FOUR doses of mRNA goop and he gets sick. Only "mild symptoms" of course.
What a pure unadulterated scam.
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.
-
53
-
joedlrt wrote:
Back from my Lenten hiatus. Sad to see this thread is still going, as Omicron has essentially rendered vaccination meaningless. The UK stopped releasing tabular data after week 13, likely because the data no longer backed up the idea that vaccines were relevant. In the week 13 report, case rates were 3-5 times higher among boosted adults than among the unvaccinated. Hospitalization rates were similar and death rates were similar. Only 7.9% of deaths in the week 13 report were unvaccinated (and over 75% were boosted). People on the left are still trying to raise alarms about the BA.2 subvariant, but the only ones who seem to be getting sick with that are the boosted. Life seems to have mostly gotten back to normal where I live, and I recommend that everyone go back to living it. Hope everyone had a Happy Easter and got in a good run.
Luckily other groups are still publishing robust data.
Almost everyone is seropositive in one way or another at this point in the US and UK, which has reduced the risk of COVID >10X for the average case. I agree we are in a very different regime than a year ago. BA.2 poses a risk to the seronaive and those with worse immune responses (the elderly). They should think about another booster (see my paper I posted that those with poor immune responses to 2 doses saw a bigger bump from a 3rd – pattern will hold for a 4th). Everyone else is basically good to go.
Sadly, people downplaying the effectiveness of the vax over the last year have certainly helped kill a few 100k people who avoided getting it and then died of COVID. No real reason to this except for blind contrarianism.
36 -
Monkeys Skyping wrote:
fisky wrote:
The vaccines were effective with alpha and delta, but are something has changed. The following analysis shows that vaccinated have LESS protection against Omicron than the unvaccinated!
How is that possible? ...unless it's a weakened immune system (ADE), as some vaccine skeptics are claiming?
It's widely recognized that the vaccine effectiveness against a positive test result (a "case") since the emergence of the omicron variant is fairly low. The vaccines have shown continued effectiveness against the most severe outcomes as measured by hospitalization and ICU admissions when adjusted for age and vaccine status.
This figure suggests that we'd expect to see case rate in the vaccinated running about 70% that of the unvaccinated, while your link would suggest the vaccinated are somewhat higher. The difference is probably down to a few things.
1) Your source appears to be using full population case and vaccination rates while I expect my source (Ontario Covid-19 Science Table) is a composite with age-grouped case and vaccine rates.
2) Positivity rates (positive tests per test) in Canada are high (about 20%) which suggests that there isn't a high level of screening tests going on which is to say the true case rates are probably significantly higher than the reported rates. Given that covid/covid vaccine skeptics are probably less likely to seek a test, they are likely more under reported than the vaccinated cohort.
3) The emergence of rapid home test kits means that a lot of testing is probably not reported in the official case statistics.
The net is that case rates at this point in the pandemic are not a great metric for evaluating vaccine effectiveness or potential downside.
Are we really surprised that a website saying "the triple vaccinated have developed AIDS" is playing fast and loose with data and not respecting obvious confounders.
You can simply discard any conclusion about COVID vaccines that has the word "AIDS" in it. Fisky, if this is a real effect, there will be more respectable sources not fearmongering about AIDS from vaccines.
25 -
Good explainer of why looking at raw testing numbers and vaccinated statuses is very confounded right now (and has been for a while — hence the UK putting huge warnings on their raw rate tabs). Be wary of raw rates and numbers.25
-
Oh, Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle (Florida), just vacated Biden's mask mandate, slapping a nationwide injunction on it. Kimball, a "Trump judge", stated "wearing a mask cleans nothing" as she tore it apart in her ruling.
As of this moment, you can board public transportation not wearing a mask, unless the airline or bus company itself requires it.
It will likely be appealed to the 11th Circuit, but that court has a majority of Trump judges on it.
The Eleventh Circuit Justice is Clarence Thomas.
Here is the ruling:32 -
Harambe wrote:
Heartless wrote:
Great DATA here, Mr fisky. It aligns with the data I’ve been posting here for months from one of the largest hospital systems in MI.
Currently-
Hospitalized: 33 Unvax / 36 Vax (17 Boosted!)
ICU: 2 Unvax / 2 Vax (1 Boosted)
Ventilator: 0
Standard base rate fallacy + Simpson's paradox combined with tiny sample size.
Shameful mathematical ability. I hope someone does your taxes for you.
Nice try.
There is nothing “mathematical” about reporting the weekly DATA from a large hospital system in a given state.
The data trends have held steady for close to 6 months now. The evidence is clear: there have been roughly the same number of unvaxxed and vaxxed hospitalizations and people in the ICU at any given time. This FACT over a duration of 180 days disproves the assertion that the vaccines “stop infection and spread” and are therefore an absolute necessity. That is simply a false statement. They can help certain demographics, sure. But they are not NEARLY as effective as they were originally advertised to be, especially in the omicron phase which is relatively mild.
In the omicron phase, I’ll go with the age-old theory of “natural immunity being the best vaccination there is.” Now leave us the F alone.
72 -
Heartless wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Standard base rate fallacy + Simpson's paradox combined with tiny sample size.
Shameful mathematical ability. I hope someone does your taxes for you.
Nice try.
There is nothing “mathematical” about reporting the weekly DATA from a large hospital system in a given state.
The data trends have held steady for close to 6 months now. The evidence is clear: there have been roughly the same number of unvaxxed and vaxxed hospitalizations and people in the ICU at any given time. This FACT over a duration of 180 days disproves the assertion that the vaccines “stop infection and spread” and are therefore an absolute necessity. That is simply a false statement. They can help certain demographics, sure. But they are not NEARLY as effective as they were originally advertised to be, especially in the omicron phase which is relatively mild.
In the omicron phase, I’ll go with the age-old theory of “natural immunity being the best vaccination there is.” Now leave us the F alone.
No, you are so mathematically incompetent that you don't understand what a fraction is.
For an extreme example. Imagine there were 30 unvaccinated people and 30,000 vaccinated people in Michigan.
Now let's say at one time all 30/30 unvaxxed were hospitalized but only 30/30,000 vaxxed were hospitalized. Would this suggest that the vaccine was not working?
Obviously not.
By reporting raw numbers without denominator, you provide basically no information about the effectiveness of vaccines unless the numbers were skewed exceedingly far in one direction.
Here's a nice explainer written at about the middle school reading level:
27 -
Heartless wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Standard base rate fallacy + Simpson's paradox combined with tiny sample size.
Shameful mathematical ability. I hope someone does your taxes for you.
Nice try.
There is nothing “mathematical” about reporting the weekly DATA from a large hospital system in a given state.
The data trends have held steady for close to 6 months now. The evidence is clear: there have been roughly the same number of unvaxxed and vaxxed hospitalizations and people in the ICU at any given time. This FACT over a duration of 180 days disproves the assertion that the vaccines “stop infection and spread” and are therefore an absolute necessity. That is simply a false statement. They can help certain demographics, sure. But they are not NEARLY as effective as they were originally advertised to be, especially in the omicron phase which is relatively mild.
In the omicron phase, I’ll go with the age-old theory of “natural immunity being the best vaccination there is.” Now leave us the F alone.
The local data trends you highlighted on unvaxxed vs. vaxxed hospitalizations is probably the main reason why the CDC is withholding large amounts of information from the public. Proof of a similar situation nationwide would be a major embarrassment to the Biden administration.
82 -
DanM wrote:
Heartless wrote:
Nice try.
There is nothing “mathematical” about reporting the weekly DATA from a large hospital system in a given state.
The data trends have held steady for close to 6 months now. The evidence is clear: there have been roughly the same number of unvaxxed and vaxxed hospitalizations and people in the ICU at any given time. This FACT over a duration of 180 days disproves the assertion that the vaccines “stop infection and spread” and are therefore an absolute necessity. That is simply a false statement. They can help certain demographics, sure. But they are not NEARLY as effective as they were originally advertised to be, especially in the omicron phase which is relatively mild.
In the omicron phase, I’ll go with the age-old theory of “natural immunity being the best vaccination there is.” Now leave us the F alone.
The local data trends you highlighted on unvaxxed vs. vaxxed hospitalizations is probably the main reason why the CDC is withholding large amounts of information from the public. Proof of a similar situation nationwide would be a major embarrassment to the Biden administration.
The CDC publishes this data from a sample that covers >100 million Americans.
Antivaxxers just ramble nonsense that is directly contradicted by a single google search. Pathetic.
26 -
Birkoboy wrote:
Melted ice cream physique wrote:
I don’t need to. I can simply watch the video. Are you blind?
So what you're really saying is,some anti vax website says FIFA say lots of footballers have died because of the vaccine,they offer no proof FIFA have said that,you offer no proof FIFA have ever said that,and you wonder why the majority of the world laughs at you.
I recommend YOU keep getting vaccinated then. Good luck.
30 -
Harambe wrote:
Heartless wrote:
Nice try.
There is nothing “mathematical” about reporting the weekly DATA from a large hospital system in a given state.
The data trends have held steady for close to 6 months now. The evidence is clear: there have been roughly the same number of unvaxxed and vaxxed hospitalizations and people in the ICU at any given time. This FACT over a duration of 180 days disproves the assertion that the vaccines “stop infection and spread” and are therefore an absolute necessity. That is simply a false statement. They can help certain demographics, sure. But they are not NEARLY as effective as they were originally advertised to be, especially in the omicron phase which is relatively mild.
In the omicron phase, I’ll go with the age-old theory of “natural immunity being the best vaccination there is.” Now leave us the F alone.
No, you are so mathematically incompetent that you don't understand what a fraction is.
For an extreme example. Imagine there were 30 unvaccinated people and 30,000 vaccinated people in Michigan.
Now let's say at one time all 30/30 unvaxxed were hospitalized but only 30/30,000 vaxxed were hospitalized. Would this suggest that the vaccine was not working?
Obviously not.
By reporting raw numbers without denominator, you provide basically no information about the effectiveness of vaccines unless the numbers were skewed exceedingly far in one direction.
Here's a nice explainer written at about the middle school reading level:
Idiot- none of what you said is relevant. Your extreme example was stupid and pointless. It is common knowledge that the approximate “fully” vaxxed rate is somewhere around 65-70% in most states. That doesn’t need to be part of the discussion.
It doesn’t change the fact that there are an equal number of people being hospitalized and in the ICU for (“with”?) Covid. That’s a FACT, based purely on DATA. Simple counting.
I didn’t say “the hospitalization likelihood is exactly the same between the vaxxed and unvaxxed.” I said “the vaccine is clearly less effective than it was originally advertised, especially during the omicron phase.” That is a FACT. You were told if you got vaccinated you wouldn’t get Covid and you wouldn’t spread Covid. That was not true. It’s undeniable now.
Every Liberal I show that data to is shocked as hell at how many vaxxed and boosted folks are in the hospital. Why? Because their news outlets refuse to report the data.
60 -
No more mask mandates on planes! Freedom at last- no thanks to all the fear mongers who wanted to keep it going forever.
60 -
Updated numbers from one of the largest hospital systems in MI.
Hospitalized: 36 Unvax / 47 Vax (24 Boosted!)
ICU: 2 Unvax / 4 Vax (2 Boosted)
Ventilator: 1 Vax
30 -
Heartless wrote:
Updated numbers from one of the largest hospital systems in MI.
Hospitalized: 36 Unvax / 47 Vax (24 Boosted!)
ICU: 2 Unvax / 4 Vax (2 Boosted)
Ventilator: 1 Vax
Interesting! Now:
What percentage of people in that locale are vaccinated?
What percentage are boosted?
What are the mean or median ages of those in each group of the hospitalized?
And why no link to the source?
01 -
So many many names can belong to a registered account wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
Huh?
Current variants are quite mild. Not deadly.
There is zero evidence that the Jab lessens severity. Just the latest claim after the claim that the Jab would prevent transmission was exposed for the lie that it is.
Huh, yes, it is pretty easy
Regarding current variants, it is exactly what I've said. Vaccinated are developing natural immunity by catching current, mild variants. No matter how mild, some people will still die from it. Much more vaccinated are infected with current variants, that is why there are more vaccinated deaths than unvaccinated from current variants.
If you take a look at total No of cases, they are close to each other, but total number of deaths is much greater for unvaccinated. It is because they caught earlier variants, which were harder to spread, but more deadly. Those who caught it early and survived, are immune to current variants.
Vaccinated were protected from more deadly variants, but are not immune to current ones. That is why they are getting it and dying from it, but in much lesser numbers than vaccinated were dying from early variants.
The proof that vaccine lessens severity of response is not only in the total number of deaths, but also, early on, there were much less cases than there are today, never the less, hospitals were breaking full, people dying in bulks. Ever since mass vaccination took over, pressure on hospitals went down.
Why would an anyone die from a sore throat?
In fact, there were as many "Covid deaths" in 2021 with billions of jabs administered as there were in 2020 with no vaccines. Does that not prove the jab does not work?
Thankfully we are now into Omicron which is not deadly and has proved to be far more effective in giving immunity than these dangerous Big Pharma drugs.
10 -
These questions are covid-related and we have some statisticians/medical professionals on this thread so I'm going to ask them.
Why is P ≤ 0.05 statistically significant and P ≥ 0.05 statistically insignificant? I get that there needs to be a cutoff, but why is it a yes/no cutoff rather than a scaled level of significance?
As a layperson, it seems very arbitrary to me that 0.05 is significant and 0.051 is not significant.
00 -
I meant to say P > 0.05 statistically insignificant.
00 -
kibitzer wrote:
Heartless wrote:
Updated numbers from one of the largest hospital systems in MI.
Hospitalized: 36 Unvax / 47 Vax (24 Boosted!)
ICU: 2 Unvax / 4 Vax (2 Boosted)
Ventilator: 1 Vax
Interesting! Now:
What percentage of people in that locale are vaccinated?
What percentage are boosted?
What are the mean or median ages of those in each group of the hospitalized?
And why no link to the source?
Locale? It’s a large hospital system; something like 8 hospitals spread across 4 major counties.
MI vaccination rate is between 60-66%, depending on the source.
No idea on age breakdown.
Also no info on the median weight, their diet, their VO2max, their resting heart rate, their shoe size, whether they’re left or right handed handed, how many sexual partners they’ve had, the color of their eyes, if they’re a cat or dog person, if they prefer McD or Starbucks coffee, or their median income.
None of this diminishes the fact of the matter- that half the country believes the vaccinated/boosted getting or being hospitalized with Covid is extremely rare. It is not rare at all. The data shows that currently there are more people hospitalized and in the ICU in this major metro area’s hospital system that have been vaccinated and boosted. The vaxxed vs unvaxxed breakdown in this system has looked similar for 5-6 months now. The trend is slightly toward the vaxxed and boosted increasing in proportion vs the unvaxxed. The good news is that the overall numbers have come down by about 80%.
The source is the hospital system website. I’d suggest checking your own local hospital system website. The media is intentionally not informing us of this data because it doesn’t fit the “if you get vaccinated you won’t get the virus… if you get vaccinated, you won’t be hospitalized” narrative. That was never a true statement.
40 -
Harambe wrote:
DanM wrote:
The local data trends you highlighted on unvaxxed vs. vaxxed hospitalizations is probably the main reason why the CDC is withholding large amounts of information from the public. Proof of a similar situation nationwide would be a major embarrassment to the Biden administration.
The CDC publishes this data from a sample that covers >100 million Americans.
Antivaxxers just ramble nonsense that is directly contradicted by a single google search. Pathetic.
Thanks for posting this. I follow the CDC covid tracker, but I had not clicked on that link.
Are you aware of a chart/website that shows the following data?
Newly diagnosed conditions, specifically, heart diseases and other diseases that have been attributed to the vaccines... by vaccination status... by month?
Ideally, it would also show excess conditions over/under the historic average from, say 2010 to 2019.
The reason I ask is that there is a huge amount of anecdotal data from medical professionals claiming that they are seeing more new heart conditions, new cancers, etc, than they have ever seen in the past. If the CDC wants to assuage the fears of the public, the CDC needs to make this data publicly available. Surely, they have this data. New cases of heart disease annually are reported already by the AHA, I think. Breaking it down by vaccination status and month would be a simple data sort.
10 -
fisky wrote:
These questions are covid-related and we have some statisticians/medical professionals on this thread so I'm going to ask them.
Why is P ≤ 0.05 statistically significant and P ≥ 0.05 statistically insignificant? I get that there needs to be a cutoff, but why is it a yes/no cutoff rather than a scaled level of significance?
As a layperson, it seems very arbitrary to me that 0.05 is significant and 0.051 is not significant.
The probability value itself IS inherently a scaled level of significance. But there has to be a cutoff (“alpha” value) within the context of the particular field of study. 0.05 IS truly arbitrary, but has been used forever and has proven strong enough in many fields of study. (There are a few urban legends of how 0.05 was established.) Some fields require much stronger values like 0.01 or lower.
Remember, the testing is trying to determine whether or not the null hypothesis (the opposite of your expected outcome) is supported. The null hypothesis is that the observed outcome was 100% chance/random.
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.