SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

The CDC publishes the difference between vaxed and boasted. But not unvax w/ previous exposure and unvax without exposure. Why is that?

Maybe it's because there's no way to rule out previous exposure? If people have COVID, you can prove whether or not they were vaccinated/boosted, and you can look up whether they previously tested positive. However, I don't know how you would prove that they were never infected before.

those who haven’t been vaccinated by now, have done so for very deep personal reasons, likely even morally. It won’t be a self-righteous attitude that will reach them, or nonsensical sloganeering.

Agree with you there, Loukas. It's pretty obvious that most people who haven't been vaxxed yet, probably aren't going to get talked into it by randoms on the internet. Some may be convinced if they or someone close to them gets very ill but this will likely be a small handful of people.

You know what may work though? Consequences. You may not like them, but I think the data is clear that mandates have a reasonable success rate at convincing some portion of the holdouts to get vaccinated. Will there continue to be holdouts, certainly. Again, I agree with you that there are some people who are so entrenched in their beliefs about this that there is literally no convincing them.

It’ll be truth, that reaches this population. Actual truth.

This part I disagree with though. The truth is that up until Omicron the efficacy of the vaccine (in both preventing and reducing the severity of illness) was undeniable. This didn't change their mind. It's not about logic.

I understand there's a question of what, if anything, the current vaxes do to Omicron. But the numbers seem incontrovertible that they prevented infections with previous variants.

Why then write 'Vaccines don’t protect against infection or transmission'?

Parse that sentence and match it to experience. That statement is false if a vaccine prevented at least one infection (or one transmission), and it's pretty clear that more than one infection was prevented by each of the Moderna, Pfizer, Janssen, and Astra Covid vaxes.

It's pretty obvious that most people who haven't been vaxxed yet, probably aren't going to get talked into it by randoms on the internet.

That is entirely possible, but I don’t ever underestimate the internet. A lot of people communicate on it, it does have an impact. Just look at everyone’s concern of ‘ misinformation’ earlier in this thread.

You know what may work though? Consequences.

Yes, the vax pass got a few. Then the travel ban a few more. Then firing people some more. But at what cost and for how long? When do they become counterproductive? More harmful than good? And down right dangerous to the nation?

I don’t expect an answer from you, emergent, they are just questions I ask myself regularly. I’m not sure how things are looking over in your neck off the woods, but over here, they’ve never lightened up on a single mandate on the unvaxxed. Quebec, seems to be in a fight with Austria for who can be the most cruel. While some western nations are beginning to drop just about all mandates.

To what end? How many people do we need vaccinated? WHO wants 70% in all nations. Here we are fighting over 15% and destroying their livelihoods in the process. And when it comes to kids, the western nations can’t even agree on how to proceed. At least they had that going for them with the adults.

I do truly believe it will be truth that has the best chance at reaching the rest. When a vaccine isn’t tied to constitutional freedoms it at least removes that element of distrust. When we begin to see breakdowns of who is truly the most impacted and why. When we start having proper discussions about natural immunity. When we give people the opportunity to choose for themselves what to do with a mask and N95’s offering at least offering personal and external protection for those unhappy with how some might choose. There are many things the governments could let go of that would show transparency and a commitment to working with it’s citizens, instead of against them. When the media could actually ask tough questions of a variety of experts instead of channel after channel of perfect harmony. The best way to remove distrust, is to take away the reasons you may be distrusted. I don’t know, just the ramblings of a lunatic, perhaps. When the truth of the vaccines stand solely on their own merit, without interference.

Maybe it's because there's no way to rule out previous exposure? If people have COVID, you can prove whether or not they were vaccinated/boosted, and you can look up whether they previously tested positive. However, I don't know how you would prove that they were never infected before.

Separating those that you have confirmed positive test results is enough. In fact if the end goal is to get those most at risk, those with no acquired immunity, vaccinated it would be best to separate those with native immunity from those without to show the percentage for no protection is higher.

Writer Bari Weiss on the COVID pandemic and young people: "I'm sorry, but if you believe the science, you will look at the data that we did not have two years ago and you will find out that cloth masks do not do anything. You will realize that you can show your vaccine passport at a restaurant and still be asymptomatic in carrying Omicron. And you realize, most importantly, that this will be remembered by the younger generation as a catastrophic moral crime."

Her and Maher are pretty far on the progressive side of the spectrum. When you are losing them, you've losing the battle. Maher in particular pointing out the states with more restrictions had worse outcomes per capita than states without them. When people notice that they do start wondering if the restrictions are more theater in doing something than actually being effective in the real world.

Then you have the three Californians most responsible for the mandatory masking in the state, LA, and SF having photos taken of them mask less in a stadium of 72K people Sunday. And people still wonder why many people don't bother with masking themselves?

Bari Weiss is a writer/editor. Bill Maher is a comedian. Neither are leftest heroes.

I prefer to listen to scientists, not pop-culture personalities trying to get their name in the news.

Maher in particular pointing out the states with more restrictions had worse outcomes per capita than states without them.

This doesn't take into account that states without restrictions have less accurate statistics. I'm way too tired today to go digging out facts but I know there have been articles about how many cases just didn't get counted for a variety of reasons. I even remember one about a coroner who declared deaths as not covid because the family didn't believe in it.

I prefer to listen to scientists

And what have they been telling you?

And what have they been telling you?

To wear a mask.

And get vaccinated.

What we haven't done is take up a whole lot of time trying to prove scientists wrong from our home computers and cell phones sans any kind of lab or actual experience as epidemiologists.

What are they saying about vaccine passports?

Don't know. I expect it's mixed. That's where it's up to the various governments.

From a quick google search, some say they worry that it will make people afraid of the vaccines and some say it's a necessary tool in the fight against COVID. Some said they worried people would have false confidence about safety from COVID and stop other things like masks and social distancing. That's all about group psychology, not medicine. None that I found say that it doesn't matter if people get vaccinated.

I don’t think many people realize vaccine passports have been a thing for many decades. The most prevalent one was established 1951.
It’s from the World Health Organization – a yellow booklet called International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis – that confirms what vaccines and shots you have had. Many countries demand you show it on entry. Mainly African and Asian countries that still have things like Yellow Fever, Cholera and Smallpox and require confirmation of vaccination before entry. Mainly because many countries demand people coming from these countries show proof of vaccination before being allowed back.

I guess the reason we aren’t so aware of it might be because we generally travel within areas that are "safe". However – you only need to go back to 1975 or so when this was standard documentation for international flights. Why have the "safe" areas increased? Vaccinations…

True. Before my daughter went to Africa, she had to go to a special travel doctor to get the "yellow card" proving she was vaccinated against yellow fever. They also warned us of the dangers of malaria, which at the time had no vaccine available. Fortunately, the scientific advances of the COVID vaccines led to the introduction of a malaria vaccine in 2021. I'd be very surprised if that doesn't get added to the yellow card requirements.

I expect it's mixed.

It’s actually less mixed than you’d think, at least scientifically. Studies show a consistent and repeated trend. Vaccine uptake increases upon an announcement of a passport, up until and shortly after the passport being implemented. With no significant difference after a month.

There is short term good, but there are also reports warning of "backfiring" and people not getting the vaccine because of the passport. I have not seen a report that weighs these two out, but that would be interesting.

Studies also show a negative impact on marginalized groups. Where distrust is higher and coercion not improving the relationship.

A new study out, A Literature Review And Meta-Analysis Of Lockdowns On COVID-19 Mortality has this to say:

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that "lockdowns" reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI). NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel. This study employed a systematic search and screening procedure in which 18,590 studies are identified that could potentially address the belief posed. After three levels of screening, 34 studies ultimately qualified. Of those 34 eligible studies, 24 qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. They were separated into three groups: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place- order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies. An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.

To be honest, I’m far too dumb to read this study, but trust in the scientists that shared it with me.

The only time you’ll see mixed opinions about vaccine passports, will be ethicist, but they better be mixed or what good are they.

I don’t think many people realize vaccine passports have been a thing for many decades.

Come on, are you actually trying to compare a yellow card to enter a country to what is being used here? The unvaxxed can’t move within their country. Very different.

As of 1 February 2022, there are new rules in place that establish a binding acceptance period of 9 months for vaccination certificates, used for travel within the EU .

Member States must accept vaccination certificates for a period of 9 months following the administration of the last dose of the primary vaccination. For the Johnson&Johnson vaccine this means 270 days from the first and only shot. For a two-dose vaccine it means 270 days from the second shot, or, in line with the vaccination strategy of the Member State of vaccination, the first and only shot after having recovered from the virus.

Lol, so there ya go. For public safety and all…. A vaccine that doesn’t prevent transmission or infection, for a virus with a 1% mortality rate. And folks can’t understand the resistance as protests erupt across the western world. You don’t have to believe in conspiracies, you just have to ask why? How are we better for this?

Citing a study with this as a premise

meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that "lockdowns" reduce COVID-19 mortality

seems inconclusive. Lockdowns were meant to reduce transmission temporarily to allow for healthcare institutions to adequately serve their populations and avoid massive transmission and additional health problems in a community. So I question the premise of the purpose of this study AND would need to understand the methodology and what they measure in order to fully understand this hypothesis.

It may be a great study - just not enough information to come to a conclusion that aligns with a narrative.

Look - not sure why there is so much frustration and the need to argue. We don't know a lot. Can we agree to this? We've allowed a pandemic and the management thereof to further divide us. A lot of people died from this. A lot of people got impacted from this and even more impacted by attempts to stave off the mass transmission of this virus. Governments and agencies related to community health are imperfect to say the least. Science is great but it isn't perfect either because we make decisions on the information we have at hand at the time. When that changes we have to change our strategy.

The most painful part of this pandemic is to witness what is happening here. We are arguing over percentages and doing something "wrong" as we learn about methods that help individuals in OUR collective communities. But what can we do right? How can we come together to reach some type of compromise that helps people care for their fellow community members and refrain from spreading this virus while at the same time getting our lives back to a new normal?

Arguing over stats and being right/wrong, scientific or not scientific seems to be getting us nowhere 23 pages after the start of this. I'd like to think that maybe we could learn how to better come together if we have opposing opinions and we can learn someone else's perspective without being demeaning to them. It isn't about being right or wrong. It's about being better.