Bryson Dechambeau

pokerjoke

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
9,970
Location
Taunton ,Somerset
Funny. Bryson is one of the worst for being (what I would consider) moody. He constantly whines and complains. And now won't speak to much of the media.

He's very good at marketing himself as the scientist and doing things differently. He has some of the sky commentary team fawning over him. But he come across as a frat boy arse.
To some but not others
Life I suppose
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
10,919
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Theres no published indepth study into whether the Delta variant is as tranmissible in vaccinated vs non vaccinated people. The source you quote from is a small study that hasn't been peer reviewed. If you base your opinions on that then how can you dismiss real world data involving billions of people who have been jabbed, reduced transmission, hospitalisations and death?

As for long term information on the vaccination that is hardly breaking news, unless you've got a time machine that'll always be the case. However theres been proven data on the effects on Covid and that is the tip of the iceberg. So surely the evidence on long term complications is stacking way higher for Long Covid than side effects from the vaccinations?

We've opened things up entirely, have a large vaccinated population and case numbers aren't exploding like they were from even a brief relaxation in lockdowns in the past. Throw in a more transmissible variant. How do you explain that if vaccines don't help with transmission?

The study widely reported recently looked at hospitalised patients with Covid and compared viral loads in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. There were some differences in the demographics of both groups, the vaccinated being somewhat older, but the main issue is that the basic premise taken by the lay media (but not the professional media) was that transmission would therefore not be different between vaccinated and unvaccinated based only on measures of viral load. However, there is no evidence that transmissibility is simply a function of viral load.

But more importantly, the chance of vaccinated people ending up in hospital was massively lower than unvaccinated, and the vast majority of vaccinated people will have no virus at all as a result of their vaccination, so the populations are quite different and effectively incomparable. Even the authors concluded that it was critical to get people vaccinated as fast as posable. The media misunderstood the study.
 
Last edited:

4LEX

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
873
The study widely reported recently looked at hospitalised patients with Covid and compared viral loads in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. There were some differences in the demographics of both groups, the vaccinated being somewhat older, but the main issue is that the basic premise taken by the lay media (but not the professional media) was that transmission would therefore not be different between vaccinated and unvaccinated based only on measures of viral load. However, there is no evidence that transmissibility is simply a function of viral load.

But more importantly, the chance of vaccinated people ending up in hospital was massively lower than unvaccinated, and the vast majority of vaccinated people will have no virus at all as a result of their vaccination, so the populations are quite different and effectively incomparable. Even the authors concluded that it was critical to get people vaccinated as fast as posable. The media misunderstood the study.
Amazing the anti vaxxers are using such a basic study as fact when they ignore dozens of other fact based and wide covering ones that don't fit their view.
 

Pants

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
941
Amazing the anti vaxxers are using such a basic study as fact when they ignore dozens of other fact based and wide covering ones that don't fit their view.
A bit like some posters on the Forum on a wide variety of topics :rolleyes:
 

hombre_paulo

Medal Winner
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
41
The study widely reported recently looked at hospitalised patients with Covid and compared viral loads in vaccinated vs unvaccinated. There were some differences in the demographics of both groups, the vaccinated being somewhat older, but the main issue is that the basic premise taken by the lay media (but not the professional media) was that transmission would therefore not be different between vaccinated and unvaccinated based only on measures of viral load. However, there is no evidence that transmissibility is simply a function of viral load.

But more importantly, the chance of vaccinated people ending up in hospital was massively lower than unvaccinated, and the vast majority of vaccinated people will have no virus at all as a result of their vaccination, so the populations are quite different and effectively incomparable. Even the authors concluded that it was critical to get people vaccinated as fast as posable. The media misunderstood the study.
You suggest it is wrong to infer that two individuals with similar viral loads, but different vaccine statuses, would not be equally infectious to other people - fair enough it may not be just on viral load. But why would it be different at all? What would make a vaccinated person less likely to pass on the virus (other than how much virus they have)?
 

JamesR

Tour Winner
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
7,553
Location
Derby
For me he is very hard to like as a golfer.
I don’t like his swing and his putting is so rigid and uncomfortable looking.
He doesn’t shout 4 often enough, and he makes himself seem daft in interviews
Not having a jab, and his pathetic reason, only add to what I’m not a fan of.
 

chrisd

Major Champion
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
23,296
Location
Kent
For me he is very hard to like as a golfer.
I don’t like his swing and his putting is so rigid and uncomfortable looking.
He doesn’t shout 4 often enough, and he makes himself seem daft in interviews
Not having a jab, and his pathetic reason, only add to what I’m not a fan of.

Just to add a slight balance - guys at my club who marshalled at RSG said he was great and had a great sense of humour - quite the opposite as to their comments about Paul Casey who they reported to the chief marshall
 

IanM

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
7,865
Location
Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
Just to add a slight balance - guys at my club who marshalled at RSG said he was great and had a great sense of humour - quite the opposite as to their comments about Paul Casey who they reported to the chief marshall
..and there you have it. It's easy to form an opinion on what you see on tv and what you read... but when you have encountered someone, it can be can be very different.
 

JamesR

Tour Winner
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
7,553
Location
Derby
Just to add a slight balance - guys at my club who marshalled at RSG said he was great and had a great sense of humour - quite the opposite as to their comments about Paul Casey who they reported to the chief marshall
He may be the nicest guy in the world, but from what I’ve seen on tv, he seems daft.
But more importantly for me, I just don’t enjoy watching his golf game.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
10,919
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
You suggest it is wrong to infer that two individuals with similar viral loads, but different vaccine statuses, would not be equally infectious to other people - fair enough it may not be just on viral load. But why would it be different at all? What would make a vaccinated person less likely to pass on the virus (other than how much virus they have)?
The is precisely the problem. The study was taken to mean that vaccinated people carry the same risk of transmission as unvaccinated people. The study showed nothing of the sort. It showed that vaccinated and unvaccinated people admitted to hospital have the same viral load. It didn't show that viral load was a good predictor of transmissibility, but setting that aside, the bigger issue is that vaccinated people admitted to hospital are much less representative of the wider population of vaccinated people (most of whom are not going to be admitted to hospital at all, and have a viral load of zero) than for unvaccinated people. "Admitted to hospital" is a hugely discriminating filter.
 
Thread starter #56

bobmac

Major Champion
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
24,790
Location
Lincolnshire
You suggest it is wrong to infer that two individuals with similar viral loads, but different vaccine statuses, would not be equally infectious to other people - fair enough it may not be just on viral load. But why would it be different at all? What would make a vaccinated person less likely to pass on the virus (other than how much virus they have)?
I did find this from across the pond...

''A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others.''

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
10,919
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
I did find this from across the pond...

''A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others.''

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html
That is clearly true, because a lot fewer vaccinated people have any viral load and thus will not transmit what they don't have. It is not surprising that in the small minority of vaccinated people who are infected, the viral load is not very different from that in the larger proportion of unvaccinated people who are infected. Still doesn't mean transmissibility is the same, though.

It's a bit like saying that shank from a professional looks just as horrible as a shank from a high handicapper. May be true, but much less likely to happen with the pro.
 
Top