Coronavirus COVID-19

[Gil Dobie]

All things are not equal in that study. If you believe that, it's your problem. The effectiveness study of the vaccines compared apples to apples.

Like I said. Take it up with the authors. I'm sure they'll retract the paper just because you don't like the results.

Sorry, not chasing the Iraqi hacker farms you follow.

[SeattleGriz]

Like I said. Take it up with the authors. I'm sure they'll retract the paper just because you don't like the results.

Sorry, not chasing the Iraqi hacker farms you follow.

MedRxiv is probably the most used site for publishing your studies as you wait for it to go through peer review. The link to the study was in the original post.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21267966v2

[BDKJMU]

PFIZER booster lol..
https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-agency ... hin-weeks/

[Gil Dobie]

Sorry, not chasing the Iraqi hacker farms you follow.

MedRxiv is probably the most used site for publishing your studies as you wait for it to go through peer review. The link to the study was in the original post.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21267966v2

This is not what the original post said that we are discussing.

Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxxed people.

[JohnStOnge]

The chief medical officer was able to trace every confirmed case of COVID to symptomatic spreaders. That’s fact.

That might be the case but I don't see it stated in the linked Washington Post article.

]Now, the NFL relatively speaking is a small organization and therefore this data could be arguably anecdotal. You yourself argue all the time for observational data - well, here’s some observational data for you.

I do not argue for observational data. In fact, I have noted many times that it's not possible to infer cause and effect with observational data and that you need a controlled experiment to do that. Unfortunately, in a situation like this, you are going to be limited to observational data.

Unless you want to argue that it is falsified, then it does not lack credibility. The only problem with it would be sample size

Don’t take issues with factual data that don’t support your preconceptions, John. The fact that you didn’t go after it from the sample size angle is telling.

I don't see any detail about the data in the Washington Post report. All I know from reading that report is that the NFL CMO said:

“As we’ve gone back and looked throughout the entire season, what we’ve seen consistently is that when people have symptoms, that’s when they seem to be contagious to others,”

That is NOT saying that he could point to a symptomatic source for every case. It's not saying he couldn't either. It's very vague.

I don't think sample size is likely to be a problem. Looking at the number of players who have tested positive at https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/a ... -policies/, if they can confidently say that NONE of them are the result of asymptomatic transmission, the sample size is sufficient to say that asymptomatic transmission has been extremely unlikely.

My questions would be more related to the extent to which they can say they have ruled out asymptomatic transmission. Of course that is in the context of a situation where the overwhelming consensus among public health professionals is that asymptomatic transmission is indeed a significant problem.

[JohnStOnge]

Wonder if StOnge would like to pull an "expert" out if his ass and try to explain this.

I will just go with the explanation given by the paper's authors:

The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.

"VE" is, of course, "vaccine effectiveness." It's pretty clear that the authors of the paper do not think being vaccinated caused a higher infection rate.

[SeattleGriz]

MedRxiv is probably the most used site for publishing your studies as you wait for it to go through peer review. The link to the study was in the original post.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21267966v2

This is not what the original post said that we are discussing.

Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxxed people.

Dude. Nobody can understand what you are saying. Please be concise.

[JohnStOnge]

MedRxiv is probably the most used site for publishing your studies as you wait for it to go through peer review. The link to the study was in the original post.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21267966v2

This is not what the original post said that we are discussing.

Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxxed people.

The author of the Tweet either didn't read or did not consider what the authors of the study wrote about that. But I've seen that sort of thing a lot with this COVID thing. People pick something out of a table or something in a study and use it to try to create an impression that the authors of the study did not intend to create.

[Gil Dobie]

This is not what the original post said that we are discussing.

Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxxed people.

Dude. Nobody can understand what you are saying. Please be concise.

I told you in the beginning, before you went off on this stuff. The tweet from the hacker farm, was comparing vaxxed to unvaxxed, with nothing being equal. Sheesh!

[Gil Dobie]

This is not what the original post said that we are discussing.

Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxxed people.

The author of the Tweet either didn't read or did not consider what the authors of the study wrote about that. But I've seen that sort of thing a lot with this COVID thing. People pick something out of a table or something in a study and use it to try to create an impression that the authors of the study did not intend to create.

That's why I believe it's a hacker farm pushing out this crap.

[Baldy]

Same. I don’t wear it anywhere not required, and even in required places I sometimes ‘forget’..Stay away from others if feeling sick, and stay away from the obviously sick. Basically, live like its 2019..

It's not 2019. Things are different now. The prevalence of attitudes such as that described is why we are having as hard of a time with this as we are having. If we had like 95% of the people fully vaccinated and 95% of the people wearing masks when they go out in public settings, this would be under control. It's not because we have a bunch of people acting in ignorant ways while thinking THEY are the smart ones. They're not.

That's funny.

Just like the flu, COVID has become endemic. It isn't going anywhere so you people better start learning how to live your lives again.

[AZGrizFan]

Wonder if StOnge would like to pull an "expert" out if his ass and try to explain this.

I will just go with the explanation given by the paper's authors:

The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.

"VE" is, of course, "vaccine effectiveness." It's pretty clear that the authors of the paper do not think being vaccinated caused a higher infection rate.

And they’re completely guessing….”likely the result of” mysterious “super spreading events” full of young, vaccinated individuals, that they can’t/don’t document.

[SeattleGriz]

Wonder if StOnge would like to pull an "expert" out if his ass and try to explain this.

I will just go with the explanation given by the paper's authors:

The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.

"VE" is, of course, "vaccine effectiveness." It's pretty clear that the authors of the paper do not think being vaccinated caused a higher infection rate.

So you are saying that, "because the authors do not think", means it didn't happen? They did NOT have more vaccinated catch Omicron than the unvaccinated for that group?

You keep asking everyone to not believe what they are seeing on the graph and in the tables and your answer isn't a good one.

This isn't proof, but here is Fauci before the vaccines came out. 20 second clip.

[Gil Dobie]

I will just go with the explanation given by the paper's authors:



"VE" is, of course, "vaccine effectiveness." It's pretty clear that the authors of the paper do not think being vaccinated caused a higher infection rate.

So you are saying that, "because the authors do not think", means it didn't happen? They did NOT have more vaccinated catch Omicron than the unvaccinated for that group?

Wow! That is amazing AND two studies in a row where the authors have apparently decided their data didn't really mean what was printed.

Next you'll tell me if people get vaccinated, they can't catch or spread Covid, but please don't tell me this really isn't Fauci before the vaccines came out.

Your glass house is cracking. Your links don't match your narrative. You are on my covid ignore list with Fauci.

[SeattleGriz]

So you are saying that, "because the authors do not think", means it didn't happen? They did NOT have more vaccinated catch Omicron than the unvaccinated for that group?

Wow! That is amazing AND two studies in a row where the authors have apparently decided their data didn't really mean what was printed.

Next you'll tell me if people get vaccinated, they can't catch or spread Covid, but please don't tell me this really isn't Fauci before the vaccines came out.

Your glass house is cracking. Your links don't match your narrative. You are on my covid ignore list with Fauci.

Yes, my conspiracy.

I've uncovered the need for boosters on a vaccine that was made many variants ago.

[SeattleGriz]

I will just go with the explanation given by the paper's authors:



"VE" is, of course, "vaccine effectiveness." It's pretty clear that the authors of the paper do not think being vaccinated caused a higher infection rate.

And they’re completely guessing….”likely the result of” mysterious “super spreading events” full of young, vaccinated individuals, that they can’t/don’t document.

That's what you say when you want the grant money to continue. The best part is where they then go on to recommend mass vaccination and boosters. Kid you not.

[Gil Dobie]

Your glass house is cracking. Your links don't match your narrative. You are on my covid ignore list with Fauci.

Yes, my conspiracy.

I've uncovered the need for boosters on a vaccine that was made many variants ago.

Yes, you have done more reading and research on the internet than thousands of doctors and scientists

[kalm]

Why you still don’t want to get Covid…

“Jasmine Hayer, 32, was living in London and training to be a yoga teacher when she caught coronavirus last March.

It sometimes feels like it was a different person, she says, speaking slowly and carefully from her parent's house in Biggleswade, Bedfordshire.

"An anti-inflammatory drug called colchicine significantly changed my recovery but unfortunately I relapsed again. Now I can walk slowly for five minutes once a week if I'm lucky but I get chest pain afterwards. I have to choose between using my voice and moving my body. I can't do both in a day.“

https://bbc.in/3psfiR6?fbclid=IwAR0y5ab ... ruGyaXH_ug

[Winterborn]

Why you still don’t want to get Covid…

“Jasmine Hayer, 32, was living in London and training to be a yoga teacher when she caught coronavirus last March.

It sometimes feels like it was a different person, she says, speaking slowly and carefully from her parent's house in Biggleswade, Bedfordshire.

"An anti-inflammatory drug called colchicine significantly changed my recovery but unfortunately I relapsed again. Now I can walk slowly for five minutes once a week if I'm lucky but I get chest pain afterwards. I have to choose between using my voice and moving my body. I can't do both in a day.“

https://bbc.in/3psfiR6?fbclid=IwAR0y5ab ... ruGyaXH_ug

Ah, the old emotional fallacy. Guess I can play that game too.

kayla Linton was a healthy, all-around athlete, but being fit did not protect her from the flu.

Linton, who died last week in Baltimore, is among the dozens of often perfectly healthy children who die from influenza every year in the U.S.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... ne-n718381


COVID can be deadly.

A flu can be deadly.

A cold can be deadly.

Cancer can be deadly.

Slipping on the ice can be deadly.

Driving can be deadly.

Deer hunting can be deadly.

Skiing can be deadly.

Swimming can be deadly.

Cycling can be deadly.



Need I go on? The numbers say that somebody, somewhere will die from the most mundane thing. We can also die from old age. Outliers always exist. Deciding policy based on outliers is both stupid and foolhardy. So is deciding policy based on sob stories. Which apparently is where we are now at.

[Gil Dobie]

We just experienced a third leading cause of death in 2020. That is traumatic for the population, healthcare, scientist and government to deal with. What is different about Covid is, that it's political. I don't know of any political group that is throwing shade towards different treatments for heart disease, cancer, Diabetes, Alzheimer's, or any other disease on the list, or even one's not on the list, like MS, Autism, or ALS. People appear to believe most of the Doctors and Scientists for their research and treatments of the other diseases on the list, but many think they are bonkers with their Covid treatments, vaccines, and preventative measures.

[kalm]

Why you still don’t want to get Covid…

“Jasmine Hayer, 32, was living in London and training to be a yoga teacher when she caught coronavirus last March.

It sometimes feels like it was a different person, she says, speaking slowly and carefully from her parent's house in Biggleswade, Bedfordshire.

"An anti-inflammatory drug called colchicine significantly changed my recovery but unfortunately I relapsed again. Now I can walk slowly for five minutes once a week if I'm lucky but I get chest pain afterwards. I have to choose between using my voice and moving my body. I can't do both in a day.“

https://bbc.in/3psfiR6?fbclid=IwAR0y5ab ... ruGyaXH_ug

Ah, the old emotional fallacy. Guess I can play that game too.

kayla Linton was a healthy, all-around athlete, but being fit did not protect her from the flu.

Linton, who died last week in Baltimore, is among the dozens of often perfectly healthy children who die from influenza every year in the U.S.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... ne-n718381


COVID can be deadly.

A flu can be deadly.

A cold can be deadly.

Cancer can be deadly.

Slipping on the ice can be deadly.

Driving can be deadly.

Deer hunting can be deadly.

Skiing can be deadly.

Swimming can be deadly.

Cycling can be deadly.



Need I go on? The numbers say that somebody, somewhere will die from the most mundane thing. We can also die from old age. Outliers always exist. Deciding policy based on outliers is both stupid and foolhardy. So is deciding policy based on sob stories. Which apparently is where we are now at.

We know those things and avoid them. We also know how to treat them so that they are mostly not deadly or produce long term effects. EG: not a lot of people losing 9 months of work due to the flu. Or helmets save lives.

This is information regarding a new disease using a real life example of someone young and healthy.

Your reply seems rather…well…emotional?

[SeattleGriz]

Yes, my conspiracy.

I've uncovered the need for boosters on a vaccine that was made many variants ago.

Yes, you have done more reading and research on the internet than thousands of doctors and scientists

All I did was point out a recent study showing how quickly Omicron can evade the vaccines, in which the whole industry has already pointed out. I simply want to know why it, sure as shit, looks to go into negative effectiveness. Why would it do that, if something else was not in play?

[Gil Dobie]

Yes, you have done more reading and research on the internet than thousands of doctors and scientists

All I did was point out a recent study showing how quickly Omicron can evade the vaccines, in which the whole industry has already pointed out. I simply want to know why it, sure as shit, looks to go into negative effectiveness. Why would it do that, if something else was not in play?

The tweet said it was easier to get Covid if you were not vaxxed. I didn't see a study to back that up.

[kalm]

Yes, you have done more reading and research on the internet than thousands of doctors and scientists

All I did was point out a recent study showing how quickly Omicron can evade the vaccines, in which the whole industry has already pointed out. I simply want to know why it, sure as shit, looks to go into negative effectiveness. Why would it do that, if something else was not in play?

Relaxed social distancing.

[BDKJMU]

Ah, the old emotional fallacy. Guess I can play that game too.



https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... ne-n718381


COVID can be deadly.

A flu can be deadly.

A cold can be deadly.

Cancer can be deadly.

Slipping on the ice can be deadly.

Driving can be deadly.

Deer hunting can be deadly.

Skiing can be deadly.

Swimming can be deadly.

Cycling can be deadly.



Need I go on? The numbers say that somebody, somewhere will die from the most mundane thing. We can also die from old age. Outliers always exist. Deciding policy based on outliers is both stupid and foolhardy. So is deciding policy based on sob stories. Which apparently is where we are now at.

We know those things and avoid them. We also know how to treat them so that they are mostly not deadly or produce long term effects. EG: not a lot of people losing 9 months of work due to the flu. Or helmets save lives.

This is information regarding a new disease using a real life example of someone young and healthy.

Your reply seems rather…well…emotional?

Do we?
-Most fat people still eat unheathy food and don’t exercise.
-Lots of people excessively speed, drive receklessly, drive under the influence..
etc, etc