Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1979199)

Some small % of vaccinated people have a "breakout" situation where they are CARRIERS of CV without knowing it and they are asymptomatic. If testing were 100% available and 100% accurate we would know more about this situation, which will, hopefully, become more known in the future. Nevertheless, it does NOT invalidate the worth of vaccines at the macro, societywide level. It is more like a glitch in terms of overall public health. It means that the UNvaccinated have a slightly greater chance of getting CV because of these "breakthroughs". The UNvaccinated still have about the same HIGH chance of getting CV and the same chance of being an incubator environment for the VIRUS. Sports teams and the Olympics have more and better (I assume) testing than for most average people - so, they locate more "breakthroughs". These players spend more time closely together indoors than the average person. And they get more than average press. So, it could seem like "breakthroughs" are the rule and not the exception.

Originally Posted by Villageswimmer (Post 1979197)

All I’m hearing about is masks. Is SD still a thing?

I always thought it was believed to be more effective than masks.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1979185)

Israel seems to be considering boosters on a case by case basis and I can't find anything about Canada ordering 10 boosters per year. Do you have a source for your claims?

Neither the Israel news not the masks have anything to do with short term immunity so I guess nothing does.

Originally Posted by Irishmen (Post 1979213)

Originally Posted by ROCKMUP (Post 1979219)

I took the time to read the whole thread, what a train wreck.

OMG, people are dying ! Save the children ! Yep, every single moment in far larger numbers than this. From abuse, alcohol, opiates, heart disease, failed organs, diabetes, obesity and on and on.
Are you this worried about those deaths because this thread didn't read like that at all. It reads like a bunch of virtue signaling to help you sleep at night.
How horribly sad.

Originally Posted by John41 (Post 1979221)

A NYT article reported that vaccine accessibility among lower income households is a major factor in their not getting vaccinated. These workers do not have the time off flexibility that 9 to 5 white collar workers do. Additionally some vaccines must be administered in groups of 10 and if there aren’t that many signed up the appointments are cancelled. According to the NYT radical antivaxers are a very small minority. Also those not yet vaccinated are becoming targets of hate by those vaccinated.

Originally Posted by John41 (Post 1979221)

A NYT article reported that vaccine accessibility among lower income households is a major factor in their not getting vaccinated. These workers do not have the time off flexibility that 9 to 5 white collar workers do. Additionally some vaccines must be administered in groups of 10 and if there aren’t that many signed up the appointments are cancelled. According to the NYT radical antivaxers are a very small minority. Also those not yet vaccinated are becoming targets of hate by those vaccinated.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1979514)

Sad to say but it is only going to get worse when everyone will be required to mask up indoors. I still do not buy the fact that vaccinated people can spread this virus at any rate that would prompt the need for them to mask up. What happened to the claim that the viral load in a vaccinated person is not enough to be contagious to others. Has this Delta variant changed all that? I'm so dismayed.

Originally Posted by S=kBlogW (Post 1979518)

Perhaps you know more about this than the Director of the CDC?

Answers are in the Naughty antivaxxer refusenicks thread.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1979537)

I did ask, "has this Delta variant changed all that?" I do not claim to know more than the Director of the CDC. Just very dismayed.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1979537)

I did ask, "has this Delta variant changed all that?" I do not claim to know more than the Director of the CDC. Just very dismayed.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1979537)

I did ask, "has this Delta variant changed all that?" I do not claim to know more than the Director of the CDC. Just very dismayed.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1979548)

Well, yes, the delta variant has changed the playing field.
However, the person who keeps posting that the vaccinated have HIGHER viral loads than the unvaccinated is plain wrong. The CDC termed the viral loads "indistinguishable" in each group. Not HIGHER. But regardless, that does not prove anything about transmissibility. And it certainly does not address transmissibility from one vaccinated person to another, which IMHO must be quite rare. And that's why making the vaccinated go back to masking is pretty much nonsense. As far as the CDC director goes, she is looking not just at the science, but the politics as well.

Originally Posted by S=kBlogW (Post 1979563)

You keep saying this but what political advantage does it give them to reverse course on mask guidance for the vaccinated?

In my other thread I admitted to the mistake of saying higher instead of "as high as" but it really doesn't matter if the vaccinated are spreaders of delta.

Why would CDC/administration reverse course on mask policy for the vaccinated? To
convince more to vaccinate? :popcorn:

Originally Posted by drducat (Post 1979115)

My opinion is...The vax is in trial...Some people are most likely receiving a placebo/saline is why vaccinated are getting infected so easily. Also why vaccinated are being asked to wear a mask.

Originally Posted by drducat (Post 1979115)

My opinion is...The vax is in trial...Some people are most likely receiving a placebo/saline is why vaccinated are getting infected so easily. Also why vaccinated are being asked to wear a mask.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1979597)

Didn't i see that on an episode of "The Twilight Zone". Or was it "The Outer Limits". In either case that theory belongs on "Fantasy Island"

Originally Posted by S=kBlogW (Post 1979541)

True, but you also said "I don't buy it"

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1979547)

“The change in guidance was driven by the delta variant's higher transmissibility and new evidence from the CDC that in rare cases, fully vaccinated individuals who get infected with the variant can spread the virus just as easily as unvaccinated people.

"This new science is worrisome and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendations," CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said Tuesday in a news briefing.”

Experts back CDC change on masks as delta variant spreads

“The change was met with relief from experts who said masking up again is essential to combat the highly contagious delta variant.”

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1979548)

Well, yes, the delta variant has changed the playing field.
However, the person who keeps posting that the vaccinated have HIGHER viral loads than the unvaccinated is plain wrong. The CDC termed the viral loads "indistinguishable" in each group. Not HIGHER. But regardless, that does not prove anything about transmissibility. And it certainly does not address transmissibility from one vaccinated person to another, which IMHO must be quite rare. And that's why making the vaccinated go back to masking is pretty much nonsense. As far as the CDC director goes, she is looking not just at the science, but the politics as well.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1979514)

Sad to say but it is only going to get worse when everyone will be required to mask up indoors. I still do not buy the fact that vaccinated people can spread this virus at any rate that would prompt the need for them to mask up. What happened to the claim that the viral load in a vaccinated person is not enough to be contagious to others. Has this Delta variant changed all that? I'm so dismayed.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1979649)

So, basically, the vaccinated are being asked to wear masks to protect those who refuse to be vaccinated. If that is what this is all about, I'm NOT on board with this new guidance for everyone to mask up indoors. Anti-vaxxers and hesitant vaxxers be damned and live or die with your own decision to not get the vaccine.

Those people who are unable to get vaccinated or are not eligible for vaccines should be either staying in their homes or wearing N95 masks when out and about. They need to protect themselves. Don't expect vaccinated people protect them forever by mask wearing. Sorry, I'm just not going to do that. I honestly feel I'm already doing a lot of protecting of others just by being vaccinated. That has not changed.

You know I was the mask queen and a proponent of masking BEFORE the advent of these life saving vaccines. My mask stance is changed now.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1979574)

Best guess-----to make wearing a mask enforceable. Clearly, the unvaccinated are not following the recommendation to wear a mask, and can easily hide in a group that is 1/2 masked and 1/2 unmasked. Even at shows here in the Villages, where 7-800 are attending at the Savannah Center, only a dozen or so are masked. While we do have a pretty high percentage of vaccinated persons, I doubt it is 98% so even here the unvaccinated are going without masks. Which I suppose makes sense since anyone who doesn't want the vaccine is unlikely to voluntarily wear a mask if they can get away with it.

If they make a recommendation for all to mask, it makes the persons without a mask obvious. Of course that means that the vaccinated are being unnecessarily "punished" because of the actions of the anti-vaxxers.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1979640)

How RARE is RARE? I need an answer to that before I start masking up again in indoor public spaces when there is no sign posted or when it is only recommended.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1979695)

We NEEDED a 95% vaccination rate. We missed that boat to NO masks, more freedom, happiness, and a stronger America.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1979715)

I have noticed that Florida sometimes does not follow Science.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 1979710)

Yes, the vaccinated are being "punished" by the UNvaccinated! That could be shouted from the rooftops. And it may be TOO late. The VIRUS never stops. It may be mutating as we speak right here among the UNvaccinated of TV Land into a NEW variant that NO vaccine can stop. Why are we heaping SO MANY burdens on our young children? Clearly, the rewards for taking the vaccine VASTLY outweigh any small risk.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1979703)

Unfortunately, that decision is up to the powers to be, and they likely have a political agenda as well as a medical one.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1979719)

This is nonsense. Only recently, 12 year and older were eligible for vaccination. Before that, the age cut off was 18 years old. About 25% of the US population is 18 or younger. You used the past tense (needed) - that was never going to happen with about 25% of the population ineligible to take the vaccination.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1979749)

Sad face.

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1979754)

You folks keep speaking to the subject that we are not to speak of, but remember......the Federal government can do nothing except wit those governed directly by federal, airports, etc. this they have done, and word is will step up further by requiring vaccines at federal level.

The goal on vaccinations was to be July 4, 24 days ago, and not sure what else they are to do.

Already many states have said there will be no cooperation, and on the federal level, suits are already in the mill.

While the anti government folks simply complain loudly and are pretty solid in stating their objection to anything that might contribute to slowing or stopping......

The only folks left to blame are the unvaccinated.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1979753)

"Recently" is subjective. The age minimum was changed on May 12. Parents have had well over two months to get their teenage kids vaccinated. In cities and suburbs, there's really no excuse not to. In rural areas there might be more difficulty getting TO a vaccine site, since there's no pharmacy just down the street. But then, in rural areas, there are fewer people. The vast majority of the American population resides in cities and suburbs. And THOSE folks have easy access to vaccines.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1979779)

Try to stay on point. I was referring to the comment that we needed to be at 95% vaccinated. I have no idea what time frame he was referring to with the word "needed". As I already pointed out, that was not a possibility, regardless of the timeframe. May was 2 months ago - certainly within the timeframe of "needed" ??? Those under 12 are still not eligible and make up about 14% of the population. The poster I was responding to regular states all kinds of nonsense. Got it now?

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1979802)

Can you provide a link for that 95% number? I believe that was the requirement for Measles, it is an extremely contagious disease. I have not heard a percentage for COVID-19 yet. I think the numbers are still being crunched. If you have a source, I would seriously be interested in it.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1979806)

I hope you are not directing this question to me. I am not the person who threw that number out there. I am the one who said it was unachievable because of the 25% of the population who weren't eligible for the vaccine. Ask the poster who threw out this nonsensical number. Go back and read the previous posts.

Originally Posted by coffeebean (Post 1978814)

True. But.....the vaccinated are not getting sick and dying. The un-vaxxed are the people who are dying. So, I repeat. Why should the vaccinated have to mask up to protect those who do not want to protect themselves?