Hacker News Reader

Comment by trhway | Hacker News Reader

>to educate the ignorant populace

ok, lets educate. And before educating others lets educate ourselves.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of...

"About three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts Covid-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated, according to new data published Friday by the CDC.

The new data, published in the U.S. agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, also found that fully vaccinated people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people. "

And another point related to education. Couple days ago a White House official stated :"We're dealing with an evolving virus. There is no precedent, and there is no playbook". Note, it isn't the White House of the previous buffoon, it is supposedly educated current White House. No wonder that being led by the people like this the current pandemic response isn't that much better than the ones of the previous centuries.

View on HN

What's neglected in that article is that essentially the whole town is vaccinated:

https://www.masslive.com/capecod/2021/07/how-provincetown-ac...

Despite virtually everyone in the town being vaccinated, 25% of the cases in the outbreak were in the remaining handful of unvaccinated people! As more areas reach close to 100% vaccination, we will start to see weird quirks of statistics like this more often, but if your takeaway here is that it's really easy for vaccinated people to catch and spread COVID, you're very wrong. Breakthrough infections are prevented by vaccines like Pfizer with about 99% efficacy, and without a breakthrough infection there is no transmission. If pretty much everyone were vaccinated, the odds of transmission would go to zero very rapidly.

>What's neglected in that article is that essentially the whole town is vaccinated:

i don't think it was neglected, as it is more like obvious thing wasn't explicitly stated - as vaccine obviously not increasing infection chances, 3/4 of infected being vaccinated means that vaccination rate >= 3/4, and that pretty much means "essentially the whole town is vaccinated"

Unless I'm reading your source wrong it seems to make the opposite point. Your source says that Provincetown has a 114% vaccination rate because the number of people who have used a Provincetown address to get vaccinated is greater than the number last counted in the census - 2k. However, currently, Provincetown, a summer vacation spot, has a population of 60k people.

Even if all of Provincetown residents were vaccinated that would not imply that anywhere near the majority of the people currently in Provincetown were vaccinated. I'm not sure how we can usefully estimate the vaccination rate of the people who have been in Provincetown recently. Google says the vaccination rate for Massachusetts is about 72%. That seems really worrying to me because if that vaccination rate describes the people in Provincetown then the infection rate implies that the vaccine is offering no real protection - i.e. 75% of population vaccinated and 75% of infected were vaccinated.

I guess you are trolling. And is really sad that such an one-sided argument as yours even exists.

First, you are missing that this is a Delta out-break. Delta has been found to be able to evade the vaccines more than other variants. This is something new and something we didn't know just 2-3 months ago.

Next, without stating how many percent of the population where vaccinated in MA what does three-fourths imply?

Governments world-wide are struggling with how to respond to Delta. Because it is more contagious and even for vaccinated people there is a risk of hospitalizations, there is a struggle what to do. Lift all restrictions (as England has done)? Stay rather strict (as in France/Germany where there are still public mask mandates)?

The reality is that there is no playbook.

>I guess you are trolling.

of course. Posting CDC data and WH quotes. While somehow nobody mentioned trolling wrt. GGP calling opponents "stupid" and "anti-intellectuals" without any data to back his position. Not surprising. Just a typical for these days debate with the "intellectuals".

>This is something new and something we didn't know just 2-3 months ago.

You are repeating the politicians' talking point what i was talking about . The very high chances that the "improved" 2.0 version would come were obvious pretty much from the start for anybody who paid even slightest attention to the precedents. Yet politicians have as always been playing ideologically charged short game all along right into populace ignorance while completely disregarding the long game.

>>I guess you are trolling.

> of course. Posting CDC data and WH quotes.

And ignoring almost everything that was replied to you.

> The very high chances that the "better" version would come were obvious pretty much from the start

I haven't heard that this would be obvious. Could you share what you consider that long game to be?

The vaccine doesn't stop you from getting covid. It reduces the effects so you're less likely to need hospitalization. So saying x% of people with covid are vaccinated doesn't mean much. There's some education for you.

>The vaccine doesn't stop you from getting covid.

lets that sink. Especially considering that according to the above mentioned CDC data infected vaccinated people spread virus as infected unvaccinated.

>It reduces the effects so you're less likely to need hospitalization.

So, as current vaccines don't stop infection and spread, why would the most of the population whose risk of hospitalization is very low need (and even forced) to vaccinate?

>So, as current vaccines don't stop infection and spread, why would the most of the population whose risk of hospitalization is very low need (and even forced) to vaccinate?

Good point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com