Lying by Omission about Break-Thru Covid-19 Infections?
Last edited Mon Aug 2, 2021, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)
Link to tweet
Yes, the vaccines are extremely effective and yes, breakthrough illnesses have been rare.
But....
When statistics like these are given, it is important to realize these numbers are not stating the % of breakthru case for the more easily spread Delta variant, they are just giving overall %'s, which very well are probably misleadingly low for what the risk actual is right now.
So, are people lying by omission on purpose, to encourage the unvaccinated to get vaccinated, or do they just fail to grasp that risk levels and transmission rates and breakthru percentages have and will continue to change as the virus mutates?
Stay careful out there. The pandemic is getting worse for all of us, even the vaccinated.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Like in the tweet from Axios and the comment on re-tweet by the NBC News reported given in the OP.
And yes, I would like them, meaning the people quoting statistics on break thru %'s to start specifying the current rates for those that tested positive with the Delta variant, and not cite just the overall rate to date.
Thanks.
Seems so.
I am not saying data is being hidden from us, I am pointing out that new sources are quoting statistic using older data, pre-Delta surge.
And I looked at the link you provided from NY, but I could not find the number for breakthrough infections due to people testing positive for the Delta variant.
And again, I know that vaccinations are safe. That they reduce the risk, I just want the news sources to tell people the actual current risk, not an amalgamated number using months old data.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the links and informative feedback.
Again, certainly at this point in the discussion, I don't think you are disagreeing with anything I have said in my OP post.
Thanks for the discussion.
And let me ask this in all politeness, are you, or anyone else replying, disagreeing with anything I actually said in my OP post?
It really doesn't seem so.
People need to re-read what I actually said.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Some sources are quoting old data, not current trends
Like in the tweet from Axios and the comment on re-tweet by the NBC News reported given in the OP.
And yes, I would like them, meaning the people quoting statistics on break thru %'s to start specifying the current rates for those that tested positive with the Delta variant, and not cite just the overall rate to date.
That seems reasonable to me.
Both are prominent and well respected mainstream news sources.
Please re-read my original OP post.
The ad hominem argument is the last refuge of the person that has failed to make their case.
DU-ers can read the entire thread, the replies made, especially my own and make their own decisons on what my point was and how well I got it across.
I am satisfied that many thoughtful posters have take my point, provided informative links and have discussed my OP in a civil manner. Oh, and the DU recs were heartwarming too.
Enjoy the rest of your day.
And many open minded replies too. Great exchanges of opinions and information.
And more than a few supportive replies...
Go figure!
DU , as a whole, is a very supportive community.
Both are prominent and well respected mainstream news sources.
here is a reply I did in regards to another OP
The OP claimed
this tweet kicked it off
Link to tweet
They are literally claiming that vaccines, across the board, all vaccines, all variants, have a 99.924% effectiveness rate at preventing infection.
Their exact words (and similar massively inflated numbers in those tweets in THIS new OP I am replying to) were
They did not say having symptomatic illness, or say having severe illness, or requiring hospitalisation, or say ending up with ICU level illness and/or death.
No, they said simply catching the infection.
This is simply untrue.
1. The CDC doesn't even track non hospitalised breakthrough cases for vaxxed people.
2. The actual scientific studies show that at BEST (Pfizer against the origin strain) the top-performing vaccine had a 95% or so efficacy rate at preventing infection. That is down to (again with the best vax results) 80% against Delta for the Pfizer vax at preventing infections, (88% efficacy are preventing symptomatic disease). J & J is far worse across the board, 66-72% for the origin strain, and now studies are showing as low as 33% against Delta (and that is just preventing symptomatic disease, NOT stopping all infections). Against certain variants, certain vaccines are a complete fail. The non US-used (but massively used in other nations) AstraZeneca vaccine, for instance, only has a 10.4% efficacy rate versus the Beta (B.1.351 aka South African) variant.
3. Efficacy from clinical trails is very often higher than real world EFECTIVENESS.
https://www.factcheck.org/scicheck_digest/what-does-it-mean-to-say-a-vaccine-has-94-percent-efficacy-or-higher/
To make it ULTRA simple: If the Pfizer vax efficacy (the actual real world effectiveness was lower, around 90%) was 95% against THE ORIGIN STRAIN (which was massively less potent than Delta) that means 5% (and 10% in the real world) BREAKTHROUGH infections. 10 out of every 100 Pfizer vaxxed people had breakthrough infections, and that was against the origin strain, not Delta.
The other vaccines were lower, and especially lower (including Pfizer) against the variants.
To claim these 99.9+% real world effectiveness rates against any infection (which they are claiming) is a dangerous lie.
I simply cannot believe the overwhelmingly negative response to my simple OP post asking that CURRENT data be used in reporting break thru cases.
Thanks again for your informative post.
From when I posted that Harvard epidemiologist, Dr. Ding, posted to his twitter that 19% of healthcare workers in a small study who had mild breakthrough infections ended up with long haul.
Wouldn't it be nice if our CDC hadn't opted to stop reporting on breakthroughs that do not result in hospitalizations and/or deaths?
OhioChick & her 2 ER dr. Sons ALL were fully vaxed & are now suffering terribly with long haul. 💔
It's hard when people reply to an argument you are not making.
I realize that most of the negativity is due to mis-reading or misinterpreting what I actually said, but, it's discouraging that a simple request that the news sources report current risks and current data and not use months old data gets such a negative response.
People should re-read what I actually wrote and point where they disagree with what I actually said.
Thanks for the discussion!
Same here.
I've been fully vaxed since March, have advocated for others to do likewise & wear N95 or KN95 masks.
My only point was to continue to be careful. 😏
😷 
I prefer to believe that people misread what I actually wrote, but the personal negativity was a bit over the top in some replies.
Thanks again.
posters.
The ironic AF thing is that some of this is coming from people who (rightly so) are hardcore about all (even fully vaxxed) people wearing masks again, yet the false line they are pushing with these ludicrous prevention of infection numbers provides huge ammo to the anti-maskers (especially for fully vaxxed people).
Pardon the paraphrase, but post titles are limited to length, but that's EXACTLY the point !
The ironic AF thing is that some of this is coming from people who (rightly so) are hardcore about all (even fully vaxxed) people wearing masks again, yet the false line they are pushing with these ludicrous prevention of infection numbers provides huge ammo to the anti-maskers (especially for fully vaxxed people)
I am stunned and taken aback at some of the responses taking me to task for feeling that news sources as respected as AXIOS and NBC news are still quoting statistics using old data that is most probably understating the current risks.
man o man...
and feel safer keeping their heads in the sand, so to speak.
Human nature. Gotta love it.
Thank you for your highly informative posts backed up by actual data.
Last edited Mon Aug 2, 2021, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)
Yesterday on CNN, Anderson Cooper was interviewing a former public health official/doctor about the CDC's latest mask guidelines.
That person, pardon me for forgetting his name, said that the 6 foot social distancing guideline is essentially out dated because the delta variant is more readily transmitted. Andersen asked him what was a safe indoor social-distancing distance then, the reply was much further, depending on conditions. He said if you could smell someone smoking a cigarette in a given location, indoor or outdoor, then that is the distance he felt you could contract the delta variant at from an infected person. He said that could be across a room indoors or tens of feet outdoors.
Personally, if that was accurate, I thinking knowing that information is vital to us all in trying to keep ourselves and our familes as safe as possible.
I don't think it's wrong to ask for current information and current guidelines based on current data from our respected mainstream news sources.
"It's distressing that there are so many here that willfully focus on the negative to the point of obsession."
Hmmm. Consider this post from ealier in the thread:
23. I found this
“For other states that publish data like Utah, it's clear breakthrough cases have accelerated in the past two months. In Utah on June 2, 2021, just 27 or 8 percent of the 312 new cases in the state were breakthrough cases. As of July 26 there were 519 new cases and almost 20 percent or 94 were breakthroughs, according to state data.
In Virginia, total breakthrough cases resulting in death from Covid-19 went from 17 in mid-July to 42 on Friday.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1275500
Would it be willfully focusing on the negative to the point of obsession to take note of the current actual breakthru infection rate and the current increase in fatalities of even vaccinated people due to the Delta variant surge?
Asking for a friend....
I can answer that, 100%, of course! lol But I take your point.
But being serious, the issue is are vaccinated people more protected from the Delta variant than the unvaccinated, and to what degree.
I couldn't find vaccine totals for a given date for Virginia, but I could for Utah.
https://coronavirus-dashboard.utah.gov/vaccines.html
Vacines administer:
as of June 1 = 2,657,162
as of August 1 = 3035117
That's an increase of 12.5%
and from that excerpt I posted:
Hmmm. on June 2, 2021, just 27 or 8 percent of the 312 new cases in the state were break thru. In July there were 519 new case, 94 breakthru cases for a breakthru percentage of 20%.
Huh, look at that. Your point exactly. Vaccination totals rose by 12% and the beakthru cases increased by 12%, more or less, during the Delta variant surge.
Wow, that's good news. right? or is it... No it's not. Because the excerpt I posted didn't just list percentages, it showed total new cases, which increased.
You would hope that if vaccinations increased that the total number of new cases would go down, right? But it did not.
But, heh, someone might say that is due to the Delta variant hitting the unvaccinated harder, increasing the total cases.
OK, but that's not what the Utah data showed. It showed an increase in total covid 19 cases in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations at virtually the same rate.
So, let me ask a better question than I did last time, would it be willfully concentrating on the negative to the point of being obsessive to notice that vaccinated and unvaccinated infections are increasing in Utah at the same rate?
In all seriousness, I would have expected to see that the % of breakthru cases DECLINED due to the vaccinated being better protected from the Delta variant than the unvaccinated, but that didn't happen.
Isn't that a reasonable basis for increased concern?
Asking for a friend...
All kidding aside, thank you for a thought provoking discussion.
The CDC is adjusting masking guidelines NOW due to the Delta variant.
The thing about science is that the CDC is right to re-evaluate its guidelines as the facts on the ground change due to the surge of the Delta variant. Has the Delta variant increased the risks for us vaccinated people? Current data seems to show it has:
A poster in this thread provided this information and informative links:
23. I found this
“For other states that publish data like Utah, it's clear breakthrough cases have accelerated in the past two months. In Utah on June 2, 2021, just 27 or 8 percent of the 312 new cases in the state were breakthrough cases. As of July 26 there were 519 new cases and almost 20 percent or 94 were breakthroughs, according to state data.
In Virginia, total breakthrough cases resulting in death from Covid-19 went from 17 in mid-July to 42 on Friday.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1275500
Thanks for the discussion.
Last edited Mon Aug 2, 2021, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)
I agree, but would go even further, what we need is the total number of breakthru infections for people that have tested positive for the Delta variant. And their hospitalization rates and fatalities.
That is the point of my OP. Using data from months ago in statistics is misleading and probably underestimating the current risk for even vaccinated people. Hence the latest CDC guidelines urging even vaccinated people to mask up indoors.
So, people should re-read my OP post, especially that part where I said:
Our respected mainstream news sources need to use current data to tell us the current risks so we all can make informed decisions to keep ourselves and our families as safe as possible.
And right now, due to the increased risks of the Delta variant surge, the best advice seems to be get vaccinated, mask up (especially indoors) and observe a greater degree of social distancing.
Thanks for the discussion.
And that's the point om my OP post. The two news sources I cited in my OP post, AXIOS and NBC News, were citing statistics based on data that is months and months old.
Consider this from the OP:
Axios: Less than 0.1% of vaccinated Americans have been infected with COVID-19 and only 0.004% have been hospitalized.
That might be true, but it is misleading and does not give people an accurate view of the current risks.
Contrast that 0.004% hospitalization statistic with the recent statement made by Dr Fauci that hospialization rates for vaccinated people are actually much higher, around 4%. Here is one of the excellent posts a responder has made in this thread discussing this apparent contradiction:
76. The only truly reliable data for ALL breakthrough infections of any sort in a group are the vax
long terms studies and trials. The best vax against Delta (Pfizer) data is showing that out of 100 fully vaxxed people, 20 or will have breakthrough infections, 12 of those 20 will be symptomatic, and 4 of those 20 will end up having to be hospitalised to some level.
Obviously there are studies (the infamous Israeli one for a perfect example) that show much lower effective rates (and also a decrease in effectiveness as time flows by) but I am going to focus on the highest, best results out there to avoid any perceived Cassandra-like behaviour emanating from my posts.
It is just ludicrous to say that out of 1,300 fully vaxxed people, ONE will have a breakthrough infection of any sort, yet here we are, with multiple posters on here claiming this utter bollocks.
NO vaccine firm has ever remotely claimed 99.9+% efficacy against infection. The highest of any widely available vax was 95% clinical trial efficacy (and 90% real world effectiveness) with Pfizer against the origin strain.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/delta-variant-what-we-know-about-the-efficacy-of-covid-vaccines/2427527/
Another study, cited by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggests that
the Pfizer vaccine is approximately
80% effective against preventing infection from Delta
88% effective at preventing symptomatic disease and
96% effective at preventing hospitalizations caused by the virus
https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2021/delta-coronavirus-variant.html
In closing, first let me say thanks for the discussion, but allow me to reply to one of your last comments:
Well, what I want is right now is for respected mainstream news sources, like Axios and NBC News, to stop reporting misleading statistics based on outdated data and report instead the current statistics that people like Dr Fauci are providing us. They are, after all _news_ sources, they have an obligation to stay as current as possible.
Thanks for a thoughtful discussion.
Duh. You are right, I didn't work the math percentages out correctly.
The latest numbers shown by Dr. Fauci are that "only" 20% of vaccinated people exposed to covid now would be infected.
And of that 20%, "only" 4% of those would require hospitalization, or 0.8%.
Compare that to the statistics I felt were misleading:
Many people reading that, as demonstrated in this thread, thought that meant there was tiny chance of a vaccinated person catching covid and a vanishingly small chance that they would need to be hospitalized.
But that's not the case at all. Right now, Dr Fauci cites studies that say 20% of vaccinated people exposed to covid would be infected. Not the 0.1% if we consider catching it from the total population, infected or not.
See the difference in emphasis and why it misleads so many people? its an apples to orange comparison using outdated data to boot.
What people are worried about is "if I am exposed to someone with covid TODAY, what is the chance I would catch it from them?" so they can make informed decisions on how to live their lives.
The answer, of course, is to be vaccinated, mask up, and social distance even more than before. I think the numbers cited by AXIOS do a disservice by confusing the issue and leading too many people to think they don't need to take these reasonable preventive measures.
Well, I hope this explains my viewpoint more clearly.
Thank you for the discussion.
Last edited Mon Aug 2, 2021, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Yes, I know what Efficacy means:
For instance, both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were primarily evaluated for their ability to prevent symptomatic COVID-19, with the former having a 95% efficacy and the latter having a 94% efficacy. This means your risk of getting sick is cut by 94% or more if you are vaccinated.
Other vaccines may report efficacy figures for infection or for moderate or severe disease.
It’s important to note that efficacy is the measure used in a clinical trial, and real-world performance, called effectiveness, could be somewhat lower. That will be measured in observational studies. One such study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were 90% effective in real-world conditions, two weeks after the second dose, and 80% effective two weeks after the first dose.
You are absolutely correct, I should have been saying "compared to the control group".
But what are the actual infection numbers for the control group? The rightwingers say hardly no one ever gets covid, we don't need to get vaccinated, we don't need to wear masks.
Personally, I don't know what the current actual infection rate after exposure is for the unvaccinated. And I am asking this non-sarcastically so please don't misinterpret my tone, do you?
My personal approach has been to view efficacy as I have presented here, assume the delta variant is infectious to the point where 100% of the unvaccinated who are exposed will get infected. Am I wrong, perhaps. But right now no one knows how wrong that might be, so I prefer to err on the side of safety.
Again, I think news sources citing statistics stating only 0.1% of vaccinated Americans have BEEN infected (TO DATE) is too easily misinterpreted by too many people to the point of causing harm.
Your mileage might vary.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Here's a nice article stating how much more contagious the delta variant is:
We asked Gounder what this could mean for everyday life: Would an unmasked, unvaccinated person catch the delta variant if they merely walked by someone with the delta variant in the grocery aisle?
"The probability of them catching it is equivalent to what it would have been with the same scenario x 15 minutes early in the pandemic," Gounder told PolitiFact. "That wasn’t 100%. This isn’t 100%. But 15 minutes then is equivalent to 1 second now."
It’s difficult to quantify someone’s chances of catching COVID-19 in a one-second interaction, Gounder said. Factors include ventilation levels in various indoor settings.
Gounder also pointed to a similar takeaway by Kimberly Prather, an atmospheric chemist at UC San Diego, calling the possibility of fleeting exposure leading to a delta variant infection "certainly possible."
We ran the same grocery store scenario by Prather: Would one second be all it takes for an unmasked and unvaccinated person to catch the delta variant?
"No, that is not the case," Prather said." There are many factors (for each individual) that affect how much it takes for someone to ‘catch delta.’ For example some people have much stronger immune systems, which will fight off a certain level of virus. Others are more vulnerable."
Prather said her most important message is that if everyone is wearing masks, the chance of infection plummets.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jul/28/how-contagious-delta-variant-it-isnt-easy-quantify/
Good lord, it's as contagious as chicken pox. Experts feel a ONE SECOND exposure might be enough to become infected.
Again, good lord. The article continues...
Their opinions may evolve as more research is performed.
In 2020, scientists warned that the CDC’s guidance about exposure in 15 minutes was not a magic number, and that someone could catch the disease in less than 15 minutes.
Jing Lu, one of the authors of the China study, told us that for the delta variant the "most quick transmission event we identified from epidemiological investigation is ~15 seconds."
But scientists we spoke with had varying opinions about extrapolating from the study about how much exposure time would lead to someone getting infected. Different factors affect whether someone gets infected including the ventilation of indoor spaces, peoples’ different immune systems, and peoples’ individual behavior, including whether they wear a mask.
The dynamics of infection don’t allow us to extrapolate perfectly from the data in the preprint study about the odds of getting infected within a certain amount of time of exposure, said Stephen Kissler, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of immunology and infectious diseases at Harvard.
Kissler said it’s possible someone could get infected in one second, but he said it's unlikely someone will catch delta by just passing someone in the supermarket. "If you were to calibrate your risk before in your day-to-day life, you know basically that you are twice as likely to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 as you were before," Kissler said.
John Moore, professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, said there are several emerging reports "on the grapevine" that delta infections are associated with unusually high nasal viral load compared to earlier variants.
"Where there is a knowledge gap is whether there is a direct relationship between the amount of virus present on a nasal swab and the amount that is breathed/sneezed out," Moore said. Gounder’s "calculation is based on the premise that there is such a relationship, which seems reasonable," Moore said.
"But there are unknowns on the numbers," Moore said. "Is there truly 1,000-fold more virus shed from delta-infected people? Is the CDC estimate of 15 minutes truly precise? I can’t answer those questions with certainty."
Medical experts F. Perry Wilson, Ben Cowling, and Donald K. Milton essentially agreed.
I think we have strayed far enough, perhaps way too far lol, from the original topic of my OP post, namely the news sources need to stop citing misleading statistics. Especially in light of the fact that a ONE SECOND exposure to the delta variant could infect you.
Dinner calls! I hope you enjoy your evening.
Many times.
You are just arguing that the statistics are "accurate" and ignoring how misleading they are.
here is a post from a responder to this thread that summed it up more clearly:
107. Correct.
Based on the numbers Dr. Fauci gave (96% effectiveness against hospitalized), 99.975% of unvaccinated individuals were not hospitalized with COVID. In other words, during the time period measured - hospitalization with COVID was extremely rare. (A breakthrough case is even rarer. But during this time period only .025% of even unvaccinated people were hospitalized with COVID. Which makes the.001% seem less fantastic than it does wtihout the reality check against the general state of getting COVID.)
That sounds to me like fantastic protection by just not getting vaccinated!!!!
Effectiveness can ONLY be measured by comparing what happens in a vaccinated population to what happens in a like group of unvaccinated. What happens solely in the vaccinated populatino provides little to no useful information.
That's well put and spot on.
Enjoy your evening.
Here is a post from another responder in this thread making the point that the AXIOS and NBC NEWS statistic was misleading people about the current risk levels:
126. Yep.
The 99.99 % numbers media is throwing around is confusing the hell out of some people.
All it says that out of millions of vaccinated, so far a small number died.
It doesn't say anything about all those millions even being exposed to covid. Obviously not all of them were exposed to covid.
It doesn't indicate 99.99 % protection from covid by the vaccine. It doesn't tell a vaccinated person what their risk is going to be if they are exposed. It also doesn't say how many will die in the future, now that delta became dominant.
This response is concise and spot on.
Well, there is no point in repeating the same thing over and over.
lol
Apparently this portion of the discussion has come to an end.
Enjoy your day.
Last edited Mon Aug 2, 2021, 07:52 PM - Edit history (2)
long terms studies and trials.
Obviously there are studies (the infamous Israeli one for a perfect example) that show much lower effective rates (and also a decrease in effectiveness as time flows by) but I am going to focus on the highest, best results out there to avoid any perceived Cassandra-like behaviour emanating from my posts.
It is just ludicrous to say that out of 1,300 fully vaxxed people, ONE will have a breakthrough infection of any sort, yet here we are, with multiple posters on here claiming this utter bollocks.
NO vaccine firm has ever remotely claimed 99.9+% efficacy against infection. The highest of any widely available vax was 95% clinical trial efficacy (and 90% real world effectiveness) with Pfizer against the origin strain.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/delta-variant-what-we-know-about-the-efficacy-of-covid-vaccines/2427527/
Another study, cited by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, suggests that
80% effective against preventing infection from Delta
88% effective at preventing symptomatic disease and
96% effective at preventing hospitalizations caused by the virus
https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2021/delta-coronavirus-variant.html
Thank you.
thanks!
and I myself posted on the difference between efficacy and effectiveness
so I shall concede the argument
for all of the discussion that has come with it. I'm in a state with a low vaccination rate where almost everyone in my area has stopped wearing masks. Aside from about a week or two in late June / early July when I felt comfortable going unmasked around vaccinated friends and family members, I've kept my mask on around others and still limited my time out in public. I'm very, very glad I didn't let my guard down any more than that. One of my cousins died a couple of weeks ago (unrelated to COVID) and I was uneasy enough about Delta that I missed the funeral. I was the one of the few who didn't attend, and felt awful about it. I wondered if I'd overreacted. Now I don't think I did, and I still worry about everyone who was there.
It's maddening that the virus is roaring back when we were so close to tamping it down. It's infuriating that the reasons why are so avoidable. But wanting the situation to be different won't make it so, and accurate information can be a matter of life and death. I know that having gotten the Pfizer vaccine dramatically lowers my risk of illness or death, but it doesn't magically make the risks go away. It's important to be realistic about this. News sources do need to be more accurate about the numbers, and in some cases they are letting us down. I think it's benign negligence, partly due to genuine lack of understanding. Given these are news sources... This discussion has helped me immensely. It's a discussion of reality, not alarmism.
Thanks again.
eta - dovetailing with your post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215690988
Last edited Mon Aug 2, 2021, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)
My OP post was about two respected mainstream news sources that I felt were presenting misleading statistics based on outdated data.
I feel they have an obligation to present information in a straightforward and clear manner that cannot be easily misinterpreted by the general public. But when they say only 0.1% of vaccinated Americans have been infected and only 0.004% of vaccinated Americans have been hospitalized, I think that has given way to many people the wrong impression of the risks and how they should respond to the pandemic.
According to recent studies, Dr fauci says 80% of vaccinated people EXPOSED to covid would be infected. He says of the 20% infected, 4% would need to be hospitalized, or 0.8% from the total of vaccinated people exposed to covid.
That paints an entirely different picture to the person wondering what the risk is when they go shopping near unmasked and potentially unvaccinated people. Which, I think, is the point you just made.
The difference is that Dr Fauci's numbers are for people EXPOSED to covid, and the numbers from AXIOS in the OP were for people incontact with the general population that may or may not have had covid MONTHS ago. Big difference in my mind. What's the actual risk for a given individual in a given town? Who knows... but I am erring on the side of safety personally.
Thanks for the feedback, I hope this thread has done some good.
I gauge my response on the reaction of the CDC and our prominent leaders in Washington, virtually all of whom have stepped up into a state of higher awareness, urging people to get vaccinated, getting vaccinated themselves and urging increased mask wearing and social distancing.
Experts estimate that a 15 minute exposure to the original strain, the time they felt was required to contract the disease on average, could be as low as 1 second now for exposure to the delta variant. It's that much more contagious.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jul/28/how-contagious-delta-variant-it-isnt-easy-quantify/
Couple this with studies showing reduced protection from current vaccines, being more cautious on a personal basis is just common sense.
Best regards.
And thanks for pointing out the flip side of that statistic, that during that time period only .025% of even unvaccinated people were hospitalized with COVID and how misleading that is.
"That sounds to me like fantastic protection by just not getting vaccinated!!!!"
I added the sarcasm tag just so no one would be mislead by that. lol