Get Vaccinated Against the Covid Delta Variant

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
516 replies · 46K views
bhobba said:
Yes - we must vaccinate children as soon as it is proven to be safe. Not only to prevent tragedies like the story above, but they act as spreaders to others. Getting R as low as possible is essential.
Yeah, but the 70 million adults who don't WANT to get vaccinated is the real problem. I'm not saying don't vaccinate children, I'm just saying that's not going to change R very much.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
Biology news on Phys.org
phinds said:
Yeah, but the 70 million adults who don't WANT to get vaccinated is the real problem. I'm not saying don't vaccinate children, I'm just saying that's not going to change R very much.

It depends on where you are. Where I used to live in the ACT, the vaccination has surpassed 95% over 16 and still growing. I am not as pessimistic as some at overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
It depends on where you are. Where I used to live in the ACT, the vaccination has surpassed 95% over 16 and still growing. I am not as pessimistic as some at overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

Thanks
Bill
What is "the ACT"
 
bhobba said:
It depends on where you are. Where I used to live in the ACT, the vaccination has surpassed 95% over 16 and still growing. I am not as pessimistic as some at overcoming vaccine hesitancy.
Move to Mississippi or Alabama in the US and then get back to me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CalcNerd and PeroK
phinds said:
Move to Mississippi or Alabama in the US and then get back to me.
Point taken. As I said it depends on where you live. The ACT has a very high proportion of highly educated people, a bit like those that post here.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: phinds
bhobba said:
. . . a bit like those that post here.
Thanks, Bill. . . . :wink:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy and bhobba
OCR said:
Thanks, Bill. . . . :wink:

You are welcome. Of course, this site is open to anyone that obeys the rules. But we tend to attract a higher percentage of tertiary educated people or those intending to become tertiary educated.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OCR
Bill! . . 😣

1633585445614.png

Lol. . .
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: atyy and bhobba
@bhobba just FYI, we have a significant number of people in the US (very specifically Alabama and Mississippi, but not not limited to those states) where people are SO against getting vaccinated that those few people in those communities who DO want to get vaccinated don't want their friends / work colleagues to know that they got it.

Here's a single news article about it but I've seen others:
https://www.kansascity.com/news/coronavirus/article253168023.html
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and BillTre
phinds said:
@bhobba just FYI, we have a significant number of people in the US (very specifically Alabama and Mississippi, but not not limited to those states) where people are SO against getting vaccinated that those few people in those communities who DO want to get vaccinated don't want their friends / work colleagues to know that they got it.
Pure insanity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and BillTre
Ivan Seeking said:
Pure insanity.
Yes. There's a LOT of that going around in America these days but forum rules prohibit any discussion of most of it.
 
phinds said:
Yes. There's a LOT of that going around in America these days but forum rules prohibit any discussion of most of it.
I see nothing! I hear nothing!
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: phinds
Ivan Seeking said:
I see nothing! I hear nothing!
The actual quote from Sargent Schultz was " "I see NOTHING! I hear NOTHING! I know NOTHING!"
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BillTre
phinds said:
"I see NOTHING! I hear NOTHING! I know NOTHING!"
Also the wisdom taught by every advocate to his defendant
 
phinds said:
Yes. There's a LOT of that going around in America these days but forum rules prohibit any discussion of most of it.

With my mentor's hat on, mentioning that vaccine hesitancy is pure insanity is not against forum rules. Discussing political reasons why is. But discussing ways to overcome it devoid of politics is fine. For example, I mentioned here in Aus a GP that spoke Yougoslavian personally went from house to house explaining in Yugoslavian need for vaccinations then giving the jab. Many had poor English skills, and their family had not explained the importance to them. It is quite possible their family did not know either. It worked but was very draining on him.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
artis said:
Nevertheless I would love to hear the most up to date recent real science or studies with this drug as an antiviral or other similar drugs in this regard. Where are we on this as of the moment ?
Dr. Campbell seems to reference some studies, what do you think?

I was initially quite positive towards Ivermectin, but it suffered a big blow when people removed a significant article from the preprint server:
https://theconversation.com/a-major...so-what-now-for-the-controversial-drug-164627

It still may be of value, but as part of getting a third dose of vaccine, I will be seeing my doctor about getting Molnupiravir and Monoclonal Antibodies if I contract Covid. Before we had made an arrangement, I would get a 5-day course of Ivermectin. The third dose has just been approved here in Aus, but my research into it has come up with mixed advice in my case, from getting it 28 days after the second dose to waiting six months. I am currently thinking five months as recommended in Isreal, but of course, my doctors are in the best position to know.

Thanks
Bill
 
Tom.G said:
Some recent, informal, results:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bra...for-covid-frenzy-warning-to-us-experts-2021-9
:frown:
From Dr. Ana Carolina Antonio, who works at a government hospital in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and who told Insider many of her ICU patients took ivermectin in the spring — some trying to prevent COVID-19, others "to early treat their first symptoms."
In fact, Antonio estimated about 70% of her ICU patients said during the country's deadly second wave (in late 2020 and early 2021) that they had taken ivermectin, and "I regret to say most of those patients have died," she said.

About half of all her critically ill patients died, and 80% of ventilated patients didn't make it, regardless of whether they'd tried ivermectin.

She called the heartbreak of the situation "indescribable."

"I've never seen so many young and previously healthy patients dying," she said. "I have already cared for many patients who took ivermectin and were still in the ICU for COVID-19."
 
Temporarily closed for moderation.

This thread became political at post #496 because some facts were interpreted as politics. It seems especially one fraction gets easily offended by facts these days. Whether correlations represent causation cannot be answered by the given references, which makes it indeed political.

Some of the last posts had nothing to do with any political interpretation, but they are hard to filter.

I can only say that a re-opening depends on whether you are willing to support your statements by scientific studies - regardless of which political side you stand on.
 
I cleaned up the thread in the sense that I deleted what could be seen as politics (on both sides), and the responses on deleted posts, as well as insufficiently referenced posts.

The problem is the following:
bhobba said:
With my mentor's hat on, mentioning that vaccine hesitancy is pure insanity is not against forum rules. Discussing political reasons why is.

Unfortunately, it says that in practice stating the statistic is allowed, but almost certain every follow-up post is forbidden. Each time someone quotes a statistic, they show us apparently(!) a correlation, implicitly claim causation and suggest to follow their political view on it.

A statistic alone says nothing at all. It doesn't even prove correlation. I am aware that this is mainly due to the subject Covid, but we are in a technical forum, so statistical evidence is not automatically scientific evidence.

Please think about this when I re-open the thread.
 
I see my post has been removed - I was likely researching it while you were typing.

It's certainly true that correlation doesn't prove causation. I think I posted a clear test (well, as clear as you get in the social sciences) to whether there is even correlation. Obviously the right thing to do is a Principal Component Analysis of all 3000 counties in the US.

That said, the state to state vaccination rate varies by about 50%. The age (among adults) variation is almost a factor of 2. The racial differences are also a factor of 2. Focusing on state vaccination rates and inferring things about our political tribe and their opponents while ignoring larger variations across other variables is not science.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I see my post has been removed
I established a personal moderation rule. One report with the heading "politics" is the usual suspects complaining, two reports with the heading "politics" count.

I have done a lot of deletions today. None of which I would have deleted by my own judgment. Believe it or not, but I made a politics test prior to our recent general elections, and the outcome was: libertarian. So any censorship is deeply against my political opinion. But as soon as someone shouts "politics" I have no options left.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Pure insanity.
Yep. Alabama has some major issues going on. Imagine running PCR for COVID-19 for 70 hours a week for weeks during a surge and witnessing verbal altercations occur between coworkers on both sides on a frequent basis. People cannot even understand the situation when the proof is literally in their faces daily. Even when they are close to swimming in specimens of it, they still make the decision to get emotional about someone telling them what to do and refuse to even listen to what’s being said. I have had a heck of a time getting my family vaccinated. This surge has had me alarmed and seems worse than last year. It’s difficult to predict whether it will take another surge upwards, maintain, or level down for a longer period. I’m very worried about people around me.

When I went to my daughters open house at the beginning of this surge, most of the other parents were not wearing masks. Some teachers had theirs pulled down under their nose. One teacher felt compelled to give me a long opinionated speech against vaccinations, when I just wanted information about the school. Mind-blowing.

Many companies are taking drastic measures in response. Many people have been terminated for it already. An AT & T repairman was in my home the other day and told me that he has a short period of time to get vaccinated or else he will be terminated. Is this happening in the other states? People are also going around with the same strawman on their backs; seemingly, waiting to parrot this same old rehearsed speech to anyone they suspect may have been vaccinated. One look at them and they start whining and winding up to work their way up to the speech. They’ll start it at stations, grocery stores, anywhere. They especially love to find an agreeable party to loudly start the speech with so that the outlier knows to shut up. “I got my backpack on today man, I’m feeling it, let’s start the show for this person who is probably vaccinated.” I observe this same behavior repeatedly. It’s ridiculous. Ready to argue and fight with anyone who they even think may have decided to vaccinate themselves. I have had people blow up at me with the craziest accusations. Had this one guy, who owns numerous companies in healthcare, straight out tell me that I was horrible for “putting money in a felons pocket” and demanded to know why I chose to “take a drug” that caused harmful mutations in my DNA. I must not care about my health. Then he disappeared. These are the kinds of accusations and reasons flying around. Not facts, they aren’t reasonable enough to them. They have actual information in their minds already about people they know or indirectly know dying from it and even that isn’t reason to them. It doesn’t occur to them that the reason most people want everyone vaccinationed is because they care about them. If people didn’t care then they wouldn’t be worried about them getting vaccinated. It’s like there’s a sort of default defensive reaction that occurs and science cannot reason against it nor can concern and care.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and Tom.G
I'm not complaining about removal. Just stating a fact.

I may have also quoted a more "political" message as well. But I wanted to make the point that focusing on state vaccination rates and inferring things about our political tribe and their opponents while ignoring larger variations across other variables is not science.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OCR and Tom.G
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm not complaining about removal. Just stating a fact.

I may have also quoted a more "political" message as well. But I wanted to make the point that focusing on state vaccination rates and inferring things about our political tribe and their opponents while ignoring larger variations across other variables is not science.
The difficulty is that no particular political position can be justified scientifically. There's too much data that can be interpreted in too many ways. Otherwise, almost everyone scientifically minded would come to the same political conclusions. We don't. In many cases, we come to diametrically opposite conclusions about the way our societies should be run.

You may think you can prove your position scientifically, but someone of the opposite political persuasion is going to believe they can see the flaws in your argument before you have even begun. And, inevitably, they may produce data that appears to contradict your position.

Scientific consensus can be established by scientifically mature thinking, but no such political consensus is possible. That's why we need to avoid this whole line of debate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nsaspook
PeroK said:
You may think you can prove your position scientifically, but someone of the opposite political persuasion is going to believe they can see the flaws in your argument before you have even begun. And, inevitably, they may produce data that appears to contradict your position.
Actually, while I think that's exactly what will happen, I don't think it's sound scientific thinking.

If one has the hypothesis that A is the primary cause of B, this should be at some level scale invariant. If I demonstrate a correlation (a necessary but not sufficient condition for causation) when I break down the population by US State, I should also see it if I break it down by county or congressional district (the advantage here is that they are closer in size than counties) or some other variable.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Actually, while I think that's exactly what will happen, I don't think it's sound scientific thinking.

If one has the hypothesis that A is the primary cause of B, this should be at some level scale invariant. If I demonstrate a correlation (a necessary but not sufficient condition for causation) when I break down the population by US State, I should also see it if I break it down by county or congressional district (the advantage here is that they are closer in size than counties) or some other variable.
If you were to produce some reliable data that related, say, vaccination status with voting at the previous round of elections, then that would be interesting and, in itself, apolitical.

I had a quick look for data and the two sources I found claim that 88% and 90% of Democrats have been vaccinated against 55% and 58% of Republicans. These are from August and October.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/me...demographic-breakdown-vaccinated-u-s-n1277514

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...liation-matters-more-than-race-and-ethnicity/

I can't vouch for the reliability of either source, but that's what I found.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970