Colorado Gov (Democrat) declares covid emergency over

Hooma wrote:

Caleb's Hat wrote:

Around the time their "food pyramid" was debunked.

So, they also suggest you don't jump out of an airplane without a parachute or mainline heroin or become obese or take too many pain meds at once, or smoke, or drink excessively, or a whole bunch of other things. You going to ignore all of those? Probably not because they don't fit into your idiotic political mantra. You are a moron.

nonono the only moran here is you buddy. what ridiculous reaching attempts at comparisons.

shovel grovel wrote:

Hooma wrote:

So, they also suggest you don't jump out of an airplane without a parachute or mainline heroin or become obese or take too many pain meds at once, or smoke, or drink excessively, or a whole bunch of other things. You going to ignore all of those? Probably not because they don't fit into your idiotic political mantra. You are a moron.

nonono the only moran here is you buddy. what ridiculous reaching attempts at comparisons.

Not reaching at all. He picks the only scientific thing among them to ignore that has a political bias, which it shouldn't have, but you idiot Trumpers are just stupid beyond belief, so you bought into it as a political issue. Moron.

I don't know how it is so hard to just look at numbers rationally.

The vaccine is obviously not as protective as we would like it it be. With that said, it still provides reasonable reduction in chance of infection and, more importantly, symptomatic and serious infection.

Yes, there are some adverse outcomes from being vaccinated. The absolute risk increase in experiencing these reactions is much lower than the absolute risk reduction of death / serious illness from CoVID.

Yes, most people that die have pre-existing conditions. Most people over 60 have at least one pre-existing condition. Having hypertension, diabetes etc. doesn't make you some frail individual close to deaths door. That's many, many people in this country.

babaganosh wrote:

I don't know how it is so hard to just look at numbers rationally.

The vaccine is obviously not as protective as we would like it it be. With that said, it still provides reasonable reduction in chance of infection and, more importantly, symptomatic and serious infection.

Yes, there are some adverse outcomes from being vaccinated. The absolute risk increase in experiencing these reactions is much lower than the absolute risk reduction of death / serious illness from CoVID.

Yes, most people that die have pre-existing conditions. Most people over 60 have at least one pre-existing condition. Having hypertension, diabetes etc. doesn't make you some frail individual close to deaths door. That's many, many people in this country.

How do you know this? The benefit can be measured but the risk cant. There are no Longterm studies so how do you know what the risk in 10 years will be? So you are just lying

sayyestonepotism wrote:

How do you know this? The benefit can be measured but the risk cant. There are no Longterm studies so how do you know what the risk in 10 years will be? So you are just lying

What a response.

The term "lying" implies I somehow know the truth and am withholding it from you. Of course no one can know the long term effects of something that has only existed for the last year. In the same vein, do we know the long term effects of CoVID (to some degree, we do)? That is important when we are comparing competing risks.

Despite not being able to look ten years into the future, we can make a pretty informed decision. I'll use my province as an example:

Right now we have 26 people in the out of 1725 "active" CoVID cases (implying a 1.5% risk of winding up in ICU with CoVID). Detected cases have been estimated around 30% during "waves" (

) , so our total case numbers are likely more like 5750. Given the above, I think it's reasonable to estimate a 0.5% risk of landing in the ICU if you contract CoVID.

Now, that risk will vary depending on whether you are younger, healthier, etc. But it is important to note that we (Canada) do not admit frail individuals "on death's door" to the ICU. The people admitted to ICU are reasonable functional with reasonable life expectancy.

Given the overall case numbers and our total population, this means that folks have about a 0.07% absolute risk of landing in the ICU over the past two years. Pretty low, for sure. Right now, only one of the 26 cases in our ICU is fully vaccinated. We have an active ICU rate of 8.7/100K for unvaccinated and 0.1/100K for fully vaccinated. That's an 87 x relative risk reduction with vaccination. This would imply vaccines offer around a 0.069% absolute risk reduction from a very bad CoVID outcome (ICU admission). Now, the real risk reduction is probably a bit lower since vaccinated individuals are probably doing other things which reduce risk of contracting CoVID.

If we take the Pfizer vaccine, we know the risk of adverse effects (in the relative short-term post vaccine) are fairly low. There is around a 0.005% risk of anaphylaxis. Recent surveillance data (

) really only shows a signal for myocarditis in the younger male category at a rate of around 0.004%. No other reported serious adverse outcome was identified at a higher rate for the Pfizer vaccine. This puts our risk of a serous adverse outcome at 0.009%.

So, to summarize, in my province we have a benefit of 0.069% while getting the vaccination, and a risk of 0.007%. Now, we KNOW being in the ICU has terrible sequelae longterm. Myocarditis and anaphylaxis may have bad sequelae. We have no reason to expect folks who get the vaccine without having an obvious adverse reactions will have bad sequelae (given we have no examples of established vaccines leading to new problems ten years down the line).

Those above numbers are astronomically small (on both sides), so it makes no sense to me why people get so enraged/upset about the topic. When we apply those numbers to a huge population they start to matter. But for you? For me? We take similar risks all the time. Not getting vaccinated is mathematically the worse decision (even if the numbers are small) and it makes your life way more difficult. Why not just go ahead and do it?

babaganosh wrote:

Not getting vaccinated is mathematically the worse decision (even if the numbers are small) and it makes your life way more difficult. Why not just go ahead and do it?

Becsuse of this! 😡

Let's really get to the bottom of this wrote:

babaganosh wrote:

Not getting vaccinated is mathematically the worse decision (even if the numbers are small) and it makes your life way more difficult. Why not just go ahead and do it?

Becsuse of this! 😡

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/latest-vaers-estimate-388000-americans

So, let me get this straight.

A study in a hospital found the rate of anaphylaxis to be 2.5 / 10,000 inoculations. This is similar to most other medical exposures.

VAERS, an open, voluntary reporting system designed to detect signals of problematic reactions (not necessarily provide accurate numbers), has much lower anaphylaxis rate than a rigorous follow-up study.

This author's contention is that the factor by which VAERS "under reports" anaphylaxis (41 x) should be applied to all results in VAERS, including deaths. So, the author multiplies the 9000 or so deaths (which may or may not be vaccine related) by 41 and arrives at the 388,000 number for deaths.

I hope you can see the mental gymnastics involved in this exercise.

The point of VAERS is that it is national in scope and can broadly detect data - meaning it should be useful to identify potentially problematic signals early. More rigorous follow-up studies should be guided by these signals.