You're just distracting from the original point. People aren't striking because mandates. You're undermining the labor movement and deflecting from the real cause that is workplace safety and wages.
People are striking because of conditions, which include bad governance & bad corporate policy... largely around how inconsistent the handling of the pandemic has been
why are you separating out ultrapartisan reductionism here? both parties did horribly & New York City still has the worst death rates since the pandemic started
people are definitely protesting over mandates globally, the labor disputes are largely to do with worsening conditions around changes implemented or policies inadequately implemented since the pandemic started
they're all in the same cauldron of conditions, which includes increased pressure on the workers by governments & the managers & owners & bosses through inconsistent and/or inadequately applied policies
yes, the material conditions are how much workers will put up with before resigning or protesting or going on wildcat strikes without union approval/protection
and you're focusing on a tiny few workers and not the real issue. Which is wages and safety measures. You're siding with anti-vaxxers to... what exactly?
Okay but that's not why tens of thousands more people are striking for wages and safety measures against covid. You're caping for right wingers right now and I can't imagine why.
Workers are the ones advocating for these measures too. I should know I'm engaged in labor organizing myself. What you are doing right now is not helpful and not welcome.
Yes, I did the self-crit.. it caused me to not demonize average Americans & workers who are protesting & resigning & struggling against the ownership/employer classes
You're ignoring the fact that many union and strike demands are to implement such measures. More so in fact than people quitting or protesting against them. And the latter of those people are overwhelmingly chuds. You're defending reactionaries right now.
ahh yes, the right of refusal is real socialism. cast aside collective demands for common health - what matters is the individual. this is socialism. :thonk:
Except that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus and less likely to become infected while also being less likely to be symptomatic or die if they do get the virus.
"“Although vaccines remain highly effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination is not sufficient to prevent transmission of the delta variant in household settings with prolonged exposures,” the study said."
"Although vaccinated people with a breakthrough infection are much less likely to become severely ill than unvaccinated, the new study shows that they can be carrying similar amounts of virus and could potentially spread the virus to other people. This study did not directly address how easily vaccinated people can get infected with SARS-CoV-2, or how readily someone with a breakthrough infection can transmit the virus. "
Just because the viral load among asymptomatic people is the same with or without the vaccine, doesn't necessarily mean the vaccine has no effect on the virus. It seems that viral load is correlated with the probability of displaying symptoms, and since the vaccine lowers that probability, it may well be the case that while viral load given symptom and viral load given no symptom is the same across the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, nevertheless viral load given infection is lower in the vaccinated population.
You linked three articles citing one study which says "Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections". and "The analysis also found that 25% of vaccinated household contacts still contracted the disease from an index case, while 38% of those who hadn’t had shots became infected."
This means that no, vaccinated people are not equally susceptible of getting the virus.
There are also two issues with the study; "The proportion of asymptomatic cases did not differ among fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated delta groups", and "However, given that index cases were identified through routine symptomatic surveillance, there might have been a selection bias towards identifying untypically symptomatic vaccine breakthrough index cases." This means that the study is not conclusive and more needs to be done to capture a real population. Medical science doesn't work by simply having one or two studies on a subject, make a conclusion, then move on. There needs to be many reproducible results of varying types of studies to build a body of evidence.
Now, if your interpretation was correct that vaccines have no effect on the spread of the virus, then it would further reinforce the need to be vaccinated since it would seem inevitable that everyone will be infected, therefore the only protection from death or severe symptoms is being vaccinated.
yes, it's people who have caught the virus... are you not reading?
"In summary, the virus is changing and we are learning more about the new variants (including the now predominant delta variant) every day, but it is possible for someone who has been vaccinated to develop a breakthrough infection (with or without symptoms) and spread the virus"
No, it's certain that it happens... the data bears this out
asymptomatic cases in vaccinated individuals still transmit the virus, hence why there are recommendations for fully vaccinated people to mask up & practice hygiene & social distancing still
"The researchers looked at 869 positive samples, 500 from Healthy Yolo Together and 369 from Unidos en Salud. All the Healthy Yolo Together samples were from people who were asymptomatic at the time of positive test result, and three-quarters were from unvaccinated individuals. The Unidos en Salud samples included both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases. Just over half (198) of the Unidos en Salud samples were unvaccinated"
Asymptomatic people aren't going to get tested usually... this study was for asymptomatic cases at the time of positive test result
no, they don't reduce one's susceptibility to being infected with the virus, they only reduce symptoms or severity of symptoms if a breakthrough case does occur
people get the virus even with the vaccine, and spread the virus despite having the vaccine & not showing symptoms
COVID vaccines are not designed to give sterilising immunity
"COVID-19 vaccines were never going to give us sterilizing immunity; it's possible they never will. But the reason isn't just their design, or the wily nature of the virus, or heavy and frequent exposures, though those factors all play a role. It's that sterilizing immunity itself might be a biological myth.Sep 9, 2021"
you're moving goalposts. A vaccine also doesn't need to be 100% effective in stopping spread/infection to work to reduce overall case counts.
You're less likely to get covid if you get vaccinated. Thus you're less likely to get it in the first place and spread it to others.
You're arguing that because a vaccine doesn't let you walk into a room of coughing corona patients without PPE that it's 0% effective at stopping spread. This is a stupid argument.
this country is a settler state founded on genocide and slavery. consent is nowhere to be found in it's legal system. it's founded on property rights and especially the right to dispose of one's property as the owner prefers. the framework you're referring to extended those rights to include the body as one's property in place of anything resembling informed consent. you are defending property rights.
Of course it matters, particularly when we account for the fact that in most areas the most vulnerable populations are vaccinated at a rate of over 80%
We wouldn't if the US wasn't full of anti-vaxx brainworms.
Don't tell me about what is or isn't about science while doing some underhanded anti-vaxx apologia.
Removed by mod
You're just distracting from the original point. People aren't striking because mandates. You're undermining the labor movement and deflecting from the real cause that is workplace safety and wages.
"Distracting?"
People are striking because of conditions, which include bad governance & bad corporate policy... largely around how inconsistent the handling of the pandemic has been
why are you separating out ultrapartisan reductionism here? both parties did horribly & New York City still has the worst death rates since the pandemic started
I fucking work retail this is not partisan this is about safety.
yes, safety from bad governance & poor corporate policy
You're using vague terms and moving the goal posts all over the place. The vaccine mandates are not why people are striking. FULL STOP.
A sleeper troll account from July 2020 is a rare sight!
volkvulture has been a community member since before tha sub was banned
I don't remember them. Also it doesn't matter. Ether way, less intense antivax posting has got others banned.
Seems like the community could use some clean-up if that's the case.
people are definitely protesting over mandates globally, the labor disputes are largely to do with worsening conditions around changes implemented or policies inadequately implemented since the pandemic started
ffs we already addressed this. There are people protesting yes. But protest =/= strike.
There are hundreds of thousands of people striking right now for reasons that are specific and have zero relation to vaccine mandates.
You are trying to use their struggle to push some anti vaxx shit and you're acting super sus about it.
Removed by mod
No you're cherry picking. The overwhelming majority of strikes have nothing to do with vaccines. Why is this the hill you are willing to die on?
they're all in the same cauldron of conditions, which includes increased pressure on the workers by governments & the managers & owners & bosses through inconsistent and/or inadequately applied policies
No this is dumb and not materialist at all.
yes, the material conditions are how much workers will put up with before resigning or protesting or going on wildcat strikes without union approval/protection
and you're focusing on a tiny few workers and not the real issue. Which is wages and safety measures. You're siding with anti-vaxxers to... what exactly?
I see thousands in Italy having done the same
https://qz.com/2074464/italys-new-vaccine-mandate-prompts-labor-strikes-protests/
Okay but that's not why tens of thousands more people are striking for wages and safety measures against covid. You're caping for right wingers right now and I can't imagine why.
Yes, the safety measures applied by the companies, but workers definitely don't want government mandates either
Workers are the ones advocating for these measures too. I should know I'm engaged in labor organizing myself. What you are doing right now is not helpful and not welcome.
It's self-crit time bud.
Workers aren't advocating for government restrictions & mandates on themselves, they're advocating for the opposite
I'm a fucking worker and I'm telling you you're wrong.
I'm a worker, and you are wrong whether you want to hear it or not
Like I said do some self crit I'm ending this here.
Yes, I did the self-crit.. it caused me to not demonize average Americans & workers who are protesting & resigning & struggling against the ownership/employer classes
bye
You're ignoring the fact that many union and strike demands are to implement such measures. More so in fact than people quitting or protesting against them. And the latter of those people are overwhelmingly chuds. You're defending reactionaries right now.
They want employers to protect them using company resources... workers are not protesting for government restrictions against themselves
:jesse-wtf:
i am talking about not demonizing average Americans
The average American is a dumbfuck reactionary.
oh right... democracy & socialism is about how special & smart you are as an individual lol
ahh yes, the right of refusal is real socialism. cast aside collective demands for common health - what matters is the individual. this is socialism. :thonk:
you're arguing for property rights, liberal.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Except that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus and less likely to become infected while also being less likely to be symptomatic or die if they do get the virus.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-09-24/covid-vaccines-do-they-change-risk-of-infection/100484432
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people-are-less-likely-spread-covid-new-research-finds-n1280583
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.12.21261991v1
I can link more if you'd like.
You're literally wrong but you're too stubborn to believe otherwise because you have a parasocial attachment to an antivax grifter. Grow up.
Removed by mod
"“Although vaccines remain highly effective at preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19, our findings suggest that vaccination is not sufficient to prevent transmission of the delta variant in household settings with prolonged exposures,” the study said."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-28/getting-vaccinated-doesn-t-stop-people-from-spreading-delta
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59077036
No, the most recent studies say that unvaccinated & vaccinated people are equally susceptible & equally capable of spreading the virus once infected
but severity of individual cases is reduced in Vaccinated persons
https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people
"Although vaccinated people with a breakthrough infection are much less likely to become severely ill than unvaccinated, the new study shows that they can be carrying similar amounts of virus and could potentially spread the virus to other people. This study did not directly address how easily vaccinated people can get infected with SARS-CoV-2, or how readily someone with a breakthrough infection can transmit the virus. "
Just because the viral load among asymptomatic people is the same with or without the vaccine, doesn't necessarily mean the vaccine has no effect on the virus. It seems that viral load is correlated with the probability of displaying symptoms, and since the vaccine lowers that probability, it may well be the case that while viral load given symptom and viral load given no symptom is the same across the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, nevertheless viral load given infection is lower in the vaccinated population.
deleted by creator
That's a typo, I meant "on the spread of the virus"
no problems
You linked three articles citing one study which says "Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections". and "The analysis also found that 25% of vaccinated household contacts still contracted the disease from an index case, while 38% of those who hadn’t had shots became infected."
This means that no, vaccinated people are not equally susceptible of getting the virus.
There are also two issues with the study; "The proportion of asymptomatic cases did not differ among fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and unvaccinated delta groups", and "However, given that index cases were identified through routine symptomatic surveillance, there might have been a selection bias towards identifying untypically symptomatic vaccine breakthrough index cases." This means that the study is not conclusive and more needs to be done to capture a real population. Medical science doesn't work by simply having one or two studies on a subject, make a conclusion, then move on. There needs to be many reproducible results of varying types of studies to build a body of evidence.
Now, if your interpretation was correct that vaccines have no effect on the spread of the virus, then it would further reinforce the need to be vaccinated since it would seem inevitable that everyone will be infected, therefore the only protection from death or severe symptoms is being vaccinated.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
No, unvaccinated people are just as likely to become infected & spread the virus, but not as likely to have advanced or severe symptoms
deleted by creator
no, the infections themselves happen regardless, but asymptomatic cases still spread the virus
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/can-i-still-spread-covid-19-after-vaccination
deleted by creator
yes, it's people who have caught the virus... are you not reading?
"In summary, the virus is changing and we are learning more about the new variants (including the now predominant delta variant) every day, but it is possible for someone who has been vaccinated to develop a breakthrough infection (with or without symptoms) and spread the virus"
deleted by creator
No, it's certain that it happens... the data bears this out
asymptomatic cases in vaccinated individuals still transmit the virus, hence why there are recommendations for fully vaccinated people to mask up & practice hygiene & social distancing still
deleted by creator
"The researchers looked at 869 positive samples, 500 from Healthy Yolo Together and 369 from Unidos en Salud. All the Healthy Yolo Together samples were from people who were asymptomatic at the time of positive test result, and three-quarters were from unvaccinated individuals. The Unidos en Salud samples included both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases. Just over half (198) of the Unidos en Salud samples were unvaccinated"
Asymptomatic people aren't going to get tested usually... this study was for asymptomatic cases at the time of positive test result
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
no, they don't reduce one's susceptibility to being infected with the virus, they only reduce symptoms or severity of symptoms if a breakthrough case does occur
people get the virus even with the vaccine, and spread the virus despite having the vaccine & not showing symptoms
deleted by creator
COVID vaccines are not designed to give sterilising immunity
"COVID-19 vaccines were never going to give us sterilizing immunity; it's possible they never will. But the reason isn't just their design, or the wily nature of the virus, or heavy and frequent exposures, though those factors all play a role. It's that sterilizing immunity itself might be a biological myth.Sep 9, 2021"
you're moving goalposts. A vaccine also doesn't need to be 100% effective in stopping spread/infection to work to reduce overall case counts.
You're less likely to get covid if you get vaccinated. Thus you're less likely to get it in the first place and spread it to others.
You're arguing that because a vaccine doesn't let you walk into a room of coughing corona patients without PPE that it's 0% effective at stopping spread. This is a stupid argument.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I'm pretty sure this is true, and it's always been true, but people have chosen to ignore it.
this country is a settler state founded on genocide and slavery. consent is nowhere to be found in it's legal system. it's founded on property rights and especially the right to dispose of one's property as the owner prefers. the framework you're referring to extended those rights to include the body as one's property in place of anything resembling informed consent. you are defending property rights.
Cuba's flag was designed by someone who defended slavery & wanted Cuba to join the USA as a slave state
Did you know that Cuba had slavery 100 years before Anglo North America did and that indigenous removal was as bad there as anywhere?
Cuba didn't change its flag after the revolution
Is Cuba allowed to be socialist even though Spaniard colonial-settlers still live there & genocide happened?
what the fuck does the flag have to do with the legal system. jfc
Is Cuba allowed to be socialist or not?
what does the flag have to do with the economic, social, legal, and political system?
Cuba had an economic and social and legal & political system built on slavery
Cuba didn't get rid of slavery for almost 20 years after USA did
they had a literal revolution. a flag doesn't show continuity. what the fuck are you on? this is stupid as shit, I'm done responding to you.
The 1902 Cuban Republic flag is different to the current flag
:libertarian-approaching:
heh
No, you're an anti-vaxxer, which puts you solidly at odds with workers everywhere. Advocating for mass death for the working class is bad, lib.
No, I have the vaccine
70% is only valid as a herd immunity target for diseases that do not reinfect and do not demonstrate an evolutionary rate capable of vaccine escape.
I appreciate the nuance Wolff thinks he’s applying but it’s neither the time nor place.
Edited as my 70% was vague.
Yes it's both the time and the place
~70% is for 12+, for adults it's actually quite a bit higher
For the most vulnerable populations the vaccine rate is 85%+
70% rate for the country doesn’t mean everywhere in the country reached 70% which is why we’re getting variants that can break through vaccines
it means the entire country has reached 70% for people over the age of 12
Oklahoma has 50%. Wyoming has 48%. The country as a whole has 67% for one dose
The whole country is at 68% with at least one dose, we can say that's ~70%
deleted by creator
the most vulnerable elderly populations are vaccinated nationwide at a rate of over 80%
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
So not even 70% are fully vaccinated, which doesn’t even matter if you’re in a local area hovering below 50%
Of course it matters, particularly when we account for the fact that in most areas the most vulnerable populations are vaccinated at a rate of over 80%