Delta Has Changed the Pandemic Risk Calculus

originally posted by: av8r007
I'm unvaxed, I'm free, and I'm alive, not sick and healthy as a horse, not masked, and all of you covid fear pushers are the biggest screamers of fire in the movie theater. How do you all look yourselves in the mirror at night and take yourselves seriously. What a crock this all has been.

Frankly, we're too busy looking down on people like you to bother with any of that stuff.

It's all about being prepared, and about taking responsibility for your own safety.

Think of it this way. Social distancing and mask wearing are like having a concealed carry. I might never need to pull it on someone, in fact I hope I never do, but should some BLM protestor jump out at me in the dark and demand that I check my privilege by handing over my phone, I can be safe in the knowledge that I can turn him into swish cheese before he's had time to pee his pants.

You, on the other hand, you're going to be down a phone.

Yes, I know that you look funny in a mask. You don't have the face for it, and you do look as silly as you feel, but at the end of the day wearing one means that you are facing the situation head on and taking charge, not being a little snowflake worried about their feelz.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

A vaxxed person also has a 50-60% lower risk of transmitting covid, so if one vaxed person has covid and stands next to another vaxxed person the first vaxxed person has significantly reduced chance of transmitting convid to the second person and the second person has a significantly reduced risk of being infected, and if they are infected then this recharges their immunity.

How come my vaccinated friend caught it then passed it to her vaccinated husband and then on to their two vaccinated children, who have it now?
Strangely, neither of the two unvaccinated children have caught it as yet.

I don't know if you remember but several months ago I told the story of a co-worker who had to isolate because his wife had covid......he slept with her.....and no one in the family got it.
No one in this particular family was vaccinated at that point.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: AaarghZombies

It is also proof that the vaxed will at this stage of the game have to be vaxed for life to maintain that immunity. This is what you would expect at this time period. But after six months if you have survived the two shots without harm the booster is still a question mark, I am sure things will be clearer soon.

Given that the data which was released was a snapshot of cases to date, and not a case study over time there is absolutely no way that you could use it support your conclusion.

I don't even know what you're responding to, but I'll be happy to pick apart the nonsense in the rest of your post.

You're welcome to try, I actively invite you to try. Just remember that in order to demonstrate your conclusion you're going to need to prove it mathematically, so any answer that you give which doesn't include the math needed to explain how you reached it can't actually be considered an answer, just a conclusion.

First you prove that you can understand math by using some in one of your informative vaccine advertisements.

Now, on to the topic at hand.

If a person is vaxed their immunity will diminish over time, but this is a gradual decrease, not an exponential one, and in the majority of the population it won't ever reduce to zero.

If that vaxxed person is exposed to Covid then they initially have an 85% chance that they will either not be infected with covid or will only experience mild symptoms, this 85% will decrease over time, but each subsequent time they are exposed to covid their immunity will go back up again. The amount of increase will vary from person to person. This is because each time you are exposed to covid it's like getting a booster shot. You're body already knows how to fight it, so it's easier to do so.

A vaxxed person also has a 50-60% lower risk of transmitting covid, so if one vaxed person has covid and stands next to another vaxxed person the first vaxxed person has significantly reduced chance of transmitting convid to the second person and the second person has a significantly reduced risk of being infected, and if they are infected then this recharges their immunity.

Please provide a current study over time, as you condemned the person you were responding to about, that backs any of these numbers and isn't a "snapshot in time". The chances of infection, all of it. Please be sure to include the graph of vaccine efficiency over time, not just snapshots, I want to see the gradual decline. Robust data, a nice smooth line with lots of data points.

On the other hand, an unvaxxed person doesn't have this initial immunity and so in more likely to get infected the first time, and more likely to get sick the first time.

After that, they're in EXACTLY THE SAME BOAT as the vaxxed when it comes to booster shots. Their immunity will also decrease over time, but the vaxxed are more likely to have a booster shot which means that they get a free recharge to their immunity without the risk of getting sick, which the unvaxxed don't have, because the only place that they can get a recharge form is being infected a second time.

I like how the fact that you have to get forever boosters isn't a failure, but rather a valuable service to give you bestest immunity, lol. It's like the oil and lube company saying their leaky filter adds the benefit of constantly putting in new oil. Do you really think people don't see through this?

You can put all the pretty frosting on a turd you want, I'm not putting birthday candles in it and it still isn't a cake.

Of course, if everyone got vaxxed the amount of covid in the environment would be so low that booster shots wouldn't be necessary. Remember, the booster is used to guard against covid that primarily exists inside the unvaxxed.

Yes, the unvaxxed are the main suppliers of covid, without them boosters may not need to be a thing at all.

There is no disease that everybody is vaccinated for. Stop using fantasies as a benchmark for your propaganda.

The COVID vaccines have been and will increasingly be a failure, an unnecessary and expensive failure. Vaccine mandates are dumb and people that support them are authoritarians, comparable to literal Nazis.

You ask them to provide information well beyond any that your own propaganda sources are willing to, but don't care to question the sources that support your narrative.

I am thankful that you're here to constantly make vaccine pushers look like complete frauds that are no better than anti-vaxers. The only difference is the source of your propaganda.

a reply to: Phage

it is these variations in the genes which create the spike protein.

are you saying that alpha doesn't have a spike protien? cause alpha was the first to spread, then came word of the others.
i'm fairly sure that it does. at least that's what they said when it started before the other variants started showing up.

was delta was the first, and the others variants came after?

a reply to: tamusan

You say your county is hard hit. So I would be asking what 2nd level therapies are they trying. Knowing what I know I would start off with a 50,000 IU D2 pill and a regular dose of 2 D3 pills daily for the next couple of weeks. Along with a double the usual RDA of Vitamin C and a multivitamin. Then a Ivermectin or Remdesivir regimen or whatever is looking good currently. And maybe a blood thinner for possible blood clots. Aspirin maybe?

There is a lot of possibilities they could be doing for the Covid sick but if the doctors were Orange Man bad types they could just be putting the sick into hospital rooms and once really bad off they go straight onto a respirator and then die after a couple of days.

So what are the treatments the sick are getting?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HawkEyi

Not without booster shots which you would became depended.

Dependent.

Are you saying that without a booster you are more subject to severe infection? Do you have a source for this claim?

Or are you saying that you may be more likely to become infected? That you are safe from being re-infected if you are not vaccinated? Do you have a source for this claim?

Or catching the covid/flu while being vaxed.

Yeah, that can't happen if you aren't vaccinated.

Are you saying that you also have the flu vax this year?
Wow

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Are you masking and vaccinating your pets and wild animals? Are they not unvaccinated resevoirs?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HawkEyi

because after reading the article you have to come another conclusion to all of this.

You didn't explain why.

Delta is more transmissible than Alpha. This means the R factor is higher. This means that one person who is infected can infect more people than Alpha did.

The vaccines were never claimed to be able to completely stop infection or transmission but evidence showed that (with Alpha) it did both to some degree.

It is clearly apparent that the vaccines greatly reduce the risk of severe disease.

how does the test differentiate the alpha from delta or any other variant? My understanding is that it does not.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I hear what you’re saying, but unless you are really old and have other issues, this sounds pathetic.

I’d much rather use my natural immune system and develop antibodies instead of needing another jab every year. Getting vaccinated will probably put you into a check mate hiv situation for life.

It’s real simple for someone like me. If the world is now this bad, then just kill me. But I’m going to pass on all of this vaccine crap and just trust in my own body’s defense system.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies


Frankly, we're too busy looking down on people like you to bother with any of that stuff.

and there it is. Truth.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AaarghZombies


Frankly, we're too busy looking down on people like you to bother with any of that stuff.

and there it is. Truth.

Awwww, did he hurt your feelings?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I. Am. Not. Sick.

I know that is something you don't understand, clearly, but I am HEALTHY..............

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Are you masking and vaccinating your pets and wild animals? Are they not unvaccinated resevoirs?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

It appears this virus is here to stay. However you chose to fight it, with no end in sight, be prepared to stay the course all your days.

originally posted by: knoxie

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AaarghZombies


Frankly, we're too busy looking down on people like you to bother with any of that stuff.

and there it is. Truth.

Awwww, did he hurt your feelings?

LOL, no. I just wanted to highlight that the truth emerges every now and then. Smug assholes enjoy feeling superior, and acting as if they are better than others due to some measure they feel determines a person's worth. It would be like me judging you by your posts alone. I know that would be unfair as nobody could be that wacked out IRL. But you play the part well.

a reply to: HawkEyi

Science has shown that occasionally a parachute fails, and people die. That's right, they die!

Parachutes are clearly deadly, we all know it.

We must all jump from 'planes, at altitude, without parachutes, to protest the blatant falsehood that one may safely jump from a 'plane with a parachute.

And I have heard of people who jumped from 'planes, at altitude, without a parachute, and they were all right.

Clearly, they are lying to us about how innocuous jumping from a 'plane at altitude, without a parachute, really is.

They just want to take away our freedom to jump unencumbered!

Only together will our splat be heard!

a reply to: chr0naut

You have to really think your target audience for this comment is too simple to see the obvious.

There's a HUGE difference between a mechanical apparatus that is clear in how it functions and the risk of dying without it is 99.9% versus the opposite scenario of a virus without a 99.9% survival rate even when not vaxed. (Ie "not wearing a parachute")

Furthermore I don't need a degree is astrophysics or a degree in medicine to understand how rope and a big tarp catching air works, vs understanding what's in a drug pushed aggressively by companies and governments who have TERRIBLE track records regarding what they do with immunity and blind trust when there's money to be made.

See the problem with these derogatory and simplified analogies is they require the listener to be as gullible and stupid as the person pushing the analogy.

Now excuse me while I walk around with a parachute on just in case some dirty non parachute wearing fanatic, from the opposite political party as me, pushes me off a curb.

originally posted by: GFBufCA
a reply to: chr0naut

You have to really think your target audience for this comment is too simple to see the obvious.

There's a HUGE difference between a mechanical apparatus that is clear in how it functions and the risk of dying without it is 99.9% versus the opposite scenario of a virus without a 99.9%

There's that 99.9% figure again. Can you show me where in the world than figure applies? Perhaps provide a supportive link to the statistics?

Also, are you aware that such a ratio implies that 1 person in 1,1000 dies. If applied to the population of the USA, that would be a mere 333,240 people. More people have already died in the USA with COVID-19 as the cause of death, and it's only been a year and a bit and only a small number of the total US population have been infected so far. So clearly survival rate of 99.9% is somewhat overstated.

survival rate even when not vaxed. (Ie "not wearing a parachute")

Furthermore I don't need a degree is astrophysics or a degree in medicine to understand how rope and a big tarp catching air works, vs understanding what's in a drug pushed aggressively by companies and governments who have TERRIBLE track records regarding what they do with immunity and blind trust when there's money to be made.

Again, provide a link showing this "terrible" track record no... wait... show me someone with a better track record regarding "what they do with immunity and blind trust when there's money to be made"?

See the problem with these derogatory and simplified analogies is they require the listener to be as gullible and stupid as the person pushing the analogy.

Now excuse me while I walk around with a parachute on just in case some dirty non parachute wearing fanatic, from the opposite political party as me, pushes me off a curb.

You should keep glancing upwards, though, you never know when one of your parachute-less denialists will come hurtling down out of the sky.

a reply to: chr0naut

what are the chances of death from covid for a 50 year old male who doesn't take the vaccine?

now, what are the chances of death when exiting an airplane at altitude without a parachute?

your answer should explain even to you, why your drunken logic continues to fail.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: chr0naut

what are the chances of death from covid for a 50 year old male who doesn't take the vaccine?

22.4% of those that have died from COVID-19, have been in the age range 45-64 years old. The CFR for that age range is 3.7%, but that figure is rising due to the prevalence of the Delta strain.

now, what are the chances of death when exiting an airplane at altitude without a parachute?

Since very few people have exited from a plane at altitude without a parachute, that is a hard figure to quantify.

According to the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (Geneva), from 1940 to 2008, 157 people who fell out of a plane during a crash, lived.

Similarly, there are a number of statistics on skydiving fatalities, but most of those people would have been wearing parachutes.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the total number of people who would have exited from a plane, at altitude, without a parachute, from 1940 to 2008, would be close to 1,000. Since 157 of them lived, that's about a 15% survival rate.

your answer should explain even to you, why your drunken logic continues to fail.

Your assumption that I am drunk is also in error.

You really should stop assuming that the first thought that comes into your head, without study, or calculation, or reasoning things out, is the truth.

You need to think critically, skeptically, and not just swallow everything that flashes before your eyes.

That is probably why you hold such preposterous beliefs, such as the ones you have posted previously, multiple times, and in multiple threads.