Bullet point 4 is the most maddening to me.. no man made vax is gonna out do what your body already did in creating a biological response to Covid in your body.
Graphing A Weakening Virus
9,005 Views |
112 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Sam Lowry
I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
Nah I'm saying if a virus came along and had a 60% survival rate and took out 40 million people in 6 months, what would you advocate for?Sam Lowry said:I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
I would make hysterical claims like "this disease has a 60% survival rate" and give outrageous advice like "please get vaccinated."Doc Holliday said:Nah I'm saying if a virus came along and had a 60% survival rate and took out 40 million people in 6 months, what would you advocate for?Sam Lowry said:I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Science and religion both have their place.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:FIFY, and amen.Canon said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, not really.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
It's undeniable that it's weakening.
Yes, it is. I understand why it's difficult for you to deny it, given what a bogeyman it's been in your mind.
May we all have half the faith in Christ that Sam has in science.
Therein lies your problem. Put you faith in Christ alone and not man.
Nobody said otherwise. Your error is putting you faith in something man made.
That sounds pithy, but it is a nonsensical statement.
We "put our faith" in things that "man made" every day, and appropriately so.
Science isn't man-made. The laws of physics, principles of chemistry, realities of biology, etc., exist irrespective of man's ability to observe/document them.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your error is believing there's a conflict between science and Christ. It's the same mistake atheists often make.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Science and religion both have their place.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:FIFY, and amen.Canon said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, not really.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
It's undeniable that it's weakening.
Yes, it is. I understand why it's difficult for you to deny it, given what a bogeyman it's been in your mind.
May we all have half the faith in Christ that Sam has in science.
Therein lies your problem. Put you faith in Christ alone and not man.
Nobody said otherwise. Your error is putting you faith in something man made.
Sometimes there is sometimes there isn't. Depends on the issue. Regardless, faith should never be put in anything man made.
Why not forced vaccinations if numbers were that bad?Sam Lowry said:I would make hysterical claims like "this disease has a 60% survival rate" and give outrageous advice like "please get vaccinated."Doc Holliday said:Nah I'm saying if a virus came along and had a 60% survival rate and took out 40 million people in 6 months, what would you advocate for?Sam Lowry said:I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
First and only question.Sam Lowry said:I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
Jrg Hennemann
a day ago
Dear authors, I do not get the point: In your raw data (table 1) the percentage of people dying from Corona Delta is 0.7%. All other variations cause 0.9% deaths for infected people. So, how can the risk to die from Delta be higher than for other variants? Where can we see how the "adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, health unit, and temporal trend of the raw data works? Here in Germany people go wild because of this study, but I can not comprehend it. Thank you very much!
Visual graph of Ontario Canada
I can't think of a reason why not, can you?Doc Holliday said:Why not forced vaccinations if numbers were that bad?Sam Lowry said:I would make hysterical claims like "this disease has a 60% survival rate" and give outrageous advice like "please get vaccinated."Doc Holliday said:Nah I'm saying if a virus came along and had a 60% survival rate and took out 40 million people in 6 months, what would you advocate for?Sam Lowry said:I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
It's all there in the "Methods" section of the PDF. Here are a couple more, from England and Singapore, FWIW.ATL Bear said:LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
Sam Lowry said:I can't think of a reason why not, can you?Doc Holliday said:Why not forced vaccinations if numbers were that bad?Sam Lowry said:I would make hysterical claims like "this disease has a 60% survival rate" and give outrageous advice like "please get vaccinated."Doc Holliday said:Nah I'm saying if a virus came along and had a 60% survival rate and took out 40 million people in 6 months, what would you advocate for?Sam Lowry said:I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
If the disease had a 60 percent survival rate, you could not force vaccinations because people would be lining up around the block for them.
That occurred to me. A couple years ago I'd have taken it for granted, but now I'm not so sure.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:I can't think of a reason why not, can you?Doc Holliday said:Why not forced vaccinations if numbers were that bad?Sam Lowry said:I would make hysterical claims like "this disease has a 60% survival rate" and give outrageous advice like "please get vaccinated."Doc Holliday said:Nah I'm saying if a virus came along and had a 60% survival rate and took out 40 million people in 6 months, what would you advocate for?Sam Lowry said:I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
If the disease had a 60 percent survival rate, you could not force vaccinations because people would be lining up around the block for them.
a 60% survival rate would have a population 100% vaxed as soon as there was enough vax to inoculate everyoneSam Lowry said:That occurred to me. A couple years ago I'd have taken it for granted, but now I'm not so sure.D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:I can't think of a reason why not, can you?Doc Holliday said:Why not forced vaccinations if numbers were that bad?Sam Lowry said:I would make hysterical claims like "this disease has a 60% survival rate" and give outrageous advice like "please get vaccinated."Doc Holliday said:Nah I'm saying if a virus came along and had a 60% survival rate and took out 40 million people in 6 months, what would you advocate for?Sam Lowry said:I would advocate attention to facts.Doc Holliday said:Scary to think what they and others would advocate for during an extremely deadly pandemic.Canon said:ATL Bear said:As I said, I knew I'd regret it.Sam Lowry said:Wrong again.ATL Bear said:No it doesn't. Its conclusions were driven by the shift from majority of infections being the Delta Variant and age adjusted comparatives.Sam Lowry said:And the fact that it's infecting younger people is one reason the death rate may be lower. Duh. That's why I cited the article. The comparison of hospitalization risks, however, is not between age groups but between variants, which is the other reason I cited it.ATL Bear said:I'm going to regret this, but you simply don't read or maybe understand the data. I tried to make it visually easy with my image in the OP which is for the entire U.K. not just Scotland. The same ratios are showing in the US. Higher cases, negligible severe outcome. The study you posted had such small numbers (hospitalizations) that that fact alone showed how less problematic the virus is comparatively. What the study ironically was showing, which I thought maybe you would care about, is that younger groups aren't getting vaccinated, thus they are showing higher infection rates (not surprisingly). That fact ALONE drives the comparative increase in hospitalizations comparing to the other age groups. Duh!!Sam Lowry said:You're committing what I call the OldBear Fallacy. The classic example is where I say something like "Covid is ten times as bad as flu because it kills 1% of patients," and he comes back with "That's a damnable lie! Studies show that 99% of patients recover." The virus has always been more dangerous to older and sicker people. Most diseases are. What you're saying isn't wrong, nor is it relevant. It doesn't change the finding that the Delta variant is worse.ATL Bear said:Surely you wouldn't exclude an important piece of information in your narrative quote would you?Sam Lowry said:Sure.ATL Bear said:You picked a quote and didn't review the data. You didn't even incorporate the relevant reasons for the numbers, nor what classified as "younger". Like I said, if I thought it would matter, I'd engage.Sam Lowry said:Convenient.ATL Bear said:If I thought it would matter I'd explain. %A0Sam Lowry said:What are you looking at?ATL Bear said:That's obviously the only thing you looked at. %A0LOL. %A0Oh Sam.Sam Lowry said:"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC..."ATL Bear said:Have no clue what you think this is saying. %A0It certainly isn't anything about virulence or the fact the virus is weakening. %A0Sam Lowry said:There are many factors. Delta currently seems more prevalent in younger groups.ATL Bear said:Virulence is reflected in severe outcomes. %A0That's not showing in the data. %A0Sam Lowry said:Most mutations are harmful to the virus. What you're not getting is that an increase in virulence is also harmful to the virus. They tend to "weaken" against humans as they get stronger in their environment.4th and Inches said:but it is science, you dont trust science?Sam Lowry said:Yeah, no.ATL Bear said:Simply untrue and unsupported. %A0Mutations weaken viruses because mutations are harmful to the virus the vast majority of the time. %A0That's true in every living organism. %A0Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01358-1/fulltext
"In summary, we show that the Delta VOC in Scotland was found mainly in younger, more affluent groups. Risk of COVID-19 hospital admission was approximately doubled in those with the Delta VOC when compared to the Alpha VOC, with risk of admission particularly increased in those with five or more relevant comorbidities. "
They were 90% of the admissions and it literally is 3-5 comorbidities within the person.and primarily in the 40-65 demographic ("younger"). Not to mention there were so few hospitalizations that they couldn't delineate with any accuracy whether the different vaccines performed better or worse.
The macro data will play out, but somehow the goalposts will be moved again.
To simplify what they did in the study. Hey, before "Older" group had 9 of 10 hospitalizations so "younger" group was at 10% of hospitalizations. But oh gosh with Delta variant "younger" has .5 out of 3 hospitalizations from this tiny window of data, therefore they're at 16% now, so they've almost doubled their hospitalization ratio, thus we should worry. Oh yeah, they ("younger") aren't vaccinated either.
What you seem to struggle to conceptually understand is that when death and severe outcome decouple from a disease, it no longer becomes a worrisome element. I'm not saying COVID is completely there yet, but we don't worry about the common cold because severe outcome is rare. People do end up with pneumonia and some die after getting a cold, but it's extremely rare. It's highly infectious (as a fellow coronavirus) but is not virulent. This is the path of viral flame out.
Is .1% low enough for you? .001%? The death ratios now are over 1000% less than just the Fall/Winter wave. Your fallacy is the belief this will ever be a zero appearance virus or even a zero death one. It's here with us forever. How long or what viral profile is enough to release the irrational fear?
Sam, Oso and DC are all off the rails on this topic. The only standard they seem to be able to hold to is "Be afraid. Be very Afraid!!"
"Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50-230%) for death."
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2
If the disease had a 60 percent survival rate, you could not force vaccinations because people would be lining up around the block for them.
But We arent dealing with a 60% survival rate, we are dealing with a virus that has a 98% survival rate world wide. 15.6% of confirmed positive are asymptomatic. Only a very small percent even require hospitalization. Surely you can see why some people choose not to get the vaccine
~60% of Americans think the chances somebody with Covid must be hospitalized are ~10x higher than they actually are
— Eli Klein (@TheEliKlein) March 20, 2021
Survey by Gallup and Franklin Templeton pic.twitter.com/RgyxiJmcfD
Again, LOL. When I have the time I'll show all of these are using the same methodologies for a conclusion unrelated to virus virulence. I keep posting the graphical references to communicate the macro outcomes. I also think the England study is using same data from the Scotland one.Sam Lowry said:It's all there in the "Methods" section of the PDF. Here are a couple more, from England and Singapore, FWIW.ATL Bear said:LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
Graphical references to communicate macro outcomes...that's quite an impressive way to say screen shots from Google.ATL Bear said:Again, LOL. When I have the time I'll show all of these are using the same methodologies for a conclusion unrelated to virus virulence. I keep posting the graphical references to communicate the macro outcomes. I also think the England study is using same data from the Scotland one.Sam Lowry said:It's all there in the "Methods" section of the PDF. Here are a couple more, from England and Singapore, FWIW.ATL Bear said:LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
You've been talking about "decoupling" since about this time last year. Was it the result of a weaker Delta variant then too?
CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky says "new data" shows "breakthrough cases" of vaccinated individuals can have as much virus to shed and spread as an unvaccinated person.
— Disclose.tv 🚨 (@disclosetv) July 27, 2021
It was certainly deadlier during the initial introduction last year, was less deadly in the second wave spike, and even with new variants is showing to be weaker by a tremendous factor. That's the progression of decoupling.Sam Lowry said:Graphical references to communicate macro outcomes...that's quite an impressive way to say screen shots from Google.ATL Bear said:Again, LOL. When I have the time I'll show all of these are using the same methodologies for a conclusion unrelated to virus virulence. I keep posting the graphical references to communicate the macro outcomes. I also think the England study is using same data from the Scotland one.Sam Lowry said:It's all there in the "Methods" section of the PDF. Here are a couple more, from England and Singapore, FWIW.ATL Bear said:LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
You've been talking about "decoupling" since about this time last year. Was it the result of a weaker Delta variant then too?
Any other studies you want to provide that have 7 deaths over a 5 month period to show how virulent something is?
You're flailing. No one's disputing that deaths are down, at least for now. You also know, or used to know, that deaths are a lagging indicator and a lot of factors are involved. Your "outcomes" mean nothing unless you can tie them to your claim. So far you haven't posted a single piece of evidence to back your assumptions. And by now you've probably noticed that you misread the cited studies, which bear directly on virulence. These things happen.ATL Bear said:It was certainly deadlier during the initial introduction last year, was less deadly in the second wave spike, and even with new variants is showing to be weaker by a tremendous factor. That's the progression of decoupling.Sam Lowry said:Graphical references to communicate macro outcomes...that's quite an impressive way to say screen shots from Google.ATL Bear said:Again, LOL. When I have the time I'll show all of these are using the same methodologies for a conclusion unrelated to virus virulence. I keep posting the graphical references to communicate the macro outcomes. I also think the England study is using same data from the Scotland one.Sam Lowry said:It's all there in the "Methods" section of the PDF. Here are a couple more, from England and Singapore, FWIW.ATL Bear said:LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
You've been talking about "decoupling" since about this time last year. Was it the result of a weaker Delta variant then too?
Any other studies you want to provide that have 7 deaths over a 5 month period to show how virulent something is?
Virulence is harmful outcome. There are so few deaths and harmful outcomes from these Delta variant studies you can't even classify it as being virulent. It's less virulent by an enormous factor from Covid in early to mid 2020. It's WAY less virulent than the Fall/Winter spike of the ALPHA strain. The ONLY thing it's shown is being equal or more infectious. I addressed this earlier in that how infectious something is is only a concern when virulence is of concern. These studies literally only looked at adjusted comparatives for short time periods in question, not a macro analysis of COVID in total. Covid's ALPHA strain virulence includes from March/April of last year. I'm looking at MACRO decline from outset.Sam Lowry said:You're flailing. No one's disputing that deaths are down, at least for now. You also know, or used to know, that deaths are a lagging indicator and a lot of factors are involved. Your "outcomes" mean nothing unless you can tie them to your claim. So far you haven't posted a single piece of evidence to back your assumptions. And by now you've probably noticed that you misread the cited studies, which bear directly on virulence. These things happen.ATL Bear said:It was certainly deadlier during the initial introduction last year, was less deadly in the second wave spike, and even with new variants is showing to be weaker by a tremendous factor. That's the progression of decoupling.Sam Lowry said:Graphical references to communicate macro outcomes...that's quite an impressive way to say screen shots from Google.ATL Bear said:Again, LOL. When I have the time I'll show all of these are using the same methodologies for a conclusion unrelated to virus virulence. I keep posting the graphical references to communicate the macro outcomes. I also think the England study is using same data from the Scotland one.Sam Lowry said:It's all there in the "Methods" section of the PDF. Here are a couple more, from England and Singapore, FWIW.ATL Bear said:LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
You've been talking about "decoupling" since about this time last year. Was it the result of a weaker Delta variant then too?
Any other studies you want to provide that have 7 deaths over a 5 month period to show how virulent something is?
Delta's death rate in unvaccinated is significantly lower than the ALPHA strain when viewed over the period of COVID existence, including the most recent ALPHA spike in the Fall/Winter.
COVID deaths lag by a couple of weeks not months. Many places are/have already seeing Delta infection declines, like The UK and India.
What's flailing is the effort to build a narrative of danger around a variant with at the least we could say is lacking any real track record, and at the most is showing a comparative virulence well below alpha strains in the past year. The virus as a WHOLE from
Primary strain to current, including variants has weakened. That's what is irrefutable, and that's what I'm speaking toward.
Virulence does not refer to harmful outcomes. It's the inherent ability or potential to cause harm, as determined by genetic factors. Transmissibility is therefore a big concern even with no change in virulence. If your understanding was different, we may have been talking about different things.ATL Bear said:Virulence is harmful outcome. There are so few deaths and harmful outcomes from these Delta variant studies you can't even classify it as being virulent. It's less virulent by an enormous factor from Covid in early to mid 2020. It's WAY less virulent than the Fall/Winter spike of the ALPHA strain. The ONLY thing it's shown is being equal or more infectious. I addressed this earlier in that how infectious something is is only a concern when virulence is of concern. These studies literally only looked at adjusted comparatives for short time periods in question, not a macro analysis of COVID in total. Covid's ALPHA strain virulence includes from March/April of last year. I'm looking at MACRO decline from outset.Sam Lowry said:You're flailing. No one's disputing that deaths are down, at least for now. You also know, or used to know, that deaths are a lagging indicator and a lot of factors are involved. Your "outcomes" mean nothing unless you can tie them to your claim. So far you haven't posted a single piece of evidence to back your assumptions. And by now you've probably noticed that you misread the cited studies, which bear directly on virulence. These things happen.ATL Bear said:It was certainly deadlier during the initial introduction last year, was less deadly in the second wave spike, and even with new variants is showing to be weaker by a tremendous factor. That's the progression of decoupling.Sam Lowry said:Graphical references to communicate macro outcomes...that's quite an impressive way to say screen shots from Google.ATL Bear said:Again, LOL. When I have the time I'll show all of these are using the same methodologies for a conclusion unrelated to virus virulence. I keep posting the graphical references to communicate the macro outcomes. I also think the England study is using same data from the Scotland one.Sam Lowry said:It's all there in the "Methods" section of the PDF. Here are a couple more, from England and Singapore, FWIW.ATL Bear said:LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
You've been talking about "decoupling" since about this time last year. Was it the result of a weaker Delta variant then too?
Any other studies you want to provide that have 7 deaths over a 5 month period to show how virulent something is?
Delta's death rate in unvaccinated is significantly lower than the ALPHA strain when viewed over the period of COVID existence, including the most recent ALPHA spike in the Fall/Winter.
COVID deaths lag by a couple of weeks not months. Many places are/have already seeing Delta infection declines, like The UK and India.
What's flailing is the effort to build a narrative of danger around a variant with at the least we could say is lacking any real track record, and at the most is showing a comparative virulence well below alpha strains in the past year. The virus as a WHOLE from
Primary strain to current, including variants has weakened. That's what is irrefutable, and that's what I'm speaking toward.
I'm not trying to spin a narrative or make anyone panic. Personally I'm quite happy with lower fatalities as long as they last. They may not last if we assume the new strains are inherently weaker and that turns out to be wrong. Available evidence suggests they are not.
Transmissibility is only one component of virulence. Without a destructive factor it rates very low. That's what I'm focused on, so maybe we are talking past each other a bit. I've acknowledged the thing I underestimated about COVID was its transmissibility/infectiousness. It's its greatest strength, and if we ever get down to the truth was likely the artificial gain of function add in at Wuhan.Sam Lowry said:Virulence does not refer to harmful outcomes. It's the inherent ability or potential to cause harm, as determined by chromosomes or other genetic factors. Transmissibility is therefore a big concern even with no change in virulence. If your understanding was different, we may have been talking about different things.ATL Bear said:Virulence is harmful outcome. There are so few deaths and harmful outcomes from these Delta variant studies you can't even classify it as being virulent. It's less virulent by an enormous factor from Covid in early to mid 2020. It's WAY less virulent than the Fall/Winter spike of the ALPHA strain. The ONLY thing it's shown is being equal or more infectious. I addressed this earlier in that how infectious something is is only a concern when virulence is of concern. These studies literally only looked at adjusted comparatives for short time periods in question, not a macro analysis of COVID in total. Covid's ALPHA strain virulence includes from March/April of last year. I'm looking at MACRO decline from outset.Sam Lowry said:You're flailing. No one's disputing that deaths are down, at least for now. You also know, or used to know, that deaths are a lagging indicator and a lot of factors are involved. Your "outcomes" mean nothing unless you can tie them to your claim. So far you haven't posted a single piece of evidence to back your assumptions. And by now you've probably noticed that you misread the cited studies, which bear directly on virulence. These things happen.ATL Bear said:It was certainly deadlier during the initial introduction last year, was less deadly in the second wave spike, and even with new variants is showing to be weaker by a tremendous factor. That's the progression of decoupling.Sam Lowry said:Graphical references to communicate macro outcomes...that's quite an impressive way to say screen shots from Google.ATL Bear said:Again, LOL. When I have the time I'll show all of these are using the same methodologies for a conclusion unrelated to virus virulence. I keep posting the graphical references to communicate the macro outcomes. I also think the England study is using same data from the Scotland one.Sam Lowry said:It's all there in the "Methods" section of the PDF. Here are a couple more, from England and Singapore, FWIW.ATL Bear said:LOLSam Lowry said:
He answered his own question; it's adjusted data.
You've been talking about "decoupling" since about this time last year. Was it the result of a weaker Delta variant then too?
Any other studies you want to provide that have 7 deaths over a 5 month period to show how virulent something is?
Delta's death rate in unvaccinated is significantly lower than the ALPHA strain when viewed over the period of COVID existence, including the most recent ALPHA spike in the Fall/Winter.
COVID deaths lag by a couple of weeks not months. Many places are/have already seeing Delta infection declines, like The UK and India.
What's flailing is the effort to build a narrative of danger around a variant with at the least we could say is lacking any real track record, and at the most is showing a comparative virulence well below alpha strains in the past year. The virus as a WHOLE from
Primary strain to current, including variants has weakened. That's what is irrefutable, and that's what I'm speaking toward.
It makes no difference how you or I feel about this. Personally I'm quite happy with lower fatalities as long as they last. They may not last if we assume the new strains are inherently weaker and that turns out to be wrong. Available evidence suggests they are not.
I'll still stress the reality of the weakening of the virus. Too much actual data to support it, not to mention the natural progression of viruses throughout history. Delta might be "performing" modestly better than Alpha at the moment but it's too early and there are such a myriad of factors that could be behind that. By the way, the gamma variant is out there now.
Wow, that is a sobering statistic .Forest Bueller_bf said:
One thing is certain. Life expectancy went down by over a full year last year, I think about 1.5 years.
But the same folks will simply ignore the ramifications .
Meanwhile this D variant is spreading ....during the hot summer months no less. Hope some new therapeutics come along within the next 90 days .
Been disappointed overall with the lack of development in that area.
New data suggests that fully vaccinated individuals are not just contracting COVID, but could be carrying higher levels of virus than previously understood, facilitating spread, my NBC News colleagues are reporting. New indoor masking guidance expected today.
— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) July 27, 2021
Could new variants be created by antibody-mediated selection due to vaccination?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement
Doc Holliday said:New data suggests that fully vaccinated individuals are not just contracting COVID, but could be carrying higher levels of virus than previously understood, facilitating spread, my NBC News colleagues are reporting. New indoor masking guidance expected today.
— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) July 27, 2021
Could new variants be created by antibody-mediated selection due to vaccination?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement
If COVID and/or Delta was dangerous Biden would close the southern border.
bear2be2 said:Science isn't man-made. The laws of physics, principles of chemistry, realities of biology, etc., exist irrespective of man's ability to observe/document them.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your error is believing there's a conflict between science and Christ. It's the same mistake atheists often make.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Science and religion both have their place.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:FIFY, and amen.Canon said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, not really.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
It's undeniable that it's weakening.
Yes, it is. I understand why it's difficult for you to deny it, given what a bogeyman it's been in your mind.
May we all have half the faith in Christ that Sam has in science.
Therein lies your problem. Put you faith in Christ alone and not man.
Nobody said otherwise. Your error is putting you faith in something man made.
Sometimes there is sometimes there isn't. Depends on the issue. Regardless, faith should never be put in anything man made.
It absolutely is man-made. Science is man's intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. And we constantly get it wrong.
D. C. Bear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Science and religion both have their place.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:FIFY, and amen.Canon said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, not really.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
It's undeniable that it's weakening.
Yes, it is. I understand why it's difficult for you to deny it, given what a bogeyman it's been in your mind.
May we all have half the faith in Christ that Sam has in science.
Therein lies your problem. Put you faith in Christ alone and not man.
Nobody said otherwise. Your error is putting you faith in something man made.
That sounds pithy, but it is a nonsensical statement.
We "put our faith" in things that "man made" every day, and appropriately so.
You might. I don't. I don't put absolute trust in anything but God.
Mothra said:D. C. Bear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Science and religion both have their place.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:FIFY, and amen.Canon said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, not really.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
It's undeniable that it's weakening.
Yes, it is. I understand why it's difficult for you to deny it, given what a bogeyman it's been in your mind.
May we all have half the faith in Christ that Sam has in science.
Therein lies your problem. Put you faith in Christ alone and not man.
Nobody said otherwise. Your error is putting you faith in something man made.
That sounds pithy, but it is a nonsensical statement.
We "put our faith" in things that "man made" every day, and appropriately so.
You might. I don't. I don't put absolute trust in anything but God.
You are making an entirely different argument.
faithD. C. Bear said:Mothra said:D. C. Bear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Science and religion both have their place.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:FIFY, and amen.Canon said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, not really.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Viruses weaken because killing the host makes it harder for them to spread. Covid takes a long time to kill, which means deadlier variants have more time to thrive before they're selected out. Early indications are that Delta is more virulent.Canada2017 said:Why is it unlikely to be weakening ?Sam Lowry said:
Unlikely that it's weakening. Fewer deaths are good, but there can be many reasons for that.
It's undeniable that it's weakening.
Yes, it is. I understand why it's difficult for you to deny it, given what a bogeyman it's been in your mind.
May we all have half the faith in Christ that Sam has in science.
Therein lies your problem. Put you faith in Christ alone and not man.
Nobody said otherwise. Your error is putting you faith in something man made.
That sounds pithy, but it is a nonsensical statement.
We "put our faith" in things that "man made" every day, and appropriately so.
You might. I don't. I don't put absolute trust in anything but God.
You are making an entirely different argument.
/fTH/
noun
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
Very much so.Canada2017 said:Wow, that is a sobering statistic .Forest Bueller_bf said:
One thing is certain. Life expectancy went down by over a full year last year, I think about 1.5 years.
But the same folks will simply ignore the ramifications .
Meanwhile this D variant is spreading ....during the hot summer months no less. Hope some new therapeutics come along within the next 90 days .
Been disappointed overall with the lack of development in that area.
They were looking out for ADE in trials but didn't see evidence of it.Doc Holliday said:New data suggests that fully vaccinated individuals are not just contracting COVID, but could be carrying higher levels of virus than previously understood, facilitating spread, my NBC News colleagues are reporting. New indoor masking guidance expected today.
— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) July 27, 2021
Could new variants be created by antibody-mediated selection due to vaccination?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-dependent_enhancement
I think we are getting a real lesson on the contagion of this deadly virus or any virus.Canada2017 said:Wow, that is a sobering statistic .Forest Bueller_bf said:
One thing is certain. Life expectancy went down by over a full year last year, I think about 1.5 years.
But the same folks will simply ignore the ramifications .
Meanwhile this D variant is spreading ....during the hot summer months no less. Hope some new therapeutics come along within the next 90 days .
Been disappointed overall with the lack of development in that area.
There were people that actually though once Trump was voted out the new administration, with different guidelines, would stop the virus or at least contain it. We are incapable of containing it.
Since Trump was blamed for it's spread, Biden needs to step up and take his share of blame. Refusing to close the border just makes the spread worse, much worse.
I daily am hoping for this to abate, but it just isn't happening.
Forest Bueller_bf said:I think we are getting a real lesson on the contagion of this deadly virus or any virus.Canada2017 said:Wow, that is a sobering statistic .Forest Bueller_bf said:
One thing is certain. Life expectancy went down by over a full year last year, I think about 1.5 years.
But the same folks will simply ignore the ramifications .
Meanwhile this D variant is spreading ....during the hot summer months no less. Hope some new therapeutics come along within the next 90 days .
Been disappointed overall with the lack of development in that area.
There were people that actually though once Trump was voted out the new administration, with different guidelines, would stop the virus or at least contain it. We are incapable of containing it.
Since Trump was blamed for it's spread, Biden needs to step up and take his share of blame. Refusing to close the border just makes the spread worse, much worse.
I daily am hoping for this to abate, but it just isn't happening.
I'm not going to shut down the country.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 30, 2020
I'm not going to shut down the economy.
I'm going to shut down the virus.
I wish he had been right. Not that he ever had a chance, but he sure used Covid as a political weapon.Jacques Strap said:Forest Bueller_bf said:I think we are getting a real lesson on the contagion of this deadly virus or any virus.Canada2017 said:Wow, that is a sobering statistic .Forest Bueller_bf said:
One thing is certain. Life expectancy went down by over a full year last year, I think about 1.5 years.
But the same folks will simply ignore the ramifications .
Meanwhile this D variant is spreading ....during the hot summer months no less. Hope some new therapeutics come along within the next 90 days .
Been disappointed overall with the lack of development in that area.
There were people that actually though once Trump was voted out the new administration, with different guidelines, would stop the virus or at least contain it. We are incapable of containing it.
Since Trump was blamed for it's spread, Biden needs to step up and take his share of blame. Refusing to close the border just makes the spread worse, much worse.
I daily am hoping for this to abate, but it just isn't happening.I'm not going to shut down the country.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 30, 2020
I'm not going to shut down the economy.
I'm going to shut down the virus.