Riiight

[FISHY1118]

I think you were misinterpreting this, FISHY, and comparing apples with oranges.

A fully vaccinated person who has the misfortune to catch this virus will obviously be infectious, meaning they are able to infect others, just as an unvaccinated person who catches it will be infectious and able to infect others. The difference is in the viral load transmitted to the other person in each case.

As for the other statement, if you don't catch it you can't spread it, and fully vaccinated people are less likely to be infected in the first place.

Also, if you take a thousand car owners at random, and 980 are careful drivers, while the remaining 20 are a**holes who regularly break the speed limit and don't wear a seat belt, you must surely see that if 22 drivers end up being killed or badly injured in a crash, with 14 from the careful group and 8 from the reckless group, it wouldn't mean that dangerous drivers are safer. Quite the reverse. It would leave a whacking 966 careful drivers on the road, compared with just 12 dangerous ones to cause more carnage to themselves and others.

As the unvaccinated population dwindles, so will the threat from the virus. Fewer people getting infected means less chance of a new variant taking hold.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz . Theres nothing to misinterpret caz ,i will only comment on your first paragraph as the rest is irelevent as you will see.

Friday January 28th to Febuary 3rd N.S.W Health recorded 253 deaths ..... 136 were age care residents , 52 were unvaccinated, six had receieved 1 dose 149 two doses ,46 had receieved a booster shot [3 doses] .

Please tell me your not suggesting the viral load that killed 52 unvacc people was any more severe/ potant that killed 146 ''Double'' Vacc, and 46 ''Triple'' Vaxx ?

Wasnt the whole point of the vaccine supposed to lessen the virus abliity to cause servere illness and death ?

[caz]

So 46 deaths among the fully vaccinated, compared with 207 deaths among the not fully vaccinated/unvaccinated, in just that one-week period, FISHY.

Why do you suppose the booster shot was quickly considered essential, in order to save more lives and prevent more people from getting severely ill?

And you still need to know the percentages of fully vaccinated in the N.S.W population as a whole, compared with no doses, 1 dose and 2 doses, before you can say anything meaningful about the numbers of individuals who died from each of those four groups. If 80% of the people, for example, had had all three jabs when 46 of their number died, this would compare with 207 deaths from the remaining 20% comprising the other three groups.

I don't know how else to explain this to you, but please stay safe!

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

So 46 deaths among the fully vaccinated, compared with 207 deaths among the not fully vaccinated/unvaccinated, in just that one-week period, FISHY.

Why do you suppose the booster shot was quickly considered essential, in order to save more lives and prevent more people from getting severely ill?

And you still need to know the percentages of fully vaccinated in the N.S.W population as a whole, compared with no doses, 1 dose and 2 doses, before you can say anything meaningful about the numbers of individuals who died from each of those four groups. If 80% of the people, for example, had had all three jabs when 46 of their number died, this would compare with 207 deaths from the remaining 20% comprising the other three groups.

I don't know how else to explain this to you, but please stay safe!

Love,

Caz
X

Please tell me your not suggesting the viral load that killed 52 unvacc people was any more severe/ potant that killed 146 ''Double'' Vacc, and 46 ''Triple'' Vaxx ?

Wasnt the whole point of the vaccine supposed to lessen the virus abliity to cause servere illness and death ? I didnt see a response to this part ?

Caz, percentages are irrelivent ,all that matters is the figures ive given you .

So ill again give you the facts , NOV 2021 , less than 500 cases in nsw , FEB 2022 four months later 1.3 million total cases . Population 8 million, 95 %fully vaxxed , 400,000 unvaxxed [ remaining 5%] tell me how 900,000 caught covid if if we were told people who are vaccinated are 20 times less likely to catch the virus ? . The health experts that some other posters on here blindly follow got it wrong obviously. Not to mention this doosy, if you get the vaccine it will keep you from getting severly ill , less likely to be in hospital, and the big one, it wont kill you . Wrong again ! . Death toll for one week in n.s.w. . 149 two doses ,46 had receieved a booster shot [3 doses]

These are the facts and they are undisputed. .

Fishy . Take care also.

[String]

650 vaccinated deaths out 51,000. Vaccines work.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand2july2021

[FISHY1118]

650 vaccinated deaths out 51,000. Vaccines work.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ryand2july2021

Friday January 28th to Febuary 3rd N.S.W Health recorded 253 deaths ..... 136 were age care residents , 52 were unvaccinated, six had receieved 1 dose 149 two doses ,46 had receieved a booster shot [3 doses]


Not this week in N.S.W. they didnt .

[caz]

Hi String,

I give up!

For some reason, FISHY just doesn't want to understand this. I can't imagine why, but sometimes it's a waste of time wondering.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Hi String,

I give up!

For some reason, FISHY just doesn't want to understand this. I can't imagine why, but sometimes it's a waste of time wondering.

Love,

Caz
X

''Please tell me your not suggesting the viral load that killed 52 unvacc people was any more severe/ potant that killed 146 ''Double'' Vacc, and 46 ''Triple'' Vaxx ?

Wasnt the whole point of the vaccine supposed to lessen the virus abliity to cause servere illness and death'' ? I didnt see a response to this part ?


Maybe you could use that time your wasting to try come up with an answer for these two points you avoided .

[caz]

I'll try once more, FISHY, but after that you're on your own.

The viral load is the amount of virus in any infected person. The higher the amount, the more chance of overwhelming that person's defences and causing death or severe illness, and of the virus progressing by being transmitted to others. The more people who contract the virus, the more people there will be who could potentially die from it.

The lower the viral load in those who get infected, the greater the chance of the virus being suppressed.

The vaccines help to protect people from catching the virus in the first place and therefore passing it on to others. They also help to reduce the viral load and the symptoms among those who still get infected. They are obviously not perfect, but they are far, far better than doing nothing and giving the virus every opportunity to spread through the population and do its worst.

I can't comment further on your figures because as I've tried to explain they don't take into account the overall numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, and therefore the mortality rate [%] of the different groups. As such they are meaningless and could be leading you up the garden path.

To make it even simpler, if only 52 people were still unvaccinated, and all 52 died because they couldn't fight the viral load, that would be a mortality rate among the unvaccinated of 100%.

If 15,000 people were double vaccinated and 146 of them died, the mortality rate among the double vaccinated would be much lower, at 0.97%.

And if the remaining 14,854 sensibly went on to get their booster, and 46 of those died, the mortality rate among the fully vaccinated would be lower still, at just 0.31%.

Any clearer now?

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

I'll try once more, FISHY, but after that you're on your own.

The viral load is the amount of virus in any infected person. The higher the amount, the more chance of overwhelming that person's defences and causing death or severe illness, and of the virus progressing by being transmitted to others. The more people who contract the virus, the more people there will be who could potentially die from it.

The lower the viral load in those who get infected, the greater the chance of the virus being suppressed.

The vaccines help to protect people from catching the virus in the first place and therefore passing it on to others. They also help to reduce the viral load and the symptoms among those who still get infected. They are obviously not perfect, but they are far, far better than doing nothing and giving the virus every opportunity to spread through the population and do its worst.

I can't comment further on your figures because as I've tried to explain they don't take into account the overall numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, and therefore the mortality rate [%] of the different groups. As such they are meaningless and could be leading you up the garden path.

To make it even simpler, if only 52 people were still unvaccinated, and all 52 died because they couldn't fight the viral load, that would be a mortality rate among the unvaccinated of 100%.

If 15,000 people were double vaccinated and 146 of them died, the mortality rate among the double vaccinated would be much lower, at 0.97%.

And if the remaining 14,854 sensibly went on to get their booster, and 46 of those died, the mortality rate among the fully vaccinated would be lower still, at just 0.31%.

Any clearer now?

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent post Caz. One simply cannot draw conclusions looking at the absolute numbers of cases given the base populations from which those cases are drawn are so widely different. It's the probability of risk that matters, not the absolute number of cases.

I think people find dealing with disease and infection based information difficult for some reason.

I'm just going to re-formulate the example.

Let's say there are two bowls of candy. One bowl has 100 candies in it (bowl 1), the other has 1,000 (bowl 2). In bowl 1, 80% of the candies are poisoned, and in bowl 2 only 1% of them are poisoned. You have to draw a candy and eat it. After you eat your candy, it gets replaced with a similar version (poisoned or not).

And let's say there are 1,000,100 people given this choice. For some reason, 100 of them choose the bowl 1, so we would expect 80 of them to get poisoned.

With the other 1,000,000, we would expect 1000 of them to get poisoned.

So there would be 1000 cases of poisoning from "bowl 2" but only 80 cases from "bowl 1".

Now, it is your turn, which bowl would you choose from? The one with the lower rate of risk (bowl 2) or the one with the lower absolute number of cases of poisoning (bowl 1)?

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

I'll try once more, FISHY, but after that you're on your own.

The viral load is the amount of virus in any infected person. The higher the amount, the more chance of overwhelming that person's defences and causing death or severe illness, and of the virus progressing by being transmitted to others. The more people who contract the virus, the more people there will be who could potentially die from it.

The lower the viral load in those who get infected, the greater the chance of the virus being suppressed.

The vaccines help to protect people from catching the virus in the first place and therefore passing it on to others. They also help to reduce the viral load and the symptoms among those who still get infected. They are obviously not perfect, but they are far, far better than doing nothing and giving the virus every opportunity to spread through the population and do its worst.

I can't comment further on your figures because as I've tried to explain they don't take into account the overall numbers of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, and therefore the mortality rate [%] of the different groups. As such they are meaningless and could be leading you up the garden path.

To make it even simpler, if only 52 people were still unvaccinated, and all 52 died because they couldn't fight the viral load, that would be a mortality rate among the unvaccinated of 100%.

If 15,000 people were double vaccinated and 146 of them died, the mortality rate among the double vaccinated would be much lower, at 0.97%.

And if the remaining 14,854 sensibly went on to get their booster, and 46 of those died, the mortality rate among the fully vaccinated would be lower still, at just 0.31%.

Any clearer now?

Love,

Caz
X

''The vaccines help to protect people from catching the virus in the first place and therefore passing it on to others''

This is incorrect and the data ive provided from .N.S.W Govt Health proves it so .


Ill keep this part simply , Fully Vaxxed are infecting Fully Vaxx who are dying, if your vaccinated and get less viral load when infected ,as you like to put it, why is this happening ?

[caz]

Morning FISHY,

One person's immune system - vaccinated or not - will not be as efficient as another's, so people will be affected differently by the same viral load if they get infected. What might be enough to kill one person may not be enough to cause severe symptoms in another. My brother and his partner caught the virus at the same time, from an unknown source, shortly before they were eligible for their booster. My brother ended up in hospital on oxygen, and it was touch and go for a few days, while his partner was well enough to stay at home to isolate. Their viral load must have been similar, but my brother coped less well with it.

The COVID vaccines can't eradicate all risk to life, sadly, so some people who are fully vaccinated will still catch it and pass it on, and some of those will still die from a lower viral load than it would take to make most people ill.

People don't always know if they are vulnerable in this way or not until their bodies are fighting off a virus, so it's a bit like playing Russian roulette when people say they don't need the vaccine because they have no obvious health problems. Anyone can catch this thing and people have died after claiming otherwise, because their immune systems were not as robust as they had assumed. It's about minimising and managing the risk, but it's not always easy to calculate the risk to each individual.

But if the figures are still confusing you, why not think about Jeff's question?

Which bowl would you choose from? The one which poisoned 1,000 people, or the one which poisoned 80?

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Morning FISHY,

One person's immune system - vaccinated or not - will not be as efficient as another's, so people will be affected differently by the same viral load if they get infected. What might be enough to kill one person may not be enough to cause severe symptoms in another. My brother and his partner caught the virus at the same time, from an unknown source, shortly before they were eligible for their booster. My brother ended up in hospital on oxygen, and it was touch and go for a few days, while his partner was well enough to stay at home to isolate. Their viral load must have been similar, but my brother coped less well with it.

The COVID vaccines can't eradicate all risk to life, sadly, so some people who are fully vaccinated will still catch it and pass it on, and some of those will still die from a lower viral load than it would take to make most people ill.

People don't always know if they are vulnerable in this way or not until their bodies are fighting off a virus, so it's a bit like playing Russian roulette when people say they don't need the vaccine because they have no obvious health problems. Anyone can catch this thing and people have died after claiming otherwise, because their immune systems were not as robust as they had assumed. It's about minimising and managing the risk, but it's not always easy to calculate the risk to each individual.

But if the figures are still confusing you, why not think about Jeff's question?

Which bowl would you choose from? The one which poisoned 1,000 people, or the one which poisoned 80?

Love,

Caz
X

Firstly caz im glad that your brother and his partner are ok and recovered from the virus, thats great .[My son caught covid in january ] However we will have to disagree on things where this subject is concerned , ive said my piece and i know what the experts have said, and what i know to be tru here in N.S.W ,and they are two ''very different'' outcomes over the last 4 months where the effectiveness of the vaccines are concerned.[catching and transmitting and preventing death] . So with that i bid this topic farewell and wish you all the best . Cheers Fishy.

[caz]

Okay, FISHY, we'll leave it there. But this wasn't actually a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It was basic counting.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Okay, FISHY, we'll leave it there. But this wasn't actually a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It was basic counting.

Love,

Caz
X

Exactly..

[String]

Putin may win this battle but he’s not going to win the war.