Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
I Honestly Dont Get It...
74 Answers
More and more people are getting vaxed against covid and yet cases are rising??
Shouldnt it be the other way around?
Shouldnt it be the other way around?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It may be popular - but it has no basis in fact or science.
I suggest showing this picture to the next person who suggests any fertility/vaccination link to you :
https:/
I suggest showing this picture to the next person who suggests any fertility/vaccination link to you :
https:/
// Whatever happened to heard-immunity?//
I er havent heard of that
of course I have
It is 100 / ( Ro-1) - and since Ro was around 1.3 worked out as around 60%
well you asked
a.if things didnt change ( this condition utterly defeats someone even as bright as NJ)
b.things did change. The virus got worse - - boooo!
c.it has to to survive - stay at par and it dies out
d. if it worse the figure for heard immunity pretty obviously goes up
e.it did / it does
f.the end
measles, where the Ro is around 12 - yes twelve cases from one index case, you need vacca rates of well over 90%
because for every measles case - when they bump into 12 kids, you want 11 to resist infection ( and then R number is less than one)
11/12 as a percent is lots
I er havent heard of that
of course I have
It is 100 / ( Ro-1) - and since Ro was around 1.3 worked out as around 60%
well you asked
a.if things didnt change ( this condition utterly defeats someone even as bright as NJ)
b.things did change. The virus got worse - - boooo!
c.it has to to survive - stay at par and it dies out
d. if it worse the figure for heard immunity pretty obviously goes up
e.it did / it does
f.the end
measles, where the Ro is around 12 - yes twelve cases from one index case, you need vacca rates of well over 90%
because for every measles case - when they bump into 12 kids, you want 11 to resist infection ( and then R number is less than one)
11/12 as a percent is lots
There's no evidence to suggest future fertility would be affected. More worrisome might be the consequences of becoming pregnant and not being vaccinated.
https:/
https:/
Clearly newjudge and 10cs don't get it either in terms of understanding the scale of the problem and need to test to measure levels and reduce the spread ( cue newjudge saying ' now bobb what you got to understand is diseases spread that's what they do.'..). The view that we should stop testing, stop isolating if I'll and stop counting cases and deaths is head in the sand stuff
Pasta, totally agree. Although, my daughter (this was early on) was advised not to have it while pregnant (as a care worker). So, advice does change. I think, even the best Scientists, are learning as they go along, and things are changing.
I am pro-vax, for those who want it. But... having read that, I also know some people were complaining it affects periods, and while I don't understand "how", I am wondering whether the problem we are having with carers and NHS staff... who are predominantly young, female, bame (not sure of the right word now, apologies), are why there might be less take-up?
I am pro-vax, for those who want it. But... having read that, I also know some people were complaining it affects periods, and while I don't understand "how", I am wondering whether the problem we are having with carers and NHS staff... who are predominantly young, female, bame (not sure of the right word now, apologies), are why there might be less take-up?
//Clearly newjudge and 10cs don't get it either in terms of understanding the scale of the problem and need to test to measure levels //
The problem is not only Covid, bob. It is clear now that enormous damage to people suffering from illnesses other than Covid has been wreaked over the last 18 months. It is now apparent to me that far more damage has been caused by the measures that attempted to prevent the spread of Covid than has been caused by the virus itself.
These measures have clearly been unsuccessful. Despite the enormous number of tests carried out in the UK and the various restrictions that have been (and in parts still are) imposed on the population, the spread of the disease has continued largely unabated. In fact in parts where measures have been more stringent (i.e. Wales and Scotland) the spread during some periods has been worse than in England, where restrictions were less severe.
This is a disease from which very few people suffer serious consequences. In the first two weeks in November 503,000 new cases were reported. During that same period 12,800 people were admitted to hospital and sadly 2,291 people died. I'll leave aside the fact that the number of new infections is probably as least double that reported and also that many who die allegedly from Covid may well have died not because they caught the disease but because they were already very ill and Covid was the last straw. So just on the raw figures, 2.54% (25 in 1,000) of people who contract the virus ended up in hospital and 0.45% (4 in 1,000) of people who contracted it died. In January this year hospitalisations were three times and high and deaths four times greater. By any measure, it is simply not an overwhelmingly dangerous disease any more. Yes, it may become so again, who knows? But the country cannot continue to push people with other illnesses to the back of the queue, compromise children's education and mental health and see a general lack of urgency in many other areas of business and commerce.
My apparent lack of understanding of the need for testing is obviously also shared by foreign health services and by this government who plan to discontinue it early next year (a point on which you have not commented, preferring instead to concentrate on my perceived ignorance). The number of infections no longer matters. It is the effect those infections have on the ability of the health service to cope which does. The NHS has been unable to cope with illness during the winter for so long as I can remember and that's because it is not run properly. This winter will be no different but it is not (at present anyway) because of Covid.
The problem is not only Covid, bob. It is clear now that enormous damage to people suffering from illnesses other than Covid has been wreaked over the last 18 months. It is now apparent to me that far more damage has been caused by the measures that attempted to prevent the spread of Covid than has been caused by the virus itself.
These measures have clearly been unsuccessful. Despite the enormous number of tests carried out in the UK and the various restrictions that have been (and in parts still are) imposed on the population, the spread of the disease has continued largely unabated. In fact in parts where measures have been more stringent (i.e. Wales and Scotland) the spread during some periods has been worse than in England, where restrictions were less severe.
This is a disease from which very few people suffer serious consequences. In the first two weeks in November 503,000 new cases were reported. During that same period 12,800 people were admitted to hospital and sadly 2,291 people died. I'll leave aside the fact that the number of new infections is probably as least double that reported and also that many who die allegedly from Covid may well have died not because they caught the disease but because they were already very ill and Covid was the last straw. So just on the raw figures, 2.54% (25 in 1,000) of people who contract the virus ended up in hospital and 0.45% (4 in 1,000) of people who contracted it died. In January this year hospitalisations were three times and high and deaths four times greater. By any measure, it is simply not an overwhelmingly dangerous disease any more. Yes, it may become so again, who knows? But the country cannot continue to push people with other illnesses to the back of the queue, compromise children's education and mental health and see a general lack of urgency in many other areas of business and commerce.
My apparent lack of understanding of the need for testing is obviously also shared by foreign health services and by this government who plan to discontinue it early next year (a point on which you have not commented, preferring instead to concentrate on my perceived ignorance). The number of infections no longer matters. It is the effect those infections have on the ability of the health service to cope which does. The NHS has been unable to cope with illness during the winter for so long as I can remember and that's because it is not run properly. This winter will be no different but it is not (at present anyway) because of Covid.
// cue newjudge saying ' now bobb what you got to understand is diseases spread that's what they do.'.//
oh god he is at it again
This is a disease from which very few people suffer serious consequences.(NJ)
like 186 000 deaths - a mere tear drop compared to say the 29 000 000 ( 29m) losses in Russian 1941-5
750 k in America
unabated - nope - look at this weeks graph - unabated is exponsential ( Netherland and Germany) - same ( = England ) is abated, wivvan R number of very near one
( or else it would go up and not be flat - there is a law or something that says this)
Jesus
oh god he is at it again
This is a disease from which very few people suffer serious consequences.(NJ)
like 186 000 deaths - a mere tear drop compared to say the 29 000 000 ( 29m) losses in Russian 1941-5
750 k in America
unabated - nope - look at this weeks graph - unabated is exponsential ( Netherland and Germany) - same ( = England ) is abated, wivvan R number of very near one
( or else it would go up and not be flat - there is a law or something that says this)
Jesus
//…unabated is exponsential//
Buy a dictionary, Peter. Assuming you mean “exponential” you are wrong:
Exponential = without any reduction in intensity or strength. Nothing to do with exponential; nothing to do with “R” numbers. Daily infections in the UK have been averaging 30-40,000 or thereabouts for over three months. That’s unabated – without any reduction in intensity or strength.
As for the rest of it, read all of my post and not just the bits you think make good soundbites, and get your figures right (particularly deaths).
Buy a dictionary, Peter. Assuming you mean “exponential” you are wrong:
Exponential = without any reduction in intensity or strength. Nothing to do with exponential; nothing to do with “R” numbers. Daily infections in the UK have been averaging 30-40,000 or thereabouts for over three months. That’s unabated – without any reduction in intensity or strength.
As for the rest of it, read all of my post and not just the bits you think make good soundbites, and get your figures right (particularly deaths).
NJ "Exponential = without any reduction in intensity or strength. Nothing to do with exponential; nothing to do with “R” numbers. Daily infections in the UK have been averaging 30-40,000 or thereabouts for over three months. That’s unabated – without any reduction in intensity or strength."
I'm puzzled. Do you really not know what exponential growth is? Or have you started writing in your own eccentric code like PP?
I'm puzzled. Do you really not know what exponential growth is? Or have you started writing in your own eccentric code like PP?
