ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 3802 of 3903
« First < 2802330237023752379237983799380038013802 3803380438053806381238523902 > Last »
Nzoner's Game Room>***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***
JakeF 10:28 PM 02-26-2020
A couple of reminders...

Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.

We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.

Thanks!

Click here for the original OP:

Spoiler!

[Reply]
NotDonger 09:35 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Don't compare Covid-19 shots against measles or mumps vaccines for infection.

No comparison.
I'm not. I'm pointing out that if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that is does not provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity), all vaccines are "leaky" since no vaccines provide 100% efficacy.

Is that your definition of a "leaky" vaccine?
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 09:35 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
Your own response from the author literally proved what he was saying.

We don't know at the moment how leaky these things are. It's conceivable that they are actually close to non-leaky.

No where in there does he say these vaccines aren't by definition leaky. Just that it could be conceivable that they are close to non leaky.
Correct. MM is just lying about it.
[Reply]
NotDonger 09:36 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Blather to deflect from your agenda. You lie constantly on this topic. It is a fact.

I can't address your point 2 because it isn't a known quantity at this point, as the author you use to define leaky vaccines so aptly points out in his own perfect rebuttal to your constant lies on the topic. So no need to even talk about it since you refuse to even address your sources rebuttal to your assertions on the topic.

Your point 1 is abstract and not germane to the discussion. It is merely a distraction from your constant lies.
What do the Germans have to do with this?
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 09:39 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by NotDonger:
I'm not. I'm pointing out that if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that is does not provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity), all vaccines are "leaky" since no vaccines provide 100% efficacy.

Is that your definition of a "leaky" vaccine?
Read the paper yourself.

I can't do that for you. If you learn something, great.
[Reply]
O.city 09:40 AM 12-01-2021
Those vaccines are likely to have that high efficacy due to the high uptake of said vaccine. There's just not much measles mumps or rubella spreading because of it.
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 09:41 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by NotDonger:
What do the Germans have to do with this?
https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZ...MOZI&q=germane

In case you aren't just being funny.
[Reply]
Indian Chief 09:41 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Let me ask you something. Who is more likely to spread a virus?

A guy dying in bed who can barely move or a guy who feels a little off but goes about his normal activities?
That's a terrible question. There are so many unknown factors and variables in that equation. It could be either. If you have a point, make it. Don't be Donger. Which part of my post are you attempting to rebut?
[Reply]
Nirvana58 09:41 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by NotDonger:
I'm not. I'm pointing out that if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that is does not provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity), all vaccines are "leaky" since no vaccines provide 100% efficacy.

Is that your definition of a "leaky" vaccine?
So the question has to be. How effective does a vaccine have to be at preventing diseases or transmission to be considered non leaky?

What is the cutoff number? I think everyone can admit that the vaccines pre booster did not prevent infection or transmission at the efficiency of the other vaccines mentioned.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 09:43 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by O.city:
Those vaccines are likely to have that high efficacy due to the high uptake of said vaccine. There's just not much measles mumps or rubella spreading because of it.
Ok, now you are confusing the hell out of me.

Do you believe the Covid-19 injections are effective at stopping infections...as well as the MMR?
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 09:43 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by O.city:
Those vaccines are likely to have that high efficacy due to the high uptake of said vaccine. There's just not much measles mumps or rubella spreading because of it.
Interesting that Missouri has the lowest MMR vaccination rate at just 85.8%.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...us-states.html
[Reply]
NotDonger 09:44 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Read the paper yourself.

I can't do that for you. If you learn something, great.
I have read it. And if saying that some vaccines are "perfect" means that they prevent 100% of infections, that is false as shown above.

Again, if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that it doesn't provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity) then all vaccines are "leaky," including the COVID-19 vaccines.

Do you agree with that? if not, please present what your definition of a "leaky" vaccine is please.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 09:45 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
So the question has to be. How effective does a vaccine have to be at preventing diseases or transmission to be considered non leaky?

What is the cutoff number? I think everyone can admit that the vaccines pre booster did not prevent infection or transmission at the efficiency of the other vaccines mentioned.
I think it gets super tricky because based on the data I have seen it appears the covid 19 injections initially

1.Have negative efficacy for a week or two

2.Get some sort of protection after shot 2

3.Then whatever protection against infection was there declines rapidly.

So the definition of efficacy depends on the time window we are talking about.
[Reply]
MahomesMagic 09:46 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by NotDonger:
I have read it. And if saying that some vaccines are "perfect" means that they prevent 100% of infections, that is false as shown above.

Again, if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that it doesn't provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity) then all vaccines are "leaky," including the COVID-19 vaccines.

Do you agree with that? if not, please present what your definition of a "leaky" vaccine is please.
Go review recent CDC statements and Bill Gates.

They have backtracked on this. Why are you pushing the old storyline?
[Reply]
O.city 09:48 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Ok, now you are confusing the hell out of me.

Do you believe the Covid-19 injections are effective at stopping infections...as well as the MMR?
As effective? No probably not. If you had MMR uptake at 45-50 percent, maybe similar. I'm not sure though.
[Reply]
NotDonger 09:50 AM 12-01-2021
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
So the question has to be. How effective does a vaccine have to be at preventing diseases or transmission to be considered non leaky?

What is the cutoff number? I think everyone can admit that the vaccines pre booster did not prevent infection or transmission at the efficiency of the other vaccines mentioned.
100% efficacy, which doesn't exist. So, hopefully we can agree that the "leakiness" of a vaccine increases as efficacy drops. For example, a really good flu season vaccine efficacy is something like 40%

Efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine was about 93% against the original strain. Less against Alpha and less against Delta. And wanes over time. So, I think it's accurate to say that it's always been "leaky" and is "leakier" against Alpha and Delta.
[Reply]
Page 3802 of 3903
« First < 2802330237023752379237983799380038013802 3803380438053806381238523902 > Last »
Up