Coronavirus COVID-19

[AZGrizFan]

I love the dirty looks. I just stare right back. This is 'Murica, fuckers!

Do you get a kick out of sneezing on people too?

I do. Because it's EXACTLY the same thing, Karen.

[JohnStOnge]

All I can tell you, SG, again: You are misinterpreting the report. We have been through this before. The report has stuff in it about how you can't interpret things in certain ways and you interpret them in those ways. The bottom line statement of the report in terms of infections, for instance, is this:



What you called "random testing" was not random testing. What you are doing is intentionally ignoring the forrest presented by the authors...who say that the Pfizer vaccine is 80% effective against infection, in order to spin a narrative you for some reason want to believe. You keep focusing on the UK report because you can find some tables in it that you think support what you want to believe when the body of scientific evidence clearly indicates that the vaccines dramatically lower the risk of infection, illness, hospitalization, and death.

If the UK is not random testing school aged kids like we are in the US, then why is the case load so high? Testing is through the roof.

My kids have been swabbed for random testing twice now.

Here is the latest report in the UK series you've been referencing: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-43.pdf .

The authors say you should not be using Table 2 to try to assess vaccine effectiveness and the fact that people are tested through self selection is one reason the authors provide for saying that. Go to the "Interpretation of Data" discussion on page 13. In that discussion, you will find this:

The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not an appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.

At the end of the "Interpretation of Data" discussion, the authors wrote this:

These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described on pages 4 to 7 in this report.

The authors discuss vaccine effectiveness with respect to infection on page 6. And their conclusion is this:

With the delta variant, vaccine effectiveness against infection has been estimated at around 65% with Vaxzevria and 80% with Comirnaty,

Comirnaty is the Pfizer vaccine. Vaxzevria is not approved for use in the United States.

The main take away here is that you keep referring to the numbers in Table 2 of these reports while assessing vaccine effectiveness. And the authors of the reports say you should not be doing that. The people who actually write the reports said the Pfizer vaccine is highly effective. The other one is fairly effective as well. And you are using data in their report in a way they say those data should not be used in order to make your own argument that there are questions about vaccine effectiveness.

[BDKJMU]

Yup. Several businesses didn't lift it though. My barber said he was requiring the staff to wear them and customers could choose, but everyone had them on, so I kept mine on. IMO it's not worth the dirty looks, rolling eyes and general hate people in masks throw. I have bigger hills on which to die.

I love the dirty looks. I just stare right back. This is 'Murica, fuckers!

Yep. If enough people ignore the mandates, they can‘t enforce them..

[JohnStOnge]

Do you get a kick out of sneezing on people too?

I do. Because it's EXACTLY the same thing, Karen.

It's very similar in these circumstances. People who have to be around you have a right to expect that you take precautions to prevent spreading respiratory disease to them at this time in history. It is most decidedly NOT a personal liberty thing. It's one of those "Your liberty stops where my nose begins" situations.

[JohnStOnge]

I love the dirty looks. I just stare right back. This is 'Murica, fuckers!

Yep. If enough people ignore the mandates, they can‘t enforce them..

And we have 100s of thousands of more deaths than we needed to because of that attitude.

[SeattleGriz]

If the UK is not random testing school aged kids like we are in the US, then why is the case load so high? Testing is through the roof.

My kids have been swabbed for random testing twice now.

Here is the latest report in the UK series you've been referencing: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-43.pdf .

The authors say you should not be using Table 2 to try to assess vaccine effectiveness and the fact that people are tested through self selection is one reason the authors provide for saying that. Go to the "Interpretation of Data" discussion on page 13. In that discussion, you will find this:

The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not an appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness because of differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are crude rates that do not take into account underlying statistical biases in the data. There are likely to be systematic differences in who chooses to be tested and the COVID risk of people who are vaccinated.

At the end of the "Interpretation of Data" discussion, the authors wrote this:

These biases become more evident as more people are vaccinated and the differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated population become systematically different in ways that are not accounted for without undertaken formal analysis of vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described on pages 4 to 7 in this report.

The authors discuss vaccine effectiveness with respect to infection on page 6. And their conclusion is this:

With the delta variant, vaccine effectiveness against infection has been estimated at around 65% with Vaxzevria and 80% with Comirnaty,

Comirnaty is the Pfizer vaccine. Vaxzevria is not approved for use in the United States.

The main take away here is that you keep referring to the numbers in Table 2 of these reports while assessing vaccine effectiveness. And the authors of the reports say you should not be doing that. The people who actually write the reports said the Pfizer vaccine is highly effective. The other one is fairly effective as well. And you are using data in their report in a way they say those data should not be used in order to make your own argument that there are questions about vaccine effectiveness.

As I'm in my phone, I can only address one of your points. Let's talk vaccine effectiveness. Why do you keep reciting numbers that were generated months ago and much of it hasn't even been peer reviewed. Tsk. Tsk.

Even though you don't like comparing vaxxed vs unvaxxed because the authors tell you so, you don't find it odd that you are saying the vaccine is 80% effective, when you can clearly see it's negative in the 30+ groups. Even with hidden bias, it can't be THAT far off.

You sure they really want to be arguing differences in "more health conscious". Wouldn't that suggest prior differences in health of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations, which would in turn suggest worse outcomes in the unvaxxed are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding?

[JohnStOnge]

Here is the latest report in the UK series you've been referencing: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-43.pdf .

The authors say you should not be using Table 2 to try to assess vaccine effectiveness and the fact that people are tested through self selection is one reason the authors provide for saying that. Go to the "Interpretation of Data" discussion on page 13. In that discussion, you will find this:



At the end of the "Interpretation of Data" discussion, the authors wrote this:



The authors discuss vaccine effectiveness with respect to infection on page 6. And their conclusion is this:



Comirnaty is the Pfizer vaccine. Vaxzevria is not approved for use in the United States.

The main take away here is that you keep referring to the numbers in Table 2 of these reports while assessing vaccine effectiveness. And the authors of the reports say you should not be doing that. The people who actually write the reports said the Pfizer vaccine is highly effective. The other one is fairly effective as well. And you are using data in their report in a way they say those data should not be used in order to make your own argument that there are questions about vaccine effectiveness.

As I'm in my phone, I can only address one of your points. Let's talk vaccine effectiveness. Why do you keep reciting numbers that were generated months ago and much of it hasn't even been peer reviewed. Tsk. Tsk.

Even though you don't like comparing vaxxed vs unvaxxed because the authors tell you so, you don't find it odd that you are saying the vaccine is 80% effective, when you can clearly see it's negative in the 30+ groups. Even with hidden bias, it can't be THAT far off.

You sure they really want to be arguing differences in "more health conscious". Wouldn't that suggest prior differences in health of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations, which would in turn suggest worse outcomes in the unvaxxed are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding?

I am simply referencing what the authors of the reports you keep citing say. The authors of the reports you keep citing do not agree with your interpretation of their reports. If you want to argue with them about their interpretation of their own reports, fine. As long as everybody understands that is what is going on.

[JohnStOnge]

Here is the latest report in the UK series you've been referencing: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-43.pdf .

The authors say you should not be using Table 2 to try to assess vaccine effectiveness and the fact that people are tested through self selection is one reason the authors provide for saying that. Go to the "Interpretation of Data" discussion on page 13. In that discussion, you will find this:



At the end of the "Interpretation of Data" discussion, the authors wrote this:



The authors discuss vaccine effectiveness with respect to infection on page 6. And their conclusion is this:



Comirnaty is the Pfizer vaccine. Vaxzevria is not approved for use in the United States.

The main take away here is that you keep referring to the numbers in Table 2 of these reports while assessing vaccine effectiveness. And the authors of the reports say you should not be doing that. The people who actually write the reports said the Pfizer vaccine is highly effective. The other one is fairly effective as well. And you are using data in their report in a way they say those data should not be used in order to make your own argument that there are questions about vaccine effectiveness.

As I'm in my phone, I can only address one of your points. Let's talk vaccine effectiveness. Why do you keep reciting numbers that were generated months ago and much of it hasn't even been peer reviewed. Tsk. Tsk.

Even though you don't like comparing vaxxed vs unvaxxed because the authors tell you so, you don't find it odd that you are saying the vaccine is 80% effective, when you can clearly see it's negative in the 30+ groups. Even with hidden bias, it can't be THAT far off.

You sure they really want to be arguing differences in "more health conscious". Wouldn't that suggest prior differences in health of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations, which would in turn suggest worse outcomes in the unvaxxed are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding?

And BTW I think a self selection bias in this kind of situation has the potential to be significant. I think there is a big difference, on average, between the attitudes of those who choose to be vaccinated and those who do not. It's not at all unreasonable for the authors to suggest that people who are vaccinated are more likely to show up as cases if they do get infected because they are more sensitive to the possibility that they could be cases. In any case, again, the authors clearly state:

The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not an appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness

And what they say is "not appropriate" is exactly what you have been doing.

[SeattleGriz]

As I'm in my phone, I can only address one of your points. Let's talk vaccine effectiveness. Why do you keep reciting numbers that were generated months ago and much of it hasn't even been peer reviewed. Tsk. Tsk.

Even though you don't like comparing vaxxed vs unvaxxed because the authors tell you so, you don't find it odd that you are saying the vaccine is 80% effective, when you can clearly see it's negative in the 30+ groups. Even with hidden bias, it can't be THAT far off.

You sure they really want to be arguing differences in "more health conscious". Wouldn't that suggest prior differences in health of the vaxxed and unvaxxed populations, which would in turn suggest worse outcomes in the unvaxxed are to some unknown degree the result of statistical confounding?

And BTW I think a self selection bias in this kind of situation has the potential to be significant. I think there is a big difference, on average, between the attitudes of those who choose to be vaccinated and those who do not. It's not at all unreasonable for the authors to suggest that people who are vaccinated are more likely to show up as cases if they do get infected because they are more sensitive to the possibility that they could be cases. In any case, again, the authors clearly state:

The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not an appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness

And what they say is "not appropriate" is exactly what you have been doing.

Of course they would say that. If they really cared, they also wouldn't be using preprint data to make their case for their effectiveness as they have been doing. The old "you can't use this data in that way" cuts both ways.


So, what is your interpretation of the vaxxed absolutely dwarfing the unvaxxed in cases? Not to mention totals, but per 100k as well.

You think efficacy still sits at 80%?

[AZGrizFan]

Yep. If enough people ignore the mandates, they can‘t enforce them..

And we have 100s of thousands of more deaths than we needed to because of that attitude.

Virus gonna virus. It’s proven that at least three different times now.

[AZGrizFan]

I do. Because it's EXACTLY the same thing, Karen.

It's very similar in these circumstances. People who have to be around you have a right to expect that you take precautions to prevent spreading respiratory disease to them at this time in history. It is most decidedly NOT a personal liberty thing. It's one of those "Your liberty stops where my nose begins" situations.

So dirty looks are like sneezing on people? You’ve lost your ever loving mind.

[SeattleGriz]

It's very similar in these circumstances. People who have to be around you have a right to expect that you take precautions to prevent spreading respiratory disease to them at this time in history. It is most decidedly NOT a personal liberty thing. It's one of those "Your liberty stops where my nose begins" situations.

So dirty looks are like sneezing on people? You’ve lost your ever loving mind.

Do you remember when he was denying evolutionary pressure just a few short days ago? Evolution denier...big time.

I can see where this is going. You're to blame.

[Ivytalk]

This thread has gone past its “best by” date. Maybe ramp it up if we get a super-deadly Omega variant that will end life as we know it. Including plants.

[GannonFan]

This thread has gone past its “best by” date. Maybe ramp it up if we get a super-deadly Omega variant that will end life as we know it. Including plants.

CDC is going to give the green light for kids as young as 5 to get the vaccine. Figure that, along with the boosters for many who have already gotten the vaccine (I'm planning to get my booster on Friday), and in about 3-4 months everyone who ever wanted to get a vaccine should've had more than enough opportunity to get a vaccine. At that point, I say move on. I don't see Biden's end around through OSHA to mandate vaccines nationwide likely to stand up to a court challenge, so that avenue to mandate vaccinations will be cut off. I'll be protected (even more so with the booster), and if people really want to not be vaccinated then I say let them go. Schools will, on a large part, add the vaccine to their list of mandated vaccines, and the older population will certainly continue to be high consumers of the vaccine, as they should. But even now life is pretty much back to normal, outside of the hit or miss mask or vaccine mandates. I don't wear a mask anywhere unless it's specifically mandated (work currently, for instance, and Wawa stores, but that's about it). At this point, the pandemic, if not already over, is pretty much nearing the end. It's pretty much endemic now.

[89Hen]

But even now life is pretty much back to normal

Not in Gil's world.

[kalm]

This thread has gone past its “best by” date. Maybe ramp it up if we get a super-deadly Omega variant that will end life as we know it. Including plants.

We’ll be debating what has happened for the rest of our lives. It was and still is kind of a big deal.

[89Hen]

We’ll be debating what has happened for the rest of our lives. It was and still is kind of a big deal.

For sure. Especially since more folks died from Covid in 2021 than 2020. That seems to be a little known fact.

[Ibanez]

We’ll be debating what has happened for the rest of our lives. It was and still is kind of a big deal.

For sure. Especially since more folks died from Covid in 2021 than 2020. That seems to be a little known fact.

Yup..many of them Trump supporters.

Spoiler: show

I'm assuming since they've been very resistant to "the jab"

[89Hen]

For sure. Especially since more folks died from Covid in 2021 than 2020. That seems to be a little known fact.

Yup..many of them Trump supporters.

Spoiler: show

I'm assuming since they've been very resistant to "the jab"

Since Trump received 74,000,000 votes, chances are that many of them are Trump supporters.

[Ibanez]

Yup..many of them Trump supporters.

Spoiler: show

I'm assuming since they've been very resistant to "the jab"

Since Trump received 74,000,000 votes, chances are that many of them are Trump supporters.

And the red states have the lowest vax rates.

[89Hen]

Since Trump received 74,000,000 votes, chances are that many of them are Trump supporters.

And the red states have the lowest vax rates.

Yet 6 of the top 7 states in total deaths voted blue.

[Ibanez]

And the red states have the lowest vax rates.

Yet 6 of the top 7 states in total deaths voted blue.

Those were republicans.

[89Hen]

Yet 6 of the top 7 states in total deaths voted blue.

Those were republicans.

Prolly.

[Baldy]

I do. Because it's EXACTLY the same thing, Karen.

It's very similar in these circumstances. People who have to be around you have a right to expect that you take precautions to prevent spreading respiratory disease to them at this time in history. It is most decidedly NOT a personal liberty thing. It's one of those "Your liberty stops where my nose begins" situations.

No, you have the right to fuck off you fucking Nazi.

[kalm]

It's very similar in these circumstances. People who have to be around you have a right to expect that you take precautions to prevent spreading respiratory disease to them at this time in history. It is most decidedly NOT a personal liberty thing. It's one of those "Your liberty stops where my nose begins" situations.

No, you have the right to fuck off you fucking Nazi.

The Nazi’s would have been pro-covid too.