AY.3 *is* Delta. Someone already explained this to you in OOT.


PS: Lol @ your mic drop. I think you'd be pretty disappointed in the level of support you have from anyone that matters.

Some advice - quit being an Internet tough guy / troll / know it all. Take the same tone as you do in your blog and you'll have a much better time of it...and you won't find me kicking you out again.

As I said and you quoted, there is no helping a dumb person like you (herp derp, lets do an IQ test, flol) who cannot comprehend how my position would automatically and correctly change post vax dissemination and once you get to a hardcore percent of the population who says 'ya we have no interest in that vaccine and won't take it'.

You then say 'herp derp, but what about protecting them like you said prior', unable to recognize they are refusing the protection and I am respecting their right to do so and thus the NEXT BEST protection we can give them is to have them exposed in the temperate summer months and not the winter.

(let me pre-write your next reply)

TooCuriousso1 : hurr durrr, me no understand. You said prior slowing the infection curve to give people time to get vax'd made sense but now you are saying open up. So change equal bad.

(sorry but you are hopelessly dumb)

As TS said, you couldn't break 130 on LSAT. This is pointless and much less fun than I anticipated because you either can't read or purposefully dodge my main point: you, as a vaccinated person that can spread, won't continue to wear a mask (that def works) to lower the odds a "very vulnerable" vaccinated person catches "mild covid" from you.

For the sake of not torturing the thread anymore I'll just concede and discontinue this.

You'll concede as you can see you are wrong and need a way to duck out. I accept that.

I told you that until you acknowledge you understand my first point, I am not addressing any of yours as they require you understand the first punt.

That you keep asking your subsequent point proves you are so dumb you cannot comprehend how my change is perfectly in line with your question and answers it.

But I can't fix your dumb.

Stop with the personal insults. Seriously.

I know you aren't the only one guilty, but I'm going to start infracting/banning for it when I see it.

Unfortuantely, as kinda expected, the UK peak may be greatly exaggerated. Despite a fall in testing related infections the ONS survey of cases still suggest a rise in cases and an R that is falling but stiil above 1. It's stiill somewhat good news and not conclusive yet but as well as being real science, it's far more plausable than the miraculous drop in cases that coincided with the drop in testing.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...reported-cases

As long as you apply an even hand i am fine with that, otherwise the ban is fine as I won't see TS or the guy I was replying do it with a free hand and not reply in kind. TS is arguably the worst on this forum personally insulting almost everyone he disagrees with, even on small issues.

Agree 100%. I/we won't be perfect about it, but I'm going to start attacking it when I see it. It's no fun for anyone who wants to have sincere discussion if the posts are monopolized by people calling each other names to try and prove they're smart.

I've done it too...let's be better than that.

Interesting report, one thing you failed to note in your excerpts is that the authors consistently cite vaccines, including boosters and new mRNA formulas targeted at new variants, as methods to combat these scenarios.

Since you are the biggest skeptic of mRNA vaccines on this site, I assume you disagree with their recommendations regarding vaccines to counter or prevent these possible scenarios?

When are you going to stop listening to that cuck Neil whatshisname?

Cant tell if sarcasm or super hot take?

Don't consider it either. Didn't the guy predict some huge worst case scenario dead in the UK last year and then later said there was some mistake in their formula that screwed up the outcome. Sorry bout that, just a little thing to base national policy on, try not to let that happen again.
Then this time around calling for 200k cases a day?

My memory could be wrong but I thought the imperial college botched something in their equation around March 2020 or something.

No time soon. Not relevent to this particular point is it though as:

a) these are ONS random sampling figures not neil whathisface's modelling
and
b) I try to listen to all the experts and afaik none of them expected or could explain such a sharpe fall in the cases found by testing numbers. It made no sense except for the obvious one that they were in part an artifact of the big change in testing that happened at the same time.

Not really sure what your point is about the worst case scenarios. The initial one was 'if we dont take action' and given the number of deaths given that we did take quite extreme action, still makes sense. Plus worst cases are not expected. Plus for the latests one, there's always a big caveat that it depends on how people behave - the UK population is so far proving far less gung ho than the government.

I mean it looks very similar to the winter peak and decline? Idk why we wouldn’t expect it to fall short of the winter peak when now we have much less spreadable nodes.

Why do think this decline in new cases is different than previous declines or do you? Serious question

I found this to be interesting:

UK COVID Data

Quote:

In England, it is estimated that around 9 in 10 adults, or 91.9% of the adult population (95% credible interval: 90.5% to 93.0%) would have tested positive for antibodies against coronavirus (COVID-19) - SARS-CoV-2 - on a blood test in the week beginning 28 June 2021, suggesting they had the infection in the past or have been vaccinated.
In Wales, it is estimated that around 9 in 10 adults, or 92.6% of the adult population (95% credible interval: 91.0% to 94.0%) would have tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 on a blood test in the week beginning 28 June 2021, suggesting they had the infection in the past or have been vaccinated.
In Northern Ireland, it is estimated that 9 in 10 adults, or 90.0% of the adult population (95% credible interval: 87.5% to 92.3%) would have tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 on a blood test in the week beginning 28 June 2021, suggesting they had the infection in the past or have been vaccinated.

Sharp declines are explained by sharp changes in something. It was very hard to reconcile it with immunity which is hopefully (and I expect) causing steady downwards pressure on the R. Remember we were seeing an overnight shift from rising fast to dropping off a cliff - it just made no sense from any viewpoint*.

The previous sharp declines have come with sharp lockdown changes. This time the obvious explanation was the sharp change in testing which unlike lockdowns is sadly not a real effect. Take out that testing effect and we can (hopefully) see a picture of the expected downward pressure on R emerging. Maybe still above 1 but falling.

*but we wish and try hard to hope that there was some unprotected subgroup that the virus had exploded in and then burnt out of while the rest of us were immune (or some other rationalisation). It 's just such a massive strugge to make it work though while we had a very obvious change in testing which could explain a big chunk of it so easily.

The data you posted is interesting and notwithstanding all of the above I'm very optimistic barring some particularly horrible new variant

Have to say it quietly in some places but so is Neil whosamawhasit

A sniff of data on the difference between 'in hospital with covid' and 'hospitalised by covid'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58025045

Which suggests the vaccine is even more effective than the hospital data taken at face

This is a silly post.

Every post and piece of data confirms what Shuffle will not admit, the mRNA vaccines are incredibly effective. We should all be grateful to the scientists and researchers who worked so tirelessly to create these in record time.

Hell I'll even toss out some thanks to our moron previous President, whose administration led OWS which is their crowning (only?) achievement.

He concedes they're effective.
They just make your dick fall off

CDC released a real dataset about breakthrough infections in Massachusetts.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...cid=mm7031e2_w

74%(346/469) of cases were vaccinated.
4 out of 5 hospitalizations were vaccinated.

Since we know that only breakthrough hospitalizations need to be reported, we can conclude that only 4 out of 469 cases were from vaccinated persons. Which means 99% of cases are from unvaccinated people!

Kind of strange the need for anti-vaxxers to continually butcher math when at this point a lot more people agree it is time to just let it rip and the anti-vaxxers can choose to ingest the (as anti-vaxxers call it ) - the Chinese bio weapon instead of a vaccine to fight it, since that is the patriotic approach, or something. The messaging has been pretty bad from all sides, though watching anti-vaxxers scramble when its clear how effective the vaccines are at preventing serious illness and death is kind of comical, but at this point it is time to charge into it, and get all of the anti-vaxxers inoculated by their method of choice, and if Delta is what they are determined to choose - sure, whatever at this point.

I assume you agree with me, Mr Snowman, that it is time to let it rip? Odds are you will survive Covid anyways, and if you do you will believe you made the correct choice, assuming you are not a long hauler. Are you on team "Let it Rip!" or not? If you are then consider changing your messaging to support that goal to replace your misrepresentation of math to try to pretend the vaccines are not effective at preventing serious illness or death. That position is becoming outdated, just as "Covid is not real" got put aside by most anti-vaxxers long ago, with the exception of people like "heat wave" guy.

Weird attempt at red herring, Monteroy. Do you hate science? You obviously do. Because Olaf posted science and you posted pure political zero content nonsense in response (as you always do) to avoid discussing the science.

From this dataset, the vaccine was

a) Useless at preventing transmission
b) Useless at preventing hospitalization in this demographic (40 something males mostly).
c) Useless at even reducing viral loads; PCR levels were identical in the two groups

The dataset is so surprising I have trouble believing it. But when we have pure fraud coming out of the government at this point (99.5% protection from the vaccine claimed which is a balls-out deliberate lie), what else can we turn to except raw data?