1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No more babies being delivered at NY hospital

Discussion in 'COVID-19' started by KenS, Sep 13, 2021.

  1. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    My argument wasn't vaccines are ineffective as a whole.
    Vaccines, meds, whatever, have their level of efficiency some better than others.
    COVID vaccine is no different

    Yes, but my question was because vaccinated people can spread the virus too now with the Delta Variant, wouldn't they be putting people in danger too?

    Vaccination just lessens the severity of the symptoms not whether the virus can transmit in one person more than others. I mean, you could just have a cough and still spread the virus

    The comment has nothing to do with reduction rates.

    I never disagreed with any scientific information you guys present.

    But my question had to do with asymptomatic transmission among vaccinated people.

    But they can still spread it right?

    All this is your opinion. It's personal to you, I get that.

    My question/comment was about asymptomatic transmission among the vaccinated.

    Vaccinated people aren't special in these regards. I mean there are near 50% (US Coronavirus vaccine tracker) of people in the US who are not vaccinated. I'm not sure if that 50% some odd percent willingfully won't take the vaccine. Media and government makes it to where those unvaccinated are on purpose. I think we're a handful. Maybe anti-vax people a bit larger crowd but not enough to cause damage.
     
    #441 Unveiled Artist, Sep 17, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2021
  2. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    If we both get COVID, we can both spread it to others and we could both die from it; COVID isn't a respecter of persons. If you only care about dying vaccinated and unvaccinated exempt people that's (in the US) near half the population. So, after laughing at half the population who died of COVID, what next?

    To rebut the same sentiment:
    I mean I "could" turn this around and say if you got a breakthrough and caught COVID and died because you took COVID for granted it I would say nice knowing you...

    BUT that's just not me. Caring about the suffering and dying should have No clauses.

    I mean I doubt medical professionals who have a passion for their job segregate their care for the dying based on their patients choices.
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    53,263
    Ratings:
    +34,216
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Let's say that both you and a vaccinated person both get Covid. If all other risk factors are the same you are still ten times more likely to die.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    Yes.
    My point is we both can spread the virus. The idea is that the unvaccinated are endangering others. Since we know vax can spread the virus too, we both (according to vax logic) are putting other people in danger.
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    53,263
    Ratings:
    +34,216
    Religion:
    Atheist
    True, but vaccinated person is still less likely to come down with Covid in the first place. It is not one hundred percent prevention, but it does make a significant difference. And with boosters it is likely to drop even more. That means that the unvaccinated are still a bigger risk to everyone than vaccinated people are.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    Yes, that is true. Though not what I was getting at originally when I made the comment.
     
  7. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    7,659
    Ratings:
    +6,609
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    Well I got fully vaccinated and I got Covid, and I survived it, unlike many unvaccinated. You can gamble as you wish.

    This strikes me as rambling.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    We can still put others in danger.
     
  9. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    7,659
    Ratings:
    +6,609
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    You can't spread the virus when you're dead, so your problem is solved.
     
  10. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    Since we are not dead my comment still stands.
     
  11. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    7,659
    Ratings:
    +6,609
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    If you get sick with Covid do you think you should quarantine yourself? Or do you not worry about spreading the virus to others?
     
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    53,263
    Ratings:
    +34,216
    Religion:
    Atheist
    `Worse yet, Covid is a sneaky disease. People tend to have it a few days and are contagious before they know that they have it. So the question should be is she able and willing to test herself every day of the week?
     
  13. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    7,659
    Ratings:
    +6,609
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    Right. I was infected on Saturday night, and I worked Monday and Tuesday. I met with two clients on Tuesday. I started feeling bad Tuesday night. Luckily I was vaccinated and that limits spread. Neither of my clients got sick, which I am so thankful about since they were very serious about Covid given they have families and jobs.

    If we are going to trust other people they need to earn our trust. The bride's uncle is an example of why we cannot trust anti-vaxxers because they are not making decisions based on facts and good sense.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Daemon Sophic

    Daemon Sophic Avatar in flux

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    5,079
    Ratings:
    +3,669
    I think that you were overlooking one large statistic. If I cough in the face of an unvaccinated person they are pretty much 100% chance going to become infected. (If you are not vaccinated, then eventually you WILL contract CoViD). But if I cough in the face of a vaccinated person then they only have a 0.1% chance of getting significant symptoms requiring hospitalization. furthermore they only have about a 0.5% chance of even becoming infected at all.
    Therefore if we put 400 people in a room (200 unvaxx, and 200 vax) and mingle in some CoViD “spreaders”. All 200 unvaxxed get infected and all 200 become new “spreaders”. And only 1 (that’s one) of the vaxxed people become “spreaders”.

    So ‘yes’, :rolleyes: technically, if you look at it like Faux Noose does :facepalm:, then both vaxxed AND unvaxxed can “spread” the disease. Or rather, both have the capacity to infect others, would be a better way to phrase it. Because if the disease has an R0 value of 0.05 (1 in 200 downwind get infected), then the virus will die out long before it can become worrisome to the population. (Hint: with an R0 value below 1.0, a disease won’t spread).

    In other words, unless you are severely debilitated or otherwise immunosuppressed, then worrying about “breakthrough infections” after vaccination is a propaganda scare, pulled over your eyes to make you think that vaccination will not help stop the virus from spreading.

    [​IMG]

    You’re welcome​
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    7,768
    Ratings:
    +9,535
    Religion:
    None
    You've been told. It doesn't take. I have nothing to offer but to repeat the same information and apply the same arguments to it to arrive at the same conclusions, that you have already ignored. I am not trying to teach you anything, because teaching is a cooperative effort, one that requires the would-be learner to bring a certain state of mind to the process and certain critical thinking skills. The teacher needs a student who is willing and able to consider an argument dispassionately, determine if its conclusions are sound, and be willing to be convinced by a compelling argument. We don't have that here. We have somebody asking questions with no interest in the answers, and who is unwilling to see or say that she is wrong if she is.

    You said earlier to consider the argument only, not the source. You say something similar here - address the information, not you.

    But you provide an excellent example of why one must consider the source. To consider only the argument, one must have confidence that the source is sincere and has an interest in truth. The author must share ones values about the ethics of argumentation, must be considered qualified to discuss the subject, and must be seen as having no hidden agenda.

    Look at how you've cherry picked ideas from the CDC page you linked us to, ignoring whatever contradicted your purpose. You left these out:
    • Unvaccinated people remain the greatest concern: The greatest risk of transmission is among unvaccinated people who are much more likely to get infected, and therefore transmit the virus. Fully vaccinated people get COVID-19 (known as breakthrough infections) less often than unvaccinated people. People infected with the Delta variant, including fully vaccinated people with symptomatic breakthrough infections, can transmit the virus to others. CDC is continuing to assess data on whether fully vaccinated people with asymptomatic breakthrough infections can transmit the virus.
    • Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. However, vaccinated people appear to spread the virus for a shorter time: For prior variants, lower amounts of viral genetic material were found in samples taken from fully vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections than from unvaccinated people with COVID-19. For people infected with the Delta variant, similar amounts of viral genetic material have been found among both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated people. However, like prior variants, the amount of viral genetic material may go down faster in fully vaccinated people when compared to unvaccinated people. This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.
    Isn't this what I just told you in a previous post - that the unvaccinated are more likely to get and spread the virus, and until delta, were also more likely to transmit it while infected?

    You seem to be saying that there is no reason to get vaccinated since the vaccinated get and transmit COVID just like the unvaccinated. But you have been shown by me (and no doubt others) that there is a difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated in terms of keeping this pandemic alive. The unvaccinated are much more a problem notwithstanding that the vaccinated can acquire and transmit COVID. That's an inconvenient truth for you, and why you continually try to redirect to a small set of facts you want considered in isolation of the totality of available facts. So, you ignore it when I tell you, and you ignore it in the CDC piece you cited.

    That's why one doesn't look only at what you want them to see. I am much more likely to simply read the argument of somebody who shares my values on the ethics and proper methods of argumentation. If I know that about somebody, I don't have to wonder what confirmation bias they filtered the elements of their argument through, or if they will deliberately use specious argumentation, or whether they are more interested in convincing or persuading. Because without that, although one cannot say that the argument is wrong based on its source, the so called genetic fallacy, one can say that one doesn't trust the source enough to consider the argument without the relevant context being excluded, nor to trust that the claims of fact are correct (some people don't need to be fact-checked to the degree that some others do).

    I don't consider you a deliberate liar, just wrong. And as I said, I don't think that I can help you at all without your cooperation, which isn't coming. So why write to you? Well, I write to the whole thread and to anybody who does share my values and who might learn from information that tells a different story than you do. I want to correct the misinformation you are disseminating in defense of your choice to not take a vaccine. You don't want it to be an irresponsible choice that harms others, so you remove the parts that show that the unvaccinated are a greater problem that the vaccinated in keeping the pandemic hot, leaving the parts that seem to show what both do - acquire COVID and transmit it. That's it from you. And you want no more than that considered.

    So, as I said, I don't consider you a bad person, but I know that I can't trust your arguments to be thorough and sound. I would have to fact check any claim you made and also learn about the area you are discussing by looking at what's out there that you might be leaving out. I want to emphasize that although I know you are wrong, it's not from your argument, but because of a knowledge of relevant data that you were overlooking.

    I first became familiar with this when a younger, open-minded poster brought an article to a thread written by a creationist apologist arguing against the possibility that man evolved from the apes that the other extant apes evolved from, since they all have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man only 23 pairs. The argument was that the dropout of a chromosome in an offspring would be lethal (selected against), and not lead to a new branch of ape. If you don't know about human chromosome 2, the argument is a good one. If you consider only what the author wants you to see, you must conclude that his logic is valid and therefore the conclusion correct.

    But once you become familiar with the ethics of apologetics, you understand that the author is not to be trusted, and reject anything from such a source out of hand. I find no value in the words of such people, ever, which is not surprising given their purpose, which is not that of educating, but of presenting specious, tendentious argumentation intended to persuade.

    And whether you can see it or not, this is what you are doing as well. You're not choosing a conclusion from the evidence. Your choosing the evidence according to your "conclusion" (it's not really a conclusion if you started with it. It's premise being presented as a conclusion - see, the facts I want you see lead to my, um, "conclusion."

    I wish that I could get through to you, but I know that I cannot. All I can do is try to understand what you are doing. In that sense, even though I can't help you, you help me.

    That's by design. It's not a coincidence that she culled the comments that she thinks she can use to support her contention that it's all the same, vaccinated and unvaccinated, because they can both end up acquiring and disseminating the infection. She was very clear that you were to look at what she wrote and find a fault with it if you can. It's analogous to saying that drunk driving and sober driving are the same because they can both result in fatalities. If that's all there is to say, then yes, they are the same, but it's not all there is to say, and they are very different.

    To make that argument, one does the same - find and list what the two have in common while ignoring the more significant differences such as the statistics you mention.

    For those unfamiliar, this is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: " an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized." I've seen it most frequently in creationist apologetics, where the creationist pulls out whatever commonalities he can find between the Genesis creation story and the scientific account to imply that the Bible got it right long before science, ignoring the huge differences. Never mind all of the errors in the Genesis account, or its glaring omissions. It completely overlooked the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, and the evolution of life. Never mind all that. Both accounts predict that the universe had a beginning, therefore the Bible authors were prescient in a way that only the existence of an inspiring god could explain.

    This is that as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    I'll number it.

    1. Effectiveness was never my argument.

    2. All vaccines, meds, etc aren't perfect.

    3. It's weighing risk and benefit. Putting antivax issues in my "mouth" and arguing against it doesn't make it true.

    4. I'd have to read the rest later. I said the vaccine lessens the impact of the virus.

    5. Vax people can spread the virus.

    6. I asked wouldn't vax be putting people in danger to given the Delta varient

    Address the content not me.

    What is wrong about these statements?

    Do you need a CDC reference?
     
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    53,263
    Ratings:
    +34,216
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I cannot pinpoint when I got infected. It can have up to a week of time of being infected and contagious at least part of that time before one knows that one is ill. So one can ignorantly spread the disease without meaning to. I was not diagnosed with it until after I got over it. And I was prevaccine so the disease was like one of the worst flus that I have ever had. Lucky me that was all that I felt.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Daemon Sophic

    Daemon Sophic Avatar in flux

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    5,079
    Ratings:
    +3,669
    @Unveiled Artist —— post: 7344474, member: 55631"]I'll number it.

    1. Effectiveness was never my argument. Peachy.

    2. All vaccines, meds, etc aren't perfect. Nobody here is saying that it is. Also, we are only talking about the CoViD vaccines. In particular, I am discussing Pfizer and Moderna brand vaccines.

    3. It's weighing risk and benefit. Putting antivax issues in my "mouth" and arguing against it doesn't make it true. I’m not, You repeatedly post that as far as spread of the virus is concerned, vaccination is irrelevant since both unvaccinated and vaccinated people can spread it. Which is a horribly inaccurate and misleading way of stating it: please see my post # 453 above. You have also suggested that the vaccines themselves have led to very significant harm, here and in other threads.

    4. I'd have to read the rest later. I said the vaccine lessens the impact of the virus. Or eliminates it, like small pox. But to do that, you have to get rapid THOROUGH planetary vaccination.

    5. Vax people can spread the virus. No. Not on their own. If everyone vaccinated (or at least 90% of the population did), then the virus would die out. See #453 above.

    6. I asked wouldn't vax be putting people in danger to given the Delta varient. No. The data so far shows quite clearly that the original vaccines are effective against the Delta variant.
    The primary threat is directly from the large population who are not vaccinated. Their infected human bodies are literally mutation breeding grounds for the virus. The new Mu variant (a sub-variant of the Beta strain) which seems to have developed in the unvaccinated populations of South America, is much more resistant to the first wave of vaccines. HOWEVER, 1. Vaccination does confer some limited protection. 2. No. Vaccination with the 1st version of vaccine does NOT confer any significant risks. And 3. The main feature of the new mRNA vaccines that sets them apart from a century of old vaccines that we grew up with, is that a new version (or even a whole new vaccine…saaayy for the next pandemic) can be out for production in just a couple of months. So a vaccine specific for the Mu variant is now being generated. But again, the more delay in getting vaccinated, the greater the odds that ANOTHER CoViD variant will arise in somebody out there.


    Address the content not me. Done.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    Ouch. Can you quote or separate by quotations?
     
  20. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    Of course. It's with any virus. You sick you stay home. Both work and schools have that policy.

    It's usually reserved for those who have symptoms not those who don't. Since we can't determine who has the virus based on vac status we can only go by general statistics. Though COVID doesn't follow the rules, it's the best control we can get.
     
Loading...