Coronavirus COVID-19

[kalm]

Ok…but “the science” has still changed at least in regard to official government pronouncements and how to mitigate the threat.

(I’m trying to dumb this down for the audience here. You’re not helping )

Here let me help. The political science has changed. Explains it all.

I love how StOnge throws around the "new science" while ignoring established science.

Do ya?

[SeattleGriz]

Here let me help. The political science has changed. Explains it all.

I love how StOnge throws around the "new science" while ignoring established science.

Do ya?

I do!

[UNI88]

I do.

I do!

By the power vested in me by CS and Ursus, I now pronounce you message board man and wife.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

Which is fine. The main issue I have now with those who chose to not get vaccinated is they tend to think that decision should be consequence free.

What consequences should they suffer, other than catching COVID?

Spreading it to a friend or family member that dies, would be a terrible consequence if I was the one responsible for the spread.

[Gil Dobie]

I don't want to take the time to go back and find one of the posts where SG asked about a Danish study that showed a negative number for "Vaccine Effectiveness" after an extended period but I happened across this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2TE17B

It quotes one of the authors of the study. What I can see from reading it is that SG may be hopelessly tuned in to the social media misinformation stream.

This is the best you've got? A Reuters fact check that didn't address the negative effectiveness of the vaccine, other than it's bias! So the 842k matched cohort Swedish study you wouldn't answer either, was due to bias as well? The one that showed at day 211 the vaccine effectiveness against delta was zero, then dipped into negative effectiveness?

So, to summarize. You're saying that when the data shows good vaccine effectiveness, it's rock solid data, but when the vaccine shows poor effectiveness, it's due to study bias.

In regards to the actual topic the fact check tried to debunk, whether the vaccine damaged the immune system, that was never discussed, but if you'd like to talk th1 vs th2 we can surely discuss that if you like.

You are condemning a neutral fact check. For starters, that makes me question your view of science.

[kalm]

I do!

By the power vested in me by CS and Ursus, I now pronounce you message board man and wife.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Pretty sure Ursus is an ordained minister. “There’s drinks and girls all over Seattle!”

[SeattleGriz]

This is the best you've got? A Reuters fact check that didn't address the negative effectiveness of the vaccine, other than it's bias! So the 842k matched cohort Swedish study you wouldn't answer either, was due to bias as well? The one that showed at day 211 the vaccine effectiveness against delta was zero, then dipped into negative effectiveness?

So, to summarize. You're saying that when the data shows good vaccine effectiveness, it's rock solid data, but when the vaccine shows poor effectiveness, it's due to study bias.

In regards to the actual topic the fact check tried to debunk, whether the vaccine damaged the immune system, that was never discussed, but if you'd like to talk th1 vs th2 we can surely discuss that if you like.

You are condemning a neutral fact check. For starters, that makes me question your view of science.

I'm questioning StOnge because he used a fact check to answer a question that was not asked. Does the Danish study show that the vaccine damaged the immune system?

It's a little bit of a straw man.

[kalm]

You are condemning a neutral fact check. For starters, that makes me question your view of science.

I'm questioning StOnge because he used a fact check to answer a question that was not asked. Does the Danish study show that the vaccine damaged the immune system?

It's a little bit of a straw man.

Skepticism is healthy…in doses. But I don’t think you need to take the booster. Your natural immunity to scientific consensus should be sufficient.

[SeattleGriz]

I do!

By the power vested in me by CS and Ursus, I now pronounce you message board man and wife.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[kalm]

By the power vested in me by CS and Ursus, I now pronounce you message board man and wife.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Quit laughing and get back in the kitchen, sweetie!

[SeattleGriz]

Quit laughing and get back in the kitchen, sweetie!

Making yer sammich now. Spam and egg coming right up!

[JohnStOnge]

I don't want to take the time to go back and find one of the posts where SG asked about a Danish study that showed a negative number for "Vaccine Effectiveness" after an extended period but I happened across this:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2TE17B

It quotes one of the authors of the study. What I can see from reading it is that SG may be hopelessly tuned in to the social media misinformation stream.

This is the best you've got? A Reuters fact check that didn't address the negative effectiveness of the vaccine, other than it's bias! So the 842k matched cohort Swedish study you wouldn't answer either, was due to bias as well? The one that showed at day 211 the vaccine effectiveness against delta was zero, then dipped into negative effectiveness?

So, to summarize. You're saying that when the data shows good vaccine effectiveness, it's rock solid data, but when the vaccine shows poor effectiveness, it's due to study bias.

In regards to the actual topic the fact check tried to debunk, whether the vaccine damaged the immune system, that was never discussed, but if you'd like to talk th1 vs th2 we can surely discuss that if you like.

The Reuter's Fact Check did address the question of whether the study showed that the vaccine damaged the immune system. The Fact Checkers correctly stated:

The study did not conclude that mRNA vaccines harm the immune system

They also quoted one of the two lead authors of the paper giving his opinion with respect to the reason for the negative Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) estimates:

The fact that the estimated VE is negative during the last period suggests that there is bias in the comparison between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated population. We also make this point in the discussion. Such biases are quite common in VE estimation from observational studies based on population data.

That's not my opinion. It's not the Reuters Fact Checkers' opinion. It's one of the lead authors' opinion. He also provided details:

Denmark was very quick to conduct sequencing and to identify the first generations of Omicron cases in the country. Cases during this period occurred to an exaggerated extent in those who were travelling internationally, and those in the social and professional circles of travellers, and were largely vaccinated. We expect therefore that there was an overrepresentation of vaccinated people among the first generations of Omicron cases identified in Denmark, not because the vaccines weren’t protective, but because the variant hadn’t spread far enough into the general population, including into the unvaccinated population, to make for comparable infection rates.

So a lead author gave his opinion backed up by a relatively detailed and reasonable explanation of how it happened.

The last sentence in the paper (at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 3.full.pdf) is this:

In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.

So the people who actually did the study are saying their findings indicate a need to step up the vaccination effort including a need to apply boosters and we've got people looking at a table in the paper, ignoring what the authors had to say about the negative VE numbers, and spinning it into an indication that the vaccines may do harm by damaging immune systems.

[BDKJMU]

After having mandate for private employees, and mandate for health care workers, blocked by the courts, Biden has his mandate for fed contractors blocked by the courts.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgi ... ne-mandate

And a 4th Biden vaccine mandate blocked by the courts.
Fed judge ruled against vaccine and mask mandates for Head Start programs initiated by the Biden admin.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas- ... ne-mandate

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if somebody is going to do a tweet or some other kind of social media post showing that table with the negative VE estimates highlighted while asking the question of whether the vaccines harm the immune system, they ought to at LEAST mention that the authors of the paper did not interpret the results they got as suggesting that and offered another possible explanation for why it happened. They ought also to mention that the authors of the paper said boosters are effective and that we should step up our vaccination and boosting efforts.

[kalm]

BTW, if somebody is going to do a tweet or some other kind of social media post showing that table with the negative VE estimates highlighted while asking the question of whether the vaccines harm the immune system, they ought to at LEAST mention that the authors of the paper did not interpret the results they got as suggesting that and offered another possible explanation for why it happened. They ought also to mention that the authors of the paper said boosters are effective and that we should step up our vaccination and boosting efforts.

If you removed unsubstantiated tweets or tweets without a link to a source in this thread, 93.6 % of BDK, Seagriz, and SDhornet posts would be gone.

[BDKJMU]

New York City, after issuing racist vaccine mandate (peoples of color have much higher % unvaccinated than whites), issued yet another blatantly racist edict, saying white people must go to the back of the line when getting tests.
https://news.yahoo.com/york-says-priori ... 24095.html
New York City- the most racist major city in the country..

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if somebody is going to do a tweet or some other kind of social media post showing that table with the negative VE estimates highlighted while asking the question of whether the vaccines harm the immune system, they ought to at LEAST mention that the authors of the paper did not interpret the results they got as suggesting that and offered another possible explanation for why it happened. They ought also to mention that the authors of the paper said boosters are effective and that we should step up our vaccination and boosting efforts.

If you removed unsubstantiated tweets or tweets without a link to a source in this thread, 93.6 % of BDK, Seagriz, and SDhornet posts would be gone.

I don't know about that. But I know we have a big problem with anti-vaccine people in the Social Media world cherry picking things from studies and/or reports and totally misrepresenting the findings of the studies and/or reports.

[SeattleGriz]

If you removed unsubstantiated tweets or tweets without a link to a source in this thread, 93.6 % of BDK, Seagriz, and SDhornet posts would be gone.

I don't know about that. But I know we have a big problem with anti-vaccine people in the Social Media world cherry picking things from studies and/or reports and totally misrepresenting the findings of the studies and/or reports.

Dude. Please.

You've been directly asked four times now for your interpretation of negative effectiveness data, but you keep giving the pat answer of "x is undefined" when we don't give a shit. What does your gut say?

[kalm]

I don't know about that. But I know we have a big problem with anti-vaccine people in the Social Media world cherry picking things from studies and/or reports and totally misrepresenting the findings of the studies and/or reports.

Dude. Please.

You've been directly asked four times now for your interpretation of negative effectiveness data, but you keep giving the pat answer of "x is undefined" when we don't give a shit. What does your gut say?

He has. See the bit about the Danish study group.

[JohnStOnge]

I just happened to find the graphic below while Googling around for information on illness rate by vaccination status. I was looking for one on the US overall and didn't see it. This is just Virginia. But look at it.

Yes, it is true that the graphic shows more of a problem among vaccinated people. But it also shows a WAY worse problem among unvaccinated people. If anything, the difference between the problem with vaccinated and unvaccinated people is bigger right now in Virginia than it has ever been.

You can visit the page with the graphic at https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronaviru ... on-status/.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know about that. But I know we have a big problem with anti-vaccine people in the Social Media world cherry picking things from studies and/or reports and totally misrepresenting the findings of the studies and/or reports.

Dude. Please.

You've been directly asked four times now for your interpretation of negative effectiveness data, but you keep giving the pat answer of "x is undefined" when we don't give a shit. What does your gut say?

As Kalm noted, I have answered the question multiple times by citing the interpretation offered by the people that did the study. The co-lead author gave a very reasonable interpretation of it.

My gut says that the co-lead lead author is correct. My gut says that it is very unlikely that the vaccines would cause increased susceptibility.

If you had somebody who did a study making the case for the idea that the vaccines cause increased susceptibility I would have to consider that. But that's not what's happening. The authors of the study think the negative values are the result of differential behavior and exposure rates during a particular time frame.

[SeattleGriz]

Dude. Please.

You've been directly asked four times now for your interpretation of negative effectiveness data, but you keep giving the pat answer of "x is undefined" when we don't give a shit. What does your gut say?

He has. See the bit about the Danish study group.

Please. He's quoted the bullshit on the page verbatim like he has no understanding of what is going on. He knows, but hides behind the skirt.

[AZGrizFan]

He has. See the bit about the Danish study group.

Please. He's quoted the bullshit on the page verbatim like he has no understanding of what is going on. He knows, but hides behind the skirt.

Are you sure?

Because that’s what he does with economic stats as well….

[SDHornet]

Been out of pocket for a bit. Good to see a bunch of JSO posts I could skip over to get through the last 10 pages or so a little faster.

I'm so overjoyed to see the China Virus narrative that has been pimped the last 18ish month completely implode in real time the last week or so due to the exploding cases in the high vax and vax mandate areas (mainly large Donk controlled cities).

So glad I came out on the right side of history on all this China Virus nonsense and so glad I didn't put that "vaccine" in my body, and for sure know it does no good putting that shit in my kid.

Vindication is a sweet sweet thing.

That’s an odd flex.

Wouldn't need to be a flex if a coherent and data based argument was made to encourage the masses to get vaccinated instead of a "do what I say" mandate approach taken by the regime. Thanks the the latter, I dug my heels in and bided my time. The tell tale of the China Virus not being as bad as the regime claimed was the lack of deaths amongst the young and healthy demographic. The data told us who was at risk of this by May/Jun 2020, anyone with a brain that could read a bar graph could understand this.

[SDHornet]

I know you're flipping crap, but has the narrative not changed immensely now that the vaccinated are catching COVID? His wife is an MD by the way.

On a separate note, now that it looks like Covid won't be able to be used for the upcoming elections, we can expect a full court press to get HR1 passed.

The science has changed. The narrative in some of the media and politics has changed. Then again, Fauci has never been my first go-to anyways so it’s just not that big of a deal to me.

I didn’t know Shapiro’s wife is an MD. I suppose next you’re going to tell me there are Stanford MD’s who buck the mainstream narrative too!

The science never changed. Anyone who was tracking or regularly checking the data on those dying from the China Virus was aware of the demographics at risk.