We have to get comfortable with fully vaccinated folks testing positive,' doctor says

[panjumbie]

The link below is New York data but I'd suspect it isn't that different in New Hampshire.

As of the most recent week's data you were about 80 percent less likely to catch COVID if vaccinated, and better than 90 percent less likely to be hospitalized.

This data lags by several weeks, so it remains to be seen what effect Omicron will have on breakthrough cases, but as of now, to say that being vaccinated does not protect you from catching COVID is incorrect. Does it completely protect you, no. No vaccine provides perfect protection. But if everyone were vaccinated and everyone wore masks, we'd be much better off

https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/co...akthrough-data

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by panjumbie

But if everyone were vaccinated and everyone wore masks, we'd be much better off

https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/co...akthrough-data

Done. End of story. The only thing I'd add is "and take other reasonable actions," which would simply include making good decisions about distance, where/when shopping, dining, etc. to the best of one's ability.

One more thing: an interviewee on NPR today shared the following (paraphrased): "1 in 100 older Americans have died from Covid. Would our approach to the virus have been different if those were children?"

She went on to discuss how cavalier many people are because it's "just" old people and that it's a sign of how Americans treat/value their elders.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Is there something that stops ''old'' people from getting their vaccination and booster shots? Wearing a mask when in a public place? Not going to a public place unless necessary? Not spending time in large crowds?

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Is there something that stops ''old'' people from getting their vaccination and booster shots? Wearing a mask when in a public place? Not going to a public place unless necessary? Not spending time in large crowds?

Define old?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

I didn't try to define it. The question posed was what if children were suffering and dying instead of ''old'' people would we consider/behave differently to the covid situation?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I didn't try to define it. The question posed was what if children were suffering and dying instead of ''old'' people would we consider/behave differently to the covid situation?

According to Sununu there are all age ranges represented except maybe the very youngest. He said this is no longer just an "old" people problem, at least considering the worst of the worst cases. The delta variant is much less discriminating.

[John Mercier]

The question came from NPR.
I believe their question was more focused on the perception of the virus being something that hospitalized and killed old people.

They wondered if it had hospitalized and killed children would we react differently under that perception... I believe the answer to be yes. But I believe that our different reaction as a society is the factor that children seldom make choices for themselves.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by ITD

According to Sununu there are all age ranges represented except maybe the very youngest. He said this is no longer just an "old" people problem, at least considering the worst of the worst cases. The delta variant is much less discriminating.

Although the risk now applies to all ages it is still predominantly older people that die. If you are old and unvaccinated your odds are very bad.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Define old?...

From one site showing age distribution of the deaths in the US (as of when the total was 797,000+), and another site showing distribution of ages in the US population, it appears that the 1 in 100 works for about ages 65 and older.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by panjumbie

The link below is New York data but I'd suspect it isn't that different in New Hampshire.

As of the most recent week's data you were about 80 percent less likely to catch COVID if vaccinated, and better than 90 percent less likely to be hospitalized.

This data lags by several weeks, so it remains to be seen what effect Omicron will have on breakthrough cases, but as of now, to say that being vaccinated does not protect you from catching COVID is incorrect. Does it completely protect you, no. No vaccine provides perfect protection. But if everyone were vaccinated and everyone wore masks, we'd be much better off

https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/co...akthrough-data

The CDC study found the same viral loads in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people... So if you can still catch it, you can still spread it! Time to accept this new reality and move on! I think our $$$ would be better spent developing medicines to treat the effects of Covid.

The issue nobody wants to talk about is how many vaccinated people have/had Covid but were asymptomatic or had such mild symptoms that they thought nothing of it? Expecting people to test & quarantine for 2 weeks every time they have a slight cough or a low fever is a bit much. People just aren't going to do that, especially the low income folks who are barely scraping by as it is. Despite a 55%+ vaccination rate we are seeing the same kind of numbers as we saw with a 0% vaccination rate. It cannot just be the unvaxxed spreading Covid.

When 30%+ of vaccinated people still catch Covid to the point of requiring testing & a medical diagnosis, then its time to stop calling them breakthrough cases.

Covid is NEVER going away and this is our new reality... No amount of masking/vaxxing/mandating is going to change this.

Woodsy

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Covid is NEVER going away and this is our new reality... No amount of masking/vaxxing/mandating is going to change this.

Woodsy

It is amazing how much time you spend posting misleading half truths, while being wrong on the most important points. Reminds me of a struggling baseball manager who wants to focus on the 8th batter in the lineup having a blister on his thumb.

Whether or not COVID is with us for a long time, we know that vaccines are extremely effective, have saved millions of lives, and that virtually everyone should get them.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Sure....these vaccines are the cat's meow....

As I've said before, any opposing view is always "misleading, half truths", bla, bla, bla. People are starting to wake up and realize that they were sold a pig in a poke.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

People are starting to wake up and realize that they were sold a pig in a poke.

This is an interesting notion, separate from the debate itself.

In 2019, some of us were certain that covid was no worse than the seasonal flu, and some of us thought it was a huge threat.

Today, pretty much the same group that thought covid was no big deal cast doubt on vaccines. Those who warned in 2019 that covid was a big deal promote vaccines today.

The data are in on both sides' 2019 predictions. I hope that encourages folks to get vaxxed (and boosted!)

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The CDC study found the same viral loads in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people... So if you can still catch it, you can still spread it! Time to accept this new reality and move on! I think our $$$ would be better spent developing medicines to treat the effects of Covid.

The issue nobody wants to talk about is how many vaccinated people have/had Covid but were asymptomatic or had such mild symptoms that they thought nothing of it? Expecting people to test & quarantine for 2 weeks every time they have a slight cough or a low fever is a bit much. People just aren't going to do that, especially the low income folks who are barely scraping by as it is. Despite a 55%+ vaccination rate we are seeing the same kind of numbers as we saw with a 0% vaccination rate. It cannot just be the unvaxxed spreading Covid.

When 30%+ of vaccinated people still catch Covid to the point of requiring testing & a medical diagnosis, then its time to stop calling them breakthrough cases.

Covid is NEVER going away and this is our new reality... No amount of masking/vaxxing/mandating is going to change this.

Woodsy

Therapeutics are more expensive than vaccinations. Because the person choosing to go the route of therapeutics seldom covers the costs... it becomes socialism at its finest.

That is why insurance companies have been promoting the flu vaccine for decades... it cost less than other options.

Collectively, we will feel this in our medical insurance premiums (mine went up 25%), our property taxes - as we have to cover all those county and municipal employees medical premiums, and less directly in business taxes as the State must cover their employees medical premiums, Medicaid, and aid to hospitals for those that cannot afford - and I use that term very loosely - to pay.

[TiltonBB]

Follow the science” has been the battle cry of lockdown supporters
since the Covid-19 pandemic began. Yet before March 2020, the
mainstream scientific community, including the World Health
Organization, strongly opposed lockdowns and similar measures
against infectious disease.

When the Wuhan region of China imposed harsh restrictions on Jan. 23, 2020,
Anthony Fauci questioned the move.
“That’s something that I don’t think we could possibly do in the United States,
I can’t imagine shutting down New York or Los Angeles, ” Dr. Fauci told CNN.
He likely had the scientific literature in mind when he advised that “historically, when you
shut things down, it doesn’t have a major effect.”

What caused the scientific community to abandon its aversion to
lockdowns? The empirical evidence didn’t change. Rather, the
lockdown strategy originated from the same sources the WHO had
heavily deprecated in its 2019 report: speculative and untested
epidemiological models.

In reality, lockdown stringency is a poor predictor of Covid-related
mortality. Our examination of the 50 U.S. states and 26 countries
found no discernible pattern connecting the two—a basic
expectation if lockdowns performed as “the science” often insists.
So why did public-health authorities abandon their opposition to
lockdowns? Why did they rush to embrace the untested claims of
flawed epidemiological modeling? One answer appears in the Johns
Hopkins study from 2019: “Some NPIs, such as travel restrictions
and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes
by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health
evidence.”

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Follow the science” has been the battle cry of lockdown supporters
since the Covid-19 pandemic began. Yet before March 2020, the
mainstream scientific community, including the World Health
Organization, strongly opposed lockdowns and similar measures
against infectious disease.

When the Wuhan region of China imposed harsh restrictions on Jan. 23, 2020,
Anthony Fauci questioned the move.
“That’s something that I don’t think we could possibly do in the United States,
I can’t imagine shutting down New York or Los Angeles, ” Dr. Fauci told CNN.
He likely had the scientific literature in mind when he advised that “historically, when you
shut things down, it doesn’t have a major effect.”

What caused the scientific community to abandon its aversion to
lockdowns? The empirical evidence didn’t change. Rather, the
lockdown strategy originated from the same sources the WHO had
heavily deprecated in its 2019 report: speculative and untested
epidemiological models.

In reality, lockdown stringency is a poor predictor of Covid-related
mortality. Our examination of the 50 U.S. states and 26 countries
found no discernible pattern connecting the two—a basic
expectation if lockdowns performed as “the science” often insists.
So why did public-health authorities abandon their opposition to
lockdowns? Why did they rush to embrace the untested claims of
flawed epidemiological modeling? One answer appears in the Johns
Hopkins study from 2019: “Some NPIs, such as travel restrictions
and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes
by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health
evidence.”

Even by your own high standards of smoke screens and distractions, you have outdone yourself here. No one has proposed a Wuhan-level lockdown here, or anyplace else other than China. They basically locked everyone in their apartments for months. Of course Dr Fauci said that he could not imagine that here. This is very different than some common sense location-specific measures

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Even by your own high standards of smoke screens and distractions, you have outdone yourself here. No one has proposed a Wuhan-level lockdown here, or anyplace else other than China. They basically locked everyone in their apartments for months. Of course Dr Fauci said that he could not imagine that here. This is very different than some common sense location-specific measures

From what I can see, what TiltonBB posted was from an article published in the WSJ. How can you attack him personally for posting what was published in the public domain? Are you on Fauci's payroll or something??

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

From what I can see, what TiltonBB posted was from an article published in the WSJ. How can you attack him personally for posting what was published in the public domain? Are you on Fauci's payroll or something??

That was not a personal attack. That was criticizing the piece he linked to. The WSJ opinion piece is grossly misleading. You might Google Wuhan lockdown. I think you would agree with Fauci that the approach they took in China would not work in the US.

OTOH--when you write "are you on Fauci's payroll", that would be a personal attack

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

That was not a personal attack. That was criticizing the piece he linked to. The WSJ opinion piece is grossly misleading. You might Google Wuhan lockdown. I think you would agree with Fauci that the approach they took in China would not work in the US.

OTOH--when you write "are you on Fauci's payroll", that would be a personal attack

You posted "Even by your own high standards of smoke screens and distractions, you have outdone yourself here" how is that not a personal attack?


Woodsy

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You posted "Even by your own high standards of smoke screens and distractions, you have outdone yourself here" how is that not a personal attack?


Woodsy

Eh, passing comment. Sort of like others' jibes like being sold a pig in a poke...or suggesting someone is living in fear...or any of the dozens of other small zingers that fly in both directions.

But I'm sorry to bother you with it. I hope you got a chance to check out the specifics on the Wuhan lockdown. It was horror show, and I really do think you'd agree with Fauci that we would not want that here.

[Winnisquamer]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I hope you got a chance to check out the specifics on the Wuhan lockdown. It was horror show, and I really do think you'd agree with Fauci that we would not want that here.

You mean we don’t want communism here? Oh we 100% agree, unfortunately though It’s coming….

[fatlazyless]

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-res...hree-waves.htm says the third and final wave of the 1918 flu came in winter, 1918.

It makes me wonder if New Hampshire will ride it big, a contagious third wave, like a hot-shot snowboarder flying through the OMICRON air, or what? ... up - down - up - down - up .... .... is it coming baaack, or what??? ...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...vid-cases.html ...... 'Tracking Coronavirus in New Hampshire: Latest Map and Case Count'

Dec 22, 2021: 4-pm; Gov Chris Sununu video on Covid ..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=X44BU22OGW8 ..... about 6-minute brief take from 55-minutes

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Winnisquamer

You mean we don’t want communism here? Oh we 100% agree, unfortunately though It’s coming….

It would need to go through the Reserve Army of Labor Theory.
That was the theory that Engel created that Marx (who was a sociologist) used to create socialistic economic theory (socialism) and then the two combined to work on communism. Communism requires socialism and a political class that is beyond the scope of the people led by a leader that does not answer to the people and largely cannot be removed.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

That was not a personal attack. That was criticizing the piece he linked to. The WSJ opinion piece is grossly misleading. You might Google Wuhan lockdown. I think you would agree with Fauci that the approach they took in China would not work in the US.

OTOH--when you write "are you on Fauci's payroll", that would be a personal attack

That was not a personal attack - it was a legitimate question.

Hey TiltonBB...I got the PM, but for some reason I can't access the PM function of the website / forum. Regardless, I concur! Merry Christmas to you and your family. SP

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Even by your own high standards of smoke screens and distractions, you have outdone yourself here. No one has proposed a Wuhan-level lockdown here, or anyplace else other than China. They basically locked everyone in their apartments for months. Of course Dr Fauci said that he could not imagine that here. This is very different than some common sense location-specific measures

Had China locked down Wuhan when they first had knowledge of Covid... we would not be in this mess!

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Therapeutics are more expensive than vaccinations. Because the person choosing to go the route of therapeutics seldom covers the costs... it becomes socialism at its finest.

That is why insurance companies have been promoting the flu vaccine for decades... it cost less than other options.

Collectively, we will feel this in our medical insurance premiums (mine went up 25%), our property taxes - as we have to cover all those county and municipal employees medical premiums, and less directly in business taxes as the State must cover their employees medical premiums, Medicaid, and aid to hospitals for those that cannot afford - and I use that term very loosely - to pay.

If you want to discuss the money angle.... we are in agreement! Vaccines are cheaper than any other treatment available today. This is absolutely the primary reason they are being pushed! Nobody wants to pay for a hospital visit! They are very effective at keeping you out of the hospital! Unfortunately, that is where their effectiveness ends.

Woodsy

[fatlazyless]

http://www.twitter.com/NoSpinNews/st...83120601403400 ..... is definitely expected that both Trump and O'Reilly have received a covid booster vaccination.

.... .... does not say if it is a second or third shot but my guess is its a third and maybe even a fourth shot ..... only their hairdresser knows for sure? ....

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

If you want to discuss the money angle.... we are in agreement! Vaccines are cheaper than any other treatment available today. This is absolutely the primary reason they are being pushed! Nobody wants to pay for a hospital visit! They are very effective at keeping you out of the hospital! Unfortunately, that is where their effectiveness ends.

Woodsy

And that is all vaccines are supposed to do... lower the odds of you getting seriously sick by priming your natural immune system.