Jump to content
RED

Max Dean to Penn State?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Drew87 said:

Call me crazy, but griffith looked small at 165.  How would he handle the dudes at 174?

I was thinking the same thing. He's lanky. Hard to guage what he'd do at 174. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Yes, I know that. Which is why I said "it doesn't stop you from getting infected", which is not mutually exclusive to "less likely to get infected".

However, their statement seems to conflict with yours. They are including the word "symptomatic" in there for a reason. Maybe I'm wrong. 

 

All authorized COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated efficacy (range 65% to 95%) against symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.

  • For each authorized COVID-19 vaccine, the overall efficacy was similar to the efficacy across different populations, including elderly and younger adults, in people with and without underlying health conditions, and in people representing different races and ethnicities.

All authorized COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated high efficacy (≥89%) against COVID-19 severe enough to require hospitalization.

It’s reasonable to assume that if you are decreasing symptomatic infection by 95%, you are also decreasing asymptomatic infections to a significant degree as well. It’s not as if we don’t understand how the vaccine works. It gives your immune system the capability to prevent infection, disease, and transmission.
 

Yes, some vaccinated people can spread the virus, but most won’t (this is the entire basis of herd immunity). Of course, everyone who is unvaccinated will eventuality be exposed to Covid, but at this point there’s nothing to be done about that. 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Actually "95% effective" doesn't mean that there's a 95% chance you won't get infected.   It means there's a 95% less chance you'll get infected than if you did not get the vaccine - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/learning/what-does-95-effective-mean-teaching-the-math-of-vaccine-efficacy.html

Note, this does not mean there's only a 0.75% chance of getting covid without the vaccine.  That was just over the study period.

Nonetheless, I would tend to agree with you that I don't think we should be all that concerned about those that are vaccinated (and I think that with proof, the vaccinated should be exempt from mask requirements except for maybe crowded indoor settings).   We should be concerned about the people that either want to get vaccinated but can not, and yes even those that specifically choose not to get vaccinated.    The concern with one of your earlier posts is if that number is more than just "the fringe."   If that number is too high, it will still spread among that population, leading to unnecessary deaths, not to mention potential local restrictions if outbreaks occur.    However, I do think the deaths should be well below what they've been since we have most of the vulnerable population vaccinated as well as a pretty decent % of the total country vaccinated.

I'll let the first sentence slide due to either way you say it, or I say it it makes the same point.  :)

I agree with what you said, and to clarify, when I said "the fringe" I truly was talking about the extreme anti-vaxer types versus the common person who may be skeptical do to saftey concerns or other reasons (some political...ugh!).  I guess I am more commenting on the balance between one extreme, i.e., forcing vaccinations, versus the other extreme, i.e, those who refuse to get vaccinated or follow the requirements.  At what point to we stop letting the extremes drive policy for the majority??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dman115 said:

I'll let the first sentence slide due to either way you say it, or I say it it makes the same point.  :)

I agree with what you said, and to clarify, when I said "the fringe" I truly was talking about the extreme anti-vaxer types versus the common person who may be skeptical do to saftey concerns or other reasons (some political...ugh!).  I guess I am more commenting on the balance between one extreme, i.e., forcing vaccinations, versus the other extreme, i.e, those who refuse to get vaccinated or follow the requirements.  At what point to we stop letting the extremes drive policy for the majority??

Would you consider Cornell or PSU requiring vaccination as a condition for attending extreme? Nobody is forcing somebody to get vaccinated in that case, but rather ensuring the safety of the immunocompromised who do attend those universities. As Dean showed, if you disagree with the policy, it’s easy enough to transfer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Billyhoyle said:

Would you consider Cornell or PSU requiring vaccination as a condition for attending extreme? Nobody is forcing somebody to get vaccinated in that case, but rather ensuring the safety of the immunocompromised who do attend those universities. As Dean showed, if you disagree with the policy, it’s easy enough to transfer. 

Good questions Billy...I'll use my favorite word...depends.  I think it is the right of every PRIVATE business to make policy for their company as they see fit...obviously there are exceptions to that...point being if a private company says they want their employee's to wear suites and ties to work there than it should be their right to do so...when it comes to requiring the vaccine, I think it starts to reach a slippery slope.  One of the reason's I chose to get vaccinated is in anticipation that the private company I work for may require it to go back in the office, and I HATE working from home and want to get back there as soon as possible (I know I am weird...I just like face to face over zoom).  Anyway, when it comes to university's that receive federally funding it is even more of a slippery slope...but probably still within the realm of my personal acceptance criteria.  Heck public school system requires vaccinations (yes I know there are exceptions).  So overall...I think the biggest thing that is important is to maintain the right to work/go to school/etc. somewhere else if you disagree with their policies...so I am glad Dean got to express that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Le duke said:

But that's not what the science says at all. Everything you've said here is based upon a faulty (incorrect) understanding of this.

What your statement fails to address is that the COVID vaccines don't stop you from getting infected after you are vaccinated, or from spreading it to others. The vaccines dramatically decrease your likelihood of having a severe symptomatic response and POTENTIALLY make them less likely from transmitting.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html

He's been told this over and over by numerous people here.  Doesn't seem to sink in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Okay...you seem like a nice guy Le duke (plus I love your username)...but maybe our reading comprehension is different....from your link, and I quote:

  • A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing.

And this I especially enjoyed as it shows that the CDC may in fact be using some common sense and logic:

  • The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Vaccinated people could potentially still get COVID-19 and spread it to others. However, the benefits of relaxing some measures such as testing and self-quarantine requirements for travelers, post-exposure quarantine requirements and reducing social isolation may outweigh the residual risk of fully vaccinated people becoming ill with COVID-19 or transmitting the virus to others.

Your move Le duke!  :)

Le duke said
 

Quote

COVID vaccines don't stop you from getting infected after you are vaccinated, or from spreading it to others.

The link says

Quote

fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

And you are making a distinction, why?  Doesn't "less likely" and "doesn't stop you" agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

The link you posted literally says people who are vaccinated are less likely to get infected. The clinical trial data shows the vaccines are 95% effective, meaning 95/100 people who would have gotten infected do not. 

That's not what the 95% means.  It means that the vaccine was up to 95% effective in preventing symptomatic infections.  That means that it is really good at preventing COVID (the disease), but that *doesn't* mean it prevents infection.  This is an important distinction.  Preventing disease protects the vaccinated person from the effects of the disease, while preventing infection protects other people from becoming infected and potentially getting the disease.

Also, the 95% represents the percentage of those who got COVID (the disease, not the infection) who were also not vaccinated out of all those who got COVID (the disease, not the infection):

Quote

170 cases of COVID-19 observed with onset at least 7 days after the second dose; 8 cases occurred in vaccine recipients, and 162 in placebo recipients, corresponding to 95.0% vaccine efficacy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, klehner said:

Le duke said
 

The link says

And you are making a distinction, why?  Doesn't "less likely" and "doesn't stop you" agree?

Okay...am I in bizarro world here?!?!  Holy crap!!  What are you and Le duke trying to argue??  If a 95% effective vaccine isn't as close to being a certainty then I don't know what is.  But you two think that a 95% effective vaccine should be treated as if it was 0% effective because of the 5%???  Seriously, Le duke tried to use a link that essentially said almost the opposite of what he said and was WAY more in agreement with my argument than his...and then you try and defend Le duke??  SMH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Would you consider Cornell or PSU requiring vaccination as a condition for attending extreme? Nobody is forcing somebody to get vaccinated in that case, but rather ensuring the safety of the immunocompromised who do attend those universities. As Dean showed, if you disagree with the policy, it’s easy enough to transfer. 

Cornell positivity rate over the past week:  .02%

PSU (University Park) positivity rate over the past week:  3.3%

One of those two is preventing infection a couple of magnitudes better than the other.  Maybe few at PSU are getting sick, but who knows how many others were infected by them who *did* get sick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dman115 said:

Okay...am I in bizarro world here?!?!  Holy crap!!  What are you and Le duke trying to argue??  If a 95% effective vaccine isn't as close to being a certainty then I don't know what is.  But you two think that a 95% effective vaccine should be treated as if it was 0% effective because of the 5%???  Seriously, Le duke tried to use a link that essentially said almost the opposite of what he said and was WAY more in agreement with my argument than his...and then you try and defend Le duke??  SMH

That's not what anyone is saying.  You were saying that the 95% means it reduced *infection* by 95%, when that is not the case and not what that number means.  We are trying to point out to you the actual meaning of the statistic.  Do you understand the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, klehner said:

That's not what the 95% means.  It means that the vaccine was up to 95% effective in preventing symptomatic infections.  That means that it is really good at preventing COVID (the disease), but that *doesn't* mean it prevents infection.  This is an important distinction.  Preventing disease protects the vaccinated person from the effects of the disease, while preventing infection protects other people from becoming infected and potentially getting the disease.

Also, the 95% represents the percentage of those who got COVID (the disease, not the infection) who were also not vaccinated out of all those who got COVID (the disease, not the infection):

 

Do you really think it’s not preventing asymptomatic infection and transmission as well? 95% or symptomatic infections were shown to be prevented in the trial because that’s what you can actually measure in a 30,000 person trial. I guarantee you that the vaccine prevents most infections (asymptomatic or otherwise). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, klehner said:

That's not what the 95% means.  It means that the vaccine was up to 95% effective in preventing symptomatic infections.  That means that it is really good at preventing COVID (the disease), but that *doesn't* mean it prevents infection.  This is an important distinction.  Preventing disease protects the vaccinated person from the effects of the disease, while preventing infection protects other people from becoming infected and potentially getting the disease.

Also, the 95% represents the percentage of those who got COVID (the disease, not the infection) who were also not vaccinated out of all those who got COVID (the disease, not the infection):

 

Real-world studies have shown it's also 90%+ effective against asymptomatic infections.   91.5% according to a recent study from Israel.

article - https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/05/real-world-studies-detail-high-pfizer-covid-vaccine-protection

study - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00947-8/fulltext#tables

data table - https://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableHTML?isHtml=true&tableId=tbl2&pii=S0140-6736(21)00947-8

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, klehner said:

Cornell positivity rate over the past week:  .02%

PSU (University Park) positivity rate over the past week:  3.3%

One of those two is preventing infection a couple of magnitudes better than the other.  Maybe few at PSU are getting sick, but who knows how many others were infected by them who *did* get sick?

Are those the campus rates or are they the county rates?

I would be interested in seeing campus infection data if you have a source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, klehner said:

Cornell positivity rate over the past week:  .02%

PSU (University Park) positivity rate over the past week:  3.3%

One of those two is preventing infection a couple of magnitudes better than the other.  Maybe few at PSU are getting sick, but who knows how many others were infected by them who *did* get sick?

I fully expect PSU to eventually require vaccination as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Billyhoyle said:

Do you really think it’s not preventing asymptomatic infection and transmission as well? 95% or symptomatic infections were shown to be prevented in the trial because that’s what you can actually measure in a 30,000 person trial. I guarantee you that the vaccine prevents most infections (asymptomatic or otherwise). 

It doesn't matter what I, or you, think:  what matters is what the number actually measured.  You'll note that the vaccine manufacturers don't claim what you say.  Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thing I just read: 35% of American adults have been fully vaccinated.  Of the remaining who have not: 62% say they definitely or probably will not get the vaccination.  If we are basing how much and how quickly we fully "reopen" across the whole country on 75%ish vaccinated......that is not a good sign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, klehner said:

It doesn't matter what I, or you, think:  what matters is what the number actually measured.  You'll note that the vaccine manufacturers don't claim what you say.  Why is that?

Well I’m right on this one, so I’m not sure what your point is 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pinnum said:

Are those the campus rates or are they the county rates?

I would be interested in seeing campus infection data if you have a source?

Campus (students/faculty/staff) numbers only.

https://covid.cornell.edu/testing/dashboard/

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNDY3NjhiMDItOWY0Mi00NzBmLWExNTAtZGIzNjdkMGI0OTM0IiwidCI6IjdjZjQ4ZDQ1LTNkZGItNDM4OS1hOWMxLWMxMTU1MjZlYjUyZSIsImMiOjF9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Interesting thing I just read: 35% of American adults have been fully vaccinated.  Of the remaining who have not: 62% say they definitely or probably will not get the vaccination.  If we are basing how much and how quickly we fully "reopen" across the whole country on 75%ish vaccinated......that is not a good sign. 

link?

We're at 35% fully vaccinated which includes children who haven't been able to get it.  We're also at 46% that have gotten at least one dose (in other words, it can't be 62% saying they won't get it) - https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Here's some recent polling - https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-april-2021/?utm_campaign=KFF-2021-polling-surveys&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=125538759&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8IfJFNHwJ6jdeJ_2fez3W6V4f7YmCGaRyZ-OA63rk-ImKLucWrQXgtJPDNsW9rHeCAxpcXiA71xmombsMrjKXU3lUqeA

Even if you include "definitely won't" + "only if required" + "wait and see," the most recent % is 34%.

Edit:  Actually there is a chart towards the bottom of the ourworldindata link saying "share among unvaccinated people who would get a covid-19 vaccine this week if it was available to them" and it shows 35%, meaning 65% wouldn't, but that's only among those that haven't gotten it yet.

Edited by 1032004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read Lurker's quote like this: "...of the remainder, 62% said..."

I take that to mean that, if 50% of Americans are vaccinated, 50% remains. If 60% of the remainder isn't going to get vaccinated, that's 30% of the total population. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

link?

We're at 35% fully vaccinated which includes children who haven't been able to get it.  We're also at 46% that have gotten at least one dose (in other words, it can't be 62% saying they won't get it) - https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Here's some recent polling - https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-april-2021/?utm_campaign=KFF-2021-polling-surveys&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=125538759&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8IfJFNHwJ6jdeJ_2fez3W6V4f7YmCGaRyZ-OA63rk-ImKLucWrQXgtJPDNsW9rHeCAxpcXiA71xmombsMrjKXU3lUqeA

Even if you include "definitely won't" + "only if required" + "wait and see," the most recent % is 34%.

You are correct it's 35% of total population, I misread it as adult population as the article (USA Today) was focusing on adults.  It stated that of adults who have not been vaccintated, 35% said they definitely will not, 27% said they probably will not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Le duke said:

Read Lurker's quote like this: "...of the remainder, 62% said..."

I take that to mean that, if 50% of Americans are vaccinated, 50% remains. If 60% of the remainder isn't going to get vaccinated, that's 30% of the total population. 

Ah sorry missed that in his quote, but had edited my post to say that I saw that data.

But it's also not including the 11% that have gotten the first dose but not the second.  I know not all of those will get it, but it seems to be the majority will.  So you have 35% (fully vaccinated) + 8 or 9% (already got second dose and will get second, not to mention that studies have shown that just getting 1 dose is still ~80% effective) + 35-38% that supposedly still will = 78-81%, and that's not counting those that won't get it but were already infected so have at least some immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, the rate at which vaccinations are occurring is slowing down as they are now butting up against those segments of the population that are reluctant to take it. 

Virtue signaling policy makers need to take their masks off outdoors at a minimum just to set a more positive tone. Being all masked up while walking across the lawn isn't helping. 

Edited by TBar1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TBar1977 said:

Btw, the rate at which vaccinations are occurring is slowing down as they are now butting up against those segments of the population that are reluctant to take it. 

Virtue signaling policy makers need to take their masks off outdoors at a minimum just to set a more positive tone. Being all masked up while walking across the lawn isn't helping. 

No worry, just offer some free beer

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995340998/the-offer-of-free-beer-may-help-lagging-vaccination-rate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...