Surprising Covid-19 stats or sloppy journalism? FT: An unvaxxed 30 yr old has a lower chance of death than a vaxxed 45 yr old

Titan wrote:

Why would you get vac for a thing that is not more dangerous than a cold?

All it does is lessen your immunity.

Unless you're maybe 75 plus.

Such BS.

Death isn't the only negative effect of this virus.

Look here and tell me how many of them are 75+:

Stop being a moron.

Flagpole wrote:

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

Obesity is also a major risk factor, as well as poor heart and lung function. Low Vitamin D is a big one too. It is a disgrace that our political class and media aren't as upfront and forceful about these factors. God forbid we tell fat people to lose weight. The left wants to deny medical care to the unvaxxed. How about we deny it to everyone with a BMI over 30.

You know about all those risk factors, because those risk factors have been reported over and over and over again. The fact is that DESPITE those risk factors, we have a way to stop the dying...the vaccine.

There just is NO valid argument for not getting vaccinated. Not a single one.

Despite those risk factors, we have a way to "stop the dying...the vaccine"? Intriguing...

that's actually not how it works for sun exposure / melanoma, jamin

https://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20140530/5-or-more-bad-sunburns-while-young-tied-to-higher-melanoma-risk

jamb innn wrote:

Everyone is their own risk manager. Life is one big operational risk management exercise....

Except until you arent free to make your own decision is now a government mandate...

BS

You would not know where to look.

Did you check that the bridge you drive over is in a good state? No, you trust other people to do that.

Do you understand your car well enough to know that it is safely engineered? No, you trust other people to do that.

The list goes on and on.

Without governments mandates for health measures like early vaccinations and a working sewer system you probably would be already dead 3 times over.

Flagpole wrote:

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

Obesity is also a major risk factor, as well as poor heart and lung function. Low Vitamin D is a big one too. It is a disgrace that our political class and media aren't as upfront and forceful about these factors. God forbid we tell fat people to lose weight. The left wants to deny medical care to the unvaxxed. How about we deny it to everyone with a BMI over 30.

You know about all those risk factors, because those risk factors have been reported over and over and over again. The fact is that DESPITE those risk factors, we have a way to stop the dying...the vaccine.

There just is NO valid argument for not getting vaccinated. Not a single one.

Here's one.

Natural immunity acquired by getting the virus and recovering is superior to the protection the Vax gives.

Yet vaccines are being mandated for those with natural immunity.

From a public heath standpoint, this makes no sense.

This is all about pushing the vaxx. Not to be trusted

rojo wrote:

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net%2Fprod%2F945a7db0-ebd2-11eb-bfd5-1b68353fb30e-standard.png?dpr=1&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&source=next&width=700

Awesome visual. Thanks for posting it.

Wouldn't it be great if someone did a similar study over something people CAN control? Like weight? Or vitamin D levels?

Obesity increases mortality by about 30%, IIRC. Vitamin D benefits are harder to measure because it's almost impossible to get D above 30ng/ml without supplementation. Below 20 is extremely high risk. Most seniors are in the mid to upper teens.

It would be relatively easy to do human challenge trials on vitamin D, although it might take a couple of months to get the target group above 30ng/ml. I was at 59ng/ml at my most recent test.

(note, not peer reviewed yet)

quote:

Results: One population study and seven clinical studies were identified, which reported D3 blood levels pre-infection or on the day of hospital admission. They independently showed a negative Pearson correlation of D3 levels and mortality risk (r(17)=-.4154, p=.0770/r(13)=-.4886, p=.0646). For the combined data, median (IQR) D3 levels were 23.2 ng/ml (17.4 – 26.8), and a significant Pearson correlation was observed (r(32)=-.3989, p=.0194). Regression suggested a theoretical point of zero mortality at approximately 50 ng/ml D3.

Conclusions: The two datasets provide strong evidence that low D3 is a predictor rather than a side effect of the infection. Despite ongoing vaccinations, we recommend raising serum 25(OH)D levels to above 50 ng/ml to prevent or mitigate new outbreaks due to escape mutations or decreasing antibody activity.

I'm still staggered no one is bothering to pay for proper vitamin D studies, especially for the already active forms of Vit d like Calcitriol. Eg

quote: There were 3 deaths and 4 readmissions in the control group and 0 deaths and 2 readmissions in the calcitriol group.

Far too small numbers in itself, but there is enough info to warrant proper testing.

Flagpole wrote:

There just is NO valid argument for not getting vaccinated. Not a single one.

Incorrect.

Hurno wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

You know about all those risk factors, because those risk factors have been reported over and over and over again. The fact is that DESPITE those risk factors, we have a way to stop the dying...the vaccine.

There just is NO valid argument for not getting vaccinated. Not a single one.

Despite those risk factors, we have a way to "stop the dying...the vaccine"? Intriguing...

Intriguing only the the ignorant.

Yes the vaccine works but so does losing weight. Get the vaccine and lose weight and you are doubly protected. Fat people don't care about one of those preventative measures.

The Unkle wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

You know about all those risk factors, because those risk factors have been reported over and over and over again. The fact is that DESPITE those risk factors, we have a way to stop the dying...the vaccine.

There just is NO valid argument for not getting vaccinated. Not a single one.

Here's one.

Natural immunity acquired by getting the virus and recovering is superior to the protection the Vax gives.

Yet vaccines are being mandated for those with natural immunity.

From a public heath standpoint, this makes no sense.

This is all about pushing the vaxx. Not to be trusted

Nope. Falsehood. Natural immunity is NOT superior to those protected by vaccines. Just simply not true. People who are infected with COVID-19 have a differing immune response depending on the viral load. As we know today anyway, the immunity goes away, so to be properly protected, even if you've had COVID once, you will need to get regular (again, it looks like it will be annual going forward) vaccination. I hope you aren't suggesting that people just go get COVID every year.

And, of course, we have to start with the fact that the vaccine helps prevent you from getting COVID to begin with, and then even if you do, it greatly limits serious illness and death.

I’ve seen Rojo be criticised for claiming to support vaccinations but actively undermining them.

I then read the first post of this thread and get the criticism.

lols like you'd know "sloppy journalism" lols

[quote]Flagpole wrote:

Nope. Falsehood. Natural immunity is NOT superior to those protected by vaccines. Just simply not true.

The above comment tells us all we need to know about Flagpole.

Medical Ethics wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

There just is NO valid argument for not getting vaccinated. Not a single one.

Incorrect.

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101

Nope, YOU are incorrect.

The immunity you get either from being infected or from the vaccine wears off, so that at some point you will need to be vaccinated to keep up your immunity. If you are saying you should just get infected again and again, that is moronic, not feasible, dangerous, and since you can not control the viral load, your level of immunity would differ each time.

The CDC recommends that you get vaccinated even if you have had a COVID-19 infection.

Here's a bit from their website:

"Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again.

If you were treated for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, you should wait 90 days before getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Talk to your doctor if you are unsure what treatments you received or if you have more questions about getting a COVID-19 vaccine."

Thanks for posting this. Based on average age... 64 in the control group and 69 in the vitamin D group... the D group should have had significantly higher mortality.

It's also promising that these results were obtained AFTER the patients were hospitalized. Had these patients been routinely supplementing with vitamin D, they might not have been hospitalized in the first place.

This is why I've wanted human challenge trials on vitamin D. I'm sure we could find thousands of volunteers. Once the test subjects reached the desired level of D, say 50ng/ml, then the actual test could be finished in a month or two.

The Unkle wrote:

[quote]Flagpole wrote:

Nope. Falsehood. Natural immunity is NOT superior to those protected by vaccines. Just simply not true.

The above comment tells us all we need to know about Flagpole.

Yep...that I am informed on this subject and you are not.

Titan wrote:

Why would you get vac for a thing that is not more dangerous than a cold?

All it does is lessen your immunity.

Unless you're maybe 75 plus.

Because it takes the small risk of death pretty much off the table.

Let me ask you this:

Why would you think that something that has killed 600,000+ people i the US alone is "not more dangerous" than a cold?

This isn't as bad as the 1919 flu but it's not the cold.

I get it. Big Pharma needs to be questioned but why would you think the vaccine is going to be more dangerous than a regular vaccine?