Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

Options
15495505525545551115

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭Spudman_20000


    The original definition never said anything about being 100% effective though? And who do you reckon was putting out the misconception that these vaccines would be 100% effective? The mental gymnastics you constantly have to perform on here must be exhausting.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Its clear the new wording was making it clear that deliberately allowing infection immunity ahead of vaccine based immunity when there were safe and effective vaccines on the horizon was not a desirable way to achieve population immunity.

    The definition did not change, just the wording, because of the nutjobs and their misrepresentations. Yet another example of established and clear communication being corrupted by the actions of cranks



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,321 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    Imagine if all these new celeb medics were actually leaders of this country



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,213 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    It absolutely was said that the vaccines would stop transmission completely, by the CDC and fauci at least. The evidence of this is out there, don't know why people keep denying it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I would certainly expect a Twitter account that believes 5G is a mind control device and that adenochrome harvesting is a thing, to be far, far too stupid to understand why that text was revised.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The decades of knowledge are what I'm talking about..Herd immunity for years meant something that naturally occurs in a population..

    It was nothing to do with vaccines..it was only changed by people selling vaccines..There are those who think we'd have it now were it not for the vaccines..



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Nobody was claiming the vaccines were or would be 100% effective.

    The misconception came from the usual loons shout "ha look, a vaccinated person tested positive therefore they are 100% useless"

    It is certainly exhausting dealing with constant deliberate misrepresentation and obfuscation



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It definitely was..You wouldn't get sick and you wouldn't transmit it..



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No it wasn't. Are people actually stupid enough to fall for these lies?

    Published 1983.

    Liar



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    LMFAO

    No, that was not "clear" at all, because that's not what **** happened. They changed the definition of herd immunity on their site to completely exclude natural immunity from infection.

    It's fascinating watching you just roll the next establishment position into your brain without hesitation, no matter how absurd or contradictory, every single time. I hope someone studies you one day.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No they didnt. It made clear that herd immunity through natural infection was not desirable in the presence of vaccines. They had to this this due to nutjobs deliberately misrepresenting the clearest of information.


    Here is the full definition, verbatim, from the WHO website.

    What is ‘herd immunity’?

    'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

    Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail. 

    Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission. Visit our webpage on COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail. 

    To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population. One of the aims with working towards herd immunity is to keep vulnerable groups who cannot get vaccinated (e.g. due to health conditions like allergic reactions to the vaccine) safe and protected from the disease. Read our Q&A on vaccines and immunization for more information.

    The percentage of people who need to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity varies with each disease. For example, herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated. The remaining 5% will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those who are vaccinated. For polio, the threshold is about 80%. The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known. This is an important area of research and will likely vary according to the community, the vaccine, the populations prioritized for vaccination, and other factors.  

    Achieving herd immunity with safe and effective vaccines makes diseases rarer and saves lives.


    What is WHO’s position on ‘herd immunity’ as a way of fighting COVID-19?

    Attempts to reach ‘herd immunity’ through exposing people to a virus are scientifically problematic and unethical. Letting COVID-19 spread through populations, of any age or health status will lead to unnecessary infections, suffering and death.

    The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus. Seroprevalence surveys suggest that in most countries, less than 10% of the population have been infected with COVID-19.

    We are still learning about immunity to COVID-19. Most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks, but we don’t know how strong or lasting that immune response is, or how it differs for different people. There have also been reports of people infected with COVID-19 for a second time.         

    Until we better understand COVID-19 immunity, it will not be possible to know how much of a population is immune and how long that immunity last for, let alone make future predictions. These challenges should preclude any plans that try to increase immunity within a population by allowing people to get infected.

    Although older people and those with underlying conditions are most at risk of severe disease and death, they are not the only ones at risk.

    Finally, while most infected people get mild or moderate forms of COVID-19 and some experience no disease, many become seriously ill and must be admitted into hospital. We are only beginning to understand the long-term health impacts among people who have had COVID-19, including what is being described as ‘Long COVID.’ WHO is working with clinicians and patient groups to better understand the long term effects of COVID-19.  

    Can this thread be renamed "the incessant misrepresentation thread"?



  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭Timmy O Toole


    Professor Luke O Neill claimed all the vaccines were 100% effective in stopping hospitalisation and deaths..


    https://twitter.com/laoneill111/status/1362490286904082436?t=owcvPAUNPXxw3tEdxejn3Q&s=19



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭MOH



    And if the remaining 10% got vaccinated tomorrow, then 100% of the people in ICU would be vaccinated.

    Then what? What cohort of the population is the next scapegoat to deflect the angry mob?



  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭Timmy O Toole



    He literally said woRd for word

    ‘all 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations and death."


    https://t.co/iFz3t7GWfs https://t.co/8vLDpP87zr



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,528 ✭✭✭copeyhagen



    the same gobshite on radio there telling parents to keep kids at home during the mid term basically. absolute as$hole



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    While that's lovely and all, we were talking about the definition posted upthread from the WHO's Serology Q&A section. Not the WHOs full herd immunity definition, which is probably far less likely to get views that the Q&A.

    You are not thick. You can understand context.

    "Look at this thing which sounds similar to that thing but is different"

    The incessant misrepresentation never ends

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,079 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    If that 10% (it`s closer to 8%) were vaccinated today then hospitalisation would be half of what they are, which would leave a lot less pressure on hospitals, which in turn would lead to a greater possibility of restrictions being further eased.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,876 ✭✭✭bokale


    And were they in the vaccine trials mentioned? Or is it total nonsense?

    "The vaccines were all 100% effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalizations and death. " I presume he was quoting this, however incorrectly.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yet here we were discussing the claim that it had been claimed the vaccine was 100% effective at preventing transmission.

    Instead of backing up the claims we get "quick look over here"



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 151 ✭✭Mr Burny


    A short sharp total level 5 lockdown til mid January is what is needed to halt these rising cases/hospitalisations/ICU number/deaths.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭Patrick2010


    Ah ffs, we've had enough of those. Unless we're going to lockdown for the next few years its time to realise we're just going to have to live with it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 348 ✭✭Timmy O Toole


    You posted that no one said the vaccines were or would be100% effective only the usual loons.

    I show you a link to where Luke O Neill said word for word that the vaccines are 100% effective.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭floorpie


    Nobody died in the trials (each with 25-50k participants), placebo or vaccinated, attributable to COVID-19, to my recollection.

    The article Luke cites bizarrely reframes this as "100% effectiveness against death".



  • Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭MilkyToast


    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~C.S. Lewis



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭MOH


    Well i was using the figure of 10% you just used in your last post. Glad to see another 2% are vaccinated already.

    And no, it wouldn't change much. There's increasing numbers of vaccinated people ending up in ICU anyway. Realistically it would make a few weeks difference. The problem is an ICU capacity that was already facing overload before Covid from decades of underinvestment by those including the two former health ministers leading the country who are now trying to blame everyone else.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,211 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,633 ✭✭✭Dr. Bre




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,079 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    There are those that think we would have acquired herd immunity by now that have not a shred of evidence to point to it even being possible. Nowhere it was attempted or nowhere that claimed it had been achieved came even close.

    I have asked this repeatedly but have yet to get an answer. How many (to the nearest million will be fine) worldwide would have died even attempting it ?

    While your at it you might as well throw in your figure for attempting the same for the ebola virus which has an average fatality rate of 50%



Advertisement