|
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 |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
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:
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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? |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|