Medical Apartheid in the state of Victoria

[Henarar]

Better get that booster in.

well anyone that knows much about vaccinations will agree that it is important

 

[essex man]

Where did you get that scientific gem from?

You never answered Grainboys question - just more figures .I am bored now

Public health England

COVID-19 vaccine surveillance reports (weeks 19 to 38)

Data on the real-world effectiveness and impact of the COVID-19 vaccines.

www.gov.uk

 

[Charlie Gill]

Is that what people expected when they got vaccinated?

No, they expected this:

 

[essex man]

No, they expected this:

View attachment 985051

So they didn't expect more higher positive test rate amongst vaccinated?
No I didn't think so, thanks for confirming

 

[Charlie Gill]

So they didn't expect more higher positive test rate amongst vaccinated?
No I didn't think so

Well, you should know how it goes, if everyone is vaccinated then all positive tests will be among...

 

[essex man]

Well, you should know how it goes, if everyone is vaccinated then all positive tests will be among...

It's a rate of positive tests!!!!
As in a percentage

 

[Charlie Gill]

It's a rate of positive tests!!!!
As in a percentage

I know, but if 100% of people are vaccinated then 100% of cases would be among the vaccinated. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your reason for posting the graph?

 

[DENNING]

'Apatheid' is hardly the right word for it. OK, there are a small number of people who cannot have the jabs for medical reasons but for most, unlike what happened in South Africa, they actually have a choice in the matter.

At the end of the day, it's a choice and choices have consequences. My experience is that there is a major overlap between people worried about different treatment of the jabbed and unjabbed, and those who loudly demand that people in hospital due to drugs/alcohol/obesity should be made to pay for their treatment. Makes no sense when they are very very similar.

 

[essex man]

It's a rate of positive tests!!!!
As in a percentage

I know, but if 100% of people are vaccinated then 100% of cases would be among the vaccinated. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your reason for posting the graph?

No!
Out of a hundred vaccinated people aged40-80, there are more positive tests than among a hundred unvaccinated people.
Therefore the vaccinated should be kept out of events as more likely to test positive?

 

[DENNING]

No!
Out of a hundred vaccinated people aged40-80, there are more positive tests than among a hundred unvaccinated people.
Therefore the vaccinated should be kept out of events as more likely to test positive?

You'd possibly be correct if the positive test rate was all that matters. For starters, we don't know how many positive cases are not being caught in either the vaccinated or unvaccinated - you can't test positive if you don't do a test and I know multiple people, mostly unjabbed but some jabbed too, who had the symptoms and simply didn't bother to get tested.

You also ignore the facts that covid is less likely to be serious if you have been vaccinated against it, and that you are less likely to pass it on to someone else. A vaccinated person with covid faces a much lower risk to their life, and a lower risk to the public at whole, especially the unjabbed.

I was going to say they are less selfish, but there's nothing selfless about taking a quick pr*ck with a needle that poses far fewer risks than the disease itself when unjabbed.

 

[Pasty]

'Apatheid' is hardly the right word for it. OK, there are a small number of people who cannot have the jabs for medical reasons but for most, unlike what happened in South Africa, they actually have a choice in the matter.

At the end of the day, it's a choice and choices have consequences. My experience is that there is a major overlap between people worried about different treatment of the jabbed and unjabbed, and those who loudly demand that people in hospital due to drugs/alcohol/obesity should be made to pay for their treatment. Makes no sense when they are very very similar.

You make a good point. I was in the pub the other night after a meeting (some bloke in the pub coming up) and this some bloke in the pub who must have been 25 stone and was knocking back pints with scotch like it was going out of fashion was on about the unclean not being given NHS treatment. Why should I pay my NI for him? He's clearly going to be a long term liability for the NHS until something gets him.

 

[DENNING]

You make a good point. I was in the pub the other night after a meeting (some bloke in the pub coming up) and this some bloke in the pub who must have been 25 stone and was knocking back pints with scotch like it was going out of fashion was on about the unclean not being given NHS treatment. Why should I pay my NI for him? He's clearly going to be a long term liability for the NHS until something gets him.

To be clear I don't think we should be treating people differently based on how they are jabbed. It just annoys me that people think their choice, which puts the wider public and particularly those who cannot be jabbed for legitimate medical reasons, should be free of consequences. It annoys me even more when they then go on to bang about how others should face consequences for their choices.

And that's why comparing it to apartheid is absurd - it's all totally down to the choice of the individual.

 

[essex man]

You'd possibly be correct if the positive test rate was all that matters. For starters, we don't know how many positive cases are not being caught in either the vaccinated or unvaccinated - you can't test positive if you don't do a test and I know multiple people, mostly unjabbed but some jabbed too, who had the symptoms and simply didn't bother to get tested.

You also ignore the facts that covid is less likely to be serious if you have been vaccinated against it, and that you are less likely to pass it on to someone else. A vaccinated person with covid faces a much lower risk to their life, and a lower risk to the public at whole, especially the unjabbed.

I was going to say they are less selfish, but there's nothing selfless about taking a quick plonker with a needle that poses far fewer risks than the disease itself when unjabbed.

i agree re likelihood of getting tested, as i have posted elsewhere, i think unvaccinated less likely to be tested and find it hard to believe actual infection rates(rather than positive test rates) would be much different.
i posted originally to illustrate to difficulty in comparing rates of anything to do with covid between the vaxxed and unvaxxed cohorts.
the unvaxxed cohort is so small, amongst 50plus age groups, that it will contain massively different proportions of groups such as the homeless, those who never access healthcare etc

 

[essex man]

You'd possibly be correct if the positive test rate was all that matters. For starters, we don't know how many positive cases are not being caught in either the vaccinated or unvaccinated - you can't test positive if you don't do a test and I know multiple people, mostly unjabbed but some jabbed too, who had the symptoms and simply didn't bother to get tested.

You also ignore the facts that covid is less likely to be serious if you have been vaccinated against it, and that you are less likely to pass it on to someone else. A vaccinated person with covid faces a much lower risk to their life, and a lower risk to the public at whole, especially the unjabbed.

I was going to say they are less selfish, but there's nothing selfless about taking a quick plonker with a needle that poses far fewer risks than the disease itself when unjabbed.

if the jab is good for me and won't stop me spreading the virus then by taking it i am only looking out for number one i.e. being selfish
or is there a disbenefit to having it?

 

[DENNING]

if the jab is good for me and won't stop me spreading the virus then by taking it i am only looking out for number one i.e. being selfish
or is there a disbenefit to having it?

It significantly reduces the odds of you spreading the virus.

There are of course some disbenefits, primarily very minor side effects that last for a few days, and some rare ones which are more serious. No point pretending the side effects exist, because they do. Benefits obviously still outweigh the risks though.

That said, it does make me chuckle to see people saying we cannot trust scientists, big pharma etc on the viruses when the positives are reported, then immediately trusting the same scientists when they report a side effect.

 

[essex man]

I know, but if 100% of people are vaccinated then 100% of cases would be among the vaccinated. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your reason for posting the graph?

 

[essex man]

It significantly reduces the odds of you spreading the virus.

There are of course some disbenefits, primarily very minor side effects that last for a few days, and some rare ones which are more serious. No point pretending the side effects exist, because they do. Benefits obviously still outweigh the ri

It significantly reduces the odds of you spreading the virus.

There are of course some disbenefits, primarily very minor side effects that last for a few days, and some rare ones which are more serious. No point pretending the side effects exist, because they do. Benefits obviously still outweigh the risks though.

That said, it does make me chuckle to see people saying we cannot trust scientists, big pharma etc on the viruses when the positives are reported, then immediately trusting the same scientists when they report a side effect.

There is no data to show that vaccinated spread it less, in fact higher percentage of positive tests among vaccinated points to the opposite.
You agree that is of benefit to me to take it, thanks

 

[DENNING]

There is no data to show that vaccinated spread it less, in fact higher percentage of positive tests among vaccinated points to the opposite.
You agree that is of benefit to me to take it, thanks

Mounting evidence suggests COVID vaccines do reduce transmission. How does this work?

Vaccination is likely to substantially reduce virus transmission by reducing the pool of people who become infected, and reducing virus levels in people who get infected.

www.gavi.org

COVID vaccines slash viral spread – but Delta is an unknown

Studies show that vaccines reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by more than 80%, but the Delta variant is creating fresh uncertainty.

www.nature.com

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

To quote the last one from the CDC, "A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus."

 

[Mouser]

Mounting evidence suggests COVID vaccines do reduce transmission. How does this work?

Vaccination is likely to substantially reduce virus transmission by reducing the pool of people who become infected, and reducing virus levels in people who get infected.

www.gavi.org

COVID vaccines slash viral spread – but Delta is an unknown

Studies show that vaccines reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by more than 80%, but the Delta variant is creating fresh uncertainty.

www.nature.com

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

To quote the last one from the CDC, "A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus."

Those studies are all out of date. Delta variant transmission is clearly getting through vaccinated.

 

[essex man]

Mounting evidence suggests COVID vaccines do reduce transmission. How does this work?

Vaccination is likely to substantially reduce virus transmission by reducing the pool of people who become infected, and reducing virus levels in people who get infected.

www.gavi.org

COVID vaccines slash viral spread – but Delta is an unknown

Studies show that vaccines reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by more than 80%, but the Delta variant is creating fresh uncertainty.

www.nature.com

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

CDC provides credible COVID-19 health information to the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

To quote the last one from the CDC, "A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others. However, the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus."

One wonders how the rate of positive tests higher amongst the vaccinated than the unvaccinated in so many age groups?