Knowledge You Can Build On — Est. 1998
That will be the issue...
David Weaver
..for people who don't get vaccinated, and I doubt they will be the majority.
I'm just not much for legally mandated things of this sort. It's baked into my genes.
If we're to have the idea that somehow everyone will get vaccinated and the virus will disappear, I think that's wishful thinking.
It's a complicated topic that people far on both ends think is simple.
Regarding Ben Franklin’s quote
Wiley Horne
In context, Ben Franklin was saying pretty near the opposite of what is implied in Mr. Morgan’s post. The quote came during the French-Indian Wars, when raids on the frontier settlements were a real problem in Pennsylvania.
Franklin was addressing the PA legislature, asking them to insist upon taxing the Penn family proprietors, to help pay for the collective defense of PA. Penn family wanted to pay a smallish lump sum, in exchange for the legislature stipulating it had no taxing authority over the Penn proprietors.
Franklin was telling the legislature that Liberty lay in taxation to provide for the collective defense, and there was no Safety to be bought by accepting the Penn family deal.
Franklin was advocating for doing the responsible thing: To take specific collective action against a real threat that was killing the citizenry.
Mr. Morgan is taking the opposing position: To deny any collective responsibility to act against a real and present threat that has so far killed 300,000 of us. Strange to use Ben Franklin’s words to support this thesis.
Wiley
Small wonder...
John in NM
That people remember the quote and not the context. The quote is brave and stirring. The context robs it of its mystique and reminds us that the man was simply another politician with the priorities of a politician.
I suppose quotes of the famous people are best treated like artwork - they say what you wish them to say, not much more.
Re: Regarding Ben Franklin’s quote
TomD
The death stats are largely BS. Death stats are collected for purposes other than to create an accurate record of what people died of. At the moment it is clear death by COVID is getting the star turn on certs. Apparently flu is in total remission. My mom died of natural causes in October. It was a race to the finish between various causes, and the death notice was done in the funeral home. I doubt Quinsy ran a full autopsy to determine which of her problems actually killed her. And aren't the Quincy's of the US often just the unemployable brother in law of some mayor?
Re: That will be the issue...
TomD
"If we're to have the idea that somehow everyone will get vaccinated and the virus will disappear, I think that's wishful thinking."
It certainly isn't necessary. Let's say heard immunity is 70%. That is 70% of the people playing the game. I just came from an area in NA that has strong borders and where there has never been community transmission. There are people who travel outside the region for work (they have to quarantine when they reenter, but basically nobody has the virus and it has never exited controls. This is a real area, with borders and law enforcement. I was there for 4 months, and it was hysterical to see people LARPING COVID compliance, lining up 6 feet apart outside stores, etc... I am sure 100% of the people will get the vaccine and will keep wearing masks. Just how it is. But from a science perspective with zero community transmission nobody needs the vaccine who does not exit the region.
But in Ontario where I normally live we have a very active scene with massive amounts of community transmission. But the vast majority of the geographic area is basically COVID free. When that breaks down and COVID makes a break for it, it is always travel that caused it. So does everyone need to get vaccinated when there is no community transmission in 99% of the land mass?
What about where the 3000 cases a day are happening, well there you have people who are getting infected a lot. They need the vaccine. But there are people like me who are not getting it and probably never would, even though we live in the same zone. The spread-people are getting immunity in several other ways, and the people like me are immune by virtue of effective physical barriers. When herd immunity works, it is not because everyone is immune it is because the spread drops below R1 and the thing wipes itself out. That happens when the people participating in the transmission reach an R of less than 1. If 70% immunity is the tipping point (or 80, or 90), that only needs to be that level in the locus of transmission. Of course if so far the experts we all trust have managed things so well that you have a uniform level of community spread throughout the whole geography of your country then you need to get 70% (or whatever) of everyone vaccinated who is at high risk of infection, still nothing like that percentage applied to the whole population.
Lemme guess...
Jim Matthews
"The death stats are largely BS. "
You've got some secret knowledge that actual experts missed?
If you don't know anyone lost to this avoidable contagion, you will.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Re: Is it a religion or insurance?
TomD
Obviously if getting vaccination is a religious rite then one would expect the faithful to line up, rather like communicants at communion.
If it is science then you would look at what is my insurable liability. In the main I am at zero risk of COVID. I live in a very bad area for it, but even my next door neighbour who died last week and was in and out of hospital with many overlapping complaints (she was a chauffeur to General Montgomery in WWII), did not get COVID. I mention that because some kind of emergency medical procedure would be about the only exposure I have, and apparently even there the exposure in minimal.
Vaccination is serious business, but that does not mean that the people who advocate it have many neurons between them. And here I think the US is doing slightly better.... But in Canada, no sooner than when the vaccine got approved, the vaccine loyalty tests started to be trotted out. Are you anti-vaxx. Notwithstanding the fact the roll out is so botched that an early stat said it would be 2042 before we reached our target. Things will pick up, but it is not an immediate concern as to whether then can pound home the last few shots.
Balderdash
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia) .... If 70% immunity is the tipping point (or 80, or 90), that only needs to be that level in the locus of transmission.
Let's say heard immunity is 70%. That is 70% of the people playing the game ...
Herd Immunity does not work with Covid!
Ask Sweden.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I'm sure everyone abides border controls
Jim Matthews
"So does everyone need to get vaccinated when there is no community transmission in 99% of the land mass?" Not if everyone stays in their bunker.
It's not as if there's any history of Canadians violating Prohibitions.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/prohibition
If afflicted populations must remain in their environs for treatment, contagions are restricted to where the last victim expires. The trouble starts when the sick and dying inevitably seek medical attention in population centers - which are already over capacity.
Hallways become a corridor into Hell.
The presumption that there will be 100% compliance is Larping Public Health.
Look South to North Dakota for a live fire exercise in commando immunity protocols.
https://613covid.ca/
*******
If you're not working in a Hospital, you don't really know - do you.
More *LINK*
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)
A notable authority stated, "The problems are that we don’t know whether the vaccines stop transmission, which is fundamental to ring vaccination working".
In other words, the game plan at this time is 100% vaccination to eradicate Covid-19.
There is no Plan B.
Regards from Perth
Re: You are mistaken according to the mayo clinic
TomD
"Vaccines create immunity without causing illness or resulting complications. Herd immunity makes it possible to protect the population from a disease, including those who can't be vaccinated, such as newborns or those who have compromised immune systems."
Mayo clinic and first article from google. Google can save you a lot of embarrassment.
Herd immunity and individual immunity is what vaccines do. they raise the individual immunity to the point where an infected person can't find another person to transmit to (obviously it is the viral agent within these person). When this reaches the degree at which the R value drops below 1 it dies out.
You appear to be infected with fake news about whether Sweden could achieve herd immunity by doing nothing and going about it's business. They did not achieve herd immunity, though I do not think that is why they did what they did. And it did work, until it didn't work. It is perfectly rational to not impose restriction before they are necessary. Virtually everyone does that. So if you look at my Ontario, we had a severe experience in the spring, coasted through summer, were in denial for good reason in the late fall, and now we are in lockdown. That is basically all they did in Sweden, they got away with it in spring, and now they are in lockdown.
But there was a side argument outside of Sweden about whether not doing anything was what everyone should do. There was a further side argument which is also legitimate about what level of individual immunity would be herd immunity. There are two levels. One is the level that has to occur in principle, and the other is the degree of actual immunity in a population that gets you there. These numbers are different because in covid's case we have a lot of lockdowns, and we have phenomena like low levels of infection in certain age groups. So if kids under 10 can't hardly get it and you have a youthful population you do not need to vaccinate 100% of people to get to herd immunity.
In Africa there are countries where the average age is 15. Do you think it is necessary to vaccinate 100 percent of those populations to reach herd immunity when, for example, under UK policy they do not intend to vaccinate people under 16?
Re: I'm sure everyone abides border controls
TomD
That is not the presumption. The presumption is that you do not need to eliminate every individual who has covid for covid to die off. That is just science. I am not a vaccine denier, a covid denier, I wear actual masks that work, etc... You do not appear to be aware of the real strategy that the medical community globally is pursuing with vaccines, on your behalf. Vaccines are actually far cooler than you seem to think. They CAN cure the pandemic without everyone taking them, and this has been proven over an over again. COVID is a low R virus. The higher the RO, and measles is 12 to 16 compared to covid at 1.1-1.5, that you would need much higher compliance if one was in a measles outbreak. Spanish flu was up to 2.4.
To repeat simple evidence that not everyone needs to be vaccinated, the UK has made the decision not to vaccinate people 16 and under. That is simple proof of why some would not take the vaccine, or need to take the vaccine. Case closed.
Not so ...
Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia) Mayo clinic and first article from google. Google can save you a lot of embarrassment.
"Vaccines create immunity without causing illness or resulting complications. Herd immunity makes it possible to protect the population from a disease, including those who can't be vaccinated, such as newborns or those who have compromised immune systems."
Tom, you need to read further than the first paragraph. The Mayo Clinic go on to say, "However, there are some major problems with relying on community infection to create herd immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. First, it isn't yet clear if infection with the COVID-19 virus makes a person immune to future infection."
Hmmmm ....
Regards from Perth
Derek
The sound of backpedalling
Jim Matthews
"Case closed." Is the sort of retort used by those caught by their own inadequacies.
You also denigrate those in disagreement, which is an attempt to "poison the well".
You're shifting the goalposts.
First you asserted that the vaccine rollout was unnecessary in a given setting, only to shift it to being demonstrated by the current schedule as evidence that it's unnecessary in certain age groups.
NEITHER IS TRUE.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/516085-new-cdc-research-shows-young-children-can-spread-covid-19-even-if
The difficulty today is that any regimen is only as effective with adherence to basic protocols. The presumption that A) universal compliance will follow and B) everything is already known about a new pathogen is the sort of hubris an actual virologist would not indulge.
Running a Gish Gallop won't help you.
Cards on the table
Jim Matthews
"You appear to be infected with fake news about whether Sweden could achieve herd immunity by doing nothing and going about it's business."
There's the tell.
(Emphasis added)
Re: More that is not persuasive.
TomD
That is not the plan in the UK, they will not vaccinate people under 16, last I could find. Part of the reason is there were not trials on that age group. Maybe because it is hard to establish legal consent? One of the vaccines was tried on kids down to 12. But the other issue is this virus is kind to children, while the Spanish flu was kind to old people and devastating to the young. So there is no reason to give it to 100%. In Africa the mean age is 19.7, average is 20. So if you want to promote giving untested products to almost half the African population, be my guest. I don't see it happening. (By the way, these kind of country differences are why one should never make comparison on countries. You can say look at Africa. But you would not want to say Africa or Sweden did the following and therefore it would or would not work somewhere else.)
The statement that we do not know whether the people who are vaccinated will transmit the virus is crafty. One of the things about science is you don't know what you don't know. Where would the trials of a not yet developed or deployed vaccine occur? Obviously they would not occur. So 1) you do not want to be liable for making statements about what you do not know; 2) you do want to sell as much vaccine as you can; 3) They fully expect their vaccine to limit human transmission, and if their particular vaccine does not, they will be huge commercial losers.
Re: Balderdash
John in NM
There is potential for herd immunity with COVID - that is the whole point of vaccination. Herd immunity is achieved when a large enough percentage of the population has either had the disease and recovered or been vaccinated.
The problem with herd immunity discussions is that people usually gloss over the caveats - and those caveats are huge in my opinion. First, no one agrees on the percentage, I've heard a very wide variation of numbers quoted and I think it is influenced by outlook and opinion more than knowledge. Second, the concept of herd immunity is complicated by mutations and antibody persistence, most people overlook this. Only time will tell on the second point.
I wouldn't be the least surprised if we have to get yearly COVID shots, but we won't know whether vaccine efficacy with mutant strains will prevent that for several years yet. For the present I think it is well worth trying to get as many people as possible vaccinated, then see how things play out. There is no stamping this out, because like the flu it affects animal populations as well - vaccination works better with diseases like polio because they only affect humans.
Natural (non-vaccination) herd immunity is theoretically possible. Its just far too ruthless a course for civilized people to stick to.
misleading statement
Bill Tindall, E.Tn.
Likely no one on this Forum except Phil Smith has dived into the science of this topic more. It seems common to develop an opinion here, then pick and choose data, maybe out of context, to support what is believed. I will stay out of this largely useless conversation except when an important fact is being ignored or misused.
Nobody is vaccinating under 16 because none of the vaccines were tested under 16 and hence none of the regulatory agencies have approved vaccination for under 16. Pfizer is recruiting under 16 for a trial. Want to do something useful? Sign up a child.
Here is an interesting correlation. Many of the trial participants are also regular blood donors.
Some more data. In animal studies Pfizer found that a vaccinated surrogate monkey did not replicate virus when virus was injected in nasal or lung. If this observation is confirmed for humans (work underway) it will put to rest the angst in the press that vaccination may not halt the spread. No replication, no spread no masks.
Re: Seriously?
TomD
"However, there are some major problems with relying on community infection to create herd immunity"
What does that have to do with vaccines? It says in black and white "community infection"
Re: The sound of backpedalling
TomD
"First you asserted that the vaccine rollout was unnecessary in a given setting, only to shift it to being demonstrated by the current schedule as evidence that it's unnecessary in certain age groups."
That is not different goalposts, it is separate arguments towards the same goal.
Quote a non political source.
Your list of "approved" sources, then
Jim Matthews
"Quote a non-political source."
The CDC qualifies.
Of course...
John in NM
Both infection and vaccine result in antibodies. That is how the immunity works as I understand it.
Whether those anitbodies persist for more than many months is an open question, and it is the same question for both infection and vaccine immunity. I kind of doubt it with corona viruses, since they are apparently also the cause of the common cold. No one is immune to colds and most of us get them a couple times a year.
Now that is encouraging
John in NM
"Some more data. In animal studies Pfizer found that a vaccinated surrogate monkey did not replicate virus when virus was injected in nasal or lung. If this observation is confirmed for humans (work underway) it will put to rest the angst in the press that vaccination may not halt the spread. No replication, no spread no masks."
A big open question has been whether or not vaccination prevents being a carrier. This is good news, hope the research bears further fruit.
Re: Lemme guess...
TomD
I actually don't know anyone who has died of COVID. The death stats is based on the idea they are always BS. Not that there is some conspiracy on COVID. I first got into this about 20 years ago on bicycle helmets when I tried to find stats from the government on the number of cyclists killed in accidents, and the number by head injuries. It turned out head injuries were a catchall favorite on death certificates. So for instance if an individual is decapitated as his body is driven over from a semi and his head is finally popped off, it is allowed to put on the death cert that the cause of death was a head injury. So it made it difficult to arrive at stats that would support bike helmet use when the actual underlying numbers were responding to what was the easiest legal cause of death. It should be obvious that the main concern in death numbers across a province by all causes, is not bike helmet use policy.
I do actually get an avalanch of numbers from a second cousin who does this kind of thing professionally, so I see charts gallore. They are fairly clinical. Most of what I have seen on the stats i just discussions of the stats. Also, the problems may not exist where you live. But where I live a big problem is policy is driven by the number of infections, while we ramp up testing astronomically. We actually mostly ignore underlying patterns in deaths. And even in hospitalisations. We locked down Ottawa at a time when the hospitals were "empty". I don't get the feeling policy is really data driven.
Throughout the pandemic there has been constant informed questioning of what is happening with the mortality numbers. Why would there not be. We are supposed to trust the science, why do we expect there will be no questioning of it. At the highest level (obviously not ours) this is what peer review is all about.
Case closed
Jim Matthews
"I actually don't know anyone who has died of COVID. "
Go Galt, already.
