Coronavirus (treasure, dangerous, manufactured)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Finper

I know crazy LA just can’t give them up.

Read the L.A. County stats. https://www.city-data.com/forum/los-...-19-cases.html

[beachGecko]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

It's been apparent since Omicron hit that the vaccines don't prevent transmission; what they do is reduce the chance of serious illness from COVID-19.

I think we have a paradox. I don't know of any vaccine that has no (or maybe even negative) efficacy in regards to infection, but mitigates severe disease. I mean, you have vaccines like the vaccines for Tetanus, which are targeting the toxins the bacteria produce and not the bacteria, but those aside.

You agree with me this is a paradox? Do you have any scientific explanations for possible immunological mechanisms for this? I have a few guesses, want to hear what yours are.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

You should be responsible and get tested to determine if it is (potentially more than "minor") COVID.

Testing doesn't make you "responsible". My wife works from home and is not in contact with anyone. Not sure why she would test...it really doesn't matter other than curiosity.

I remember asking a client that tried to pull that one on me when I was masking and going shopping at 6am when virtually no one was at the store and I could easily keep ample distance. I think people get a little too hung up on testing without looking at a person's situation.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by beachGecko

I don't know of any vaccine that has no (or maybe even negative) efficacy in regards to infection, but mitigates severe disease.

Negative efficacy? Previously posted; scroll back.

"A new project from researchers at UC San Francisco in collaboration with the California Department of Public Health draws the clearest picture to date on what the state might have looked like had the vaccines never materialized.

In the first 10 months of their availability, COVID-19 vaccines prevented an estimated 1.5 million coronavirus infections, nearly 73,000 hospitalizations, and almost 20,000 deaths in California, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Network Open.

The number of infections reported during those 10 months was 72% lower than would have been expected in the absence of vaccines, the study added."

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

Testing doesn't make you "responsible". My wife works from home and is not in contact with anyone. Not sure why she would test...

But if your wife has no symptoms, so there would be no purpose in her testing unless she felt that she'd been exposed to someone who has the virus.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

But if your wife has no symptoms, so there would be no purpose in her testing unless she felt that she'd been exposed to someone who has the virus.

I was referring to in the event she did. The poster I responded to was automatically associating being responsible with testing. If my wife happened to come into contact with someone and did have symptoms, but was going to be home anyway for the next week or so, the thought that she was being irresponsible just because she didn't test is ridiculous. It's more about situational analysis than anything else. And as far as I'm concerned, the gold standard is always distance If you don't want to infect someone.

[beachGecko]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Negative efficacy? Previously posted; scroll back.

"A new project from researchers at UC San Francisco in collaboration with the California Department of Public Health draws the clearest picture to date on what the state might have looked like had the vaccines never materialized.

In the first 10 months of their availability, COVID-19 vaccines prevented an estimated 1.5 million coronavirus infections, nearly 73,000 hospitalizations, and almost 20,000 deaths in California, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Network Open.

The number of infections reported during those 10 months was 72% lower than would have been expected in the absence of vaccines, the study added."

Yes, negative efficacy.

Note from your blurb: In the first 10 months

I,e before Omicron. With Omicron we're seeing no to negative efficacy for infection.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

I was referring to in the event she did. The poster I responded to was automatically associating being responsible with testing. If my wife happened to come into contact with someone and did have symptoms, but was going to be home anyway for the next week or so, the thought that she was being irresponsible just because she didn't test is ridiculous. It's more about situational analysis than anything else. And as far as I'm concerned, the gold standard is always distance If you don't want to infect someone.

Which is true, if and only if everyone will be staying home, but I wasn't talking to you and wasn't assuming that his household is inclined to do a precautionary, possibly needless quarantine.

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Which is true, if and only if everyone will be staying home, but I wasn't talking to you and wasn't assuming that his household is inclined to do a precautionary, possibly needless quarantine.

Regardless if you were talking to me or not, you were making an assumption of the poster you directed your comment to without knowing the situation, and automatically assuming behavior was irresponsible if the person wasn't testing. I think it's fair to say you really need to know the details before making a comment like that. As stated, just because someone doesn't test doesn't make them irresponsible. Same thing goes for having a vaccine or masking. Someone can be very responsible and do neither of those.

[Soujouner]

I thought this pandemic has been over months ago? We are still talking about this?