"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" CONFIRMED

Harambe wrote:

Arrhenius wrote:

Sorry, Harambe, this article is also dated, as it is from February 2021. Anyway, article in the Lancet talks about how flawed PCR testing is. A few excerpts, "In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test."

"This suggests that 50–75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious"

It's true that PCR is very sensitive. That doesn't really matter as PCR tests have accurately predicted surges in hospitalizations and deaths everywhere and everytime they've occurred. The worst case of a 'post-infectious' test is someone needs to quarantine for a bit. Beyond that the tests still accurately recorded a COVID infection for contact and statistical purposes beyond.

So Herd Immunity was happening amongst the unvaccinated.

^fool

I didn’t realize Harambe was a Dr.? We thought Fauci was at first too? They are def both totalitarians with meaningless opinions

Not the herd immunity comment is foolish, that’s more than likely accurate, it’s the folks playing God. #mybodymychoice

Lets really tell it like it is-I'm on exactly the same page as you. There was much division during the recent election, and now there is even more division between the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Satan has a huge smile on his face and is quite pleased. The un-vaxxed are being segregated and essentially treated as second-class citizens. I never thought in a million years, those of us choosing to be un-vaxxed for a multitude of different reasons may lose our jobs, health-care, essentially our entire livelihoods. I refuse to be vaccinated by vaccines that were developed using cell lines from aborted fetuses (HEK-293 and PerC.6). We definitely are in a spiritual battle right now.

Herd immunity! There's a real blast from the past. Remember the village mathematician who kept posting that states like South Dakota had reached herd immunity in summer 2020? Cause you know, if 1000 people had died, and 99.9% of people survive, mathematically a state with 2,000,000 people must be at the magic 50% herd immunity threshold. It was ridiculous at t the time, but every so often it's good to play the old hits, I guess. One more thing that the Covid deniers have been completely wrong about for over a year now.

Harambe wrote:

Lead Foil Hat XXIV wrote:

We know it is wrong in your head, but you are still just spewing the same wrong arguments thinking you are right. There is no point, it is impossible to stop you from fear mongering. Please stop yourself, you are not helping anyone.

Uh, OK, so.. your only answer to my argument is "I'm wrong."

Compelling....

That is all you have been doing for a year. These are the same wrong arguments you have been using for 15 months now. You're right in your head, wrong in reality. Sorry bro.

colder and wiser wrote:

Herd immunity! There's a real blast from the past. Remember the village mathematician who kept posting that states like South Dakota had reached herd immunity in summer 2020? Cause you know, if 1000 people had died, and 99.9% of people survive, mathematically a state with 2,000,000 people must be at the magic 50% herd immunity threshold. It was ridiculous at t the time, but every so often it's good to play the old hits, I guess. One more thing that the Covid deniers have been completely wrong about for over a year now.

Define Covid immunity?

colder and wiser wrote:

Herd immunity! There's a real blast from the past. Remember the village mathematician who kept posting that states like South Dakota had reached herd immunity in summer 2020? Cause you know, if 1000 people had died, and 99.9% of people survive, mathematically a state with 2,000,000 people must be at the magic 50% herd immunity threshold. It was ridiculous at t the time, but every so often it's good to play the old hits, I guess. One more thing that the Covid deniers have been completely wrong about for over a year now.

Harambe, new tag? Hotter and dumber might me a better line, you are losing it.

This ton of disinformation, probably mixed in with some accurate stuff is just ridiculous. First lets ignore all the good information, replicated in throughout the United States about hospitalization rates in low vaccination areas being 88% - 95% unvaccinated. Now lets report unsubstantiated information from a hospital in Jerusalem, and then Scotland, then Barnstable county and then Gibraltar? What a load of scattered obscure information sites instead of using documented USA results.

Most of these numbers are clearly fake. And if you are trying to truly impart information why not report the multitude of studies that show hospitalization rates are consistently comprised of about 90% unvaccinated too?

Oh that's right, all that information is fake because you found someone from the Herzog hospital in Jerusalem or someone from Gibraltar that said its not so (assuming this is true).

Keep searching you might find a couple more experts in the entire world that would say the multitude of replicated studies are wrong. Try South America, you might find a couple there too.

Hard to beat the disinformation from a few weeks ago and the screaming headline of "99% of Covid hospitalizations are unvaccinated". The long time scam of distorting hospitalization statistics using observation status is an easy way to scare the public. Officially admit the unvaccinated and bring in the vaccinated under observation status.

Early posts in this thread were referencing not being sure what Ct <30 means. Ct stands for cycle threshold, which is related to how the PCR test gives its result.

How do you get a positive COVID test? It comes down to the cycle threshold. In the PCR test, fluorescent probes are used to tag targeted gene sequences. This signal is then run through PCR to amplify the signal. The number of amplification cycles it takes to see a visible fluorescent signal is the cycle threshold. If there is a lot of target DNA present, there will be a lot of fluorescent signal in the initial stage and it wont take too many cycles to get a visible signal. If there is very little DNA, it will take many cycles to get a visible response. Cycle threshold is the cutoff for a positive test, and a lower number means it takes less cycles to amplify because there is so much signal there (DNA).

Cycle thresholds are determined by comparing to lab standards across the country and finding what cycle threshold seems to correlate with disease. What the Twitter poster meant by Ct <30 is that a positive test = getting detected in less than 30 cycles. Keep in mind that bigger Ct values are inverse to amount of DNA present, i.e. if there is less DNA present, it will take more cycles to detect it.

Informative and seemingly honest and accurate. #notfauci

So, what’s your point?

bbn wrote:

memo 618.

If I understand you correctly, many on the right are not taking the vaccine because they don't like the way the left is telling them they have to take it?

Actually I believe there just might be some truth in this. But isn't that really sad, that the right is choosing behavior not in their best interest Just to be oppositional to those on the left whom they deem to be overbearing?

Their just might be a great deal of insight in your comment. Let that idea really sink in for a moment.

Pedo Joe and Heels up Harris weren't fans of the vaccine when Trump was promoting it so it's not too surprising.

There is a huge difference. One group is not taking it because they don't like the left being overbearing and telling them they have to take it. That was the insightful comment from the poster who politically is on the right.

In your example people wouldn't take because they don't trust Trump.

This is not "analysis" this is just vomiting facts and not providing any context.

This is a great explainer of how you can have many cases in vaccinated and still have excellent vaccine effectiveness..

Google "base rate fallacy"

DanM wrote:

Hard to beat the disinformation from a few weeks ago and the screaming headline of "99% of Covid hospitalizations are unvaccinated". The long time scam of distorting hospitalization statistics using observation status is an easy way to scare the public. Officially admit the unvaccinated and bring in the vaccinated under observation status.

You have no evidence this is happening selectively for vaccinated people.

You are LIVID that the vaccines are working. I'm sorry bro

Yawn^9 wrote:

Everyday we get more and more conflicting evidence to add to your “reams” of data.

The vaccines work? Less and less it seems.

So after all this bluster you fall back on "the vaccines aren't actually working" when every bit of real world data confirms they are very protective, even against Delta.

We could have just skipped to this and avoided the weird lectures about how conservatives don't like hearing facts and will shoot themselves in the foot to "own the libs."

Evil Unvaccinated person wrote:

Harambe wrote:

It's true that PCR is very sensitive. That doesn't really matter as PCR tests have accurately predicted surges in hospitalizations and deaths everywhere and everytime they've occurred. The worst case of a 'post-infectious' test is someone needs to quarantine for a bit. Beyond that the tests still accurately recorded a COVID infection for contact and statistical purposes beyond.

So Herd Immunity was happening amongst the unvaccinated.

You realize that total infected numbers are derived from serosurveys and not just raw testing values? If you want to calculate the % infected in the US you don't use RT-PCR positives (solely) you look at antibody surveys because you miss ~1-3 infections for every positive test.

It's not like we have been basing "herd immunity" calculations on positive tests only. Sigh. I'm not even sure exactly what you were trying to say it's so misinformed. Some sort of weird mashup of "PCR is bad!!11" and "everyone has already had COVID!!1"

These talking points were better 12 months ago. Now that 650k Americans have died for the "herd immunity" (thanks primarily to vaccines...) was it worth it?

Noyankee wrote:

Informative and seemingly honest and accurate. #notfauci

So, what’s your point?

Point is in the name... to educate. I saw one of the early posts guessing if Ct < 30 meant efficacy in people under 30 which couldnt be further from what was being referenced. It was a definition so people knew what was being considered a positive to help interpret how they came to their claim of efficacy. Just trying to help explain technical info that people don't understand, as if that isn't understood, it is harder to have a good conversation about what is being discussed.