Official Covid Vaccine thread

I was saying that your usual approach of: skip all the analyses and compute confounded results from the raw data your self is, as usual, the wrong way to do it.

The fact remains that the HRs for hospitalization are not good for prior infected people. I agree the sample size is small and error bars big, but the early data doesn't look great.

Regardless, your statement about odds vax status vs. positive test making it into the EHR is obviously wrong. There are countless ways that people test -- public sites, workplace, home tests -- that have a limited chance of making into a health record. We flat out -know- that there are 2-3x more infected Americans than positive tests show, moreover. Looking at raw rates of reinfection is hopelessly confounded. You have to do more sophisticated analyses, which the authors did, and you ignored.

So, what you are saying is that those exceptions only apply to the previously infected and not the vaccinated, unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, etc. I will remind you that YOU were the one that brought up natural immunity with regards to this study, not me. You just don't like the data.

As far as the study itself is concerned, the case data is very compelling. The hospitalization data less so. And here is why. The researchers looked at a month of data. A month where the vast majority of cases early in the sampling period were delta and the vast majority of cases later in the sampling period were omicron. The reason that delta looks less likely to result in a symptomatic hospitalization than omicron in this study is because delta cases in general are older (time from symptoms to hospitalization is typically 10-12 days). That would affect the conclusion that delta infections are "milder" than omicron.

joed|rttyy wrote:

So, what you are saying is that those exceptions only apply to the previously infected and not the vaccinated, unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, etc. I will remind you that YOU were the one that brought up natural immunity with regards to this study, not me. You just don't like the data.

They apply to both, which is why looking at raw numbers is not very useful. Glad we agree and you can stop with the dashboard astrology you've been trying to do since Delta.

Harambe wrote:

joed|rttyy wrote:

So, what you are saying is that those exceptions only apply to the previously infected and not the vaccinated, unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, etc. I will remind you that YOU were the one that brought up natural immunity with regards to this study, not me. You just don't like the data.

They apply to both, which is why looking at raw numbers is not very useful. Glad we agree and you can stop with the dashboard astrology you've been trying to do since Delta.

They are processing the data the same way. That's the beauty of raw data. It is impersonal. It doesn't care what one's preconceptions are going in. The data speaks for itself.

joed|rttyy wrote:

Harambe wrote:

They apply to both, which is why looking at raw numbers is not very useful. Glad we agree and you can stop with the dashboard astrology you've been trying to do since Delta.

They are processing the data the same way. That's the beauty of raw data. It is impersonal. It doesn't care what one's preconceptions are going in. The data speaks for itself.

Additionally, if you actually care about people and ending the pandemic (not just the vaccines and vaccine mandates), the natural immunity numbers should be a cause for celebration, because if natural immunity is that much more effective than triple vaccination, double vaccination and partial vaccination, that is good news for the future.

joed|rttyy wrote:

joed|rttyy wrote:

They are processing the data the same way. That's the beauty of raw data. It is impersonal. It doesn't care what one's preconceptions are going in. The data speaks for itself.

Additionally, if you actually care about people and ending the pandemic (not just the vaccines and vaccine mandates), the natural immunity numbers should be a cause for celebration, because if natural immunity is that much more effective than triple vaccination, double vaccination and partial vaccination, that is good news for the future.

The article, which isn't yet peer reviewed, brings the good news that the Omicron variant is less likely to result in serious outcomes than the Delta variant across the board -- whether you're not vaccinated, previously infected, or vaccinated at whatever level.

The article also suggests that prior infection with COVID may provide similar success as vaccination in limiting the severe effects of the Omicron variant -- which is a good thing.

However, the article does not conclude that prior infection provides superior protection against the Omicron variant than vaccination. Look at the risk assessments on table S3.

Rather, the researchers specifically state, "evidence for a reduction in severe outcomes among vaccinated cases with both Delta and Omicron variant infections in our study (Table S3) suggests substantial public health benefits from continued COVID-19 vaccination."

Harambe wrote:

Btw, the picture is even worse for natural immunity. Efficacy against hospitalization with Omicron is basically zero for someone who has recovered from COVID but not vaccinated (see table S3):

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.11.22269045v1.full.pdf+html

"medrxiv?" Too funny! - that's funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative...a pro-vaxx Leftist organization that's biased against natural immunity! Lol

Pharma could not have gotten an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the clotshot if alternative treatments were available.

So naturally, information about the effectiveness of treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine had to be suppressed.

Moreover, these treatments had to be rendered (or at least perceived as) inadequate, unapproved and unavailable.

This way, the clotshot could be widely disseminated and Pharma could net lucrative profits.

Per the FDA:

"FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including **there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives**"

In the end, countless people died and will die 😒

https://scontent-iad3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/271779129_1660601437619378_4443334253532721963_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&cb=c578a115-7e291d1f&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=GasvOb3KYWcAX9P-j7q&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-2.xx&oh=00_AT96iAGXCWZFDIfbKzMyLxfGqXweECDIZEOwsS9YVQmUDw&oe=61E52453

Well, the conclusions they are drawing about hospitalizations for previously infected individuals is based on a sample size of three (I was incorrect in my earlier statement of one case, as that was the number of delta hospitalizations among previously infected individuals). So 3 out of 235 hospitalizations for Omicron were among the previously infected., or 1.27% for a group that makes up 13.9% of the population (or about 11 times less than what would be expected). Their odds ratio just looks at what percentage of confirmed cases becomes a hospitalization, not the odds of becoming a case or a hospitalization in the first place, which is more meaningful. If the odds of a person ending up as a case are lower, the hospitalization data will be much lower as well.

For instance. In the UK, two shot effectiveness against delta was estimated at 95% (meaning the ratio of hospitalizations for delta would be 1 vaccinated hospitalization for every 20 delta hospitalizations), but a lot of that was contingent on the shots being 75-80% effective against catching the disease in the first place. When the efficiency against infection declined, the effeciency against hospitalization dropped as well. At last check, two shot efficiency against infection is about 0-10% at this point. As a result, two shot efficiency against Omicron hospitalizations in the week 1 report was about 50%. Meaning now, instead of the ratio being 1 vaccinated hospitalization for every 20 unvaccinated hospitalizations, it is now closer to 1 vaccinated hospitalization for every 2 unvaccinated hospitalizations. A substantial decline.

Wuzzle Wuzzle4 wrote:

Let's really tell it like it is wrote:

Aren't you for informed consent when comes to any medical interventions/]procedures? How about bodily autonomy - do you think the government has the right to dictate what you can & can't put into your body?

Here is what you are wrong. You have autonomy. You can get the vax or get a test (which is not an intervention or procedure) . There is not a single vax mandate in the US that doesn't give you a choice. You have vast information about both.

Furthermore in emergencies the doctrine of informed consent is not relevant per the AMA. You seem to have a simple uneducated view of informed consent. It's not simply I can do whatever I want.

Why do you insult posters when you're the one that hasn't done the proper research having no clue what's going on? There are currently four (4) large metro areas under Democratic control that have implemented vaccine mandates/passports where there is no “testing out” option for those declining the vaccine. The four cities are NYC (i.e. "Key to NYC" vaccine passport), Boston, Chicago & SF:

You can look up the other two cities for yourself if you don't believe me. So, the mayors of these four cities implemented mandates/passports allowing no exemptions for the sole purpose of punishing the unvaccinated! (Mayor Lightfoot of Chicago even said so).

Yes..."informed consent" is applicable with vaccines during pandemics. And given the low death rate of Covid it's far from an emergency. Big Pharma, Fauci, the MSM & the Liberals have made it out to be an emergency so they can vaxx up every man, woman & child in this country.

"Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention.  Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record." The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4."

"It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. The provider must make a recommendation and provide their reasoning for said recommendation"

Well well well. The UK has now released their newest data and BaBOOM!! Those who inject the unknown serum and alter their DNA for life are now dying in much larger numbers than those who stay healthy with God given natural abilities to fight Faucis creation. Isn’t that suppin’?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/pandemic-vaccinated-latest-uk-health-data-shows-vaccinated-deaths-higher-unvaccinated-deaths-last-three-months/

Oh, there is a definite trend here folks. Those who can hang strong, now is the time as the tide is washing out the weakened and feeding them a dose of Karma.

Good luck y’all. Keep spreading your Government backed nonsense and pay the price.

We now have enough data to clearly show that the attempts to force vaccinations on the remaining unvaccinated population are failing. In spite of the skyrocketing rise of Omicron (20x more cases in early centers like NYC), the vaccination rates are trending down, according to the CDC, as follows.

- 1st shot: 350k/day

- 2nd shot: 250k/day

- Booster: 600k/day

- All three increased in early December, but all three are now trending down.

A little math shows that even with the booster, the "fully protected" i.e., boosted cohort is DECREASING because booster protection is fading faster than new people are getting boosted.

I predicted this back in the fall, prior to Omicron. What does this mean?

It means that if the goal is to save lives, the public health and government focus should shift to prophylaxis and early treatment, WHICH IS WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SINCE WE FIRST DISCOVERED PROMISING EARLY TREATMENTS back in April of 2020. The people who wanted vaccinations would have still gotten vaccinated, but tens of thousands of lives could have been saved by early treatments.

These promising early treatments should have been fast-tracked. Instead, they have been systematically suppressed and the doctors promoting them have been censored and vilified.

Nearly 1,000,000 adverse events reported to VAERS in connection with the jabs in the 1st 12 months.

Including over 20k deaths.

And studies suggest 90% or more of adverse events do not get reported to VAERS.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lZrnmpGh6X6v/?fbclid=IwAR0a2UsdRngzA78w18oxGBVb2-gnEfRlFJnYOvhuwqbPeLvCfmBZdORS6d4

Just checking in on the megathread to see if you guys are still bad at statistics and the answer is yes.

If you have to be persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized to gain your compliance you can be certain that what is being promoted is not in your best interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ0ftoiIQxU

Noyankee wrote:

Well well well. The UK has now released their newest data and BaBOOM!! Those who inject the unknown serum and alter their DNA for life are now dying in much larger numbers than those who stay healthy with God given natural abilities to fight Faucis creation. Isn’t that suppin’?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/pandemic-vaccinated-latest-uk-health-data-shows-vaccinated-deaths-higher-unvaccinated-deaths-last-three-months/

Oh, there is a definite trend here folks. Those who can hang strong, now is the time as the tide is washing out the weakened and feeding them a dose of Karma.

Good luck y’all. Keep spreading your Government backed nonsense and pay the price.

You should probably read the stuff you link here before you post dumb stuff.

From your link - not the gateway pundit spin but the actual UKHSA document:

"Several studies have estimated vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation in older ages, all of which indicate higher levels of protection against hospitalisation with all vaccines against the Alpha variant (8, 9, 10, 11). Effectiveness against hospitalisation of over 90% is also observed with the Delta variant with all 3 vaccines (Figure 3, 3). In most groups there is relatively limited waning of protection against hospitalisation over a period of at least 5 months after the second dose. Greater waning appears to occur among those in clinical risk groups."

and this:

"High levels of protection (over 90%) are also seen against mortality with all 3 vaccines and against both the Alpha and Delta variants."

Thank you for providing even more evidence that the vaccines are quite effective in preventing serious illness, need for hospitalization, and death.

EU medicines regulator warns on COVID booster shot frequency

Jan. 12, 2022 3:52 PM ET

Repeat booster dosing may have the unintended consequence of weakening the immune response, according to a top official with the European Medicines Agency ("EMA").

Marco Cavaleri, EMA head of biological health threats and vaccines strategy, told a news conference yesterday that boosters can be done one or two times, "but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly, Bloomberg reported. "We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting."

joed|rttyy wrote:

Harambe wrote:

They apply to both, which is why looking at raw numbers is not very useful. Glad we agree and you can stop with the dashboard astrology you've been trying to do since Delta.

They are processing the data the same way. That's the beauty of raw data. It is impersonal. It doesn't care what one's preconceptions are going in. The data speaks for itself.

Only if you properly control for base rates and confounders, something which you often refuse to do OR the dataset does not have sufficient information to do so.

Drawing conclusions from confounded data without qualifying the confounders is very bad. As we've seen many times, something as simple as Simpson's paradox can invert the sign of things like vaccine effectiveness. This is, obviously, a large impediment to proper interpretation.