![]() |
|
CV and mad panic behaviour - Printable Version +- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com) +-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html) +--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html) +--- Thread: CV and mad panic behaviour (/thread-4651.html) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
|
Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 12-12-2021 (12-12-2021, 10:58 PM)madbluboy date Wrote:I read an article discussing boosters that said the moderna booster worked better than pfizer or astra but the Novavax as a booster smashed them both especially after two shots of astra.It's quite possible, the science seems to indicate cross vaccination is clearly delivering the best antibody response and better long term adaptive immune response ( T-Cell and B-Cell memory). Pfizer works OK but it's efficacy is perhaps overhyped, the pharmaceutical companies are clearly all massive commercial entities, but it appears to me that Pfizer is an order of magnitude ahead of the others in terms of marketing and promoting it's product. I worry that a lot of it's spin is about it's balance sheet more than curing the pandemic, Pfizer's CEO pushing more frequent and earlier boosters shots should be an alarm bell for the authorities, the science should be pursuing better outcomes not just more of the same! Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 12-12-2021 (12-12-2021, 10:59 PM)Lods date Wrote:The fact that the majority of eligible folks in the country are now double vaccinated means that most of the ongoing transmission will come from vaccinated folks.[member=906]Lods[/member] That might not be correct, viral load and shedding determines how infectious someone might be, while there may be more vaccinated people roaming around it still appears that they shed less virus, have lower viral loads and remain less likely to transmit by about an order of magnitude. Based on uptake that probably means if you get Sars-CoV-2 it's still more likely you get it from someone unvaccinated. It's not a simple situation to evaluate, the math is serious complicated, too much of the media coverage talks like getting infected is easy like getting fur off you from contact with a cat or dog. If you pass or brush against infected people they aren't all putting you at the same level of risk, and that level of risk is non-linear. There remains a risk that vaccinated or unvaccinated could become super-spreaders, but it's wrong to assume all is equal, the chance of a vaccinated person becoming a super-spreader is very very low, several orders of magnitude lower. Finally, being vaccinated is a clear indicator of willingness to comply with health directives, social distancing, mask wearing in hazard zones, getting tested if unwell. It makes a difference and all feeds back into the math. Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 12-12-2021 Boris Johnson: UK Faces 'Tidal Wave' Of Omicron Cases, Huffpost. Perhaps Boris Johnson isn't well placed to inform the masses given that he would welcome a distraction from his political problems (including the fallout from the revelation his Tories held parties during the lockdown and had a laugh about it). But the epidemiologists are more credible: Quote:Johnson’s announcement came hours after the government raised the country’s official coronavirus threat level, warning the rapid spread of the omicron variant had pushed the U.K. into risky territory. Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - ElwoodBlues1 - 12-12-2021 (12-12-2021, 10:58 PM)madbluboy link Wrote:I read an article discussing boosters that said the moderna booster worked better than pfizer or astra but the Novavax as a booster smashed them both especially after two shots of astra.I want the Novavax and its been prescribed for my daughters MIL who has multiple health issues and cant have the others but is the same old story with supply being the issue and its also going to cost more. Moderna gave my Son in Law lumps along his collarbone and a shingles type rash after one dose...... Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Lods - 12-13-2021 (12-12-2021, 11:10 PM)LP link Wrote:[member=906]Lods[/member] That might not be correct, viral load and shedding determines how infectious someone might be, while there may be more vaccinated people roaming around it still appears that they shed less virus, have lower viral loads and remain less likely to transmit by about an order of magnitude. Based on uptake that probably means if you get Sars-CoV-2 it's still more likely you get it from someone unvaccinated. I can get my head around the fact that you're a lot less likely to get it from a vaccinated person due to the lesser impact of the virus on their system and the load they carry but surely that's countered by the number of folks vaccinated and still passing it on. Failing clear data we really have no idea as to where the transmission is coming from...and I'm not sure you how you measure where you've caught it from. There are so many variables, including waning protection in some of the early vaccinated. With the Queensland situation we really shouldn't have any 'interstate unvaccinated' roaming free so it will be interesting to see if it takes hold. I think a rise in cases is the expectation from the health folk. Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 12-13-2021 It's nonsense to try to aggregate the risk of vaccinated people passing on Covid in order to say unvaccinated people are no longer a problem. Forget about aggregation. If the average unvaccinated person is more likely to catch and infect others with Covid than the average vaccinated person (and yes, a lot of work has to be done in assessing those risks), that's a reasonable basis to impose mandates and the like. The CDC reports that only 28% of fatal accidents in the US involve alcohol impairment. As sober drivers are 3 times more likely to be involved in fatal accidents, does that mean we shouldn't try to keep drunk drivers off the road? Maybe it would be better to concentrate on the increased risk of an alcohol-affected driver being involved in a collision compared to a sober driver rather than the aggregate statistics. Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - madbluboy - 12-13-2021 Comparing someone who doesn't want to get vaccinated to someone getting sloshed and getting behind the wheel is beyond reaching. Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Mav - 12-13-2021 No, it's simple probability and statistics. The point is only how aggregation is nonsensical. If you saw a statistician using the same methodology to compute the probability that 5 tosses of a coin result in 3 heads and a random group of 5 people has 3 females in it, would you seriously argue that it would be outrageous to compare people and coins? Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - LP - 12-13-2021 (12-13-2021, 02:40 AM)Lods date Wrote:I can get my head around the fact that you're a lot less likely to get it from a vaccinated person due to the lesser impact of the virus on their system and the load they carry but surely that's countered by the number of folks vaccinated and still passing it on.It's to do with the level of viral load and viral shedding relative to what level of virus you have to take up to have a good chance of being infected. Can I offer some simplistic numbers to explain the chance/risk concept because I do not know the real figures, if so read on? Let's say you need to take on a viral load of 1,000 to have a chance of being infected, but a vaccinated person might only be shedding a load of 100, they are giving you 1/10th of a chance of being infected. This is per unit time/exposure. An unvaccinated person might be shedding 100,000, you still only need 1,000 to have a chance but now that one contact is giving you 100 chances to get infected. In ratio that makes you 1000x more likely to get the virus off the person shedding 100,000 versus the person shedding 100, from the same level of exposure. btw., How much virus and bacteria can you shed? When I asked this of an associate in the field they mentioned that a healthy person sheds about 50,000 virus or bacteria particles with every deep breath, while simply coughing and/or sneezing can shed 10x to 50x more! Now think about these figures and how the vaccine providers might calculate efficacy, where does that 95% or 97% efficacy figure come from, knowing that shedding is part of the calculation it clear how these ratios can relate to deliver vastly different outcomes! PS; I want to be clear about this because naysayers will latch onto the figures, I do not know the real numbers. I've used powers of 10 to simplify the explanation, it may be that the real world numbers are 3, 30 and 3000 or 15, 150 and 15000, whatever they are isn't important it's the relationship between them. The ratios may even be non-linear requiring the use of exponents, roots and complex numbers (The reason why I used the term simplistic rather than imaginary!) Also the term "a chance" might be 50/50, or 60/40, or 40/60, etc., etc.. Re: CV and mad panic behaviour - Lods - 12-13-2021 (12-13-2021, 04:23 AM)Mav link Wrote:It's nonsense to try to aggregate the risk of vaccinated people passing on Covid in order to say unvaccinated people are no longer a problem. I'm certainly not suggesting that (in bold)... There seems to be a bit of a line of thinking that if you mention vaccinated folk spread covid you're helping promote the philosophies of the unvaccinated. In actual fact having some confusion over the fact that you're still at risk is surely a dangerous practice...it leads to a false sense of security. Folks should be aware of all the issues surrounding the disease and vaccines. In a situation that changes day by day anyone who thinks they have all the answers probably needs to take a pause. Advice can change quickly. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-11/booster-access-brought-forward-to-slow-spread-of-omicron-variant/100693484 Quote:"There is no evidence to suggest, at the moment, that an earlier booster does of the current covid-19 vaccines, will augment the protection against the omicron variant," Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly said on December 3. Omicron has thrown into question some of the strategies and effectiveness used with the Delta strain, just as Delta meant a change from previous strains (need for boosters). The next variant might present even more challenges. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/how-omicron-appears-to-be-infecting-britain-despite-the-vaccine/ar-AARJzDr?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531 "Get vaccinated, get your boosters" is the best current advice...but the challenge remains that there is still a lot of work needed to stay ahead of this thing. |