Herd Immunity in the US out of Reach

[ivinsfan]

“Well said.

The vaccine has side effects and can cause problems, sometimes even death.
So no one should get the vaccine.”

Not exactly what you were thinking, was it.

That is why making absolute requirements with no wiggle room for free choice is always a bad position.

The vaccines exist, they appear to work against covid. However they do sometimes cause issues.

We as a society should respect those that do not want the vaccine for whatever reason. Herd immunity does not require 100%, heck 50% would be good enough.

Those that choose not to get it are the ones taking the risk. So let them.

The vaccine sometimes cause issues, what issues are referring to exactly? I'm really curious about the people it killed.

 

[kjpliny]

Of course you would have to stand in line with all the other people rapid testing which in it's self is a transmission vector. Since I have a vaccination card would I be able to skip that line?

I would say yes, provided that you can prove that your vaccination prevents possible transmission. So far, I have not seen evidence or claims that a vaccinated person can't acquire the virus or pass it on to someone else, only that their chances of fighting it are greatly improved.

 

[kjpliny]

The vaccine sometimes cause issues, what issues are referring to exactly? I'm really curious about the people it killed.

You can download the Adverse Events data from the government website.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

I have done this and filtered the data in Excel. I recommend everyone do the same and perform their own review of the information.

 

[ivinsfan]

I would say yes, provided that you can prove that your vaccination prevents possible transmission. So far, I have not seen evidence or claims that a vaccinated person can't acquire COVID, only that their chances of fighting it are greatly improved.

How about the chances of a vaccinated person transmitting Covid? why don't you do a little looking on that one. Which argument are you using here? That the vaccine too experimental or that it doesn't work?



I'll go back to my DH's classic quote "you don't have to tell me why you don't want one"

 

[RAE]

This is interesting because it assumes that over 60 million people had Covid symptoms and didn't get tested. That seems high. So the number would be top end 115 million not 120 plus...

Not quite correct. If you recall, lots of people were getting COVID back in Feb/March/April of 2020, when the virus was brand new, and testing for it was not even available (or available only at a very few locations across the country). So there were undoubtedly LOTS of people who had the disease but simply could not get tested. Even after the test became more widely available, people who had flu-like symptoms were being advised to stay home and NOT come to the doctor or emergency room unless they were having serious trouble breathing. Lots of those folks eventually recovered from COVID without being tested also. I have no trouble believing the 120 million number, and it could even be higher.

 

[Aerides]

Those that choose not to get it are the ones taking the risk. So let them.

Wish that it were only that simple. But most news on this topic makes it clear. Viruses like to mutate. Given enough hosts, it will continue to mutate, potentially becoming more of a risk to those of us with 95% protection from the current iterations. Potentially mutating itself right around the vaccine.

So yeah, a fully vaccinated person still has some risk, with a big fat question mark on what that risk is going to look like in another 6 or 12 months.

 

[ivinsfan]

You can download the Adverse Events data from the government website.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

I have done this and filtered the data in Excel. I recommend everyone do the same and perform their own review of the information.

Give me the Cliff notes, how many people has the Covid vaccine killed? I'm getting the vibe that this isn't just about you not getting vaccinated...remember it's a personal choice.

 

[kjpliny]

How about the chances of a vaccinated person transmitting Covid? why don't you do a little looking on that one. Which argument are you using here? That the vaccine too experimental or that it doesn't work?

I'll go back to my DH's classic quote "you don't have to tell me why you don't want one"

Reduced, but not eliminated:

"The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated in the setting of continued widespread community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still become infected and spread the virus to others. "

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

 

[flintnational]

You can download the Adverse Events data from the government website.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

I have done this and filtered the data in Excel. I recommend everyone do the same and perform their own review of the information.

Here is the disclaimer from the link you provided.

"VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases." (emphasis added)

 

[ivinsfan]

Not quite correct. If you recall, lots of people were getting COVID back in Feb/March/April of 2020, when the virus was brand new, and testing for it was not even available (or available only at a very few locations across the country). So there were undoubtedly LOTS of people who had the disease but simply could not get tested. Even after the test became more widely available, people who had flu-like symptoms were being advised to stay home and NOT come to the doctor or emergency room unless they were having serious trouble breathing. Lots of those folks eventually recovered from COVID without being tested also. I have no trouble believing the 120 million number, and it could even be higher.

This is true since we don't really know when Covid made its appearance, but I guess 5 million one way or the other won't make a big difference to herd immunity we have to assume quite a few of the 60 million untested also got vaccinated which makes murky for herd immunity numbers.

 

[ivinsfan]

Reduced, but not eliminated:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

I'll take those odds any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[kjpliny]

Give me the Cliff notes, how many people has the Covid vaccine killed? I'm getting the vibe that this isn't just about you not getting vaccinated...remember it's a personal choice.

As I said, the data is available to anyone who would like to view and analyze it. It would be impossible to claim how many people died as a direct result of the vaccines because these are reports from individuals and healthcare professionals. Reports of deaths are in the thousands but this does not mean that all, or even most, are caused by the vaccinations.

You have to consider a lot of things while reviewing the data, including the person's age and health history, comorbidities, the number of days following vaccination and serious adverse events, the development of symptoms reported over time, and the likelihood that some of those events might have happened anyway. This a grey area, which is why the CDC advises that the database be used more for adverse event trending than for cause and effect analysis. I found it to be a valuable resource.

 

[euro]

='

We as a society should respect those that do not want the vaccine for whatever reason. Herd immunity does not require 100%, heck 50% would be good enough.

Those that choose not to get it are the ones taking the risk. So let them.

If those who don't take the vaccine strictly quarantine, distance, mask, etc, then fine, but often those are the same people who also feel it is up to them to decide whether to use protective measures or not.

The problem is that it your last statement is plain wrong. Frankly, I'm not concerned about the risk to YOUR health per se - I'm concerned about the risk you pose to those people who legitimately cannot be vaccinated (cancer patients, for example). With "YOUR" decision, you put them at risk because you could well be spreading virus without having symptoms.

 

[RAE]

For everyone who is "weighing the risks", let me just say this: You have every right to risk your own life and health. You do not have the right to risk the lives and health of others. Only one of your two choices does not risk the life and health of others, and you know which one that is.

I have to respectfully disagree with this, Gumby. Using me as an example, I have already had COVID, some months ago (I recovered completely). Based on quite a few scientific studies I have read, it is extremely likely that I have the T-cells and B-cells that give me a good measure of protective immunity. The moderators have asked for citations when statements like this are made, so here are a few that I believe support what I am saying (there are others out there also):


https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.11.20171843v2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-00902-8


Based on our current level of understanding of COVID, and COVID-induced immunity, I do not believe I am in any way risking the health and lives of others when I interact with them. It's even possible that I am less of a risk to others than those that have NOT had COVID, but have received the vaccine (not saying this is true, only that the science has not advanced to the point where we know about whether the virus can be transmitted to others from those that have either had COVID already, or have been vaccinated). In either of the above cases, though, it seems likely that the risk of transmission to others would be very, very low.



However, since the science is evolving, and since I do not want to endanger those that I interact with (which are not many, by the way) - if I am invited to a gathering with others, I do let them know that I am not vaccinated, so they can decide for themselves whether they want to be near me or not. If they don't, I'm okay with that..........I take no offense at all. As I said, I have very limited interaction these days with people outside of my immediate family, and I do not go to bars, restaurants, churches, or other indoor gatherings.


I suspect that, within the next 5-6 months or so, we will be reaching the "tipping point" in many areas across the U.S., where the virus is unable to find very many new hosts, and so COVID cases should drop dramatically. This is already happening in some areas..........NY, NJ, Conn, and parts of California. That should happen as a result of both vaccinations and the number of people who have already had COVID.


I have no problem with those that choose to get this vaccine - that is your personal choice. My personal choice is to not get the vaccine at this time, and I would hope that others would respect that choice.

 

[ivinsfan]

As I said, the data is available to anyone who would like to view and analyze it. It would be impossible to claim how many people died as a direct result of the vaccines because these are reports from individuals and healthcare professionals. Reports of deaths are in the thousands but this does not mean that all, or even most, are caused by the vaccinations.

You have to consider a lot of things while reviewing the data, including the person's age and health history, comorbidities, the number of days following vaccination and serious adverse events, the development of symptoms reported over time, and the likelihood that some of those events might have happened anyway. This a grey area, which is why the CDC advises that the database be used more for adverse event trending than for cause and effect analysis. I found it to be a valuable resource.

Well I guess we don't need to ask you what you do all day... you started posting saying it's a personal choice to get vaccinated, but I'm getting a big whiff of something else going on here. I'm unabashedly pro-vaccine and will tell anyone that right from the get go.

 

[Gumby]

“Well said.

The vaccine has side effects and can cause problems, sometimes even death.
So no one should get the vaccine.”

Not exactly what you were thinking, was it.

That is why making absolute requirements with no wiggle room for free choice is always a bad position.

The vaccines exist, they appear to work against covid. However they do sometimes cause issues.

We as a society should respect those that do not want the vaccine for whatever reason. Herd immunity does not require 100%, heck 50% would be good enough.

Those that choose not to get it are the ones taking the risk. So let them.

As many have pointed out, vaccine refusers are risking catching COVID and then passing it on to others, so they are not the only ones at risk. And if they're hoping that sufficient other people will get vaccinated to achieve herd immunity without their contribution, then they are freeloaders. So, no, we absolutely do not have to respect those that would endanger others while trying to freeload.

In the end, if you want to refuse vaccination, that's your decision. But don't expect not to be judged for that decision.

Edit to add: I had not seen RAE's post when I posted the above. Recovered people with immunity are in a different situation. For clarity, I am referring to vaccine refusers who have not had Covid already.

 

[ivinsfan]

I have to respectfully disagree with this, Gumby. Using me as an example, I have already had COVID, some months ago (I recovered completely). Based on quite a few scientific studies I have read, it is extremely likely that I have the T-cells and B-cells that give me a good measure of protective immunity. The moderators have asked for citations when statements like this are made, so here are a few that I believe support what I am saying (there are others out there also):


https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.11.20171843v2

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-00902-8


Based on our current level of understanding of COVID, and COVID-induced immunity, I do not believe I am in any way risking the health and lives of others when I interact with them. It's even possible that I am less of a risk to others than those that have NOT had COVID, but have received the vaccine (not saying this is true, only that the science has not advanced to the point where we know about whether the virus can be transmitted to others from those that have either had COVID already, or have been vaccinated). In either of the above cases, though, it seems likely that the risk of transmission to others would be very, very low.



However, since the science is evolving, and since I do not want to endanger those that I interact with (which are not many, by the way) - if I am invited to a gathering with others, I do let them know that I am not vaccinated, so they can decide for themselves whether they want to be near me or not. If they don't, I'm okay with that..........I take no offense at all. As I said, I have very limited interaction these days with people outside of my immediate family, and I do not go to bars, restaurants, churches, or other indoor gatherings.


I suspect that, within the next 5-6 months or so, we will be reaching the "tipping point" in many areas across the U.S., where the virus is unable to find very many new hosts, and so COVID cases should drop dramatically. This is already happening in some areas..........NY, NJ, Conn, and parts of California. That should happen as a result of both vaccinations and the number of people who have already had COVID.


I have no problem with those that choose to get this vaccine - that is your personal choice. My personal choice is to not get the vaccine at this time, and I would hope that others would respect that choice.

Well since you already had Covid you are kind in a grey area between two groups. Not vaccinated but probably not at as much risk as someone who hasn't had Covid. Your choice is a little more complicated. And to another vaccinated person in my mind you'd be less risky then somebody not vaccinated that hasn't recovered from Covid

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

You can download the Adverse Events data from the government website.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html

I have done this and filtered the data in Excel. I recommend everyone do the same and perform their own review of the information.

Here is the disclaimer from the link you provided.

"VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to the system. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases." (emphasis added)

Like becoming the Hulk?

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...edler-insists-program-doesnt-collect-wide-ra/

In a July 2005 web post, Dr. James R. Laidler wrote: "The chief problem with the VAERS data is that reports can be entered by anyone and are not routinely verified. To demonstrate this, a few years ago I entered a report that an influenza vaccine had turned me into The Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database.

"Because the reported adverse event was so… unusual," Laidler wrote, "a representative of VAERS contacted me. After a discussion of the VAERS database and its limitations, they asked for my permission to delete the record, which I granted. If I had not agreed, the record would be there still, showing that any claim can become part of the database, no matter how outrageous or improbable."

 

[ivinsfan]

Like becoming the Hulk?

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...edler-insists-program-doesnt-collect-wide-ra/

What did you have to go do the for..

 

[flintnational]

Like becoming the Hulk? ..........

LOL!

It's an interesting system. Apparently it is an early warning system only. One person reports being turned into the Hulk and its a joke. 2,000 people report being turned into the Hulk might be something the CDC wants to follow up on!

 

[Jeffman52]

LOL!

Hey that's not a laughing matter. Happened to me one time. I woke up with my clothes all ripped in a bad area of town. No money. No ID.

Or maybe that was just a bad nights drinking in my youth.....

 

[kjpliny]

Well I guess we don't need to ask you what you do all day... you started posting saying it's a personal choice to get vaccinated, but I'm getting a big whiff of something else going on here. I'm unabashedly pro-vaccine and will tell anyone that right from the get go.

I'm neither pro-vaccine nor anti-vaccine...rather my position is that I personally require longer term safety data prior to deciding if I want to inject this compound into my body. I try not to be swayed by emotion, or the latest news cycles. I'm data driven by trade, and risk averse by nature.

 

[ivinsfan]

LOL!

It's an interesting system. Apparently it is an early warning system only. One person reports being turned into the Hulk and its a joke. 2,000 people report being turned into the Hulk might be something the CDC wants to follow up on!

Hulk fan will member he was an experiment gone bad...

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

If it works for people to stay home that works too, not sure why you think that was smug. It's also true that vaccines have saved millions of lives.


Just for curiosity would you mind sharing the vaccine that was a problem? Was it a childhood vaccine?

It's smug because it is the attitude that suggests that people should be forced to get the vaccine. Or as one of the mods implied, not allowed to be out and about (forced to stay home). That isn't the way it should work, and I think that the more the push to "sticks" (i.e. punishment for those who don't vaccinate) the more reluctance there will be to get the vaccine.

I was an early recipient of the Lyme Vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/.

Even there, knowing the possible side effects, I would have chosen to get it. But it would have been my choice, not forced on me by others.

If you are afraid because some others aren't vaccinated, stay home. Your fears don't override my rights. (Again, coming from someone who HAS gotten the vaccine.)

 

[ivinsfan]

It's smug because it is the attitude that suggests that people should be forced to get the vaccine. Or as one of the mods implied, not allowed to be out and about (forced to stay home). That isn't the way it should work, and I think that the more the push to "sticks" (i.e. punishment for those who don't vaccinate) the more reluctance there will be to get the vaccine.

I was an early recipient of the Lyme Vaccine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/.

Even there, knowing the possible side effects, I would have chosen to get it. But it would have been my choice, not forced on me by others.

If you are afraid because some others aren't vaccinated, stay home. Your fears don't override my rights. (Again, coming from someone who HAS gotten the vaccine.)

I believe the actual poster I was replying to said they planned to stay indoors and away from people until Covid died down. That poster was referring to protecting themselves from Covid. I never told them to stay home.


If you read into that I was afraid of non vaccinated people you read wrong.