It is nonsense to vaccinate young and very healthy people, especially kids. Their risk from COVID is minimal to non-existent.
Also the spread is not stopped by vaccinating. Vaccinated still spread the virus. If it is reduced is still unclear. There was a study in GB that showed the incidence numbers in vaccinated was just as high or higher than in unvaccinated. The sample sizes of vaccinated and unvaccinated were equal as they should be. Reports in Germany about these numbers forget to mention that vaccinated people are basically not tested.
> The vaccines work well and are safe.
They do not work well enough. First of all people still transmit the virus after only about 2 months after the vaccination. Then the protection goes down extremely between 2-6 months after the vaccination (that is why we need boosters all the time). It is still unclear if we continue to need boosters after the third shot.
While vaccinated people who get infected still spread the virus, they’re less likely to get infected in the first place, which is a necessary precursor to spreading.
But yes, we’ll probably need updated vaccines, similarly to how we update the flu shot every year.
"beds" is a proxy for "health workers", if you put a bad covid case in a "bed" they just die, they need constant attention
Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...
* Peak viral load, GIVEN catching it?
* Duration of peak viral load, GIVEN catching it?
* Severe disease, GIVEN catching it?
* Hospital stay, GIVEN catching it?
* Death, GIVEN catching it?
There are many relevant parameters that the vaccines might affect. And the vaccinated people have a few parameters: number of shots, time since last shot, age, etc. People seem to focus on one or two of these questions at a time.
From your link, actually, related to duration:
"Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections."
Clearly it's not going to stop transmission, but it could slow it down. People on both sides of this issue seem to undervalue partial measures and tradeoffs.
I would like to see the source for that if you have the link?
There is a lot to digest and probably it's easy to come to the wrong conclusions from this. I was referring to Figure 2.(a)
Point being, we didn't know what vaccination rate would reduce the R-value below 1, and FAFAIK we still don't know. Not even for the original Sars-cov-2 virus, and not for any of the variants.
> Cases of Covid-19 were less common among household members of vaccinated health care workers during the period beginning 14 days after the first dose than during the unvaccinated period before the first dose (event rate per 100 person-years, 9.40 before the first dose and 5.93 beginning 14 days after the first dose). After the health care worker’s second dose, the rate in household members was lower still (2.98 cases per 100 person-years). These differences persisted after fitting extended Cox models that were adjusted for calendar time, geographic region, age, sex, occupational and socioeconomic factors, and underlying conditions. Relative to the period before each health care worker was vaccinated, the hazard ratio for a household member to become infected was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.78) for the period beginning 14 days after the first dose and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.70) for the period beginning 14 days after the second dose. ... Not all the cases of Covid-19 in the household members were transmitted from the health care worker; therefore, the effect of vaccination may be larger.1 For example, if half the cases in the household members were transmitted from the health care worker, a 60% decrease in cases transmitted from health care workers would need to occur to elicit the association we observed (see the Supplementary Appendix). Vaccination was associated with a reduction in both the number of cases and the number of Covid-19–related hospitalizations in health care workers between the unvaccinated period and the period beginning 14 days after the first dose.
Populations where people are less likely to get infected are less likely to spread. You have to be infected before you can spread.
> Maybe you’re seeing people reading the actual stats?
What kind of reasoning is this? So because Covid-19 isn’t the worst pandemic in history, then it makes sense to believe it’s a hoax or overhyped?
I don’t think this is too far from the survival rate of those admitted to intensive care in general.
But I think the point is that COVID really increases your chances of being admitted there in the first place.
If you're in a certain age range, and have several comorbidities.
That means that somebody has to pay for them. Given that unavoidable but inconvenient fact, basic health care and life support might as well be organized under the auspices of the state and the costs shared among all residents.
Even if we were able to handle the load on the healthcare system, that still would be a very large amount of unnecessary suffering and death. And even though there are some fundamental issues with working conditions and pay in this area, fixing them would not be enough to be able to handle the load that an exponentially growing viral disease could cause if it remains unchecked. If you do not stop the exponential spread, even with twice the capacity you'd only gain another 1-2 weeks until you're at capacity anyway.
The vaccines work well and are safe. The problem is that too many people didn't take them. There's plenty of problems with how this was organized in Germany, but in the we simply didn't manage to convince enough people to get vaccinated.