Why should people be forced to get vaccinated in order to protect others who choose not to get vaccinated??

[Shellandshilo1956]

Alright, well 30% infection is a bit more of a realistic possibility. It's certainly possible that there have been more asymptomatic infections than symptomatic. And if that was proven somehow, this would just go to show how few people are actually at risk to getting sick from this thing - let alone actually dying from it.

Anyone infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, risks developing the Covid-19 disease. It simply depends only on the condition of your immune system. Its condition will determine just how severe the disease will be. Vaccinated or not. In 22 month, we have reached only 0.5% of the population being infected with Covid-19. That would mean, that it would take 1,320 months(110 years) just to infect 30% of the population of Australia.

22 month total infected x 30% of population / 0.5% of current infected population = 1,320 months(110 years). This is simple. Just do the math.

Of course this would assume that everything else remains constant. That is, that no one recovers, herd immunity is never reached, and that no one dies in the next 110 years. So yes, impossible.

These are the reality-based-facts in the real world. Not the conceived, and self-serving reality peddled by panic-merchants and fear-mongers. But sheep don't care about the truth. They only care about the story, and their need for purpose.

So which is it? Is there a dedicated antibody test or isn't there?

Look, there are many test that can be used to detect and identify the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the body. The PCR test, the Lateral Flow tests, the Rapid Antigen test, Serum Antibody test, etc. This means that we can detect this virus, if you are infected, and if you have recovered. So the question is assumptive. Since there are more than ONE antibody test, and all are dedicated for identifying the SARS-CoV-2 virus, then because of the way you've framed the question, I can't answer it.

Clearly the government must have some other agenda. Because it is certainly not protecting the lives of people against this relatively non-lethal virus. Now we want to increase the vaccine target market, to in include vaccinating 5-11 year old's for absolutely no rational reason(other than more profits). Lets start screwing-up their young immune system early. What mother would allow this to happen? Lets make it mandatory along with other childhood vaccinations, that at least use real viruses. Madness.

They better not have many sideeffects/deaths due to the vaxx of kids.

This is strictly US but will be copied by other countries for sure—if successful/no deaths!

Again, what will it take for docile, apathetic, indifferent, and ignorant Australians to wake up? When will enough be enough? Does the government need to hire thugs to bang on your door, to check how many people are there? Or, if you have been vaccinated? Or, to drag you away from your family if you haven't? Oh, they are already doing this in Victoria and NSW. Then this country is truly fucked, because a nation of apathetic sheep. What rational mind thinks that the government is our savior from this microorganism?

Hopefully, there will continue to be a growing number of Australians who love their country more than their government. Hopefully, there will be more Australians able to see through the rantings of these over-paid actors, and their pretentious social kumbaya bullshit and platitudes. True Australians, will continue to resist becoming mindless government drones. And, always assuming the submissive position whenever told to.

Is this how you see the rest of your life? Then take control of it. Tell these idiots just how stupid and intrusive their policies are. Tell them that they will not be representing you again after the next election.

I really use to think that Australians were strong and proud as a people. Now I am definitely no longer certain. No matter what the government does to them, they simply rationalize the government's actions away. They even rationalize the facts and evidence away. Again, what will it take??

 

[chris155au]

Anyone infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, risks developing the Covid-19 disease.

Of course, but it's seems entirely possible that with this particular virus, most people do not develop the disease. I've seen nothing which suggests that most people infected develop the disease, simply because we have no way of knowing how many people in total have been infected.

In 22 month, we have reached only 0.5% of the population being infected with Covid-19.

Again, that we know of. The vast majority being symptomatic infection, given that symptoms are what make the majority of people get tested.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

Of course, but it's seems entirely possible that with this particular virus, most people do not develop the disease. I've seen nothing which suggests that most people infected develop the disease, simply because we have no way of knowing how many people in total have been infected.

If one single SARS-CoV-2 virus enters your body(in reality, there would be millions), through your mouth, nose, or eyes, you have been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If this virus enters a cell, begins to replicate, and lyses(explodes) that cell, then this will induce an immune response. At this stage, you now have the disease Covid-19. Therefore, everyone infected with this virus, or tests positive for this virus, now have the disease Covid-19. This is a 100% guarantee for anyone infected with this virus. The virus doesn't just change its mind, and decide to leave the host.

What you are talking about is the Morbidity of the virus. Or the severity of the Covid-19 symptoms. The severity of this illness, depends entirely on the condition of the immune system. If you are already fighting aids, diabetes, and a chronic respiratory illness, then you ain't going to make it. It doesn't matter if you are vaccinated or not.

Also, before the immune system responds to the virus, you are asymptomatic. When it does respond, you are symptomatic. And, can then transmit(spread) the virus to others.

It is not only possible that the overwhelming majority of people will never become infected by this virus, but it is a 100% certainty that the overwhelming majority of people will never be infected in their entire lifetime.

Again, that we know of. The vast majority being symptomatic infection, given that symptoms are what make the majority of people get tested.

Think about it Chris. If over 99% of the millions of people tested, have tested negative for Covid-19, then why would these people have any initial symptoms at all? Are these millions of people just psychosomatic, or attention seekers? Most people get tested, because they are victims of media sensationalism, as a requirement of their jobs, curiosity, fear, or many other reasons.

Again you are just clinging to absolutes. The overwhelming majority of people may choose to be tested for a whole range of reasons I've mentioned. Which may also include being symptomatic(less than 1%).

You are just parroting and pandering the same fear-mongering that the media uses to control its own narrative. That is, ignore what we do know for certain, and focus only what we don't know, and what we think we know. Since we don't know how many people are not infected, lets just assume that they are, or could be. Why not simply assume that they are not? This just makes you a part of the problem. I won't ask you to provide any evidence to support this claim. Because I know that there is no evidence, that could explain why only the opposite is true.

 

[SethBullock]

Interesting news this morning ....

A Washington, D.C., district court judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that prevents both civilian and active-duty military plaintiffs from being terminated after they sued the Biden administration over religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccines.

"None of the civilian employee plaintiffs will be subject to discipline while his or her request for a religious exception is pending," District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered, according to a Minute Order obtained by Fox News.

The judge also ruled that "active duty military plaintiffs, whose religious exception requests have been denied, will not be disciplined or separated during the pendency of their appeals."

The court further ordered the defendants in the Biden administration to file a supplemental notice by noon on Friday that indicates whether they will agree that no plaintiff will be disciplined or terminated pending the court's ruling.

Twenty plaintiffs sued President Biden and members of his administration in their official capacity over the president's Sept. 9 executive order mandating vaccines for federal employees, according to civil action filed Sunday.

"The Biden administration has shown an unprecedented, cavalier attitude toward the rule of law and an utter ineptitude at basic constitutional contours," said the plaintiffs' attorney Michael Yoder in a statement to Fox News.

"This combination is dangerous to American liberty," Yoder continued. "Thankfully, our Constitution protects and secures the right to remain free from religious persecution and coercion. With this order, we are one step closer to putting the Biden administration back in its place by limiting government to its enumerated powers. It’s time citizens and courts said no to tyranny. The Constitution does not need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread."

The lawsuit is the latest the administration faces amid growing claims that its vaccine mandates are unconstitutional.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

Interesting news this morning ....

A Washington, D.C., district court judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday that prevents both civilian and active-duty military plaintiffs from being terminated after they sued the Biden administration over religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccines.

"None of the civilian employee plaintiffs will be subject to discipline while his or her request for a religious exception is pending," District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered, according to a Minute Order obtained by Fox News.

The judge also ruled that "active duty military plaintiffs, whose religious exception requests have been denied, will not be disciplined or separated during the pendency of their appeals."

The court further ordered the defendants in the Biden administration to file a supplemental notice by noon on Friday that indicates whether they will agree that no plaintiff will be disciplined or terminated pending the court's ruling.

Twenty plaintiffs sued President Biden and members of his administration in their official capacity over the president's Sept. 9 executive order mandating vaccines for federal employees, according to civil action filed Sunday.

"The Biden administration has shown an unprecedented, cavalier attitude toward the rule of law and an utter ineptitude at basic constitutional contours," said the plaintiffs' attorney Michael Yoder in a statement to Fox News.

"This combination is dangerous to American liberty," Yoder continued. "Thankfully, our Constitution protects and secures the right to remain free from religious persecution and coercion. With this order, we are one step closer to putting the Biden administration back in its place by limiting government to its enumerated powers. It’s time citizens and courts said no to tyranny. The Constitution does not need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread."

The lawsuit is the latest the administration faces amid growing claims that its vaccine mandates are unconstitutional.

Totally agree with this Seth. I loved the part where, "The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread." Absolutely true. This is Tyranny. We really need to stop rationalizing the government's actions.

If a stranger came to your door, and told you that you and your family must let him stick this needle into your arm because the government says so. I'm fairly certain just where you would tell him to stick his needle?

And, yet these same cowards are telling you, that if you don't get this "jab", we will take away your job, kick you out of the services, make you unable to go into shopping centers, keep you from traveling interstate to visit your family members, stop you from leaving the country, openly threaten unvaccinated citizens, and decide that citizens no longer have the right of expression, to assemble, or to petition the government. We only want you to stay compliant and ignorant, because we know what's best for you. As well as the Billions we have invested in the manufacturing of these Genetic vaccines.

Yes people are dying from the complications of this flu virus. But, you just don't enslave 99.995% of a population, because 0.005% of the population have died from this illness(in Australia). Or 0.2% of the population in the US.

Biden is coercing/forcing grown adults into making the government's decisions, about their own health. Or, Else!! Can you imagine being dishonorably discharged from any services, just for refusing to be vaccinated??? This is what happens when we just let things go without any pushback. It will just escalate until it becomes dictatorial. This is what the true power of the media looks like. And, the true ignorance of the population.

Again, what is it going to take for the population to wake up? Just how far does the government need to go, before people begin to realize that this is just not right?? There are fanatics now who believe, that we should start vaccinating newborns at birth.

I really believe that if the government told people, that by sacrificing their first born to the Covid-19 God, that they could save humanity, that there would be an extreme spike in the murder stats. People seem to have a high capacity for idiocy. Maybe the government is simply just a true reflection of its people?

 

[SethBullock]

Totally agree with this Seth. I loved the part where, "The Constitution doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be reread." Absolutely true. This is Tyranny. We really need to stop rationalizing the government's actions.

If a stranger came to your door, and told you that you and your family must let him stick this needle into your arm because the government says so. I'm fairly certain just where you would tell him to stick his needle?

And, yet these same cowards are telling you, that if you don't get this "jab", we will take away your job, kick you out of the services, make you unable to go into shopping centers, keep you from traveling interstate to visit your family members, stop you from leaving the country, openly threaten unvaccinated citizens, and decide that citizens no longer have the right of expression, to assemble, or to petition the government. We only want you to stay compliant and ignorant, because we know what's best for you. As well as the Billions we have invested in the manufacturing of these Genetic vaccines.

Yes people are dying from the complications of this flu virus. But, you just don't enslave 99.995% of a population, because 0.005% of the population have died from this illness(in Australia). Or 0.2% of the population in the US.

Biden is coercing/forcing grown adults into making the government's decisions, about their own health. Or, Else!! Can you imagine being dishonorably discharged from any services, just for refusing to be vaccinated??? This is what happens when we just let things go without any pushback. It will just escalate until it becomes dictatorial. This is what the true power of the media looks like. And, the true ignorance of the population.

Again, what is it going to take for the population to wake up? Just how far does the government need to go, before people begin to realize that this is just not right?? There are fanatics now who believe, that we should start vaccinating newborns at birth.

I really believe that if the government told people, that by sacrificing their first born to the Covid-19 God, that they could save humanity, that there would be an extreme spike in the murder stats. People seem to have a high capacity for idiocy. Maybe the government is simply just a true reflection of its people?

We disagree on vaccination, but we agree on forced or coerced vaccination.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

We disagree on vaccination, but we agree on forced or coerced vaccination.

I don't disagree with vaccines in general. But, I definitely disagree with these types of cheap genetic-based vaccines. As well as the antigen-specific antibodies that these vaccines produce. Let me explain.

If we took a car, and shrunk it down to the size of a virus. And, then we gave it all the same properties of a virus. In the pasts, these normal antigen/whole viral vaccines would induce the immune system to make antibodies to recognize the entire car, or at least most of the parts of the car(antigens). So even if the car mutated, it would still be recognized by these same antibodies. So, for the most part, getting vaccinated, using viral and antigen-based vaccines is a very good idea. But we are not talking about this type of vaccines.

This new type of vaccine turns normal cells into a pathogen. This type of vaccine will produce antibodies that will only recognize the steering wheel of the car. So if this car virus mutated without a steering wheel, these antibodies would just ignored them, and leave them to wreak havoc on the body. Also, these antibodies are larger, more energetic, and will out-compete with the normal T and B cell antibodies. This will weaken the immune system in general. And, you want to produce more of these types of antibodies, with more vaccinations and booster vaccinations? This is a bad idea.

If you disagree with forced or coerced vaccinations, then I suggest that you inform your leaders of this. Because many of them are just enjoying their new power. This viral apocalypse is just escalating out of control. And, it is the media that is the source.

 

[chris155au]

If one single SARS-CoV-2 virus enters your body(in reality, there would be millions), through your mouth, nose, or eyes, you have been infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If this virus enters a cell, begins to replicate, and lyses(explodes) that cell, then this will induce an immune response. At this stage, you now have the disease Covid-19.

I shall rephrase: it seems entirely possible that with this particular virus, most people do not develop symptoms should they get infected. I've seen nothing which suggests that most people infected develop symptoms, simply because we have no way of knowing how many people in total have been infected.

Think about it Chris. If over 99% of the millions of people tested, have tested negative for Covid-19, then why would these people have any initial symptoms at all?

Well the test is only testing to see if the person has the virus at that particular time. It could be the case that the vast majority of people who have tested negative, became positive some time after getting tested but did not develop symptoms.

You are just parroting and pandering the same fear-mongering that the media uses to control its own narrative. That is, ignore what we do know for certain, and focus only what we don't know, and what we think we know. Since we don't know how many people are not infected, lets just assume that they are, or could be.

Is the media also raising the possibility of widespread asymptomatic infection? I can't imagine that they are, because it would only go to show how few people are actually at risk to getting sick from this thing - let alone actually dying from it. I very much doubt anyone in the media is saying that. I'm clearly saying that the virus is not as serious as the media makes out. Yet you accuse me of "fear-mongering" just like the media. How bizarre.

 

[chris155au]

I don't disagree with vaccines in general. But, I definitely disagree with these types of cheap genetic-based vaccines.

Have they reduced hospitalisation and death?

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

I shall rephrase: it seems entirely possible that with this particular virus, most people do not develop symptoms should they get infected. I've seen nothing which suggests that most people infected develop symptoms, simply because we have no way of knowing how many people in total have been infected.

Are you seriously saying that it is entirely possible for most people to become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and not develop any symptoms at all? EVERYONE, other than carriers, who becomes infected, will develop very mild, mild, moderate, serious, and severe symptoms. And, the majority of people are not carriers. A carrier is someone who can't express some trait, because of an hereditary genetic trait.

If you never develop any symptoms, it would mean that you are dead, are not infected, are a carrier, are taking immunosuppressant drugs, or you don't have have an immune system at all. It is the immune response that causes the symptoms. No response, no symptoms.

Not knowing the total number of people infected, has nothing to do with whether or not people are symptomatic, or asymptomatic. Before infected victims become symptomatic, they are first asymptomatic. It takes time for the immune system to respond.

Well the test is only testing to see if the person has the virus at that particular time. It could be the case that the vast majority of people who have tested negative, became positive some time after getting tested but did not develop symptoms.

The tests are testing if a person has the virus, period. You do realize that symptoms can be medically controlled for most people? What is the evidence supporting that the vast majority of people testing negative, to any of these tests, will become positive after being tested? Are you trying to discredit the 99% of negative results? So all of these test could just be wrong? Should we just ignore all these negative results, and just assume that everyone is infected? Oh, but that would mean that the positive results could also be wrong? Right?

Is the media also raising the possibility of widespread asymptomatic infection? I can't imagine that they are, because it would only go to show how few people are actually at risk to getting sick from this thing - let alone actually dying from it. I very much doubt anyone in the media is saying that. I'm clearly saying that the virus is not as serious as the media makes out. Yet you accuse me of "fear-mongering" just like the media. How bizarre.

I was responding to a number of comments you've made

"Again, that we know of. The vast majority being symptomatic infection, given that symptoms are what make the majority of people get tested.

These comments are speculative, wrong, and misleading. If the majority of people get tested because they are symptomatic, then the testing results should reflect this. That is, more people should be having positive results. They aren't. In fact less than 1% of people are testing positive. We should also only speak about what we do know. Not to infer things that we don't know.

This is the same kind of half-truths and fear mongering that the media uses. If you are just imagining that something might be true, it is best that you just keep it to yourself.

Have they reduced hospitalisation and death?

I don't know. Have they?

 

[johnsmith]

I don't know why anyone bothers with Shell.

The facts are Australia, with a population of approx 25 million, and with tight restrictions and it's push to vaccinate, has had about 1200 deaths from covid since March last year

Florida, with a population of 21.5million, very few restrictions and low vax numbers, has had over 54 000 deaths.


everything else is just blah blah blah by Shell, white noise to hide his stupidity

 

[greggerypeccary]

I don't know why anyone bothers with Shell.

The facts are Australia, with a population of approx 25 million, and with tight restrictions and it's push to vaccinate, has had about 1200 deaths from covid since March last year

Florida, with a population of 21.5million, very few restrictions and low vax numbers, has had over 54 000 deaths.


everything else is just blah blah blah by Shell, white noise to hide his stupidity

 

[chris155au]

Have they reduced hospitalisation and death?

I don't know. Have they?

I think the data speaks for itself on that.

 

[mothra]

Your unvaccinated friend is roughly 20 times more likely to give you COVID

As lockdowns ease in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, and people return to work and socialising, many of us will be mixing more with others, even though a section of the community is still unvaccinated.

Many vaccinated people are concerned about the prospect of mixing with unvaccinated people. This mixing might be travelling on trains or at the supermarket initially. But also at family gatherings, or, in NSW at least, at pubs and restaurants when restrictions ease further, slated for December 1.

Some people are wondering, why would a vaccinated person care about the vaccine status of another person?

Briefly, it’s because vaccines reduce the probability of getting infected, which reduces the probability of a vaccinated person infecting someone else. And, despite vaccination providing excellent protection against severe disease, a small proportion of vaccinated people still require ICU care. Therefore some vaccinated people may have a strong preference to mix primarily with other vaccinated people.

But what exactly is the risk of catching COVID from someone who’s unvaccinated?

Read more: As Melbourne cautiously opens up today, what lies ahead?

What’s the relative risk?
Recent reports from the Victorian Department of Health find that unvaccinated people are ten times more likely to contract COVID than vaccinated people.

We also know that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the disease even if they become infected. The Doherty modelling from August puts the reduction at around 65%, although more recent research has suggested a lower estimate for AstraZeneca. Hence for this thought experiment, we’ll take a lower value of 50%.

As the prevalence of COVID changes over time, it’s hard to estimate an absolute risk of exposure. So instead, we need to think about risks in a relative sense.

If I were spending time with an unvaccinated person, then there’s some probability they’re infected and will infect me. However, if they were vaccinated, they’re ten times less likely to be infected and half as likely to infect me, following the numbers above.

Hence we arrive at a 20-fold reduction in risk when hanging out with a vaccinated person compared to someone who’s not vaccinated.

The Conversation, CC BY-ND
The exact number depends on a range of factors, including the type of vaccine and time since vaccination. But, in Australia we can expect a large risk reduction when mixing with fully vaccinated people.

The calculation holds true whether you yourself are vaccinated or not. But being vaccinated provides a ten-fold reduction for yourself, which is on top of the risk reduction that comes from people you’re mixing with being vaccinated.

So, dining in an all-vaccinated restaurant and working in an all-vaccinated workplace presents a much lower infection risk to us as individuals, whether we are vaccinated or not. The risk reduction is around 20-fold, but as individuals, we need to consider whether that’s meaningful for our own circumstances, and for the circumstances of those we visit.

There are also added complexities, in that there are three vaccine brands available, and eligibility is still limited to those aged 12 and older. Although, we do know kids are less susceptible and less likely to show symptoms.

However, as more information emerges, we can always update our estimates and think through the implications on the risk reduction.

What about people who can’t be vaccinated?
Some people haven’t been able to get vaccinated because they’re either too young or they have a medical exemption. Other people are immunocompromised and won’t get the same level of protection from two doses as the rest of the community.

Increasing our coverage across the board will help protect those who aren’t fully protected by vaccination (whether that’s by eligibility, medical reasons or choice).

Those at higher risk also enjoy the risk reduction if they’re able to mix primarily with vaccinated people.

And other choices we make can help reduce the risk of transmission when vaccination is impossible, for example, wearing masks, washing hands carefully, and so on.

Do rapid antigen tests help?
Some people have proposed that frequent testing could be used to suppress COVID spread for those who are unwilling to be vaccinated.

Health minister Greg Hunt said Australians can buy rapid antigen tests from November 1, so they can test themselves at home or before entering certain venues.

So how much does a rapid antigen test reduce risk to others?

To answer that question we need to consider test sensitivity.

Test sensitivity is the probability a rapid test will return a positive result, if the person is infected.

It’s challenging to get an accurate estimate. But rapid antigen tests are about 80% as sensitive as a PCR test, which are the traditional COVID tests we do that get sent off to a lab. The PCR tests themselves are about 80% sensitive when it comes to identifying someone with COVID.

So, if you did a rapid antigen test at home, it’s about 64% likely to pick up that you’re positive, if you did have COVID.

Therefore, rapid antigen tests can find about two-thirds of cases. If you’re going to a gathering where everyone has tested negative on a rapid antigen test, that’s a three-fold reduction in risk.

Getting a negative result on a rapid antigen test before going out can reduce the risk of onwards transmission three-fold. James Ross/AAP
Even though rapid tests provide a reduction in risk, they don’t replace vaccines.

When used in conjunction with high levels of vaccination, rapid tests would provide improved protection for settings where we’re particularly keen to stop disease spread, such as hospitals and aged care facilities.
Consequently, despite the high efficacy of COVID vaccines, there are still reasons a vaccinated person would prefer to mix with vaccinated people, and avoid mixing with unvaccinated people.

This is particularly true for those at higher risk of severe disease, whether due to age or disability. Their baseline risk will be higher, so a 20-fold reduction in risk is more meaningful.

https://theconversation.com/your-un...SIEncod47jUDwLr901mPQZTFg5Fp9q7jw5-Bn0s_BOKC8

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

Your unvaccinated friend is roughly 20 times more likely to give you COVID

As lockdowns ease in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT, and people return to work and socialising, many of us will be mixing more with others, even though a section of the community is still unvaccinated.

Many vaccinated people are concerned about the prospect of mixing with unvaccinated people. This mixing might be travelling on trains or at the supermarket initially. But also at family gatherings, or, in NSW at least, at pubs and restaurants when restrictions ease further, slated for December 1.

Some people are wondering, why would a vaccinated person care about the vaccine status of another person?

Briefly, it’s because vaccines reduce the probability of getting infected, which reduces the probability of a vaccinated person infecting someone else. And, despite vaccination providing excellent protection against severe disease, a small proportion of vaccinated people still require ICU care. Therefore some vaccinated people may have a strong preference to mix primarily with other vaccinated people.

But what exactly is the risk of catching COVID from someone who’s unvaccinated?

Read more: As Melbourne cautiously opens up today, what lies ahead?

What’s the relative risk?
Recent reports from the Victorian Department of Health find that unvaccinated people are ten times more likely to contract COVID than vaccinated people.

We also know that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the disease even if they become infected. The Doherty modelling from August puts the reduction at around 65%, although more recent research has suggested a lower estimate for AstraZeneca. Hence for this thought experiment, we’ll take a lower value of 50%.

As the prevalence of COVID changes over time, it’s hard to estimate an absolute risk of exposure. So instead, we need to think about risks in a relative sense.

If I were spending time with an unvaccinated person, then there’s some probability they’re infected and will infect me. However, if they were vaccinated, they’re ten times less likely to be infected and half as likely to infect me, following the numbers above.

Hence we arrive at a 20-fold reduction in risk when hanging out with a vaccinated person compared to someone who’s not vaccinated.

The Conversation, CC BY-ND
The exact number depends on a range of factors, including the type of vaccine and time since vaccination. But, in Australia we can expect a large risk reduction when mixing with fully vaccinated people.

The calculation holds true whether you yourself are vaccinated or not. But being vaccinated provides a ten-fold reduction for yourself, which is on top of the risk reduction that comes from people you’re mixing with being vaccinated.

So, dining in an all-vaccinated restaurant and working in an all-vaccinated workplace presents a much lower infection risk to us as individuals, whether we are vaccinated or not. The risk reduction is around 20-fold, but as individuals, we need to consider whether that’s meaningful for our own circumstances, and for the circumstances of those we visit.

There are also added complexities, in that there are three vaccine brands available, and eligibility is still limited to those aged 12 and older. Although, we do know kids are less susceptible and less likely to show symptoms.

However, as more information emerges, we can always update our estimates and think through the implications on the risk reduction.

What about people who can’t be vaccinated?
Some people haven’t been able to get vaccinated because they’re either too young or they have a medical exemption. Other people are immunocompromised and won’t get the same level of protection from two doses as the rest of the community.

Increasing our coverage across the board will help protect those who aren’t fully protected by vaccination (whether that’s by eligibility, medical reasons or choice).

Those at higher risk also enjoy the risk reduction if they’re able to mix primarily with vaccinated people.

And other choices we make can help reduce the risk of transmission when vaccination is impossible, for example, wearing masks, washing hands carefully, and so on.

Do rapid antigen tests help?
Some people have proposed that frequent testing could be used to suppress COVID spread for those who are unwilling to be vaccinated.

Health minister Greg Hunt said Australians can buy rapid antigen tests from November 1, so they can test themselves at home or before entering certain venues.

So how much does a rapid antigen test reduce risk to others?

To answer that question we need to consider test sensitivity.

Test sensitivity is the probability a rapid test will return a positive result, if the person is infected.

It’s challenging to get an accurate estimate. But rapid antigen tests are about 80% as sensitive as a PCR test, which are the traditional COVID tests we do that get sent off to a lab. The PCR tests themselves are about 80% sensitive when it comes to identifying someone with COVID.

So, if you did a rapid antigen test at home, it’s about 64% likely to pick up that you’re positive, if you did have COVID.

Therefore, rapid antigen tests can find about two-thirds of cases. If you’re going to a gathering where everyone has tested negative on a rapid antigen test, that’s a three-fold reduction in risk.

Getting a negative result on a rapid antigen test before going out can reduce the risk of onwards transmission three-fold. James Ross/AAP
Even though rapid tests provide a reduction in risk, they don’t replace vaccines.

When used in conjunction with high levels of vaccination, rapid tests would provide improved protection for settings where we’re particularly keen to stop disease spread, such as hospitals and aged care facilities.
Consequently, despite the high efficacy of COVID vaccines, there are still reasons a vaccinated person would prefer to mix with vaccinated people, and avoid mixing with unvaccinated people.

This is particularly true for those at higher risk of severe disease, whether due to age or disability. Their baseline risk will be higher, so a 20-fold reduction in risk is more meaningful.

https://theconversation.com/your-un...SIEncod47jUDwLr901mPQZTFg5Fp9q7jw5-Bn0s_BOKC8

Absolute rubbish. Absolute nonsense. And, absolute ignorance. We are not only changing the goal post in our fear-mongering, but we are now openly demonizing and denigrating members of our own society. How dare you encourage people to discriminate against anyone based solely on whether they are vaccinated or not. Why are you trying to turn families, friends, neighbors, and colleagues against each other? Just because of a fucking flu virus?? We have done more damage to our own society than this virus ever could. Thanks to the narrow-minded, one-dimensional thinkers like you, who will continue to retard the mental growth of our society. By parroting shit that they clearly don't understand. And, by spreading it to others who understand even less.

Before, we were only worried about the people who actually were infected with this virus. Now we are demonizing people who are unvaccinated?? We don't seem to even care if these people are actually infected or not. We are now openly fostering discriminating against our fellow Australians? We have caused unvaccinated Australians to loose their jobs and their livelihood. We have prevented them from crossing the borders or leaving the country. We have prevented them from entering most shops, or living a normal life. UNLESS THEY COMPLY. Now we want to make our fellow Australians a social pariah in their own country. Shame on you obsequious toadies. The only thing that shines bright is your ignorance, and your level of servility.

What is the risk factor of socializing with anyone NOT infected with this virus?
What is the risk factor of socializing with one/two people NOT infected with this virus?
What is the risk factor of socializing with one/two unvaccinated/uninfected person?
What is the risk factor of socializing with one/two vaccinate/uninfected people?
What is the risk factor of socializing with someone who is unvaccinated/infected, and is asymptomatic?
What is the risk factor of socializing with someone who is unvaccinated/infected, and is medically asymptomatic?

The answer is 100% Zero Risk to all of these questions. Unless you believe that telepathy can also transmit this virus. Nothing man can do can prevent you from being infected by any virus. If anyone tells you that vaccines can protect/prevent you from being infected by any pathogen, then they are just lying to your face. Vaccines can only train the immune system to respond sooner, if a particular pathogen is ever present in the body. Therefore, it can produce the antibodies sooner to stop more viruses from replicating or invading our cells. Thus, reducing a full on immune response, a more severe illness, and the number of deaths. Of course there are other factors that contribute to lessening the death and morbidity rates. But vaccines are not a viral panacea!

Decoded: How Do Vaccines Actually Work?

Vaccines are medicines that train the body to defend itself against future disease, and they have been saving human lives for hundreds of years.

www.scientificamerican.com

Regarding testing method to detect the presence of this virus, this can be a bit complicated. There are pros and cons about all testing methods. Some methods test for the presence of this virus(surface proteins, genetic materials, chemical markers, antigen signatures, etc.). Some methods test for the virulence, or the infectivity of this virus. But no test is infallible or inerrant. There will always be some level of a failure rate of false-positives and false-negatives. But they're good enough at what they do to be called reliable. Although, anyone who is symptomatic with this virus, won't need to be tested to know that they might be infected.

Also, why did you pick the least accurate of all the testing methods? This antigen testing methods is now in the form of a home kit. Did you mention that the results are not analyzed in any lab by specialists? Or, that they have stopped using the term "rapid" to imply an antigen non-laboratory test? Of course not. The gold standard of all testing is the PCR tests. This method can detect even the smallest amount of viral RNA in the body. But even this testing method is not perfect. Why not use this method as your example? Not the home kit method.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean/

Even if you wanted to rationalize that the total number of recorded cases of this virus as being wrong, that all testing's are false-negatives, that the recovery rate is wrong, that the % of the population uninfected is wrong, or even that unvaccinated infected people are more likely to die than vaccinated people, there will still be one thing that you can't rationalize away. That is, the number of people who have died from, or with this virus.

You can't just rationalize away that only 0.005%(0.2% in the US) of the entire population have died from this flu virus. And if you look at the demographics, and the prior medical conditions of these victims, you will understand why.

Here are 2 simple questions for you.

What is the risk factor of Covid-19 for one vaccinated person sitting in a room full of 100 infected people? But all of these infected people take medicines to keep them asymptomatic?

What is the risk factor for Covid-19 for one vaccinated person sitting in a room full of 100 unvaccinated people who are all uninfected?

So what is more important to you. Actually having the disease, or not being vaccinated? I would have thought the former. But yet the mindless hype still continues.

And using the term "risk" is meaningless. Anything can increase or reduce a risk to anything they want. Staying in bed can reduce the risk of being killed while driving to work. But I suppose it is only perception that really matters, right? Not reality?

 

[mothra]

Absolute rubbish. Absolute nonsense. And, absolute ignorance. We are not only changing the goal post in our fear-mongering, but we are now openly demonizing and denigrating members of our own society. How dare you encourage people to discriminate against anyone based solely on whether they are vaccinated or not. Why are you trying to turn families, friends, neighbors, and colleagues against each other? Just because of a fucking flu virus?? We have done more damage to our own society than this virus ever could. Thanks to the narrow-minded, one-dimensional thinkers like you, who will continue to retard the mental growth of our society. By parroting shit that they clearly don't understand. And, by spreading it to others who understand even less.

Before, we were only worried about the people who actually were infected with this virus. Now we are demonizing people who are unvaccinated?? We don't seem to even care if these people are actually infected or not. We are now openly fostering discriminating against our fellow Australians? We have caused unvaccinated Australians to loose their jobs and their livelihood. We have prevented them from crossing the borders or leaving the country. We have prevented them from entering most shops, or living a normal life. UNLESS THEY COMPLY. Now we want to make our fellow Australians a social pariah in their own country. Shame on you obsequious toadies. The only thing that shines bright is your ignorance, and your level of servility.

What is the risk factor of socializing with anyone NOT infected with this virus?
What is the risk factor of socializing with one/two people NOT infected with this virus?
What is the risk factor of socializing with one/two unvaccinated/uninfected person?
What is the risk factor of socializing with one/two vaccinate/uninfected people?
What is the risk factor of socializing with someone who is unvaccinated/infected, and is asymptomatic?
What is the risk factor of socializing with someone who is unvaccinated/infected, and is medically asymptomatic?

The answer is 100% Zero Risk to all of these questions. Unless you believe that telepathy can also transmit this virus. Nothing man can do can prevent you from being infected by any virus. If anyone tells you that vaccines can protect/prevent you from being infected by any pathogen, then they are just lying to your face. Vaccines can only train the immune system to respond sooner, if a particular pathogen is ever present in the body. Therefore, it can produce the antibodies sooner to stop more viruses from replicating or invading our cells. Thus, reducing a full on immune response, a more severe illness, and the number of deaths. Of course there are other factors that contribute to lessening the death and morbidity rates. But vaccines are not a viral panacea!

Decoded: How Do Vaccines Actually Work?

Vaccines are medicines that train the body to defend itself against future disease, and they have been saving human lives for hundreds of years.

www.scientificamerican.com

Regarding testing method to detect the presence of this virus, this can be a bit complicated. There are pros and cons about all testing methods. Some methods test for the presence of this virus(surface proteins, genetic materials, chemical markers, antigen signatures, etc.). Some methods test for the virulence, or the infectivity of this virus. But no test is infallible or inerrant. There will always be some level of a failure rate of false-positives and false-negatives. But they're good enough at what they do to be called reliable. Although, anyone who is symptomatic with this virus, won't need to be tested to know that they might be infected.

Also, why did you pick the least accurate of all the testing methods? This antigen testing methods is now in the form of a home kit. Did you mention that the results are not analyzed in any lab by specialists? Or, that they have stopped using the term "rapid" to imply an antigen non-laboratory test? Of course not. The gold standard of all testing is the PCR tests. This method can detect even the smallest amount of viral RNA in the body. But even this testing method is not perfect. Why not use this method as your example? Not the home kit method.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean/

Even if you wanted to rationalize that the total number of recorded cases of this virus as being wrong, that all testing's are false-negatives, that the recovery rate is wrong, that the % of the population uninfected is wrong, or even that unvaccinated infected people are more likely to die than vaccinated people, there will still be one thing that you can't rationalize away. That is, the number of people who have died from, or with this virus.

You can't just rationalize away that only 0.005%(0.2% in the US) of the entire population have died from this flu virus. And if you look at the demographics, and the prior medical conditions of these victims, you will understand why.

Here are 2 simple questions for you.

What is the risk factor of Covid-19 for one vaccinated person sitting in a room full of 100 infected people? But all of these infected people take medicines to keep them asymptomatic?

What is the risk factor for Covid-19 for one vaccinated person sitting in a room full of 100 unvaccinated people who are all uninfected?

So what is more important to you. Actually having the disease, or not being vaccinated? I would have thought the former. But yet the mindless hype still continues.

And using the term "risk" is meaningless. Anything can increase or reduce a risk to anything they want. Staying in bed can reduce the risk of being killed while driving to work. But I suppose it is only perception that really matters, right? Not reality?

Christ on a bike!

Didn't bother reading all that. Got a couple of sentences in and was strongly deterred by the hysteria.

Seriously, do you have to be so long winded?

Anyway, were in not for your obvious lunacy, i would be suggesting to Monk that he censure your absolute ravings for being dangerous misinformation in these troubled times. I mean, i'm still chuckling over your claim that no virus wants to kill it's host.

But fortunately, you undo yourself with every posting.

That's if anybody actually bothers to read it all.

Seriously. Try being succinct. Please? As it stands, it's just pages upon pages of you repeating yourself. I can't believe you're not tired of it.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

The facts are Australia, with a population of approx 25 million, and with tight restrictions and it's push to vaccinate, has had about 1200 deaths from covid since March last year

Firstly I don't give a shit what you think about me. I think even less about you. And, the only stupidity here, are your mindless arguments from ignorance. "Well, I don't know any other reason for this, so it must be because...".

Since you never attack the logic, facts, evidence, or stats that I deposit(other than denials), I will assume that personal attacks is all you have left. And clearly if you need to use the stats from a State in another friggin country to illustrate a point, then you must be getting desperate. I'm sure that there are places in "bumfuck Egypt" that this same analogy would work.

Except, that there are no causal links that prove any of this. If you believe that the only reason why only 0.005% of our population have died from this virus, is because is because of our medical due diligence, then it is you who is full of nothing but white noise.

Since it just couldn't possibly be because of any other factors/variables, it must be because of our masking and socially distancing? We know that viruses are not stopped by even the best masks. We know that it is impossible to monitor, or keep 26M people 2 meters apart at all times. And, we know that being vaccinated does not prevent people from becoming infected, spreading, or dying from this infection. So what are causal links?

I can understand the Government trying to justify the shit that they are doing to the people. If the virus keeps reoccurring, then it is the peoples fault. If it is reduced then it is the governments fault. Always a win-win for the government. What I don't understand is why do people still believe them.

 

[mothra]

Too long. Didn't read.

 

[Shellandshilo1956]

eriously. Try being succinct. Please? As it stands, it's just pages upon pages of you repeating yourself. I can't believe you're not tired of it.

You should actually practice what you preach. That last post wasn't exactly short-winded. And if I going to take the time read all of your nonsense, and misinformation, than so should you. And, please don't tell me how I should write. But I'll consider your request. And, don't threaten me by telling on me. I'm far to old to give a shit. This really makes me wonder, just how old you are!

Your condoning and fostering discrimination to anyone is worth my hysterics. I don't like any form of bigotry. And, in the future, if you are not going to read my posts, then don't respond at all. Maybe if people would address the issues I keep depositing, I wouldn't need to keep repeating them.

 

[mothra]

Short, concise sentences broken up into easy to read paragraphs is a far cry from pages of walls of text.

All saying the same thing, mind you. Over and over again.

And nothing is worth hysterics.

See? Short post and i actually addressed your points. That's how it works.