Coronavirus/Covid-19 Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[CM_Tutor]

Sorry, but I think this is completely wrong. How many of those cases died WITH and not FROM. Not considering comorbidities and age inflates this statistic out of proportion, relative to the total popluace demographic. In addition, contracting corona (I hate to say it but it's partially true) just accelerated inevitable deaths for terminally ill patients who already had their days numbered. Furthermore, the current PCR test Australia currently uses is the most sensitive to any viral detection in the world. Not all of these deaths could have necessarily had the coronavirus.

The people who compile statistics and look at causes of death are well aware of the difference between dying with something and dying from it. Further, there are plenty of situations where the immediate cause of death is not the disease that is nevertheless the proximal cause of death. Take a patient with AIDS whose immune system has been seriously compromised. That patient may die from a 'flu infection but it was the compromised immune system that made the 'flu infection lethal, and to attribute the death to 'flu and ignore the HIV-infection and its effects on the immune system so as to claim that the death was not (colloquially) "dying from AIDS" would be disingenuous.

 

[cosmo 2]

none of that is true

 

[Trebla]

Another thing to consider is that the empirical case fatality rates are inclusive of the effects of mitigation measures (e.g. hospital interventions, masks, vaccines, lockdowns). You cannot reliably extrapolate that this same empirical case fatality rate is also a true representation of the virus’ impact without mitigation.

 

[Hiheyhello]

none of that is true

damn cosmo, that’s the most persuasive argument i’ve ever heard!

actually, it sounds like denial and cognitive dissonance

 

[cosmo 2]

zzzzzzzzz

 

[dan964]

Sorry, but I think this is completely wrong. How many of those cases died WITH and not FROM. Not considering comorbidities and age inflates this statistic out of proportion, relative to the total popluace demographic. In addition, contracting corona (I hate to say it but it's partially true) just accelerated inevitable deaths for terminally ill patients who already had their days numbered. Furthermore, the current PCR test Australia currently uses is the most sensitive to any viral detection in the world. Not all of these deaths could have necessarily had the coronavirus.

(0121235's argument) is not completely wrong, it is just over simplistic or a generalisation on the justification on taking the vaccine (not on the stats itself); because the decision to take the vaccine is not just weighing up the risk of death; there are other (whether justifiable) factors that may into the decision. Some may be vaccine hesitant, concerned that the vaccine hasn't gone through sufficient time of testing and the like.
(But the underlying statistics are correct)

Whilst age and present of pre-existing conditions increase the risk of death, that is the case for most infectious diseases / risk. When averaged out though it still comes out to about a 1/56 chance of death.

The question "How many of those cases died WITH and not FROM." imho, is only relevant is if we presume false reporting (in terms of deaths falsely attributed to COVID when the actual cause of death is irrelevant of death; note I would think there is ambiguity with terminally ill patients that already; if COVID contributed to their decline then the death can be attributed to COVID amongst other factors). Imho, there needs to be strong evidence to justify presumption of false reporting / malice. If cause of death is being reported accurately then this kind of a unconvincing point.

Furthermore, the current PCR test Australia currently uses is the most sensitive to any viral detection in the world.

Do you have sources for this?

 

[dan964]

Double doses can grant herd immunity. And if herd immunity applies then we can stop transmission of the disease and thus it’s mutation rate.

Yes and no. Double doses can help assist immune response to the disease yes and reduce hospitalization rates; but some viruses mutate at a faster rate than we are producing vaccines for, and there is already talk of new variants in South America; so the ability of vaccines to guarantee immunity in all cases is not a given. (You can refer to Israel as a case example in point, whereby there is talk of a need for a triple dose)

 

[Drdusk]

Well there is now a C.1.2 COVID variant originating form South Africa.

 

[SylviaB]

this wouldn't have happened if we just nuked china like ive been saying for years

 

[SylviaB]

why's that

but I must say reddit is a very good source of relevant covid updates/information and the discussions that happen in the comments are also v good, just more profanity compared to this thread

no its not

redditors are the absolute scum of the world. humanity will not progress until every one of them is rounded up and made to choke to death on their demented little funko pop dolls

 

[notme123]

no its not

redditors are the absolute scum of the world. humanity will not progress until every one of them is rounded up and made to choke to death on their demented little funko pop dolls

That reminds me of this subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Consoom/.
The people featured are the funko pop havers.

 

[CM_Tutor]

this wouldn't have happened if we just nuked china like ive been saying for years

Killing millions or even a billion people is not a reasonable response to the pandemic nor to any events in our recent past. Such an act would be a massive crime against humanity.

Further, viruses exist all over the world, they mutate and evolve all over the world, they make leaps between species all over the world. Even if you buy the theories that COVID emerged from the Wuhan Institute, viruses are being studied all over the world and accidents can happen anywhere. MERS was also a coronavirus and did not emerge from China.

Casually suggesting that mass murder of Chinese people by using nuclear weapons is in some way acceptable or preferable to the current pandemic is outrageous and extremely offensive. Do not make such a suggestion again.

 

[notme123]

tbf china is getting scarier by the minute. ofc nuking it isn't the solution but it needs to be neutered politically (not through violence) because it currently has Australia by the chin economically and can collapse our export sector whenever it feels like it. Actually, it already has barley, wine, and wheat tariffs imposed which can kill agriculture exports.
Not to mention the crimes against humanity itself commits like Muslim reeducation camps, cheap and overexploited (and sometimes child) labour which companies take advantage of, the Uyghur genocide, oh and also the highly tyrannical and draconian social credit system.

 

[011235]

Yes, you def can infect others when double dosed, iirc, its just the risk of doing so is reduced

 

[Hiheyhello]

tbf china is getting scarier by the minute. ofc nuking it isn't the solution but it needs to be neutered politically (not through violence) because it currently has Australia by the chin economically and can collapse our export sector whenever it feels like it. Actually, it already has barley, wine, and wheat tariffs imposed which can kill agriculture exports.
Not to mention the crimes against humanity itself commits like Muslim reeducation camps, cheap and overexploited (and sometimes child) labour which companies take advantage of, the Uyghur genocide, oh and also the highly tyrannical and draconian social credit system.

i mean, you’re not wrong

 

[SylviaB]

Killing millions or even a billion people is not a reasonable response to the pandemic nor to any events in our recent past. Such an act would be a massive crime against humanity.

Further, viruses exist all over the world, they mutate and evolve all over the world, they make leaps between species all over the world. Even if you buy the theories that COVID emerged from the Wuhan Institute, viruses are being studied all over the world and accidents can happen anywhere. MERS was also a coronavirus and did not emerge from China.

Casually suggesting that mass murder of Chinese people by using nuclear weapons is in some way acceptable or preferable to the current pandemic is outrageous and extremely offensive. Do not make such a suggestion again.

when the totalitarian ethno-nationalist imperialist dictatorship known as china becomes the dominant world superpower, you will look back at this post and think of it as rather quaint and naïve

 

[SylviaB]

That reminds me of this subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Consoom/.
The people featured are the funko pop havers.

BASTE !!!

 

[notme123]

BASTE !!!

Baste or Based?

 

[Trebla]

I’m making the assumption that double doses grant immunity to covid. Are any records of double dose people infecting others?

Depends what you mean by “immunity”. The vaccines are not 100% effective in stopping symptomatic infection altogether to start with. If you inhale the virus particles up your nose even a vaccine boosted immune system isn’t exactly going to get rid of it instantly, so you can still test positive. It takes time for the immune system to detect, react and overcome the replicating virus. During that time you could develop symptoms to infect others. It’s just that in a vaccinated person, that time interval is shorter thus reducing transmissibility (e.g. you are infectious for 2 days instead of say 4 days).

Looking at it statistically, for example Pfizer has roughly a 90% chance of preventing symptomatic infection (which declines over time). The empirical data suggests there is roughly a 50% reduction in chance of transmission when comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people (which translates to just under halving of the reproductive number).

That means there is still a non-zero chance you could get infected, develop symptoms and infect others. It’s just that it is much lower relative to being unvaccinated.

 

[brent012]

That means there is still a non-zero chance you could get infected, develop symptoms and infect others. It’s just that it is much lower relative to being unvaccinated.

Also worth considering that these vaccines were approved on the basis of reducing the chance of hospitalisation or death from a severe case. AZ, Pfizer and Moderna are all very good at that.