CV and mad panic behaviour

[Lods]

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..

Let's for a minute say we go with your figures.
What happens when a mutated variant comes into play for which a vaccine does not offer the same protection?
If the Omicron takes off it is liable to displace the currently dominant Delta.
As I said we can only go with the best current advice (that's my own personal position) but it seems to me the covid is staying one step ahead.

[LP]

Let's for a minute say we go with your figures.
What happens when a mutated variant comes into play for which a vaccine does not offer the same protection?
If the Omicron takes off it is liable to displace the currently dominant Delta.
As I said we can only go with the best current advice (that's my own personal position) but it seems to me the covid is staying one step ahead.

But at the moment the game remains as stated, and the vaccines still have efficacy.

The new legislation taken up here and abroad is designed to slow the spread, to buy time for the evolution of vaccines by slowing the infections. At this stage it is working, the biggest risk is public non-compliance not the virus. Even though it's a fantasy and impossible, if when the virus was first detected we all locked down for a month and remained distanced, it would be extinct now.

No matter how contagious a virus needs a vector to spread and that vector is generally formed by a combination of actions from people who are in a proximity. In close proximity, one infected unvaccinated person might be the equivalent of 10, 100 or 1000 infected vaccinated people.

Omicron impacts efficacy in many ways, transmission is only one of probably dozens of terms in a very complex real world equation. None of us can escape Sars-CoV-2 forever, eventually we will all get it or some future variant, because it's now endemic. That's why closing borders can't work, it encourages bad behaviour by allowing people to resume the old ways and those old ways are now inherently risky, because from here onwards spread is always a mater of when not if! It is almost as bad as doing nothing like the protestors basically demand.

[Lods]

But at the moment the game remains as stated, and the vaccines still have efficacy.

...and that's kind of at the root of what troubles me.
Are we playing last week's game when the real worry is the game ahead?

[LP]

...and that's kind of at the root of what troubles me.
Are we playing last week's game when the real worry is the game ahead?

Even if the vaccines lose efficacy, the restrictive measures still work to slow or even stop the spread, as long as there is compliance by the public. This lack of compliance is what makes deniers / protestors such a risk to everyone else, and if the game changes they will be persecuted by mob rule, they are already such a minority, God help them if they are not prepared to help themselves and the rules of the game change!

[kruddler]

Comparing someone who doesn't want to get vaccinated to someone getting sloshed and getting behind the wheel is beyond reaching.

More people die by horses and cows than lions.
Doesn't mean Lions are not dangerous though, just statistically there are more of them and more chances of accidents happening as a result.

antivaxxers are basically saying they'd prefer to be in a cage with a lion than with a cow. Thats how nonsensical that 'logic' is.

[Mav]

MBB won't like you comparing the unvaxxed to apex predators ...

[LP]

Norway bans the booze, like we have things to complain about! :o

As I've said before and stand by it, our lockdown was a relative Clayton's lockdown compared to some locations, the local cries about a world record, etc., etc., are spin mostly for political purposes. All lockdowns are not the same!

Relative to some foreign locations our local restrictions and inconveniences were hardly a locked down at all!

[capcom]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presiden...d=81701113

As BTO sang, "you ain't seen nothing yet"

[capcom]

Norway bans the booze, like we have things to complain about! :o

Hardly ... in pubs and restaurants.  Overreach

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-14/n.../100697718

[Mav]

Really? The good townsfolk in Victoria came out with their pitchforks and torches when there was a crackdown on pubs serving alcohol to patrons who drank it on the footpath as well as alcohol being consumed around playgrounds in pop-up picnics. And you think banning alcohol sales at pubs and restaurants would be met with a shrug in Victoria?