This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
What many of us were saying all along. Just another flu.
Explain 2020 excess deaths.
This is just acknowledging that Covid has reached the endemic phase. It is no longer a novel virus.
That doesn't mean it isn't a significant public health issue going forward, and it sure as hell doesn't mean it wasn't an acute public health issue in the previous three years.
Pretty much spot on, lol. I’m still not sure what an anti-vaxxer is though, and there were some very obvious demographics who didn’t or shouldn’t have had a choice; namely, the elderly, overweight and obese with comorbidity, and the immunocompromised. Of course, that covers 50% of the population. Probably more since we are so pathetically unfit.
The logical flaw here is at least two-fold.
1) To have acquired "natural immunity" by covid infection is a risker path to immunity by all credible metrics. To start the relative risk evaluation after ". . . (infected) but recovered" is "survivorship selection bias".
2) Postulating some unknown long-term risk from vaccination without weighing against this the known and potential unknown long-term risk from infection is clearly biased.
I understand what you are saying statistically speaking. You are a statistician. But survivorship bias isn’t the right term. I mean 99+% of people were going to survive this anyway, and the vast majority didn’t develop long Covid. 95% of the people stacking up the ICUs from the very beginning were in these demographics. There were many brave physicians from the very beginning who postulated and implemented protocols for these groups as well as the healthy, unvaccinated who consented.
It was neither rocket science nor survivorship bias to see who was in the riskiest groups from the very beginning and deal with it thusly, some iteration of the Great Barrington Declaration that one Francis Collins had to denigrate without merit just before he “stepped away” from the forefront. Again, not necessarily the GBD itself, but some form of it. You can say this is Monday Morning QBing all you want, but many, many scientists and physicians predicted this ahead of time. But they were silenced and sequestered.
Dan lies again. First you said it was nothing, then you said it would burn out, then you said natural immunity would protect people, then you said it only affected old people or high risk people, then you said horse medication would keep you safe, then you cheered because Trump named the vaccine plan.
Then you spent the next 2 years fear mongering the vaccine, spending your limit remaining days scouring the internet for random deaths by young people to post (without context).
But hey you still brag about how healthy you are by strolling a few minutes a day while the rest of us run.
(BTW- the vast majority of scientists understand that pandemics quite often evolve into endemics but part of that is being about to manage that spread with treatments and vaccines- things you argue against for some reason)
The people worry are those with multiple unvaxxed COVID infections. We know that vaccination broadens immunity and dramatically lessens the chance of dangerous sequelae down the road. CVD, respiratory issues, Kidney failure. All much higher in those with unvaxxed infections.
Yeah, as a proud member of the control group, I’m not worried bro. Sorry, I’m just not. Your time horizon is still very short. And I don’t agree with “broadens.” That’s not true. I mean, if we are talking about hybrid immunity with both convalescent and vaxxed, then ok, it’s the correct term. But vax alone? Yeah, just not empirically true.
I guarantee you have ZERO personal experience with these things except for shaky cam videos on youtube that keep you up at night.
You're kinda right, because "Covid" was never a thing at my hospital, because we didn't follow CDC guidance. I know for a fact that healthcare workers have refused the "vaccines" in such numbers they can't be effectively persecuted, staffing shortages are just filled with temps who are unvaxxed.
1) To have acquired "natural immunity" by covid infection is a risker path to immunity by all credible metrics. To start the relative risk evaluation after ". . . (infected) but recovered" is "survivorship selection bias".
2) Postulating some unknown long-term risk from vaccination without weighing against this the known and potential unknown long-term risk from infection is clearly biased.
I understand what you are saying statistically speaking. You are a statistician. But survivorship bias isn’t the right term. I mean 99+% of people were going to survive this anyway, and the vast majority didn’t develop long Covid. 95% of the people stacking up the ICUs from the very beginning were in these demographics. There were many brave physicians from the very beginning who postulated and implemented protocols for these groups as well as the healthy, unvaccinated who consented.
It was neither rocket science nor survivorship bias to see who was in the riskiest groups from the very beginning and deal with it thusly, some iteration of the Great Barrington Declaration that one Francis Collins had to denigrate without merit just before he “stepped away” from the forefront. Again, not necessarily the GBD itself, but some form of it. You can say this is Monday Morning QBing all you want, but many, many scientists and physicians predicted this ahead of time. But they were silenced and sequestered.
The risks of infection aren’t just” long COVID” you’ve been plenty of data on acute risk of cardiac events during COVID infections, acute lung damage etc. things that have long term effects despite survival and that you can’t just lump into an easy to dismiss post viral fatigue symptom group.
also your seem to acknowledging that 1% of the population dying to an infectious disease is acceptable… I strongly disagree.
1) To have acquired "natural immunity" by covid infection is a risker path to immunity by all credible metrics. To start the relative risk evaluation after ". . . (infected) but recovered" is "survivorship selection bias".
2) Postulating some unknown long-term risk from vaccination without weighing against this the known and potential unknown long-term risk from infection is clearly biased.
I understand what you are saying statistically speaking. You are a statistician. But survivorship bias isn’t the right term. I mean 99+% of people were going to survive this anyway, and the vast majority didn’t develop long Covid. 95% of the people stacking up the ICUs from the very beginning were in these demographics. There were many brave physicians from the very beginning who postulated and implemented protocols for these groups as well as the healthy, unvaccinated who consented.
It was neither rocket science nor survivorship bias to see who was in the riskiest groups from the very beginning and deal with it thusly, some iteration of the Great Barrington Declaration that one Francis Collins had to denigrate without merit just before he “stepped away” from the forefront. Again, not necessarily the GBD itself, but some form of it. You can say this is Monday Morning QBing all you want, but many, many scientists and physicians predicted this ahead of time. But they were silenced and sequestered.
The GBD bros never could formulate a real plan to 'sequester' the risky groups (likely 40+% of America) from a virus with an R_0 of ~2 or more. It sounds great on paper, but most things do when written by ivory tower types (i.e. all the GBD dudes) who spend their lives looking at numbers and writing papers on top of those numbers.
Real world deployment was impossible and would have lead to even larger waves and more deaths by greatly increasing the # of cases circulating in the pre-vaccine era.
Dan lies again. First you said it was nothing, then you said it would burn out, then you said natural immunity would protect people, then you said it only affected old people or high risk people, then you said horse medication would keep you safe, then you cheered because Trump named the vaccine plan.
Then you spent the next 2 years fear mongering the vaccine, spending your limit remaining days scouring the internet for random deaths by young people to post (without context).
But hey you still brag about how healthy you are by strolling a few minutes a day while the rest of us run.
(BTW- the vast majority of scientists understand that pandemics quite often evolve into endemics but part of that is being about to manage that spread with treatments and vaccines- things you argue against for some reason)
I will start running again in March. I'm an old guy trying to pace himself long term.
Hope you are satisfied with the Covid "vaccine" decision you made for yourself.
I am satisfied with the decision I made for myself.
I understand what you are saying statistically speaking. You are a statistician. But survivorship bias isn’t the right term. I mean 99+% of people were going to survive this anyway, and the vast majority didn’t develop long Covid. 95% of the people stacking up the ICUs from the very beginning were in these demographics. There were many brave physicians from the very beginning who postulated and implemented protocols for these groups as well as the healthy, unvaccinated who consented.
It was neither rocket science nor survivorship bias to see who was in the riskiest groups from the very beginning and deal with it thusly, some iteration of the Great Barrington Declaration that one Francis Collins had to denigrate without merit just before he “stepped away” from the forefront. Again, not necessarily the GBD itself, but some form of it. You can say this is Monday Morning QBing all you want, but many, many scientists and physicians predicted this ahead of time. But they were silenced and sequestered.
The risks of infection aren’t just” long COVID” you’ve been plenty of data on acute risk of cardiac events during COVID infections, acute lung damage etc. things that have long term effects despite survival and that you can’t just lump into an easy to dismiss post viral fatigue symptom group.
also your seem to acknowledging that 1% of the population dying to an infectious disease is acceptable… I strongly disagree.
Not what I said at all. There were protocols, even BEFORE we had a vaccine that, within the context of the doctor-patient relationship, could’ve helped a great, great many of these folks. But, even though the theoretical constructs supporting these medicines and protocols were solid and they worked in small meta-analyses, they were shunned. So we literally killed people off without really trying to help. And, yes, Remdesivir was a hell of a poison, being administered ubiquitously in patients after the replication cycle was complete. You want to talk about medical malpractice and malfeasance.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.