Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > Coronavirus/COVID19 Temp Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Coronavirus/COVID19 Temp Forum This is a temporary forum for discussion, debate, sharing and helping each other during and in relation to the Coronavirus/COVID19

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-05-2021, 1:39 PM
sd_shooter's Avatar
sd_shooter sd_shooter is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hill Country, TX
Posts: 10,680
iTrader: 81 / 100%
Default 60% of island population vaccinated, yet 'cases' rising

Those receiving the vaccine might as well get a shot of saline - it might even work better! (Along with getting some fresh air & exercise)

https://americanconservativemovement...d-cases-spike/

Quote:
The tiny nation of Seychelles, an archipelago in the Indian Ocean, has the highest density of vaccinated citizens in the world. Over 60% of their residents have received full Covid vaccinations, so one would expect they would be well on their way to reaching normalcy by now. Instead, they are experiencing a spike in new Covid cases that’s so bad, they’re going into full lockdown mode once again.

The nation of under 100,000 people is a popular tourist destination, so the government sprung into action to get as many people vaccinated as possible. Their economy required them to be considered as safe as possible to maintain their biggest industry, so the people generally embraced the vaccination agenda. It isn’t just to protect those who are vaccinated, but also those who are not. That’s the point of vaccines, to slow the spread and make a disease fade away as a result of herd immunity.

It didn’t happen. Instead, they’ve seen a spike of over 50% increase in cases just since April 28. The government is baffled, holding a press conference to announce the new round of lockdowns
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-05-2021, 1:55 PM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Not in California
Posts: 3,098
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Questions:

How many people are normally present in addition to the 100k residents? How many of the non-resident tourists are vaccinated?

How often does the tourist population churn?

The fact that it is an island does not necessarily mean it is isolated, or that the 60% vaccinated population is the only group of humans present. Tourists coming from different origins can import various viruses.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-05-2021, 2:08 PM
as_rocketman's Avatar
as_rocketman as_rocketman is offline
CGSSA Leader
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 2,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Largely vaccinated with Sinopharm. Other nations have estimated its efficacy at no better than 50%. I would not take this vaccine if it were the only one on the market.

Still, this will happen. 60% immunized means 40% are not, and immunization even if successful may be protective rather than sterilizing -- if you still get it and test positive but suffer no severe outcome, that's still a win. We'll have to see how it goes over there.
__________________
Riflemen Needed.

Ask me about Appleseed! Send a PM or see me in the Appleseed subforum.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-05-2021, 2:36 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,864
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

35% of the infected had both shots, 65% had none or one shot.......
__________________
One life so don't blow it......Always die with your boots on!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-05-2021, 3:17 PM
Mikeywee Mikeywee is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is an easy one to answer

First off everything to deal with Covid is utterly fake and we all know that us talk about why they’re doing this and their purpose and their agenda

Let’s be real just like California was doing that is how they didn’t mention how many cycle counts for their testing anything above 27 as false rates of 90% or more so that’s what they’re probably doing because they can’t have the island open because tours of flock there in two seconds how to fit their narrative of trying to close the world down so people can’t enjoy themselves and have fun. It is just that simple

Most of the people that had to worry about Covid already dead and whoever is left survived. There is no risk in the world anymore for anything like this because Covid is influenza and influenza is just the flu. Such a joke people keep even believing anything to do with us it’s all big huge government conspiracies
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-05-2021, 5:34 PM
Garand Hunter Garand Hunter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,719
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Careful mikey, you are already on rocketmans feces list ! Ha Ha, keep it up !

Psalm 1
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-05-2021, 6:07 PM
stonefly-2 stonefly-2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Occupied New Helvitia
Posts: 4,979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milsurp1 View Post
Questions:

How many people are normally present in addition to the 100k residents? How many of the non-resident tourists are vaccinated?

How often does the tourist population churn?

The fact that it is an island does not necessarily mean it is isolated, or that the 60% vaccinated population is the only group of humans present. Tourists coming from different origins can import various viruses.


I'll bet their tourism influx was cratering like all others,

pity our influx isn't huh?
__________________
What do you call the people that abandoned the agenda of John Kennedy and adopted the agenda of Lee Oswald?

Pronouns: "Dude" and "Playa".

https://billstclair.com/Unintended-Consequences.pdf


I was born under a wandrin star.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-05-2021, 6:26 PM
WWDHD? WWDHD? is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 2,552
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

The article I read off drudge said they mostly used the Chinese or Russian vaccines. If correct that's not great news on what they both came up with.
__________________
NRA & CRPA member
semi-docile tax payer
amateur survivalist

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-05-2021, 9:33 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by as_rocketman View Post
...and immunization even if successful may be protective rather than sterilizing -- if you still get it and test positive but suffer no severe outcome, that's still a win. We'll have to see how it goes over there.
It seems the jury is still out on just that with regard to all the current, available vaccines.

It's one of the things I still want to know before committing; i.e., if it is only protective, then protective for how long becomes a crucial element in the decision-making process.

If it becomes akin to the flu shots where regular and repeated boosters will be necessitated, then a certain legitimacy will be perceived in the notion that we will never be 'done' with the virus, so what's the point if you will receive some protection from actually contracting the disease, with a very low likelihood of dying from it even without said protection. While one can counter with the potential 'long term' impacts of contracting the disease, it will be set against the risk of the potential adverse impacts of the vaccines; i.e., the chances of the former vs. the chances of the latter. And around the barn we go again.

It's part of the reason many fear that the power brokers will decide to mandate vaccination and deploy 'vaccination passports' rather than wait "to see how it goes."

Put it this way, I'm not averse to vaccination. I've said that one should feel free to choose which version they wish and get it if they judge it to be beneficial to them. In fact, were it already established as a "one and done forever" vaccination, I'd probably have already gotten mine. But, like my not taking flu vaccines due to the hit/miss potential vs. my not contracting the flu very often as it is, even I would be hesitant to take a vaccine that only provides marginally more protection, if that, than an acquired, natural immunity.

That's part of the "long term" effects which are, at least, partially addressed via the approval process vs. the EUA we are currently operating under. Right?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-05-2021, 10:17 PM
as_rocketman's Avatar
as_rocketman as_rocketman is offline
CGSSA Leader
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 2,764
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's one of the things I still want to know before committing; i.e., if it is only protective, then protective for how long becomes a crucial element in the decision-making process.
So shifting gears to our own EUA vaccines -- the situation in Seychelles involves the Chinese Sinopharm and European AstraZeneca, not any of ours -- we are learning as we go, but it appears it's another sliding scale. Real-world results so far indicate that the Pfizer vaccine remains ~90% effective against infection and ~80% effective against asymptomatic transmission.

If this holds up it suggests most people would actually acquire sterilizing immunity instead of merely reducing the viral load, but this is a time-varying signal; there is no such thing as wholly sterilizing immunity. Some people of course will not develop a fully efficient immune response, and will do worse, but on the whole this is a very good result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Put it this way, I'm not averse to vaccination. I've said that one should feel free to choose which version they wish and get it if they judge it to be beneficial to them. In fact, were it already established as a "one and done forever" vaccination, I'd probably have already gotten mine. But, like my not taking flu vaccines due to the hit/miss potential vs. my not contracting the flu very often as it is, even I would be hesitant to take a vaccine that only provides marginally more protection, if that, than an acquired, natural immunity.
I wouldn't call a full order of magnitude "marginal," but that's a judgment call. The statistic I am most interested in is risk reduction for hospitalization or severe symptoms, and there it may be more than two decades -- there were almost no* severe symptoms at all among vaccinated individuals in the trial. But anyway, the durability of immunity is obviously an open question. We do know that vaccination confers a long-term response, just not whether that's a year or five or fifty. Viral genetic drift of course has something to say about it as well, but so does cross-reactivity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That's part of the "long term" effects which are, at least, partially addressed via the approval process vs. the EUA we are currently operating under. Right?
That's right. Part of the EUA calls for continued monitoring -- all of the Phase III subjects are still being studied, and that's where our estimates of long-term durability are coming from. So far, so good.

These are much more reasonable questions! Answers will take time, though.

*: There was one case of COVID-19 in the vaccinated group that was considered severe by FDA scoring, but not severe by CDC criteria. I cannot find more specifics -- it appears to be one of "borderline severity."
__________________
Riflemen Needed.

Ask me about Appleseed! Send a PM or see me in the Appleseed subforum.

Last edited by as_rocketman; 05-05-2021 at 10:32 PM.. Reason: See note to statistics
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-05-2021, 10:17 PM
SanDiego619's Avatar
SanDiego619 SanDiego619 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Banana
Posts: 5,699
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

LOL, what a useless vaccine.
__________________
Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-05-2021, 10:27 PM
DentonandSasquatchShow's Avatar
DentonandSasquatchShow DentonandSasquatchShow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 935
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's NOT a vaccine. It only lessons the symptoms it does NOT keep you from getting the cyh-na virus. It is impossible to reach herd immunity with this "vaccine".
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-06-2021, 5:01 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DentonandSasquatchShow View Post
It's NOT a vaccine. It only lessons the symptoms it does NOT keep you from getting the cyh-na virus. It is impossible to reach herd immunity with this "vaccine".
I suspect that use of the term 'vaccine' has had a two-fold purpose...
  1. The masses understand 'vaccine' to mean immunity and, as "as rocketman" suggests above, that is the 'hoped for' outcome... eventually.
  2. Until such 'immunity' is achieved, if it is achieved, 'vaccine' is a marketing term to promote participation so that increasing population resistance can be developed.
What it's like to get COVID-19 after a vaccine, according to people who had 'breakthrough' infections

Quote:
...The COVID-19 vaccines have been extremely successful at preventing serious illness that could lead to hospitalizations and deaths. But no existing vaccine is 100% effective at preventing infection, Dr. Lisa V. Adams, an associate dean for global health at Dartmouth College, told Insider...

"The goal of these vaccines is to keep you out of the hospital and keep you out of the ICU and keep you from dying. If you have a mild infection where you're PCR positive and have essentially an asymptomatic infection, that's fine," Offit said, referring to a type of COVID-19 test...

"I'm an advocate for the vaccine," she said. "The only way that we're going to get through this is if everybody or majority of the population gets vaccinated. I think that's the only step forward that we can take to being a more normal world again."...
Part of the confusion has to do with what the CDC itself appears to claim is the purpose of a vaccine...

Quote:
...This is what makes vaccines such powerful medicine. Unlike most medicines, which treat or cure diseases, vaccines prevent them...
The problem stems from "the Devil being in the details." Vaccines don't, in and of themselves, prevent disease. What they do is stimulate an individual's immune system, 'teaching' it to fight off infections related to that disease. Prevention becomes dependent upon a significant number in a community developing such resistance; thus, stymieing spread and the resultant mutations. Which is why the "push is on" to get as many vaccinated as possible.

At least that is how I have always understood 'vaccines.' My issue, as I noted above, is that the answers to how much and for how long resistance is generated via the currently available vaccines is... tentative and, to a degree, muddled. Yes. There are numbers, but they are still largely 'limited,' no matter how promising they appear.

That's not necessarily the manufacturer's fault. As has been repeatedly discussed, there is "approval" and there is "emergency use authorization." The former means something closer to 'fully researched and evaluated;' which, by definition, requires time and study. The latter was and continues to be prioritized in the interest of preventing the disease from being or becoming 'uncontrollable,' with the inevitable consequences. But, once again, that is one of my concerns; i.e., that 'fully researched/evaluated' may become defined differently in terms of time/study than has been, predominantly, the 'norm' and, thus, "approval" may not mean what it is typically 'understood' as indicating.

How does the public define "fully?" How do researchers define "fully?" How do public health officials define "fully?" How do the politicians define "fully?" And, do those definitions correlate?

The answer?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-06-2021, 7:43 AM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Posts: 7,308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They and we need to ignore this nonsense that kills such a miniscule portion of the population and at worst causes flu like symptoms. Cases mean nothing. Governments have done a great job brainwashing the vast majority into believing how serious this is. It doesn't seem they are ever going to stop believing it either. If the majority didn't WANT to comply, it would be over.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy