From Jan 2021 to June 2022 I interned at our state’s DPH. In addition to working with the team running statistical analysis and Covid prediction models, I worked with the marketing team to develop campaigns to target certain demos to get vaccinated. That’s why I know the data - especially for my demo. You just throwing out that 0.5%-1.0% of the 18U demo has had adverse outcomes is not only inaccurate, it is what we dove deeper into the analysis to create targeted campaigns. On one end you had a demo with attributes similar to mine at the near zero end. However, if you looked at AA/B with high BMI (yes, by Fall 2021 we had a good dataset of this attribute), low soc-e, or low SRactiv within that same age demo, the results were significantly different. On the order of hundreds to thousands of magnitude. Even though that single attribute (18U) was on the low end of risk compared to other age demos, within that same demo were select demos that were at the high risk range.
My state was at the forefront of Covid data collection. We had a robust data set to work with. As a result, we had high vaccination rates in demos where the adverse outcomes were high because we knew the specific groups that needed to be targeted. It made a difference.
So while you boomer-a$ was sitting in your recliner watching Matlock re-runs, I was knee-deep in data analysis and assisting in developing targeted vaccination campaigns. I guess in your world that makes me an antivaxxer since your only retort is to insult or name-call.
Harambe is a fake scientist. He picks up the latest research (“lit”) and regurgitates it as though he is the de facto authority. At best, this guy has a BS in computer information systems. Until he posts his CV that says otherwise, that’s who he is.
He also doesn’t do well with nuance. Especially not the kind you are proposing. We couldn’t possibly have taken a risk-adjusted, nuanced approach with vaccination. It was all or nothing.
He also can’t understand that just because most scientists take NIH funding (or funding from the Bill Gates foundation as the Iwasaki paper did) doesn’t mean that they can’t be conflicted. One of the reasons I stopped pursuing a PhD was because I could see just how difficult it was to get grant money and that most researchers at the top levels of science are still doing the bidding of 90% of their grantors. You do not bite the hand that feeds you. It made me very cynical and it’s why I’m skeptical of Big Pharma.
It’s amazing how quickly that Jordon Walker story went away and he was disappeared. Then one James O’Keefe of Project Veritas went on video and told the entire world that a certain Big Pharma company got to his board. Nah, couldn’t possibly be that level of corruption at these top pharma companies and their revolving doors with their oversight organizations, could there be?
So, as the CDC has quietly admitted, vaccines worked, natural immunity worked, and hybrid immunity worked. All about as good as one another. Mostly, we got a fairly innocuous strain of Omicron that forced endemicity and gave everyone a “boost.”
But, let’s be clear, a regurgitater of “the lit” is not a scientist. Everyone should call Harambe out on his bullsheet. He’s an amateur. But, hey, he’s a crypto millionaire! To think charlatans like this still want to push this crap on five year old kids. Just go shoot up a Christian school already.
Rofl. Gonna stroke this dude off more for making 10 posts with zero substantiated pieces of data in them? Give me a break.
You and the OP lack the quantitative ability to engage with real scientific literature, so are forced to fall back on gut feelings and just-so stories. Perhaps this is why you couldn't hack it in a PhD program.
But, sure, blame 'the establishment' or whatever boogeyman you want. I understand it's upsetting that T cell response to vaccination is that much better than infection. Kinda brings down your whole house of cards, eh? Don't worry, bro, I'm sure Iwasaki just made all of that up... for sure.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Extemely rare grammar error
This is, obviously, still much, much larger than the chance of getting a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.
Everyone can scream 'confounding!!!!1' all they want but they need to provide data at least as compelling that the vaccine risk is remotely comparable.
I'm sure it's very frustrating that the establishment (Trump, Biden, CDC, NIH) and Big Pharma (Pfizer, Moderna) "won" this one. But they did. Sometimes your dreams don't become reality. Welcome to the real world.
LOL this is amazing. "intern at a marketing department for a public agency" as an attempt at credentialism... only to be hilariously wrong and fail to even put forth a shred of data to justify their claims.
From Jan 2021 to June 2022 I interned at our state’s DPH. In addition to working with the team running statistical analysis and Covid prediction models, I worked with the marketing team to develop campaigns to target certain demos to get vaccinated. That’s why I know the data - especially for my demo. You just throwing out that 0.5%-1.0% of the 18U demo has had adverse outcomes is not only inaccurate, it is what we dove deeper into the analysis to create targeted campaigns. On one end you had a demo with attributes similar to mine at the near zero end. However, if you looked at AA/B with high BMI (yes, by Fall 2021 we had a good dataset of this attribute), low soc-e, or low SRactiv within that same age demo, the results were significantly different. On the order of hundreds to thousands of magnitude. Even though that single attribute (18U) was on the low end of risk compared to other age demos, within that same demo were select demos that were at the high risk range.
My state was at the forefront of Covid data collection. We had a robust data set to work with. As a result, we had high vaccination rates in demos where the adverse outcomes were high because we knew the specific groups that needed to be targeted. It made a difference.
So while you boomer-a$ was sitting in your recliner watching Matlock re-runs, I was knee-deep in data analysis and assisting in developing targeted vaccination campaigns. I guess in your world that makes me an antivaxxer since your only retort is to insult or name-call.
Harambe is a fake scientist. He picks up the latest research (“lit”) and regurgitates it as though he is the de facto authority. At best, this guy has a BS in computer information systems. Until he posts his CV that says otherwise, that’s who he is.
He also doesn’t do well with nuance. Especially not the kind you are proposing. We couldn’t possibly have taken a risk-adjusted, nuanced approach with vaccination. It was all or nothing.
He also can’t understand that just because most scientists take NIH funding (or funding from the Bill Gates foundation as the Iwasaki paper did) doesn’t mean that they can’t be conflicted. One of the reasons I stopped pursuing a PhD was because I could see just how difficult it was to get grant money and that most researchers at the top levels of science are still doing the bidding of 90% of their grantors. You do not bite the hand that feeds you. It made me very cynical and it’s why I’m skeptical of Big Pharma.
It’s amazing how quickly that Jordon Walker story went away and he was disappeared. Then one James O’Keefe of Project Veritas went on video and told the entire world that a certain Big Pharma company got to his board. Nah, couldn’t possibly be that level of corruption at these top pharma companies and their revolving doors with their oversight organizations, could there be?
So, as the CDC has quietly admitted, vaccines worked, natural immunity worked, and hybrid immunity worked. All about as good as one another. Mostly, we got a fairly innocuous strain of Omicron that forced endemicity and gave everyone a “boost.”
But, let’s be clear, a regurgitater of “the lit” is not a scientist. Everyone should call Harambe out on his bullsheet. He’s an amateur. But, hey, he’s a crypto millionaire! To think charlatans like this still want to push this crap on five year old kids. Just go shoot up a Christian school already.
Given that risks of vaccination are significantly less than the risks of COVID infection for all demographics... what does a "risk adjusted approach" to vaccination look like.
It's honestly hard to take these screeds seriously anymore. It just hits all the talking points.
1) Hidden, undetectable risk...
2) Corruption
3) Science is biased
4) I am special and have seen through this all
5) But I still get basic consensus data completely wrong
So, as the CDC has quietly admitted, vaccines worked, natural immunity worked, and hybrid immunity worked. All about as good as one another. Mostly, we got a fairly innocuous strain of Omicron that forced endemicity and gave everyone a “boost.”
"About as good as one another" is a doing a LOT of work in this claim.
It's easy to convince yourself you are knowledgeable (or even smart) if never actually engage with data.
Wow. I guess I got the boomers all riled up last night. At least it got them screaming at me rather than sitting in their recliners screaming at the 24 hour news shows. 😂
I’ll respond to some of the posts. You guys be sure to take your meds before reading them. I don’t want any adverse outcomes.
From Jan 2021 to June 2022 I interned at our state’s DPH. In addition to working with the team running statistical analysis and Covid prediction models, I worked with the marketing team to develop campaigns to target certain demos to get vaccinated. That’s why I know the data - especially for my demo. You just throwing out that 0.5%-1.0% of the 18U demo has had adverse outcomes is not only inaccurate, it is what we dove deeper into the analysis to create targeted campaigns. On one end you had a demo with attributes similar to mine at the near zero end. However, if you looked at AA/B with high BMI (yes, by Fall 2021 we had a good dataset of this attribute), low soc-e, or low SRactiv within that same age demo, the results were significantly different. On the order of hundreds to thousands of magnitude. Even though that single attribute (18U) was on the low end of risk compared to other age demos, within that same demo were select demos that were at the high risk range.
My state was at the forefront of Covid data collection. We had a robust data set to work with. As a result, we had high vaccination rates in demos where the adverse outcomes were high because we knew the specific groups that needed to be targeted. It made a difference.
So while you boomer-a$ was sitting in your recliner watching Matlock re-runs, I was knee-deep in data analysis and assisting in developing targeted vaccination campaigns. I guess in your world that makes me an antivaxxer since your only retort is to insult or name-call.
A long post with no numbers. Whatever your internship was, you stayed far from the actual data (makes sense – marketing).
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Read again. I was on the data analysis team in addition to later working with marketing and then other teams. That’s generally how internships work - especially when you are there 18 months.
The number you are looking for is 3.3/100,000 adverse outcomes of Covid positive (0 deaths). That is the number for my demo. Granted, the number was slightly higher when the vaccine was initially available for me. (This was regional data, not state data).
Harambe is a fake scientist. He picks up the latest research (“lit”) and regurgitates it as though he is the de facto authority. At best, this guy has a BS in computer information systems. Until he posts his CV that says otherwise, that’s who he is.
He also doesn’t do well with nuance. Especially not the kind you are proposing. We couldn’t possibly have taken a risk-adjusted, nuanced approach with vaccination. It was all or nothing.
He also can’t understand that just because most scientists take NIH funding (or funding from the Bill Gates foundation as the Iwasaki paper did) doesn’t mean that they can’t be conflicted. One of the reasons I stopped pursuing a PhD was because I could see just how difficult it was to get grant money and that most researchers at the top levels of science are still doing the bidding of 90% of their grantors. You do not bite the hand that feeds you. It made me very cynical and it’s why I’m skeptical of Big Pharma.
It’s amazing how quickly that Jordon Walker story went away and he was disappeared. Then one James O’Keefe of Project Veritas went on video and told the entire world that a certain Big Pharma company got to his board. Nah, couldn’t possibly be that level of corruption at these top pharma companies and their revolving doors with their oversight organizations, could there be?
So, as the CDC has quietly admitted, vaccines worked, natural immunity worked, and hybrid immunity worked. All about as good as one another. Mostly, we got a fairly innocuous strain of Omicron that forced endemicity and gave everyone a “boost.”
But, let’s be clear, a regurgitater of “the lit” is not a scientist. Everyone should call Harambe out on his bullsheet. He’s an amateur. But, hey, he’s a crypto millionaire! To think charlatans like this still want to push this crap on five year old kids. Just go shoot up a Christian school already.
Rofl. Gonna stroke this dude off more for making 10 posts with zero substantiated pieces of data in them? Give me a break.
One of us has two co-authors on peer reviewed papers related to Covid research. I’ll give you a hint. That guy ain’t you. 👍
LOL this is amazing. "intern at a marketing department for a public agency" as an attempt at credentialism... only to be hilariously wrong and fail to even put forth a shred of data to justify their claims.
Hmmm. Your reading comprehension is about as solid as the other guy’s.
This really gets you guy’s worked up. Chill guy. It’ll be okay. 😂
This is, obviously, still much, much larger than the chance of getting a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.
Everyone can scream 'confounding!!!!1' all they want but they need to provide data at least as compelling that the vaccine risk is remotely comparable.
I'm sure it's very frustrating that the establishment (Trump, Biden, CDC, NIH) and Big Pharma (Pfizer, Moderna) "won" this one. But they did. Sometimes your dreams don't become reality. Welcome to the real world.
Congrats. You’re likely reading data that I worked on. You’re welcome. 👍
Again, if you had ever worked with the data (like I have), you’d understand that not everyone in the 18U group has the same outcomes. That’s why the campaigns we developed that targeted specific high risk groups were so important. Within that 0.2% risk group there are groups like I detailed previously that were several magnitudes higher and some magnitudes lower. You tell someone their macro group only has a 0.2% chance of adverse outcome, it doesn’t concern any of them. However, when you target that group with certain attributes and it rises to 1/50, it hits them a little harder. Note that the campaigns didn’t use probability of outcomes in the messaging-not effective since difficult to interpret for the common person (you’d know about that right?😂).
I am not your doctor - seems hard for me to model that without your health info. Feel free to share if you want.
I can tell you the risk from COVID is much greater than the risk from the vaccine, so getting vaccinated makes sense barring some crazy time-cost to vaccination (you live on a homestead in the Yukon or something).
Sure. Here you go.
At the time that the vaccine was first available to me in my state:
16 y.o. Asian male
BMI: 17
No health issues (2x year physical)
Physical activity level: high
Everything is still the same today other than my age, obviously.
Tell me what my risk probability for contracting Covid AND having an adverse outcome. I happen to know the answer.
According to this CDC estimate, from February 2020 to September 2021, in the age group 0 to 17 years, there were 25,844,005 Covid infections, 645 Covid deaths.
So, as the CDC has quietly admitted, vaccines worked, natural immunity worked, and hybrid immunity worked. All about as good as one another. Mostly, we got a fairly innocuous strain of Omicron that forced endemicity and gave everyone a “boost.”
"About as good as one another" is a doing a LOT of work in this claim.
It's easy to convince yourself you are knowledgeable (or even smart) if never actually engage with data.
Hahahahhaa. OMG, they've stuck out their heads!!! The deranged are back!!! Hahahhaa.
This is, obviously, still much, much larger than the chance of getting a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.
Everyone can scream 'confounding!!!!1' all they want but they need to provide data at least as compelling that the vaccine risk is remotely comparable.
I'm sure it's very frustrating that the establishment (Trump, Biden, CDC, NIH) and Big Pharma (Pfizer, Moderna) "won" this one. But they did. Sometimes your dreams don't become reality. Welcome to the real world.
OMG, its crawled back out! Worm must be thinking its safe out here and that people forgot. Hahahaha.
This is, obviously, still much, much larger than the chance of getting a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.
Everyone can scream 'confounding!!!!1' all they want but they need to provide data at least as compelling that the vaccine risk is remotely comparable.
I'm sure it's very frustrating that the establishment (Trump, Biden, CDC, NIH) and Big Pharma (Pfizer, Moderna) "won" this one. But they did. Sometimes your dreams don't become reality. Welcome to the real world.
Congrats. You’re likely reading data that I worked on. You’re welcome. 👍
Again, if you had ever worked with the data (like I have), you’d understand that not everyone in the 18U group has the same outcomes. That’s why the campaigns we developed that targeted specific high risk groups were so important. Within that 0.2% risk group there are groups like I detailed previously that were several magnitudes higher and some magnitudes lower. You tell someone their macro group only has a 0.2% chance of adverse outcome, it doesn’t concern any of them. However, when you target that group with certain attributes and it rises to 1/50, it hits them a little harder. Note that the campaigns didn’t use probability of outcomes in the messaging-not effective since difficult to interpret for the common person (you’d know about that right?😂).
I'm sure you made some nice infographics. Good work.
Of course people within a large population will have different individual risks than the average. You still have yet to present any data besides 'trust me bro,' let alone data that shows the risk of the vaccine approached the risk of COVID for whatever subgroup you are currently finely slicing.
Even your 3.3/100,000 number (presented without evidence for some sub-sub-sub-group) is significantly higher than the risk of hospitalization from the vaccine in that sub-sub-sub group. You ended up proving me right - as usual.
This is, obviously, still much, much larger than the chance of getting a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.
Everyone can scream 'confounding!!!!1' all they want but they need to provide data at least as compelling that the vaccine risk is remotely comparable.
I'm sure it's very frustrating that the establishment (Trump, Biden, CDC, NIH) and Big Pharma (Pfizer, Moderna) "won" this one. But they did. Sometimes your dreams don't become reality. Welcome to the real world.
Congrats. You’re likely reading data that I worked on. You’re welcome. 👍
Again, if you had ever worked with the data (like I have), you’d understand that not everyone in the 18U group has the same outcomes. That’s why the campaigns we developed that targeted specific high risk groups were so important. Within that 0.2% risk group there are groups like I detailed previously that were several magnitudes higher and some magnitudes lower. You tell someone their macro group only has a 0.2% chance of adverse outcome, it doesn’t concern any of them. However, when you target that group with certain attributes and it rises to 1/50, it hits them a little harder. Note that the campaigns didn’t use probability of outcomes in the messaging-not effective since difficult to interpret for the common person (you’d know about that right?😂).
serious Q: what’s the point of this message. 1) there is variance in demographic averages
2) people (like you?) don’t listen to data because they assume more optimistic outcomes.
If it’s 2… then yes, why we are discussing. You have no interest in the premise: vaccination is a net positive for all demographic groups.
Congrats. You’re likely reading data that I worked on. You’re welcome. 👍
Again, if you had ever worked with the data (like I have), you’d understand that not everyone in the 18U group has the same outcomes. That’s why the campaigns we developed that targeted specific high risk groups were so important. Within that 0.2% risk group there are groups like I detailed previously that were several magnitudes higher and some magnitudes lower. You tell someone their macro group only has a 0.2% chance of adverse outcome, it doesn’t concern any of them. However, when you target that group with certain attributes and it rises to 1/50, it hits them a little harder. Note that the campaigns didn’t use probability of outcomes in the messaging-not effective since difficult to interpret for the common person (you’d know about that right?😂).
I'm sure you made some nice infographics. Good work.
Of course people within a large population will have different individual risks than the average. You still have yet to present any data besides 'trust me bro,' let alone data that shows the risk of the vaccine approached the risk of COVID for whatever subgroup you are currently finely slicing.
Even your 3.3/100,000 number (presented without evidence for some sub-sub-sub-group) is significantly higher than the risk of hospitalization from the vaccine in that sub-sub-sub group. You ended up proving me right - as usual.
Cheers
Nice straw man. I’ve never made the comparison between my risk of adverse outcome to Covid to adverse risk to Covid vaccinations. I never worked with the risk of vaccine data, just Covid data. My guess is that it is near zero - same as my risk of Covid.
I'm sure you made some nice infographics. Good work.
Of course people within a large population will have different individual risks than the average. You still have yet to present any data besides 'trust me bro,' let alone data that shows the risk of the vaccine approached the risk of COVID for whatever subgroup you are currently finely slicing.
Even your 3.3/100,000 number (presented without evidence for some sub-sub-sub-group) is significantly higher than the risk of hospitalization from the vaccine in that sub-sub-sub group. You ended up proving me right - as usual.
Cheers
Nice straw man. I’ve never made the comparison between my risk of adverse outcome to Covid to adverse risk to Covid vaccinations. I never worked with the risk of vaccine data, just Covid data. My guess is that it is near zero - same as my risk of Covid.
I eagerly await your next straw man. 👍
You seem to be unable to understand that dividing two small numbers can result in a large number.
this is called a “ratio” and I guess they don’t teach it in marketing classes
lmao you gotta love this place. The moment a major development occurs, the usual vaxxtards come running in to desperately defend their masters and justify their own idiocy.
As if this new CDC messaging is happening in a vacuum, as if countries around the world haven't completely 180'd, as if govt. data is not now undeniably showing the 'vaccines' are a disaster.
A long post with no numbers. Whatever your internship was, you stayed far from the actual data (makes sense – marketing).
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Read again. I was on the data analysis team in addition to later working with marketing and then other teams. That’s generally how internships work - especially when you are there 18 months.
The number you are looking for is 3.3/100,000 adverse outcomes of Covid positive (0 deaths). That is the number for my demo. Granted, the number was slightly higher when the vaccine was initially available for me. (This was regional data, not state data).
Don't bother arguing. Harambe tries to act like the vax-wizard, yet doesn't know the difference between sample and population probabilities.
lmao you gotta love this place. The moment a major development occurs, the usual vaxxtards come running in to desperately defend their masters and justify their own idiocy.
As if this new CDC messaging is happening in a vacuum, as if countries around the world haven't completely 180'd, as if govt. data is not now undeniably showing the 'vaccines' are a disaster.
but hey, vaxxtards gonna vaxxtard!
The only major developments in the last month have been:
1) evidence for widespread autoimmune responses after COVID that is mitigated by vaccination
2) evidence for significantly inferior T cell responses after infection compared to vaccination. These responses are important for broad and durable immunity
