"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" CONFIRMED

+1 This about sums up this useless troll thread

Yeah, about that.... wrote:

Lead Foil Hat XVI wrote:

there are no longer excess deaths...

This is false.

And because this poster has previously been informed that it is false, he posted a knowing falsehood...which is A LIE. LFH is a DAMNED LIAR.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/dataviz8737/viz/COVID_excess_mort_withcauses_11172021/WeeklyExcessDeaths

Show where we still have excess deaths? It is not October anymore and in October we were already coming out of it. Maybe you are the liar?

100% specious claims about "this is how vaccines affect a specific person."

0% analysis of "this is how vaccines affect a community."

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Harambe wrote:

Lead Foil Hat XVI wrote:

The US sees roughly 8-9,000 deaths per day every day all of the time. At this point, old being just dying will likely die with or of covid because it is everywhere. there are no longer excess deaths, just regular deaths being counted as covid deaths because everyone as it. It is endemic, we need to stop hiding from this virus as this only prolongs its life and kills more old people.

There are, in fact, still excess deaths:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

Only the last week, where reporting is very incomplete, is below the excess death threshold.

Only last week? Try moving the goalpost back 3-4 weeks. Of course last week is incomplete, this does not mean we are not out of the woods and still experiencing massive excess deaths; we are back to baseline now , incomplete data last week or not.

Harambe wrote:

Bullet_Proof wrote:

Except that it was his fault for making poor diet decisions. Pancreatic gallstones are not caused randomly: it is from too much alcohol and sugar intake.

With this logic we should be denying COVID-related medical care to the unvaccinated. They made poor medical decisions. You agree?

Obviously this is wrong, but your arguments lead you there. Think harder!

Nope. I am saying that because of his poor lifestyle choices regarding alcohol and sugar intake, he is no different than anyone else who needs medical care and how our medical emergency system works.

He has to wait in line like everyone else.

Bullet_Proof wrote:

Harambe wrote:

With this logic we should be denying COVID-related medical care to the unvaccinated. They made poor medical decisions. You agree?

Obviously this is wrong, but your arguments lead you there. Think harder!

Nope. I am saying that because of his poor lifestyle choices regarding alcohol and sugar intake, he is no different than anyone else who needs medical care and how our medical emergency system works.

He has to wait in line like everyone else.

Can you show me an RCT that increasing alcohol and sugar leads to gallstones?

This is not to say I dont believe you!

Just that everyone is making claims about other aspects of health based on observational data and then demanding RCTs for vaccine schemes where we have way way more RCT and observational data. The double standard is hilarious.

Also if the takeaway is that we should spend more public and private $$$ on big RCTs in preventative medicine and pharma… yes I agree. Bring it on.

2600 bro wrote:

Also if the takeaway is that we should spend more public and private $$$ on big RCTs in preventative medicine and pharma… yes I agree. Bring it on.

God day, sir! And welcome to your 15h long fearmongering shift.

rt67 wrote:

2600 bro wrote:

Also if the takeaway is that we should spend more public and private $$$ on big RCTs in preventative medicine and pharma… yes I agree. Bring it on.

God day, sir! And welcome to your 15h long fearmongering shift.

Nice to see the pious are still on LRC.

joed|r wrote:

formerly present wrote:

Once again, talking about *cases* when it's *hospitalizations* and *deaths* that are relevant.

Wait 4 weeks.

Harambe criticized me when I said to wait 4 weeks. In reality it took less than a week for Norway to reach their record number of deaths in the pandemic. Additionally, in spite of having 90%+ of their adult population fully vaccinated, they still managed to produce a new variant:

And the sheep will line up for their never ending boosters.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEf6QWXVEAAYvqn?format=jpg&name=small

Happily unvaccinated.

1) Collecting data on events, especially rarer events like severe cases, hospitalizations, and death takes either a) a long time or b) a gigantic study population. You seem to think you can have quality AND fast which shows your experience with clinical trials is limited to wikipedia.

2) Immune response to vaccination is quite predicatable -- of course there are some who don't respond, nothing is perfect -- but it's not nearly as variable as after COVID infection.

3) 800k excess deaths and many fold more hospitalizations shows that this disease is high risk for MUCH of America (lots of co-moribidities and, of course, you wildly understate the danger of COVID). Perhaps there is a slim segment of extremely healthy young people who are at zero risk of COVID, but you are trying to make this population seem much larger than it is.

4) All studies make assumptions in place of collecting all possible data. For something like mix-and-match they DID run trials to examine safety and found no signals above matched doses. Efficacy is harder to measure in a small trial unless you are willing to use evil, useless, ghoulish (lol) readouts such as Ab neutralizing titers.

If you had experience in a clinical setting you would understand that gathering all the data you (now suddenly) demand in a reasonable amount of time is impossible. So you are either operating far outside your limited experience (big surprise) or are arguing in bad faith because you're upset that vaccines are working.

It's funny because you sit here and say we can't know if the vaccines work because we never ran outcome studies against severe disease but then will admit that vaccines are saving lives... by protecting against severe disease. Gotta get that story straight!

joed|rtay2 wrote:

joed|r wrote:

Wait 4 weeks.

Harambe criticized me when I said to wait 4 weeks. In reality it took less than a week for Norway to reach their record number of deaths in the pandemic. Additionally, in spite of having 90%+ of their adult population fully vaccinated, they still managed to produce a new variant:

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/norwegian-authorities-say-new-variant-of-covid-delta-strain-ay-dot-63-detected-in-country.html

Norway reports 7 deaths yesterday. Your only way to fearmonger now is to pick tiny countries with minuscule death counts that can swing wildly and produce eye-popping % changes. This and Gibraltar, basically.

Of course, Norway is still below previous peaks for hospital admissions despite seeing very high case counts and test positivity. Vaccines work!

You can keep waiting and praying for death -- the antivaxxer way.

What? Of course it is high on the list. Vaccinated people might realize it's a public health issue. It's a probability game that may impact you or others. We know the vaccine works as the best layer of protection. Behavioral steps reduce the chances even more but breakthrough cases exist. If I get covid19 and don't get sick I don't even want to pass it on to one of the antivaxers who are responsible for the severity of the pandemic.

Yes, other things can happen but lets not confuse caution for anxiety. Spouting whataboutisms is not a real argument.

1) they went after the lame PCR+ and 1 symptom definition of efficacy and now should have to live with it. Guess what, the vaccines aren't efficacious using this definition out to 4-6 months. Because the vaccines suck. There's no shortcuts around good science. What matters is protection not from covid sniffles, but protection from severe disease and death especially when you are discussing vaccinating the entire global population. They tried to get out of doing the necessary large outcome studies that the FDA requires for other therapies that are widely used to conclusively prove benefit on outcomes. They should have required it here. It's egregious they didn't and yet they're still practicing fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants make-crap-up-as-you-go science. It has to stop. It's bad science, bad medicine and unethical.

2. No, clearly immune response to vaccination is NOT predictable given the rapidly waning "immunity" afforded by these unusual immunotherapies (mRNA and DNA). So, again, you're wrong and your tendency to make and follow your assumptions show you to be a piss poor scientist. I blame the failed education system for your scientific illiteracy.

3. So define who is at risk of covid mortality and morbidity and make recommendations accordingly after you perform the proper studies in said patient population. Again, this is how good science is conducted. Identify your population, design and conduct rigorous studies and make targeted recommendations. To enforce mandates around crappy science is unethical on multiple levels. You should be ashamed of yourself for buying into it.

4. No, assumptions define crappy science. One makes a hypothesis and tests it. One updates their hypothesis depending on the outcome of rigorously designed, adequately powered and well controlled studies. The standard is set even higher when you talk about mandating a medical intervention for every person on the face of the earth, especially for those who are at absolutely ZERO risk of a negative outcome from infection.

Get a clue. You have none.

Harambe still guzzles sperm by the gallon, confirmed by his boyfriend.

Your most recently posted study defending the superiority of infection-driven immunity over Covaxin and Covisheild used the assumption that in vitro INFy response to RBD stimulation was a good indicator of T cell mediated immunity.

You need to examine how you assess data that supports “your side” before dismissing stronger data on the “other side.” For those minds poisoned by partinsanism and dogma this can be an insurmountable stumbling block. We will see. The trend in your behavior over the past month is not encouraging.

You do a very poor job explaining your argument how measuring protection from infection doesn’t entirely include protection from death. The vaccines still protect against infection. Boosters increase that. The must, therefore, protect against death too… What’s the point.

Didn’t you say something like “decreasing circulating antibody levels are not surprising months after infection” (maybe joedirt)… not surprising after vaccination either. similar immune stimulation after all.

You repeated fail to acknowledge second order effects from vaccinations or infections. It’s getting tiresome. Herd immunity and benefit has been a guiding idea in public health for 150 years.

Assumptions are a fundamental part of the scientific method and inference. To act like there is such a thing as assumption free science is the mark of neophyte. Every single test, model, measurement, hypothesis, conclusion, etc. has centuries of assumptions baked in.

Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:

And the sheep will line up for their never ending boosters.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEf6QWXVEAAYvqn?format=jpg&name=small

Happily unvaccinated.

Who did not see this coming?

The believers.

All correct statements. Harambe loses. This whole thread is a losing argument created by lying narcissists who don't really understand what they are talking about.