Covid-19 Discussion (moderated)

The countries shown in the table are the ones with the biggest number of new cases in case that was missed or unclear.

As usual you just substitute what I say for something else.
'So your logic' ...  its obnoxious ...
I pointed out carefully the relationship of vaccination to earliness of antibodies in those vaccinated. 
If I was like you - I guess I should try to skip over that ?

'So your logic ...' and then substitute something ...
Its hostility and it isn't civil.

What exactly did I mention in that post that you disagree with?

Having high vaccination rates lowers the deaths related to the virus 

It reduces contagion

The relation between the two

What I wrote after that, I mentioned between brackets it was according to a picture I just showed.

What exactly is wrong?

Your attitude.  
I made a post and you responded with an obnoxious 'so your logic ...
why don't you ask yourself -
"why didn't I - chamo - read his post properly so I understood - instead of inferring 'your logic' as something other than what he posted ?"

You're really committing a kind of slander by implying I argued something  different from the obvious logic I presented.

"having high vaccination rates lower the deaths related to the virus because it reduces contagion"

I personally see that as a summarized version.

I'm ready to apologize if it's not though.

And therefore reduces the number of deaths. That's exactly what I said after I used "your logic".

And it's extremely easy to shift the argument and ignore crucial points to accuse the opposing person of being obnoxious.

How do you spread the disease (including if you're a child with no symptoms) if vaccination has caused your immune system to get a big head start on having antibodies and killing the virus faster instead of slower?

There's a question mark there too.
'So your logic is' ...  and then something else.
Not civil.
Regarding 'apologize' - maybe whoever should apologize to himself.
Internally.
Or maybe - we're just going to keep getting that spammed 
'so your logic is ...'  even when a question mark was used.

But - I think many others could or would understand it Instantly.
Its obvious.  Many would be aware of it anyway - but I'm pointing it out.
This next isn't for the person who keeps implying I'm saying something that I'm not.
I'm skipping reading his last few posts.  
He's already spoken with : 'so your logic is ...' even in reaction to a question mark.

Vaccination stimulates the immune system. 
Causing it to produce antibodies against Covid.
As in sooner - sooner than if one hadn't been vaccinated.
It still might take some time.  Weeks. 
For the immune system to get up to speed.
But the point is - soon.  Rather than 'whenever'.
Once one has those antibodies - what do those antibodies do to Covid ?
That's right - they kill it.
If Covid is defeated in your body - what does that do to your capability of spreading it?

If you stop at a red light - what does that do to your likelihood of causing a car crash?
But - people do their own thinking about whatever.  

Uh, at least that's not what I was referring to. 

"Vaccination is also relevant to arguably the most important aspect of Covid.
Contagion.  Plague.  Epidemic.  Pandemic. 
Worldwide deaths of millions.  By contagion.  'Spreading'.  
How do you spread the disease (including if you're a child with no symptoms) if vaccination has caused your immune system to get a big head start on having antibodies and killing the virus faster instead of slower?
It is not complicated."

That's what I was referring too.

And in fact "If Covid is defeated in your body - what does that do to your capability of spreading it?"

I think that question has a demanded answer of "reduces it".

"Worldwide deaths of millions.  By contagion.  'Spreading'.  "

And here the relation with deaths.

"having high vaccination rates lower the deaths related to the virus because it reduces contagion"

What is wrong with having this as a summarized version of what you said?

But anyway let's shift back to the main topic:

The numbers from drees clearly show a lack of efficacity of that vaccine with regards to reducing: catching the virus (-113%), getting hospitalized (-81%), getting intensive care (-124%), and deaths (-306%) for the 0-19 age group.

And the official numbers from world meter mentioning the number of new cases clearly shows that having high vaccination rates isn't really working to reduce the spread of the virus

E.g (No1 in new cases being South Korea with 86% of its population fully vaccinated, followed by Germany with 76%, etc...)

And now - maybe we'll get more spam.
'So your logic is ...'  looking for bottom post.  

Folks - countries that have tried harder to fight Covid - have done better.
One can decide one is afraid of needles and masks and mandates - or be angry about them ...
and let whoever twist the statistics and let whoever tell what is wanted to be heard in the Disinfo against Covid measures.
or - get on with doing one's own part to fight Covid.  
Most people do exactly that.
And the more people have taken the measures wherever - the less deaths and hospitalizations and spreadings there have been in those places.

I don't really see how we're having less spreading, again I ask you to look at these official statistics:

These are all countries with more than 75% of their population vaccinated, and they're hitting the biggest number of new cases. It's being totally blind to suggest those vaccines are doing a great job at preventing/reducing the spread of the disease.

It's also unbelievable to vaccinate (including a 0.02% risk of a serious adverse effect which actually represents a fraction of these serious adverse events) people from a certain age group when the vaccine has a negative efficacity with regards to positive tests, hospitalizations, intensive care, and deaths. 

One might suggest I'm twisting statistics.

But well that's not me that's drees and worldometer, being two of the most reliable sources for COVID statistics.

I don't really see where I did that other than that one post I'm being crucified for.

"And now - maybe we'll get more spam.
'So your logic is ...'  looking for bottom post.  "

You've said it 10 times more than I have this hour alone. I really wonder who's causing spam.

It's a right to ignore my posts, but no need to mention it, predict the content of that post and accuse me of spamming a specific sentence when the person with the accusation has been doing it all hour long.

I hope we can shift back to discussing COVID. 

"I don't really see how we're having less spreading"
Apparently he'll Never see anything he doesn't intend to.
And obviously - my posts refer to Covid and continue to do so.
So the suggestion that the posts don't refer to Covid is disingenuous and uncivil.
Does his uncivillity have a use?
Well anybody who would act in a disingenuous way while pushing Covid disinfo - is actually discrediting the disinfo 'front'.  
That could have uses.
Also - new directions of Covid discussion could be pursued - while mostly posting around 'attempts at pingpong' posts.

Note that many persons may be discouraged from posting here if whoever just keeps spamming and trolling disingenuous posts like those beginning with things like:
'so your logic is ...'
'can't see' ...
'lets get back to Covid' ... when all the posts obviously concerned Covid ...
and a good deal of 'playing dumb' and 'playing victim' ...
and trying to infer that others must read his posts or answer his questions -  
Its more hostility from him.  It is tactical.  And its uncivil.  

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
From this:  It appears there are over 43 million Covid cases worldwide.
But with a current death rate of about 1%.
Compared with a death rate in previous years that was as high as 4%.
That's what I remember from the same coronavirus worldometer site back then.
This big reduction in death rate is almost certainly due to vaccination.
When the immune system has been given a big head start on producing antibodies (or related antibodies) - then it becomes more likely that the host will kill the virus internally - before the virus kills the host.
Its a race.  If the host can kill the virus fast enough - then the host wins.
If not - the virus wins and the host dies.

Related to this:  is hospitalizations. 
As opposed to just cases on one side and deaths on the other.
That can be googled too.  And discussed here.
But this post is not addressed to @chamo2074 .
Hopefully others will post instead and in an infinitely better way free of 'so your logic is ...' and other forms of spam and trolling and hostility dressed up to look genteel.
Such disingenuous posts can be posted around.
There are many people on this website who can do infinitely better than heckling with 'can't see' and pretending that the posts aren't about Covid.

Covid is not a cheerful subject.
But there's ways to accentuate positives within the subject.
Australia and South Korea have done over ten times as well as the USA in the Covid deaths per million department.
That could be looked at and discussed by many chess.com members.
And discussed here.  Repeat:  many.  

So the vaccine is doing extremely well at preventing deaths. Not in contention, but it's not doing well for reducing the number of cases because South Korea is literally at 86% vaccinated and they hit the biggest number of new cases. 

And some people have an extremely low risk of dying from this virus. For example, only 15 people between 0-19 years old unvaccinated people died in France due to COVID, out of 1.320M positive tests for people who are unvaccinated.

15 for 1.320M that's about 0.0011% fatality rate. And that's IF one catches COVID in the first place!

The incidence rate in France is 0.02% of serious adverse events, add that to the fact that not all adverse events are reported/attributed to vaccination, and that the fatality rate is generalized for all of COVID, and with omicron being less deadly it's probably even lower, and that the people who died are most likely immunocompromised. Maybe someone fails to do the maths and see that the risk of developing an adverse reaction is 20 times more probable than a 0-19-year-old to die from COVID?

About hospitalizations:

Official numbers from drees:

-81% vaccine efficacity with regards to hospitalizations. A negative efficacity.

Those people who got hospitalized are also mostly unhealthy too, and again that's if one catches COVID in the first place.

I can't help but notice that you narrow your Covid stats down to 0-19, but leave your adverse vaccine incidence rates as general to all ages.

How about about comparing for us the fatality rate of 0-19 vaccinated vs. 0-19 unvaccinated, and breaking out serious adverse reaction rates for 0-19, and more importantly, death rates among 0-19 from adverse vaccine reactions?  I suspect you don't have the latter two sets of data available due to some very fuzzy statistics around serious adverse reactions.

I find the notion of negative efficacy to be fairly dubious, which is probably why I have nopt seen this employed elsewhere .  Consider, for example, that someone that decides to go unvaccinated is far more likely to also go unhospitalized once they do get sick.  You statistics here only show the people that actually got treated and showed up in the stats...unless these stats include some fudge factor estimate to capture the unhospitalized.

As for the exchanges of the past couple of days, let's remember to discuss the facts, not to attack the posters.  Posters may point out negatives...that arguments are illogical, tactics are being repeated, etc. but stay away from directly insulting anyone purely for who they are. 

Largely because I keep the trolls out of it.  Do you have anything to contribute, brand new poster from Oblivion, USA?