I didn’t avoid your question; it didn’t make sense so I answered as best I could. I said the answer was “unknown”. I haven’t seen anything showing virus loading in the reinfected (or (“unvaccinated people who had covid in tbe last 12 months” to use your rather clumsy phrase). My gut-feeling is that will have a superior immune response that the unvaccinated who haven’t had covid before but an inferior response to those who have been vaccinated. But that is purely speculation by me, so “unknown” is a fairer answer.

Now, as I’ve answered your question, would you kindly answer mine:

Do you disagree with the following three statements:

Science has shown that vaccines reduce the chances of catching covid.
Science has shown that vaccines reduce the chances of severe covid if you do catch covid.
Science has shown that vaccines reduce the chances of you spreading covid.

Yes, with the caveat it will only last 12 weeks.
Yes, with the caveat the question of whether you needed the vaccine, or already had enough protection.
No, they're do not reduce the chances of spreading covid.. As a person infected by any virus can spread it for up to two weeks and knocking two days or lets say even a week, still leaves the other 7 -12 days to infect people.

 

[gaijin]

To me its a personal responsibility

Wrong. You have a responsibility to the rest of society as well.

 

[headgear]

Wrong. You have a responsibility to the rest of society as well.

you need to go to Tower Hamlets in London and shout at them mate - just watch out though, because they will call you racist because a massive chunk of the non vaxxed are ethnic and a lot of them work in the NHS - you can helpfully point out their lack of responsibility to the rest of society and I'm sure they will swiftly roll up their sleeves for you!

Third of people in London have not had any jabs

A third of Londoners are completely unvaccinated, as a surge of Omicron cases sweeps the capital.The proportion of the population without a single jab is three

www.thetimes.co.uk

London Covid vaccine uptake is so bad these boroughs have worst rates in the UK

London is the least-vaccinated place in the UK and Omicron is spreading rapidly through the city

www.mylondon.news

 

[Carl1960]

Digital ID cards Funny Boris was opposed to ID cards when thy tried to introduce them a few years ago.

 

[exbleep]

Yes, with the caveat it will only last 12 weeks.
Yes, with the caveat the question of whether you needed the vaccine, or already had enough protection.
No, they're do not reduce the chances of spreading covid.. As a person infected by any virus can spread it for up to two weeks and knocking two days or lets say even a week, still leaves the other 7 -12 days to infect people.

Who do you want to believe? New Scientist?
People who are fully vaccinated against covid-19 are far less likely to infect others, despite the arrival of the delta variant, several studies show. The findings refute the idea, which has become common in some circles, that vaccines no longer do much to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

“They absolutely do reduce transmission,” says Christopher Byron Brooke at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Vaccinated people do transmit the virus in some cases, but the data are super crystal-clear that the risk of transmission for a vaccinated individual is much, much lower than for an unvaccinated individual.”

A recent study found that vaccinated people infected with the delta variant are 63 per cent less likely to infect people who are unvaccinated.

CDC? WHO? Carlos III Institute? Oxford University? NHSA? Uni of California?
All of whom say much the same as the above. Some a bit more succinct

The study shows that people who become infected with the Delta variant are less likely to pass the virus to their close contacts if they have already had a COVID-19 vaccine than if they haven’t

I think I'd rather believe those rather than some armchair virologist on the interweb thingy.

 

[headgear]

this is what can happen when the govt over eggs their fear campaign

 

[baboon6]

this is what can happen when the govt over eggs their fear campaign

Jesus Christ

 

[CutLunchCommando]

Jesus Christ

You said it. There's none of the fight video actually shown in that and the narrator doesn't half like the sound of his own voice.

 

[lastwalt]

No, they're do not reduce the chances of spreading covid..

As a ”numbers guy”, how do you square the statement above, with the statement below (from the same post)?

As a person infected by any virus can spread it for up to two weeks and knocking two days or lets say even a week, still leaves the other 7 -12 days to infect people.

Are you really still trying to double down on your bollox by claiming that an infected, vaccinated person can infect the same number of people in one week as an unvaccinated, infected person would in two weeks?

Even without taking into account the reduced viral load in the vaccinated that is clearly a ridiculous assertion.

 

[Trackpen]

Digital ID cards Funny Boris was opposed to ID cards when thy tried to introduce them a few years ago.

Who’s talking about digital ID cards?
The Covid pass is nothing more than a certificate proving you have been vaccinated.
Bugger all to do with ID.

 

[CutLunchCommando]

'On average' is not science, but statistics. So the factors are many and depends on the viral load and how well the vaccine works, when you get covid and if its within the 12 weeks since your last boost and crucially to what extent, a person already has some residual natural immunity, or is older, or has pre-existing conditions.

But science is messy and complicated, because were all different. Much better to have a simple narrative that is wholly at odds with the truth, but somewhat right in statistical terms. A vaxed family would all be affected at different points and from the first infected person in a household, to the last in a family or friends could stretch over several weeks.

In principle, an unvaxed person may have some residual natural immunity and if they're haven't had covid and over 50 they're are risking their own lives, but little else.

You are a sucking chest wound on the body of Rationality. Scientists use statistics because things are messy and complicated. Statistics are used to talk about groups of people because they different, because they fall in different places on axes like age.

Why is you vaccinated family a family and your unvaccinated person single by the way?

 

[CutLunchCommando]

As a ”numbers guy”, how do you square the statement above, with the statement below (from the same post)?


Are you really still trying to double down on your bollox by claiming that an infected, vaccinated person can infect the same number of people in one week as an unvaccinated, infected person would in two weeks?

Even without taking into account the reduced viral load in the vaccinated that is clearly a ridiculous assertion.

With a bit of effort?

Yeah, probably.

 

[lastwalt]

With a bit of effort?

Yeah, probably.

I’ve sussed it now, as the infected vaccinated is a whole family, while the unvaccinated is an individual, so clearly the vaccinated family will infect more people, so there.

Yes, I wrote that using Emcon grammar.

 

[Bladesman]

Its nothing like 2% for total covid infections vs Deaths. Many people were unaware of ever having covid. So of those people with symptoms and having a positive test, its probably something like 0.1 to 0.4%. For over 50s, the rate rises by decades to 10% for over 80s needing hospitalisation and then only a factor of that dies. Easily two thirds of the death figures are of people admitted to hospital for something else and then subsequently tested positive for covid, before dying and the presented data is being made intentionally alarmist.

The Government is the pinnacle of the managerial class and their job is to keep the NHS functioning efficiently and use fear to get their way, with the entire focus on protecting the NHS. I'm not interested in the merits of that view, but many of the Rebels in the Commons are right to start questioning one sides science consensus, when other sides exist and democracy is about challenging authority, something many people don't grasp.

P.S.
On lying, I give you the twitter ban on the science fact, that a vaccinated person can spread covid just as well as an unvaxed person.

I have no argument over the rights and wrongs of your detailed summation.
My comments were based on the global statistics provided by the organisation that I quoted.

The 2% death rate on global deaths, however reliable the reports are, seem to be provided by a reasonable source, using information supplied by whatever means is available to them.
In other words, it’s fairly consistent statistic of the worst case scenario, taken over time. A Global snapshot if you like.
It cannot mirror your more immersive, or localized analysis, nor is it meant to.The fact remains that as many as two in every hundred cases, could possibly lead to death on a global basis The variables that depend on such results are impossible to calculate.
My comments are not given to dispute your ,more detailed opinion, just to emphasize the global nature of the topic.

 

[exbleep]

I’ve sussed it now, as the infected vaccinated is a whole family, while the unvaccinated is an individual, so clearly the vaccinated family will infect more people, so there.

Yes, I wrote that using Emcon grammar.

Fail. You didn't put apostrophes or commas in inappropriate places.
It should be
"Ive susse'd it, now as the infected vaccinated i's a whole's family whils't the un'vaccinated. isan individual so. clearly, the vaccinate'd family will infect more people's, so there."

No charge.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

As a ”numbers guy”, how do you square the statement above, with the statement below (from the same post)?


Are you really still trying to double down on your bollox by claiming that an infected, vaccinated person can infect the same number of people in one week as an unvaccinated, infected person would in two weeks?

Even without taking into account the reduced viral load in the vaccinated that is clearly a ridiculous assertion.

Be it one week/1.5 weeks infectious (vaccinated) versus 2 weeks (unvaccinated) it doesn't matter, because if your infectious, you will infect other people be it at home or a passported event.

We have testing to detect infectious people, so their is no real need for passports unless they're will become a permanent feature of life. Eventually, even those passports will start having things bolted onto them and you and others may salivate over living in a fascist state, but I and others strongly disagree.

 

[lastwalt]

Be it one week/1.5 weeks infectious (vaccinated) versus 2 weeks (unvaccinated) it doesn't matter, because if your infectious, you will infect other people be it at home or a passported event.

Yes, you will infect other people, but if you are infectious for twice the length of time, you will potentially infect twice as many people. If you have twice the viral load, you will infect twice as many people.

Summary: If you shed twice as much virus for twice as long you cannot be described as having the same rate of transmission, numbers guy.

We have testing to detect infectious people, so their is no real need for passports unless they're will become a permanent feature of life.

For this to work, we would have to test everyone every day. Can you suggest a practical way to do this?

Eventually, even those passports will start having things bolted onto them and you and others may salivate over living in a fascist state, but I and others strongly disagree.

This is simply rhetoric with no basis in fact. It is interesting that you trust the Tories so little that you believe that they wish to take us towards being a fascist state.

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

Yes, you will infect other people, but if you are infectious for twice the length of time, you will potentially infect twice as many people. If you have twice the viral load, you will infect twice as many people.

Summary: If you shed twice as much virus for twice as long you cannot be described as having the same rate of transmission, numbers guy.


For this to work, we would have to test everyone every day. Can you suggest a practical way to do this?


This is simply rhetoric with no basis in fact. It is interesting that you trust the Tories so little that you believe that they wish to take us towards being a fascist state.

Only takes a minute to infect someone else and you seem to see 2-3 days knocked off 14 days as statistically important. When in actuality, its what your doing in those 10-14 days that matter !

People vaccinated are fairly open in doing it, so they're can go outside. I would argue that the vaxxed from a behavioral standpoint are probably more likely to infect others, than someone who is unvaxxed because they're think themselves now not infectious and good eggs.

On the tories, they're are the liberal party in disguise with a smattering of a 100 odd real tories. So, I could see the tories quite happily voting in an enabling act, so long as the BBC tells them its ok.

 

[lastwalt]

Only takes a minute to infect someone else and you seem to see 2-3 days knocked off 14 days as statistically important. When in actuality, its what your doing in those 10-14 days that matter !

how many minutes are there in the additional time? Revising it down from a week to 2-3 days still means more onward transmission, especially when the higher viral shedding is considered.

People vaccinated are fairly open in doing it, so they're can go outside. I would argue that the vaxxed from a behavioral standpoint are probably more likely to infect others, than someone who is unvaxxed because they're think themselves now not infectious and good eggs.

moving the goalposts to behavioural science, rather than discussing transmissibility. It seems to me that by default, those who consider vaccination unnecessary are exactly those people who consider other preventative measures, such as face coverings, unnecessary.

On the tories, they're are the liberal party in disguise with a smattering of a 100 odd real tories. So, I could see the tories quite happily voting in an enabling act, so long as the BBC tells them its ok.

They can’t even get there sht in one sock sufficiently to all vote for “Plan B”, but whatever, I’m sure whatever party your controller would like to see in power would do it better

 

[Emcon Ecomcon]

how many minutes are there in the additional time? Revising it down from a week to 2-3 days still means more onward transmission, especially when the higher viral shedding is considered.


moving the goalposts to behavioural science, rather than discussing transmissibility. It seems to me that by default, those who consider vaccination unnecessary are exactly those people who consider other preventative measures, such as face coverings, unnecessary.

They can’t even get there sht in one sock sufficiently to all vote for “Plan B”, but whatever, I’m sure whatever party your controller would like to see in power would do it better

If someone attends any social event or go to work whilst infected, they're will infect others. Working from home is probably far more effective to stopping the spread than your precious 2-3 days.

When have I suggested vaccines are unnecessary ? invoking strawman arguments, is the classic sign you get what I'm saying but just don't want to acknowledge it and I will shut up for my own sanity and no longer comment.