coronavirus

[edgmatt]

edgmatt,

you might work on reading comprehension - younger people has been define as 18 to late 30's.  Ie younger adults not children.

Thank you for the clarification, I'm glad to see he wasn't talking about actual children.  Despite that, most of what I said still applies.  Particularly: "Morally repugnant is pressuring someone or forcing someone to take a risk for themselves so that someone else's risk is lower."

Also there is no known risk  to the mRNA vaccines with 100's of millions having been vaccinated with them

"According to the VAERS report, 472 people died after receiving a Moderna vaccine, while 489 died after receiving a Pfizer vaccine. Additionally, five people died after receiving a jab from an unknown manufacturer."

And that's just deaths.  There have been reports of other side effects and problems people have been developing after getting the shot.  How can you say there is "no known risk" when we actually know about the risk?

[msquared]

The VAERS report does not say they died becuase of the vaccine. 

[LetterRip]

Also there is no known risk  to the mRNA vaccines with 100's of millions having been vaccinated with them

"According to the VAERS report, 472 people died after receiving a Moderna vaccine, while 489 died after receiving a Pfizer vaccine. Additionally, five people died after receiving a jab from an unknown manufacturer."

And that's just deaths.  There have been reports of other side effects and problems people have been developing after getting the shot.  How can you say there is "no known risk" when we actually know about the risk?

As msquared said - that doesn't mean an association between the vaccines and those deaths.  We've had 192 million Pfizer vaccines administered in the US.

"FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause."

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Annual death rate is 869.7 deaths per 100,000.  -> 1,920 * 869.7 = 1,669,824 expected deaths per year among those vaccinated.

1,669,824/365 = 4574

Which implies there should be a baseline rate of 4574 deaths per day among those vaccinated, and if they use a window of say a week following vaccination for reporting - that would be 4574*7= 32018 deaths of vaccinated individuals during the week after the vaccine was administered without any reason to think it was vaccine associated.

Given the baseline rate of expected deaths vastly exceeds the reported deaths - there isn't any reason to expect that those vaccines are causing any deaths.

[edgmatt]

That's a fact.  There is still a risk.  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

"For public awareness and in the interest of transparency, CDC is providing timely updates on the following serious adverse events of interest:

    Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare and has occurred in approximately 2 to 5 people per million vaccinated in the United States. Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, can occur after any vaccination. If this occurs, vaccination providers can effectively and immediately treat the reaction. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.
    Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccination is rare. As of July 26, 2021, more than 13 million doses of the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine have been given in the United States. CDC and FDA identified 39 confirmed reports of people who got the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and later developed TTS. Women younger than 50 years old especially should be aware of the rare but increased risk of this adverse event. There are other COVID-19 vaccine options available for which this risk has not been seen. Learn more about J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS.
        To date, two confirmed cases of TTS following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Moderna) have been reported to VAERS after more than 328 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered in the United States. Based on available data, there is not an increased risk for TTS after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
    CDC and FDA are monitoring reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) in people who have received the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine. GBS is a rare disorder where the body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis. Most people fully recover from GBS, but some have permanent nerve damage. After more than 13  million J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine doses administered, there have been around 137 preliminary reports of GBS identified in VAERS as of July 22. These cases have largely been reported about 2 weeks after vaccination and mostly in men, many 50 years and older. CDC will continue to monitor for and evaluate reports of GBS occurring after COVID-19 vaccination and will share more information as it becomes available.
    Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. As of July 26, 2021, VAERS has received 1,194 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. Through follow-up, including medical record reviews, CDC and FDA have confirmed 699 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis. CDC and its partners are investigating these reports to assess whether there is a relationship to COVID-19 vaccination. Learn more about COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis.
    Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 342 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 26, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,340 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths."

[TheDrake]

It's true there is risk. But far fewer deaths from reactions than unvaccinated people whose last words were that they wish they had taken the vaccine. There's no special risk here than just about any medication you can find. If you want to avoid all risk from medical intervention, you'd have to not have medical intervention. You definitely have that right, but you don't have the right to insist that everyone else agree to associate with you or not criticize you.

[edgmatt]

If you want to avoid all risk from medical intervention, you'd have to not have medical intervention.  You definitely have that right, but you don't have the right to insist that everyone else agree to associate with you or not criticize you.

Precisely.  I would even go so far to say it'd be immoral to force someone to take medical intervention against their wishes.  I did say that, twice in this thread.

[edgmatt]

Rather, I said "It'd be immoral to force someone to take a risk for themselves just to lower the risk for someone else."

[Fenring]

Rather, I said "It'd be immoral to force someone to take a risk for themselves just to lower the risk for someone else."

I'm pretty sure that much was clear. But I actually find this premise curious. How do you come to determine this? What is this exceptionally significant argument based on, if we wanted to go on first principles? Essentially, you're saying that even a one in a billion risk is too much to force someone to take to absolutely for certain prevent certain and material harm to others. For this to be an acceptable premise you would have to be basing it on something so solid that no practical considerations of any kind could trump it. To take an extreme, you'd have to say that even if it meant causing the extinction of the human race, it would still be preferable not to force someone to take a vaccine with a one in a billion chance of averse reaction. So I'd like to know how you come possibly come by the certainty of a position like this; a position, I may add, this is strongly counter-intuitive to apparent most of the human race at present.

[TheDrake]

If you want to avoid all risk from medical intervention, you'd have to not have medical intervention.  You definitely have that right, but you don't have the right to insist that everyone else agree to associate with you or not criticize you.

Precisely.  I would even go so far to say it'd be immoral to force someone to take medical intervention against their wishes.  I did say that, twice in this thread.

You sure did. But if I as a business owner don't want you to come into my store without vaccination, I'm not forcing you to have a medical intervention, I'm choosing not to associate with you if you choose not to.

[edgmatt]

And I don't have a problem with that.  I do have a problem with mandates from the government telling me I have to get the shot, or telling business's they can't let people into their store without a shot.

But I actually find this premise curious. How do you come to determine this? What is this exceptionally significant argument based on, if we wanted to go on first principles? Essentially, you're saying that even a one in a billion risk is too much to force someone to take to absolutely for certain prevent certain and material harm to others. For this to be an acceptable premise you would have to be basing it on something so solid that no practical considerations of any kind could trump it. To take an extreme, you'd have to say that even if it meant causing the extinction of the human race, it would still be preferable not to force someone to take a vaccine with a one in a billion chance of averse reaction. So I'd like to know how you come possibly come by the certainty of a position like this; a position, I may add, this is strongly counter-intuitive to apparent most of the human race at present

You want me to explain why:
- forcing someone to take an action against their will is immoral
- putting someone at risk is immoral?   

Essentially, you're saying that even a one in a billion risk is too much to force someone to take to absolutely for certain prevent certain and material harm to others.

No, that's not what I said.  I said it'd be immoral.  I'd force someone to jump off a bridge if it meant saving the human race.  It'd still be immoral to do it.  That would be murder and I'd be a murderer.   "Reading comprehension please".  Right, letterip?

But we aren't at the point of "saving the human race" are we?  So what's the point of that analogy?

For this to be an acceptable premise you would have to be basing it on something so solid that no practical considerations of any kind could trump it.

I don't agree with *that* premise.  Why don't you show me a practical consideration where it is NOT immoral to force someone to take an action that puts them at a higher risk for harm/death so that it lowers that same risk for someone else?  I'm open to discussion and learning.

[Fenring]

[quote\]
Essentially, you're saying that even a one in a billion risk is too much to force someone to take to absolutely for certain prevent certain and material harm to others.

No, that's not what I said.  I said it'd be immoral.  I'd force someone to jump off a bridge if it meant saving the human race.  It'd still be immoral to do it.  That would be murder and I'd be a murderer.   "Reading comprehension please".  Right, letterip?

If what you're saying is that in a certain situation the right thing to do is immoral then I'd say your definition of "immoral" is incoherent and contradictory. Immoral should mean the thing you should not do. If it doesn't mean that then it doesn't mean anything. If it's the thing you should do, then it's not immoral, even though it may be unpleasant and grievous.

That being said, you seem to now be saying that you'd do an immoral thing if it saved lots of people. By this logic, it seems you're also putting yourself in the position of saying (by the analogy) that vaccinating people against this wishes is immoral, but that if it saves people you'd do it. Is that about right? If so, then why harp on the matter? Why not just advocate for doing the 'immoral' correct thing since obviously it would save people's lives for everyone to be vaccinated? I find it hard to believe this is your actual position, but as far as I can tell you'd have to say something like this to remain consistent.

[LetterRip]

edgmatt,

"For public awareness and in the interest of transparency, CDC is providing timely updates on the following serious adverse events of interest

Those are adverse events associated with all vaccines, not specific to Pfiser.

No deaths from anaphylaxis were reported after receipt of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e1.htm

Anaphylaxis is only life threatening if you lack access to medical personnel who can administer epinephrine.  That is why all administration locations required 15 minute observation after administration.

TTP has not been found in Pfiser administration.

Myocarditis and pericarditis - certainly uncomfortable, but it resolves relatively quickly and isn't associated with death from Pfiser vaccines.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/myocarditis-coronavirus-vaccine

GBS is only been found with the J&J vaccine, not with Pfiser

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/guillain-barre-syndrome-and-covid-vaccine/

So the only known risks with the Pfizer (anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis) are easily remedied, neither is generally fatal even if left untreated (though both should definitely be treated since there is some risk of death if untreated - to date the vaccine associated myocarditis is mild and appears to self resolve but an abundance of caution is warranted) - but the current protocol keeps vaccinated individuals under observation for 15 minutes and thus anyone who develops either symptoms can be readily treated.  (Though the myocarditis is delayed onset within 1-5 days).

[edgmatt]

If what you're saying is that in a certain situation the right thing to do is immoral then I'd say your definition of "immoral" is incoherent and contradictory

I agree that THAT thing you just said would be contradictory.  However I didn't say that.  I didn't say it would be "right" for me to push the guy off the bridge, I said that's what I would do.  I did say it would be immoral, and therefore "not right" by my own definition, and the definition of billions of people. I would VOLUNTARILY take the punishment (if there was one) for taking that immoral action.

I realize this seems contradictory to you, but it's not. 

That being said, you seem to now be saying that you'd do an immoral thing if it saved lots of people.

No, I said if it would save the HUMAN RACE from extinction, then I'd do it.  That's vastly different.  Stop changing what I said, stop saying "so you're saying".  Take my words for what they mean.

By this logic, it seems you're also putting yourself in the position of saying (by the analogy) that vaccinating people against this wishes is immoral, but that if it saves people you'd do it. Is that about right?

No, that is wrong.  You have watered down my position of throwing a man off a bridge to save the human race to something else entirely.  I shouldn't have used such a ridiculous analogy because it would never happen and it's distracting from the reality we are faced with.

Why not just advocate for doing the 'immoral' correct....

Something cannot be both immoral and correct.  Sometimes we voluntarily take on an immoral act, to do what we think is correct, (like the mother who steals bread to save her child from dying), but the act itself is still immoral.

If the government forces someone to take the vaccine, that will be an act of immorality and I will stand against it, and so should you.

-------------

Those are adverse events associated with all vaccines, not specific to Pfiser.

I agree.  "Adverse events" are a risk, are they not?  We can't force someone to take that risk.

Anaphylaxis is only life threatening if....

You are helping my case.  Thank you.

So the only known risks with the Pfizer (anaphylaxis and myocarditis/pericarditis) are easily remedied, neither is generally fatal even if left untreated (though both should definitely be treated since there is some risk of death if untreated

Thank you, again.

We cannot force someone to increase their risk of harm/death to lower that risk for someone else.

[LetterRip]

Also for the myocarditis - COVID itself induces myocarditis - and since pretty much everyone in the nation not vaccinated can expect to be infected with COVID - those individuals would almost certainly have developed myocarditis by catching COVID.

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/what-tell-patients-about-myocarditis-after-covid-19-vaccination

So it isn't a tradeoff between taking the vaccine and risk getting myocarditis, and not taking the vaccine and avoid the risk of myocarditis.  Those susceptible to myocarditis from taking the vaccine, would have almost certainly developed it in response to a COVID infection, and more importantly - instead of mild as with the vaccine, it likely would be life threatening.

Also the myocarditis risk appears to be exercise + vaccine (it is unclear if the exercise is the cause and the vaccine is exacerbating it or vice versa).  So perhaps there should be recommendation of avoiding strenuous exercise within 5 days of vaccination.

[LetterRip]

We cannot force someone to increase their risk of harm/death to lower that risk for someone else.

We absolutely can, the Supreme Court has ruled on this.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-the-supreme-court-rules-on-vaccines-and-public-health

Also even if we exclude risking harm to others - it is still a net risk reduction for the individual.  Ie even the lowest risk population - the harm from catching COVID exceeds any theoretical harm from the vaccine.

[edgmatt]

The supreme court is not the arbiter of what is moral and what is not.

They have erred before, they will again.

Also even if we exclude risking harm to others - it is still a net risk reduction for the individual.  Ie even the lowest risk population - the harm from catching COVID exceeds any theoretical harm from the vaccine.

That may be, it might not, only time will tell with this vaccine.  Regardless it would still be immoral to force someone to take it.

[edgmatt]

We cannot force someone to increase their risk of harm/death to lower that risk for someone else.

We absolutely can, the Supreme Court has ruled on this.

We OUGHT NOT force someone to increase their risk of harm/death to lower that risk for someone else.

Better?

[edgmatt]

Ie even the lowest risk population - the harm from catching COVID exceeds any theoretical harm from the vaccine.

You don't have enough information to make that claim.  You don't know anything about practically anyone to say what exceeds what for them.

[yossarian22c]

Ie even the lowest risk population - the harm from catching COVID exceeds any theoretical harm from the vaccine.

You don't have enough information to make that claim.  You don't know anything about practically anyone to say what exceeds what for them.

For the "average" young person you can. The risk of harm from COVID greatly exceeds the risk of harm from the vaccine. Unless the person has some rare disease/condition that would make getting a vaccine risky then COVID definitely has a higher risk of severe illness, lasting harm, or death.

[edgmatt]

So then wouldn't the correct thing to do be let each person decide for themselves if they want the vaccine?

[yossarian22c]

So then wouldn't the correct thing to do be let each person decide for themselves if they want the vaccine?

In an ideal world? Yes. In the world we live in with mis- and dis-information flooding parts of the country we probably need a little more stick to go with the carrot. Maybe it looks like regular mandatory testing for people refusing to get vaccinated if they want to go to work and interact with strangers in public. But clearly having a safe and highly effective vaccine isn't enough to get a lot of people to properly evaluate the risks of vaccination vs un-vaccinated. And there is a real societal risk for people refusing to get vaccinated.

[LetterRip]

So then wouldn't the correct thing to do be let each person decide for themselves if they want the vaccine?

Are they willing to wear a mask in public at all times, and be forbidden from any indoor venue if the duration indoors will be longer than say 20 minutes?  Can't participate in sporting activities or go to gyms, participate in choirs, karaoke, or other potential venues where they might become a superspreader, etc.  No transport on planes without testing negative for COVID.

It is reasonable to allow the refusal to get vaccinated, if they are willing to take other measures that restrict their potential to harm the public.

[LetterRip]

Also death isn't the only outcome for COVID - long term disability is an important risk as well,

“One in seven COVID-19 patients still symptomatic at 12 weeks.”
[…]
“Cognitive dysfunction or memory issues were common across all age groups (~88%).”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00299-6/fulltext

Pediatric rate for 'long COVID' are up to 12% (estimates have ranged from 1-12%), for adults about 20%.

[cherrypoptart]

It seems to me the Biden administration is the one engaging in the dangerous misinformation campaign, or perhaps "the one" isn't so much it as another one of the groups who are lying. And by that I mean they are trying to downplay how dangerous and contagious the delta variant is, and minimizing it is getting people sickened and killed.


https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/30/media/variant-media-coverage-white-house/index.html

"At the heart of the matter is the news media's focus on breakthrough infections, which the CDC has said are rare. In some instances, poorly framed headlines and cable news chyrons wrongly suggested that vaccinated Americans are just as likely to spread the disease as unvaccinated Americans. But that isn't quite the case. Vaccinated Americans still have a far lower chance of becoming infected with the coronavirus and, thus, they are responsible for far less spread of the disease."

So that deserves some parsing. Who cares if the vaccinated spread it less than the unvaccinated? That's not the point. If it's super-contagious even if you're vaccinated then it's not very helpful if it's even more contagious than that if you're not vaccinated. The point is, which the CDC now gets, is that everyone needs to be wearing masks again. I think the Biden administration is actually coming onboard with that so why they are getting upset at the truth is weird concerning how easily the delta variant spreads whether you are vaxxed or not.

I touched on this before but the difference now is that we've got the CDC doing the right thing finally and the White House is apparently trying to minimize the danger. We were promised that vaccinated people spreading the virus was extraordinarily rare. We were told they could go without masks and it would be safe for them to go back home and associate even with family members who couldn't get vaccinated like  their children and others. That was not accurate. It wasn't true. It was a mistake.

But now the truth is known and the White House apparently is still saying that it's rare for the vaxxed to spread the virus. And they need to be called on it.

"The media's coverage doesn't match the moment," one of the Biden officials told me. "It has been hyperbolic and frankly irresponsible in a way that hardens vaccine hesitancy. The biggest problem we have is unvaccinated people getting and spreading the virus."

The reality is that it would be difficult to overstate the danger we're in now. The White House is so worried about getting more people vaxxed that they are willing to mislead people about how contagious the delta variant is. They have the good message that people should get vaxxed because it's super contagious and you're a lot less likely to get seriously sick and almost certainly saved from death by the vaccines. But they're apparently worried that's not good enough and people also need to know that the vaccines will keep them from spreading the virus but if that's not the case then it's not the case. They'll spread it less than the unvaccinated but that's small consolation because they'll still spread it if it's the delta variant especially if they take it home to family.

[cherrypoptart]

"I also called up Dr. Leana Wen, a CNN medical analyst and former Baltimore health commissioner, who agreed that the media is "missing the big picture, but so is the CDC." Wen explained that the CDC said it was changing its mask guidance because of the new data regarding rare instances in which a vaccinated person becomes infected and can then spread the virus. "They got it wrong," she said. "The reason why the guidance is changing is that Covid-19 is spreading really quickly, Delta is a big problem, and the reason for the spread is because of the unvaccinated." Wen said the primary reason the CDC needed to change its mask guidance is because the honor system wasn't working. In other words, people who were not vaccinated were acting as if they were and not wearing masks or following other basic safety protocols..."

I like Wen and what she says here is true as far as it goes but also isn't the whole picture. Even if the honor system was working, which it definitely is not, but even if it was the CDC would be correct now to say even the vaxxed should mask up because if all of the unvaccinated were wearing masks and the vaccinated were not then with the delta variant we'd still be getting massive transmission from the unmasked vaccinated to the masked unvaccinated because as we've been over a million times most of the masks people are using do more to protect you from spreading it than getting it.

With delta the unmasked vaccinated are probably spreading it as much as unmasked unvaccinated would have been spreading the original strain, or even more. I'm not sure about that but it would not be surprising.

When the White House says the vaccinated spread it less than the unvaccinated, are they talking about the same strains? Obviously that would be true then. Vaccinated would spread the original strain less than the unvaccinated would spread the original strain. Vaccinated would spread the delta strain less than the unvaccinated would spread the delta strain. But do the vaccinated really spread the delta strain less than the unvaccinated spread the original strain? Not from what I'm seeing.

And if the vaccinated spread delta more than unvaccinated spread original then the White House is being very deceptive in claiming the vaccinated spread it so much more rarely than unvaxxed.

[cherrypoptart]

I'd go so far as to say that the mistake of telling the vaxxed it was safe to take off their masks because they would only very rarely spread the virus actually resulted in delta being singled out to be the variant that would spread the most because it was the one that the unmasked vaxxed would be able to spread much, much more than the others. If delta is the worst variant we just gave it free rein. It still would have spread the most even if the vaxxed had stayed masked but now we just let it go crazy. Assuming all the other variants were kept well in check by the vaccines and their spread was extraordinarily rare as promised, Biden and the CDC really screwed the pooch on delta by celebrating their victory too early.

[LetterRip]

Who cares if the vaccinated spread it less than the unvaccinated?

Because misinformed people think 'why should I bother to get vaccinated'.  If you are 1/10th as contagious if you get infected, that drastically reduces the rate of spread of infection.

That's not the point. If it's super-contagious even if you're vaccinated then it's not very helpful if it's even more contagious than that if you're not vaccinated.

It is deeply important.  Being less contagious means you are likely to infect less people (few or none), and if you do infect other people they are less likely to get sick, and if they do get sick they are less likely to die.

The point is, which the CDC now gets, is that everyone needs to be wearing masks again. I think the Biden administration is actually coming onboard with that so why they are getting upset at the truth is weird concerning how easily the delta variant spreads whether you are vaxxed or not.

The point is that it is drastically more important to get vaccinated than it is to wear a mask.  Vaccination protects yourself and others 100% of the time and makes you almost certain to not die and extremely unlikely to need hospitalization.  Masks only work when you wear them - which most people won't around friends and family and lots of people won't in public.

I touched on this before but the difference now is that we've got the CDC doing the right thing finally and the White House is apparently trying to minimize the danger. /quote]

No you are wrong.  The CDC's actions were correct based on the information they had at the time.  There was no evidence of spread from vaccinated people when they made their prior decisions.  As soon as there was evidence of spread, they updated their recommendations.  The Whitehouse is absolutely correct, breakthrough infections are extremely rare with the vaccine, and by far the most important thing you could do is wear a mask.  If everyone was vaccinated the virus would be wiped out in a month.  If everyone had similar mask compliance as happenned prior to vaccines but no further vaccination - we'll be dealing with Covid till every person in the US has been infected, and probably a new mutant will evolve that will require a new vaccine.

We were promised that vaccinated people spreading the virus was extraordinarily rare.

Actually we weren't.  We expected that it would be the case, since that is true of most vaccines and it was true of the earlier Covid-19 variants.  Delta is special in that is slow to spread from the nose to the blood, and thus delays a significant immune response that clears the virus.

[quote[ We were told they could go without masks and it would be safe for them to go back home and associate even with family members who couldn't get vaccinated like  their children and others. That was not accurate. It wasn't true. It was a mistake.

No, it was true at the time it was stated.  Delta has changed things because it is a mutated virus that has a new trick.  Everything was accurate at the time the expectations were given.  People didn't mask and social distance and so we have delta.  If people do the most important thing - get vaccinated, and mask and social distance, we can hopefully prevent something worse from mutating.  By far the most important thing is to get vaccinated.

But now the truth is known and the White House apparently is still saying that it's rare for the vaxxed to spread the virus. And they need to be called on it.

It IS RARE.  Vaccinated people are drastically less likely to spread COVID, so the most important thing is to get vaccinated.  It is far more important than social distancing or masking.

The viral load in these breakthrough cases was about three to four times lower than the viral load among infected people who were unvaccinated.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-crucial-vaccine-benefit-were-not-talking-about-enough1/

3-4x lower viral load means, 1/3 to 1/4 the infections, or less severe infections.  That is enormously important.   (It won't be a 1 to 1 correspondence but still substantially less)

"The media's coverage doesn't match the moment," one of the Biden officials told me. "It has been hyperbolic and frankly irresponsible in a way that hardens vaccine hesitancy. The biggest problem we have is unvaccinated people getting and spreading the virus."

The reality is that it would be difficult to overstate the danger we're in now.

No it would be easy to overstate it.  If everyone gets vaccinated, we almost completely eliminate the virus in the US within a month.

The White House is so worried about getting more people vaxxed that they are willing to mislead people about how contagious the delta variant is.

No, you have misunderstood what you've heard.  The absolutely most important thing to do is get vaccinated.

[quoute]They have the good message that people should get vaxxed because it's super contagious and you're a lot less likely to get seriously sick and almost certainly saved from death by the vaccines. But they're apparently worried that's not good enough and people also need to know that the vaccines will keep them from spreading the virus but if that's not the case then it's not the case.[/quote]

The vaccine drastically reduces spread, it was never expected to stop spread.  It is less effective at stopping spread than hoped but the reduction in spread is still the primary benefit.  Without the vaccine it has a Ro if 8 (on average each unvaccinated person spreads it to 8 people).  With herd immunity (80-90% vaccinated) Ro would be less than 1.

I've stated all along that vaccinated people are still at risk in high dose events (indoor venues for extended time with loud talking, singing, heavy breathing) - which is what happened in Provincetown.

They'll spread it less than the unvaccinated but that's small consolation because they'll still spread it if it's the delta variant especially if they take it home to family.

They spread it DRASTICALLY LESS.  And when they do spread it, those infected are FAR LESS LIKELY TO GET SIGNIFICANTLY ILL.

So it is enormously beneficial for family members at risk to have their family vaccinated.

[LetterRip]

I like Wen and what she says here is true as far as it goes but also isn't the whole picture. Even if the honor system was working, which it definitely is not, but even if it was the CDC would be correct now to say even the vaxxed should mask up because if all of the unvaccinated were wearing masks and the vaccinated were not then with the delta variant we'd still be getting massive transmission from the unmasked vaccinated to the masked unvaccinated because as we've been over a million times most of the masks people are using do more to protect you from spreading it than getting it.

You are wrong.  If the unvaccinated always wore masks, the virus would quickly die out because the Ro would drop below 1 and cause the virus to rapidly extinguish.

With delta the unmasked vaccinated are probably spreading it as much as unmasked unvaccinated would have been spreading the original strain, or even more. I'm not sure about that but it would not be surprising.

You are extremely wrong.  Delta is about 2x contagious as Alpha, Alpha was about 2x contagious as the original strain.  Vaccinated people are about 1/10th as contagious IF INFECTED as unvaccinated.  Importantly VACCINATED people are LESS LIKELY TO GET INFECTED.

If vaccinated people avoid super spreader events, especially with unvaccinated people, I suspect they probably are unlikely to catch COVID at all.

When the White House says the vaccinated spread it less than the unvaccinated, are they talking about the same strains?

Yes, vaccinated people are less likely to get infected at all, and thus unlikely to spread it - whereas unvaccinated people are likely to get infected and thus likely to spread it.  Even after infection, unvaccinated have lower viral loads (3x-4x) and thus are less likely to spread it.

Obviously that would be true then. Vaccinated would spread the original strain less than the unvaccinated would spread the original strain. Vaccinated would spread the delta strain less than the unvaccinated would spread the delta strain.

Which is exactly what the data shows.

But do the vaccinated really spread the delta strain less than the unvaccinated spread the original strain?

Yep.  Delta is 4x as contageous, vaccinated individuals are 10x less likely to spread a virus.

And if the vaccinated spread delta more than unvaccinated spread original then the White House is being very deceptive in claiming the vaccinated spread it so much more rarely than unvaxxed.

Thankfully they have epidemiologists and virologists who understand these things, and listen to them and so are accurately informing the public.

[Fenring]

Everything was accurate at the time the expectations were given.  People didn't mask and social distance and so we have delta.

This makes it sound like you mean that the guidelines given by the American authorities weren't followed, and so we have delta. But isn't it likely that due to population concentrations in China and India, to say nothing of the state of workplaces and living conditions in some places there, that probably no conventional measures could have prevented it? I've heard that some neighborhoods in China (I think) have been cordoned off completely and every single person in the zone tested, so they are willing to take some more serious measures than Americans are in that sense, but I suspect things are generally too chaotic in China, and especially India, to have any control whatsoever on putting a halt to widespread infection. Nothing anyone in North America could do would have helped stop this. A permanent travel ban with those countries might help, I suppose.

[LetterRip]

I'd go so far as to say that the mistake of telling the vaxxed it was safe to take off their masks because they would only very rarely spread the virus actually resulted in delta being singled out to be the variant that would spread the most because it was the one that the unmasked vaxxed would be able to spread much, much more than the others.

Again, you haven't a clue what you are talking about.  Delta has a high Ro - it spreads to 8 people on average.  The higher the viruses Ro the faster it spreads and quickly becomes the most prominent virus.  Has absolutely nothing whatever to do with vaccination or masking.

Also vaccinated people are drastically less likely to catch the virus or spread the virus.

[LetterRip]

This makes it sound like you mean that the guidelines given by the American authorities weren't followed, and so we have delta.

We have Delta in the US because the guidelines weren't followed (ie masking and social distancing would have prevented it entering the US and spreading).  We have Delta at all, because globally the guidelines weren't followed.

You can certainly make the argument that it might be impossible for some impoverished areas to follow the guidelines and thus Delta's emergence might have been inevitable.  It absolutely has not been the case that following the guidelines in the US has been burdensome enough that it was unreasonable to expect people to be able to do so.

[LetterRip]

Note that spread among vaccinated people is largely due to attending superspreader events - going to bars and parties, gyms, etc.

If you are vaccinated and avoid the high risk stuff there is very little chance you will catch COVID or spread it to others.

[Fenring]

We have Delta in the US because the guidelines weren't followed (ie masking and social distancing would have prevented it entering the US and spreading).

Well, maybe. There is something in the American rebellious character that might make it impossible for this to happen, though. It's not just a 'would have, could have' situation; it might actually not even be conceivable that America could be so locked up and defended that the variant simply cannot get in. It's a sort of open society by definition, porous rather than shielded. You might well have to make America be not-America to have had any expectation that you could really prevent it outright. Slow it - maybe. But for it to never, ever enter? I'm not sure that's a reasonable thing (in context) to suppose could have happened. Maybe if the Canadian and American federal governments declared a mutual martial law, closing all borders,  policing all behavior, it could have happened. Indeed, in Feb 2020 the initial chances of an outbreak could have been totally stamped out if this was done. But the type of societies over here wouldn't permit for 'efficient' but brutal methods, even if they saved millions of lives. Such is the bargain we make.

[edgmatt]

It is reasonable to allow the refusal to get vaccinated, if they are willing to take other measures that restrict their potential to harm the public.

Note that spread among vaccinated people is largely due to attending superspreader events - going to bars and parties, gyms, etc.

If you are vaccinated and avoid the high risk stuff there is very little chance you will catch COVID or spread it to others.

If you don't get vaccinated, you aren't protected so you shouldn't be allowed to do stuff because you endanger everyone else.

So get the vaccine and you are protected and safe and you protect everyone else....but you still have to wear a mask and cant do stuff cause you endanger everyone else....including the people who are safe and protected by the vaccine, who aren't safe or protected from the vaccine.

 

[LetterRip]

If you don't get vaccinated, you aren't protected so you shouldn't be allowed to do stuff because you endanger everyone else.

So get the vaccine and you are protected and safe and you protect everyone else....but you still have to wear a mask and cant do stuff cause you endanger everyone else....including the people who are safe and protected by the vaccine, who aren't safe or protected from the vaccine.

Vaccinated people need to avoid high risk stuff, because UNVACCINATED PEOPLE are allowed to participate and thus have a high risk of infecting the vaccinated.  If unvaccinated people weren't allowed to go where they could infect others, then the vaccinated would be fine.

[LetterRip]

Maybe if the Canadian and American federal governments declared a mutual martial law, closing all borders,  policing all behavior, it could have happened. Indeed, in Feb 2020 the initial chances of an outbreak could have been totally stamped out if this was done. But the type of societies over here wouldn't permit for 'efficient' but brutal methods, even if they saved millions of lives. Such is the bargain we make.

Just wearing a  mask and social distancing once it became recommended would have wiped out the virus, no 'brutal' methods required.  The virus spread wasn't inevitable - it just takes people acting like adults.

[Fenring]

Just wearing a  mask and social distancing once it became recommended would have wiped out the virus, no 'brutal' methods required.  The virus spread wasn't inevitable - it just takes people acting like adults.

Ok, but when I said that brutal methods could be employed, I brought that up precisely because it is essentially inconceivable to ever achieve a uniform public behavior in the United States. Even in Canada that would not happen, and that country is not at all founded on the rebellious spirit. This is as opposed to countries such as China or Japan, where following suit and being homogenous in public comportment are universally accepted public virtues (to the extent that you are essentially an outcast if you refuse to follow suit; and check out what happens in Japan if you are rude and don't clear the bullet train doors properly). But in America it's the opposite. Sure, there is a lot of conformism, fad-following, and all the usual human behaviors, but it is simply baked into the American genome that you will never get everyone doing the same public behaviors, whether medical, social, or even how they carry themselves in comportment. So this is why I mentioned how brutal force could have been an option, because I don't think that in this particular country it was even plausible that you'd get uniform behavior (in masking, or anything else). No point complaining about a thing not happening that was never going to happen in the first place. 

[cherrypoptart]

"You are extremely wrong.  Delta is about 2x contagious as Alpha, Alpha was about 2x contagious as the original strain.  Vaccinated people are about 1/10th as contagious IF INFECTED as unvaccinated.  Importantly VACCINATED people are LESS LIKELY TO GET INFECTED."

Are you certain about this?

Isn't it possible that vaccinated people are getting infected but clearing the infection before they even notice? They get infected over and over again but clear it and are none the wiser. But that's different from not getting infected at all. A small distinction but important because then when they get infected with delta almost the same thing happens. They clear it without even noticing again. But, since delta establishes a beachhead in the nose and throat so much more and so much more quickly than other variants the vaccinated can pass it on before they clear it. If it wasn't for that it'd be just like all the others and wouldn't be a problem, but it's got that one difference. And that's why the unmasked vaccinated just selected for delta. It's the only one they are can really pass on.

There's the issue of how much viral particles get put out too. With the original it's a lot less likely that the vaxxed notice because they are getting less of an initial load. But with delta that's not necessarily the case. They get overloaded and while it's eventually cleared because the vaccines are working it isn't cleared before the virus accumulates in the nose and throat enough to easily spread to others, even among the vaccinated.

So I could be extremely wrong again and if so I'm glad to be corrected and learn something.

[edgmatt]

Vaccinated people need to avoid high risk stuff, because UNVACCINATED PEOPLE are allowed to participate and thus have a high risk of infecting the vaccinated.

But they are vaccinated.  So they have less chance to get it, and less chance of being affected severely, so they have little to fear.  Right?  Or, the vaccine doesn't really help that much.  Which is it?  Cause things are getting confusing.

[NobleHunter]

The vaccine helps tremendously. If enough people got vaccinated we'd be able to end the restrictions and rules about high risk activities in a month or so. If there continue to be a substantial number of hold outs, then the rules have to stay in place indefinitely and there's the very real possibility we'll get a variant in a year or two that is unaffected by existing antibodies and we'll be back to square one. Maybe that variant will have a higher mortality rate and the tens of millions of fresh corpses will convince the anti-vaxxers that maybe they should have gotten the first vaccine.

Cherry, the participants of the phase 2/3 trials are still being monitored so it would be noticed if vaccinated people were catching low symptom or asymptomatic cases of COVID.

[edgmatt]

Im not anti-vaxx.  I'm against this one being forced into me when I'm young and healthy and already had the Covid.  I don't want it, I don't need it, it creates a risk for my health and provides me with zero.

[LetterRip]

"You are extremely wrong.  Delta is about 2x contagious as Alpha, Alpha was about 2x contagious as the original strain.  Vaccinated people are about 1/10th as contagious IF INFECTED as unvaccinated.  Importantly VACCINATED people are LESS LIKELY TO GET INFECTED."

Are you certain about this?

Yes,

Isn't it possible that vaccinated people are getting infected but clearing the infection before they even notice?

Yes, you get infected all of the time with numerous viruses.  We only care about infections that produce a viral load such that they are contagious to other people, and we care about the duration of the viral load.  Vaccinated people, even if infected - have a week shorter duration during which the are contagious.  They also are drastically less likely to contract enough virus to become contagious.  I assume what is going on is that vaccinated people have IgG against the virus in their lungs.  So if they inhale some virus will trigger an adaptive immune response fairly quickly, only in the unlucky case where they don't breathe the virus into their lungs will they get the risk of a upper respiratory infection.  Or in the case they participate in a superspreader event, and the inhaled dose exceeds the bodys ability to clear it quickly.

They get infected over and over again but clear it and are none the wiser. But that's different from not getting infected at all.

Nope.  Infected people with no viral load are the same as non-infected as far as risk.

A small distinction but important because then when they get infected with delta almost the same thing happens.

Again - nope.  Probably every person that goes in public gets infected with some virus, but it is cleared by innate immunity.  Most people have probably been 'infected' a by COVID numerous times.  You need a certain dosage before the virus can become established and overcome the innate immunity.  You need an even larger dose before it can overcame preexisting adaptive immunity (ie vaccination).

They clear it without even noticing again. But, since delta establishes a beachhead in the nose and throat so much more and so much more quickly than other variants the vaccinated can pass it on before they clear it.

I think the main difference is actually delta spreads to the lungs slower and thus delays triggering adaptive immune response.

If it wasn't for that it'd be just like all the others and wouldn't be a problem, but it's got that one difference. And that's why the unmasked vaccinated just selected for delta. It's the only one they are can really pass on.

Delta emerged BEFORE vaccination - unmasked vaccinated HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  Delta emerged in late 2020 in India - there was probably zero people in India vaccinated at that time. The faster spreading virus usually becomes dominant due to exponential growth  (in 8 generations Ro = 4, 4**8 = 65536; In 8 generations Ro = 8; 8**8 = 16777216).

There's the issue of how much viral particles get put out too. With the original it's a lot less likely that the vaxxed notice because they are getting less of an initial load. But with delta that's not necessarily the case. They get overloaded and while it's eventually cleared because the vaccines are working it isn't cleared before the virus accumulates in the nose and throat enough to easily spread to others, even among the vaccinated.

So I could be extremely wrong again and if so I'm glad to be corrected and learn something.

Yes you are very wrong again.  Once a virus is established - both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals have high viral loads - delta is about 1000x for the average person compared to viral load from the original COVID (I don't think it is 1000x for superspreaders though).  Importantly the vaccine makes it less likely for the delta to get established.

Also the people with vaccine that are contracting the virus appear to have attended superspreader events.  I stated at the beginning of vaccination that even with the vaccine people should still avoid any event that puts lots of saliva in the air (loud venues; singing; exercising) because vaccines only increase the dose it takes to establish an infection, and slow the rate of progression they don't prevent infection.  I don't think there is any reason to think that if they hadn't engaged in superspreader events that they would have become infected to the point of being contagious.

[cherrypoptart]

"Delta emerged BEFORE vaccination - unmasked vaccinated HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT."

Understood but I'm talking about why it's being transmitted so much more here in America right now.

The unmasked unvaccinated are surely responsible for the vast majority of the transmission but if the CDC is correct then for the most part the only variant the unmasked and vaccinated are transmitting is the delta variant. It would be "extraordinarily rare" for the other variants to be spread by the unmasked vaccinated. And that's how it's getting selected to be such a huge problem and would be even if the unvaccinated had kept masking. In other words, if the vaccinated had just kept masking and practicing the common sense social distancing measures that had rates coming down substantially, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. Biden and the CDC blew it and managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They made a political decision to declare success instead of sticking to the science and staying the course.

It's important to realize that and even more important for them to acknowledge it and learn from it because if they don't then they may make the same mistake again and even keep making it over and over just like they have a bad habit of doing with so many policies that keep failing and they keep at them anyway, promising, or hoping, or praying, or just wishing on a star, that the next time will be different. Some people only learn the hard way while others never learn at all. I've got a bad feeling our leadership, on both sides, is in the latter group.

[Fenring]

I didn't say it would be "right" for me to push the guy off the bridge, I said that's what I would do.  I did say it would be immoral, and therefore "not right" by my own definition, and the definition of billions of people. I would VOLUNTARILY take the punishment (if there was one) for taking that immoral action.

I still think we are maybe playing language games here. Why would you choose to knowingly do a 'wrong' thing? How can it be wrong if it's an action you feel logically compelled to do, that you'd do again if given the chance, and that you'd defend on the ground that it had to be done? If that's 'immoral' then I think the concept of morality breaks down under its normally understood definition. For instance I suppose you could posit a world where there are only wrong choices, where God is either nefarious or nonexistent, and where the best you can often hope to do is something bad that is merely a lesser evil. But I think most understandings of morality imply - almost by necessity - that if you structure the moral framework properly it can be understood which sorts of things are good and which are not. I don't think such a system permits for 'it's bad AND you should do it' (or *I* would do it, which is just a personal morality). That just redefines what is moral and what isn't, rather than suggestion that the best course is an immoral one. This may sound pedantic, but it's really important to understand that your position really rests on what the word 'immoral' means. Like, really really.

That being said, you seem to now be saying that you'd do an immoral thing if it saved lots of people.

No, I said if it would save the HUMAN RACE from extinction, then I'd do it.  That's vastly different.  Stop changing what I said, stop saying "so you're saying".  Take my words for what they mean.

I assumed you were, reasonably, applying this rule to any arbitrarily large amount of people at stake. Are you now saying you would choose the "push the man" part of the trolley problem if and only if literally every human was at stake, but if (n being the total population) n-1 are at stake then you would not? What about n-2? My assumption was that so long as n-x was 'quite large' your reasoning would remain intact. Are you saying that only if n=0 (i.e. precisely zero people were left) you would choose this course?

No, that is wrong.  You have watered down my position of throwing a man off a bridge to save the human race to something else entirely.  I shouldn't have used such a ridiculous analogy because it would never happen and it's distracting from the reality we are faced with.

Generally I tend to agree that these analogies cause more problems than they solve. But since in this case we are really asking how much saving of others warrants doing this thing you call immoral, it does seem pertinent to nail down exactly where you draw the line. So an analogy may not be bad in this instance.

Something cannot be both immoral and correct.  Sometimes we voluntarily take on an immoral act, to do what we think is correct, (like the mother who steals bread to save her child from dying), but the act itself is still immoral.

An immoral act cannot be correct...but sometimes we do it thinking it's correct? Do you mean that in these cases we are clearly mistaken? Since you are aware of this, why would you ever do an incorrect, immoral action, since you already know that it is? And mind you I'm not talking about willpower or guts or nerves, but just in theory whether you'd like to be able to do it. I still don't understand, even faintly, what you mean when you say you would choose to do an act that is immoral in a certain situation. Do you mean you don't care about doing the right? Or do you mean that in this case it's the best choice available? Perhaps this brings up back to the nature of the universe. I suppose maybe you believe that we live in a world where we are essentially forced to be immoral? If you do believe that then this is a fundamental area of disagreement.

[cherrypoptart]

An important word I see missing in all of your analysis is "necessary".

Immoral acts are sometimes necessary.

It's immoral and wrong to kill innocent women and children but when terrorists hide behind them sometimes it's necessary if you want to stop the terrorists from killing even more innocent women and children.

[NobleHunter]

Im not anti-vaxx.  I'm against this one being forced into me when I'm young and healthy and already had the Covid.  I don't want it, I don't need it, it creates a risk for my health and provides me with zero.

I don't know about you, but I think impeding the creation of new variants that will ignore your existing antibodies is a major health benefit. Mandatory vaccination is beneficial to everyone.

I've seen it mentioned that antibodies produced in response to the vaccine may last longer than those produced by COVID but I don't know if that's been borne out by further study or not.

[msquared]

Well the US hit 70% of the 18+ age group with at least 1 shot.  A month latter than hoped.

Been an uptick in vaccinations the past week or so. I hope that continues.

[TheDrake]

A moral framework decides between right and wrong. You can't create another axis of cognitive dissonance called necessity. It amounts to, I'm going to do something wrong because it is the right thing to do!

[Fenring]

An important word I see missing in all of your analysis is "necessary".

Immoral acts are sometimes necessary.

It's immoral and wrong to kill innocent women and children but when terrorists hide behind them sometimes it's necessary if you want to stop the terrorists from killing even more innocent women and children.

I don't think it can be shown that this particular act is necessary. What it is is expedient, and if expediency is more important that being moral then indeed, a government might choose that course. But to the extent that it is literally impossible to avoid a negative collateral damage in a human situation, I would not call that immoral since one is not intentionally willing the bad result. For instance there is the classic "what if my cancer treatment kills the unborn baby" scenario. Opting to take the treatment is not 'immoral' or wrong, even though there is an unfortunate collateral loss of life. Of course this is a heavy decision to make that will weigh on all involved, so I don't mean to say it's trivial, but at any rate it's not clearly crossing a moral line to take an action whose goal is benevolent and which inevitably might cause some side-effect that cannot be helped. Taking the terrorism situation, that requires a lot of moral calculus. It's not an example I would use in creating definitions, as that will only confuse matters. For all you Ayn Rand fans out there, she said very clearly that you should not define your morality based on extreme crazy examples like who to rescue in a lifeboat between your wife and your mother. Life is not a series of lifeboats, and those can only even be discussed once your morality is already grounded and clear.

Now regarding forcing a person to take a vaccine against their will to save lives, the vaccine-taking is not actually an incidental collateral event but in fact the purpose of the exercise, so it's doubly inapplicable to speak of collateral civilian casualties when pursuing the main objective of taking out terrorists. The main objective in our case is the vaccine.

[LetterRip]

Understood but I'm talking about why it's being transmitted so much more here in America right now.

The 1000x typical viral load caused by delta means it it twice as infective as alpha (presumably there is a logarithmic rather than linear relationship between viral load and infectiveness).   The exponential growth means in a few generations of spread it catches up and surpasses the slower spreading variants.  Unmasked unvaccinated will average infecting 8 new people, the infected vaccinated will be a relatively minor contribution.

The unmasked unvaccinated are surely responsible for the vast majority of the transmission but if the CDC is correct then for the most part the only variant the unmasked and vaccinated are transmitting is the delta variant.

You are misunderstanding.  All of the variants are being spread in parallel, but the delta variant spreads 8 times faster than the original; and the alpha variant spreads 4x faster than the original.  Due to exponential growth the number of cases from delta rapidly exceed the cases of all other variants combined.
Original - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16,32, 64, 128 - in eight generations
Alpha    - 1, 4, 16, 64, 256, 1024, 4096, 16384 - in eight generations
Delta - 1, 8 64, 4096, 32768, 262144, 2097152 - in eight generations

So the faster exponential growth means that even though delta started at 1 person in November of 2020 (or thereabouts), it rapidly exceeded the spread of all other variants.

It would be "extraordinarily rare" for the other variants to be spread by the unmasked vaccinated. And that's how it's getting selected to be such a huge problem and would be even if the unvaccinated had kept masking.

No.  It is the exponential growth.  Completely eliminate any and all spread from vaccinated people, and the total infections would likely be pretty close to what they are now.  I'd be shocked if total infections transmitted from vaccinated people would comprise even 1% of the total.