Last year it was difficult to find room in the inn. Our hospitals had to make ICU rooms.
What I am talking about is people refraining from going to the doctor.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
If You Can't Question It, Don't Call It Science
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
What I am talking about is people refraining from going to the doctor.
The cruise ships are very good examples demonstrating the effectiveness of the vaccines. Most are vaccinated (not all, as evidenced by the Royal Caribbean cruise ship....I guess age?). And they are a closed group, nowhere to go.
How many came up covid positive? Less than 5%. How many had severe symptoms? 0. How many hospitalized? 0. How many died? 0.
Most were asymptomatic and would not have known they had covid if they were not tested. Those who had symptoms experienced mild, cold like symptoms.
Yet the hospitals are once again seeing unvaccinated covid patients in the ICU.
And they are seeing vaccinated patients. Fully vaxed preacher that lives across road from me is very sick. Fully vaxed brother of woman I go to church with is very sick.
you think enough people are boycotting medical care to increase the deaths by 40% "non covid" in 18-64 y/os barely a year removed from the suspension of restrictive admissions policy?
Do I understand you correctly?
I've not read "most were vaccinated" .... I read ALL "fully vaccinated" as a requirement of being ON the cruise ... passengers and crew.
What percentage of positives would be sufficient for you to understand the cv jab isn't working?
The cv jab was supposed to get us back to normal. Is being confined to quarters on a cruise ship normal?
... and before the thread gets closed ... it needs to have included ...
The FDA wants to delay release of the Pfizer trial data until 2076.
When has the FDA EVER sought to resist compliance with a FOIA for 74 years? release of trial data in an approved drug? It's only been 92 years that it's been known as the FDA.
I mean .. .this is the data they allegedly used to validate their "FDA approved" declaration on the Pfizer/BioNTech/Comirarty cv jab ... in barely a year's time, but it can only release 500 pages per month?
Pfizer can hold the (3 month) trial, produce the 329,000 pages of documents, transmit it to the FDA, who can receive it all, process the information to base a decision to approve the drug in approximately 12 months ... but the FDA needs 74 years to release this information due to a logistical limitation?
Does this make ANY sense in ANY universe?
We have computers, for crying out loud. Even the government does. Shoot, my mother could retype the 329,000 page document in a month. ... on a mechanical Smith Corona (curious THAT, HUH?) classic from the '60s.
The FDA wants to delay release of the Pfizer trial data until 2076.
When has the FDA EVER sought to resist compliance with a FOIA for 74 years? release of trial data in an approved drug? It's only been 92 years that it's been known as the FDA.
I mean .. .this is the data they allegedly used to validate their "FDA approved" declaration on the Pfizer/BioNTech/Comirarty cv jab ... in barely a year's time, but it can only release 500 pages per month?
Pfizer can hold the (3 month) trial, produce the 329,000 pages of documents, transmit it to the FDA, who can receive it all, process the information to base a decision to approve the drug in approximately 12 months ... but the FDA needs 74 years to release this information due to a logistical limitation?
Does this make ANY sense in ANY universe?
We have computers, for crying out loud. Even the government does. Shoot, my mother could retype the 329,000 page document in a month. ... on a mechanical Smith Corona (curious THAT, HUH?) classic from the '60s.
Last edited:
Ypu may have read wrong. Not all of the covid positive on the Royal Caribbean cruise were vaccine. But vacvines are required with age categories. My guess would be the unvaccinated were in a category not requiring a vaccination.
No percentage of positives would prove the vaccines are not working. The idea there would be is just an anti-covid-vax lie (they are afraid the vaccines may be working so they pretend positive covid cases prove they are not....yea... they're not necessarily the most honest bunch).
To prove the vaccines are working I would want to see a closed group (like students and faculty at Duke University or like a cruise ship) showing positive covid cases where the vaccinated are mostly asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms.
That said, the vaccines are not 100%. If 80 passengers suffered from severe illnesses due to covid then the vaccines would, in the case of the cruise ship as a group, 75% effective. That would be borderline for me.
Thanks for throwing down a ball park number. That's the first time I've seen that done by someone who doesn't oppose the cv jab.
The jabs were billed as "shot of hope" I remember the scene quite well from my Vancouver WA hotel room where I was finalizing my vaccine/immune system paper I've posted here elsewhere.
How much hope do we have in the cv jab now? even with about 70% (estimated; last official number I saw was 63% just after Thanksgiving) of the total population jabbed which includes a higher percentage in most of the urban areas (most likely to transmit the virus in 2300/sq mile pop density) ... even with mandates for inside dining?
The jab was supposed to "return to normal." Are we normal yet? Or are we never going to be normal because a minority won't take the jab?
The way I see it the vaccine has to provide a benefit that outweighs the risk of the vaccine and the virus.
I suppose different people will place this at different levels. Some of this is probably opinion, but some may also be a result of the population or category to which the person belongs.
I have not set a hard number. Now that we are dealing with varients rather than the alpha version this may be difficult....probably a moving target as the virus changes and the efficiency of the vaccine changes. Still, I think the overall principle remains.
The effectiveness of the vaccine, with time, does decrease. But the effectiveness with boosters is debatable. Reports out of Israel show a very high effectiveness.
Time seems to be a common issue. "Natural immunity" has proven worthless after 6 to 8 months, and completely worthless against the new varient. I'm not sure if this is because the virus changes or antibodies decrease.
My ultimate number would be closer to 50% effectiveness. The benefit would still far outweigh the risk, but you'd still have a 50% chance of serious illness.
I don't care at all about how effective a vaccine is against preventing infection. But I do about preventing serious illness and death. An asymptomatic infection is fine with me (it'd probably boost my immunity and maybe even give me super powers
).I think that's WAAAAY overstating it.
why is natural immunity worthless after 6-8 months? Is there no mitigation of symptoms beyond that period? The only way to mitigate covid19 symptoms is by having your immune system in a cell mediated response to a specific spike protein 24/7?
I think we need to know more about the treatment plans of those with serious illness/death ... I'd wager a dollar to a donut, they didn't get treated in the first 48 (72?) hours of being symptomatic; regardless of vax status. I can accept that the cv jab reduces symptoms of the disease ... it ought to if the immune system is at DEFCON 1 24/7. But what is the price of that readiness? It ain't free I promise you that.
Why is "natural immunity" worthless after 6 to 8 months?
I don't know why. I just know it is. Just ask those who have had covid 2 and 3 times, with latter cases worse than the first.
I don't know anyone who's been reinfected. A few dozen who have had the symptoms ... including myself.
I think your considering natural immunity worthless is errant. It isn't perfect immunity ... but then again, neither is the cv jabs, right?
But natural immunity has one advantage ... the immune system isn't at "defcon1" for the rest of your days ... and the risk factor of taking another (booster) is avoided.
For me, I'll continue to maintain my immune system and have at the ready budesonideworks at the ready next time ... applied immediately. I like that plan much better than sitting around waiting to need the ER.
There have been a lot who have had covid multiple of times. I have a coworker who had it twice (both times bad). She's in her 30's and decided to get the vaccine because she was worried about a 3rd time.
@Reynolds said he had it twice. He said the first time was like a cold but the second (delta) wS worse.
Those are the only ones I know 1st hand.
- Status