Coronavirus COVID-19

[SeattleGriz]

What is your definition of unvaxxed? Is it someone who had zero shots, one or before 14 days after their second?

Regardless, with an efficacy of 95%, we shouldn't be ANYWHERE close to the same amount of deaths. Vaccines were going to end this pandemic, right?

But we already know the efficacy isn't that high. Maybe it is at the point of getting the shot, but I think the data's been pretty clear that the efficacy is far lower than that the further you get away from the shot.

I got my booster the first week in November. I wouldn't be shocked if we're looking at a second booster (a 4th shot) 6 months after that. These aren't vaccines like we're used to think of vaccines (polio is always the comparison people like to trot out) - these may be like flu shots - sometimes they work, but sometimes you still get the flu. That could be what endemic looks like for COVID.

Agreed 100% and great analogy on the flu shot. I use that same analogy to help others understand how the vaccines work. Admittedly, I know the vaccines aren't 95% effective and actually have pointed out how they eventually dip into negative territory around the 7-9 month mark, but if that is the talking point, I'll use it!

Biden is on record as saying they are 100% effective. It all goes to Biden trying to blame the unvaccinated for something he really had no control or chance of winning through believing zero covid.

[JohnStOnge]

I said Ivermectin was a 3CL Protease Inhibitor, just like the Pfizer drug, which is true. [I/quote]

I guess it depends on how one interprets "...Just like Pfizer." The investigator for an Ivermectin Clinical trial I referenced said:

Pfizer’s 3CL protease inhibitor is nothing like ivermectin,

I guess one reconcile the statements that Ivermectin is a 3CL protease inhibitor just like the Pfizer drug and the investigator's statement that Pfizer's 3CL protease inhibitor is nothing like Ivermectin. I think I can see a way to do that. I guess you just say that each has/is a 3CL protease Inhibitor but the Ivermectin 3CL protease inhibitor as nothing like the Pfizer drug 3CL protease inhibitor.

Do you know what In Vitro means?

Yes. And note what the Ivermectin clinical trial investigator quoted in the article said:

“While one could debate the exact mechanism of ivermectin, the biggest difference is that pfizer’s protease inhibitor inhibits coronavirus at concentrations that are achievable in the human body,” said Boulware, who is an investigator on a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota evaluating ivermectin as an outpatient COVID-19 treatment. “In the initial lab experiments, ivermectin required 50-100x the achievable concentrations in humans.”

I think it's fair to interpret him as saying that Ivermectin does not act as a protease inhibitor at Ivermectin concentrations that are achievable in the human body. Showing that it can act as a protease inhibitor in vitro does not contradict that statement.

Otherwise: The paper you linked is not the one linked by the article I quoted. But I don't see anything in it that contradicts what the clinical trial investigator quoted above said.

[SDHornet]

How many deaths occurred Jan-March? What percentage are from the unvaxxed?

What is your definition of unvaxxed? Is it someone who had zero shots, one or before 14 days after their second?

Regardless, with an efficacy of 95%, we shouldn't be ANYWHERE close to the same amount of deaths. Vaccines were going to end this pandemic, right?

[SDHornet]

[Gil Dobie]

I wore a mask more in 1 week in Florida, required, than nearly 2 years in Minnesota.

[SeattleGriz]

I wore a mask more in 1 week in Florida, required, than nearly 2 years in Minnesota.

Fudge. We are still required to wear masks everywhere here and in the county I live in, vax cards are required for certain indoor locations. I'm glad I live on the border of the county and simply go to the less restrictive county.

[BDKJMU]

I wore a mask more in 1 week in Florida, required, than nearly 2 years in Minnesota.

I just spent a week in north FL and never wore a mask.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, nothing has really impeded the circulation of the virus other than shutting everything down (especially since it started right back up again after we opened things up), and since we're not going to do that again it looks like we're reaching what the endemic will look like.

I think there are things that strongly suggest things have been done that have impeded circulation. Not impeded it to the extent necessary to end the epidemic/pandemic. But it looks like some things have impeded it. Vaccination in particular.

We can look at stuff like the page at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... ine-status. You can see the graph. Also, you cans see that, over the period considered, unvaccinated persons had 5 times the risk of testing positive as compared to fully vaccinated persons.

I think the negative correlation between vaccination rate by US State (and DC) and case rate is also very suggestive. I just used the Worldometers data and the State by State vaccination rate data at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... ker-states (scroll down) to do a quick correlation between State (plus DC) cumulative cases per million population and State (plus DC) percent fully vaccinated. The coefficient is -0.669. That indicates an association between higher vaccination rate and lower cumulative case rates that is significant at >99.99 percent confidence. That is remarkable given the fact that a lot of the cases nationally occurred before vaccinations were even available.

Yes, it is true that correlation in observational data do not necessarily infer cause and effect. But, before the fact, an association that strong whereby States with higher vaccination rates tend to have lower cumulative case rates by chance is on the order of one in 5 billion.

Any reasonable person should be able to see that vaccination impedes circulation. The problem is that we can't get sufficient vaccination rates. The more contagious the disease, the higher the vaccination rate has to be to achieve the desired population effect. According to the article at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... ut-measles, for instance, we need to have a >90% vaccination rate to achieve the desired effect. And the measles vaccine is about 97% effective (see https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measle ... hickenpox). .

The current US fully vaccinated for COVID-19 rate is about 60%. That is nowhere near sufficient to achieve the desired effect. Neither is the 73% fully vaccinated rate for the State (Vermont) with the highest fully vaccinated rate.

To me it is very clear that the vaccines have the potential for achieving the desired effect. But public health officials are fighting a very difficult battle against ignorance and misinformation. It's very sad that we have the tools to have a good shot at putting this thing behind us quickly and can't even take a full shot at doing it because there are so many ignoramuses in our population. Not just the US population either. They are having similar issues in some other countries.

[kalm]

How many deaths occurred Jan-March? What percentage are from the unvaxxed?

What is your definition of unvaxxed? Is it someone who had zero shots, one or before 14 days after their second?

Regardless, with an efficacy of 95%, we shouldn't be ANYWHERE close to the same amount of deaths. Vaccines were going to end this pandemic, right?

How many deaths occurred Jan-March? What percentage are from the unvaxxed?

[JohnStOnge]

it's pretty obvious that there are problems with comparing the rate in a large, densely populated city with the rate in an entire State. New York City has a 27,000 persons per square mile population density. The State of Florida has a 397 persons per square mile population density.

What would you expect if you compare a jurisdiction where population density is 27,000 per square mile and the weather is colder at this point so that people are more likely to be inside to a jurisdiction where population density is 397 per square mile and the weather is warmer if nobody in either jurisdiction had been vaccinated? Hint: If you have any sense, you would expect the FAR more densely populated jurisdiction to have a MUCH higher case rate.

Yet the rates are very close. Almost equal. If you think about it while considering that you are comparing 27,000 people per square mile to 397 per square mile and the differences in climate, the numbers actually support the vaccine mandate.

I can't believe anybody even made a comparison like that. It's ridiculous.

[JohnStOnge]

What is your definition of unvaxxed? Is it someone who had zero shots, one or before 14 days after their second?

Regardless, with an efficacy of 95%, we shouldn't be ANYWHERE close to the same amount of deaths. Vaccines were going to end this pandemic, right?

How many deaths occurred Jan-March? What percentage are from the unvaxxed?

I don't know where you can get January through March but you can go to the page at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... ine-status and click around. Click on the "Deaths" option on the graph. You can hover your cursor on the graph and see what the relative rates were at any given time. At the worst point on August 21, the death rate among the unvaccinated was 18.44 per 100,000 while that for the fully vaccinated was 1.22. That's the unvaccinated being about 15 times as likely to die from COVID-19. When things were going relatively well on June 12, the death rate among the unvaccinated was 1.53 while that for the fully vaccinated was 0.08. That's the unvaccinated being about 19 times as likely to die from COVID-19.

I also think one has to look at that in the context of who is more likely to be vaccinated. If you go to the page at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... ker-states and scroll down some you can see that 89% of those 65 through 74 and 85% of those 75 and older are fully vaccinated. 57% of those 18 through 24 and 61% of those 25 through 39 are. You can look at the other age ranges. The picture is that the fully vaccinated are disproportionately in age groups that are more likely to die from COVID-19. Yet their chance of dying from COVID-19 during the period was like 1/15th or 1/19th as compared to the unvaccinated depending on the date. But always proportionately much lower.

Really, at this point, continuing to question the vaccines is just absurd. It really is. And saying that we should be seeing the problem solved if the vaccines worked when we only have a 60% vaccination rate is also absurd.

[SeattleGriz]

What is your definition of unvaxxed? Is it someone who had zero shots, one or before 14 days after their second?

Regardless, with an efficacy of 95%, we shouldn't be ANYWHERE close to the same amount of deaths. Vaccines were going to end this pandemic, right?

How many deaths occurred Jan-March? What percentage are from the unvaxxed?

I fail to see how asking it twice supports your claim.

On one hand we have one whole year of 2020 in which roughly 300K unvaxxed people perished. On the other, in 2021 we had a vaccine that is 95% effective introduced in January, but yet over 300K have perished, which includes both vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Just at face value, the totals should be less, especially considering the low hanging fruit got knocked off in 2020.

How about England Public Health? I'll pull those latest numbers and get back to you.

Edit: A quick look at the last rolling four weeks give the following totals.

Unvaxxed (no shots): 1458 deaths
Vaxxed (two shots): 6294 deaths.

[SeattleGriz]

How many deaths occurred Jan-March? What percentage are from the unvaxxed?

I don't know where you can get January through March but you can go to the page at https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracke ... ine-status and click around. Click on the "Deaths" option on the graph. You can hover your cursor on the graph and see what the relative rates were at any given time. At the worst point on August 21, the death rate among the unvaccinated was 18.44 per 100,000 while that for the fully vaccinated was 1.22. That's the unvaccinated being about 15 times as likely to die from COVID-19. When things were going relatively well on June 12, the death rate among the unvaccinated was 1.53 while that for the fully vaccinated was 0.08. That's the unvaccinated being about 19 times as likely to die from COVID-19.

I also think one has to look at that in the context of who is more likely to be vaccinated. If you go to the page at https://usafacts.org/visualizations/cov ... ker-states and scroll down some you can see that 89% of those 65 through 74 and 85% of those 75 and older are fully vaccinated. 57% of those 18 through 24 and 61% of those 25 through 39 are. You can look at the other age ranges. The picture is that the fully vaccinated are disproportionately in age groups that are more likely to die from COVID-19. Yet their chance of dying from COVID-19 during the period was like 1/15th or 1/19th as compared to the unvaccinated depending on the date. But always proportionately much lower.

Really, at this point, continuing to question the vaccines is just absurd. It really is. And saying that we should be seeing the problem solved if the vaccines worked when we only have a 60% vaccination rate is also absurd.

I'm not questioning the vaccines bro. I'm questioning the fact people think we can vaccinate our way out of the pandemic.

[SeattleGriz]

I said Ivermectin was a 3CL Protease Inhibitor, just like the Pfizer drug, which is true. [I/quote]

I guess it depends on how one interprets "...Just like Pfizer." The investigator for an Ivermectin Clinical trial I referenced said:



I guess one reconcile the statements that Ivermectin is a 3CL protease inhibitor just like the Pfizer drug and the investigator's statement that Pfizer's 3CL protease inhibitor is nothing like Ivermectin. I think I can see a way to do that. I guess you just say that each has/is a 3CL protease Inhibitor but the Ivermectin 3CL protease inhibitor as nothing like the Pfizer drug 3CL protease inhibitor.



Yes. And note what the Ivermectin clinical trial investigator quoted in the article said:



I think it's fair to interpret him as saying that Ivermectin does not act as a protease inhibitor at Ivermectin concentrations that are achievable in the human body. Showing that it can act as a protease inhibitor in vitro does not contradict that statement.

Otherwise: The paper you linked is not the one linked by the article I quoted. But I don't see anything in it that contradicts what the clinical trial investigator quoted above said.

Are you kidding me? This is going to be the hill you die on, just like the recent time you tried to tell me Evolution was false?

At this point, I will just chalk this up to trolling, because you really are out of your league on this conversation, just like the last time.

[Gil Dobie]

I wore a mask more in 1 week in Florida, required, than nearly 2 years in Minnesota.

I just spent a week in north FL and never wore a mask.

I was in Daytona and Orlando. For instance, had to wear a mask in the post office in FL, but not in Minnesota.

[JohnStOnge]

Are you kidding me? This is going to be the hill you die on, just like the recent time you tried to tell me Evolution was false?

At this point, I will just chalk this up to trolling, because you really are out of your league on this conversation, just like the last time.

I don't know what you are talking about. For instance: I never said evolution was false. But, beyond that, nothing in all that stuff you posted actually contradicted anything I wrote.

Probably the most important thing among the stuff in the article I linked was the clinical trials investigator saying that Ivermectin cannot act as a protease inhibitor at concentrations that are achievable in the human body. Do you think anything you posted contradicted what he said?

[JohnStOnge]

How many deaths occurred Jan-March? What percentage are from the unvaxxed?

I fail to see how asking it twice supports your claim.

On one hand we have one whole year of 2020 in which roughly 300K unvaxxed people perished. On the other, in 2021 we had a vaccine that is 95% effective introduced in January, but yet over 300K have perished, which includes both vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Just at face value, the totals should be less, especially considering the low hanging fruit got knocked off in 2020.

How about England Public Health? I'll pull those latest numbers and get back to you.

Edit: A quick look at the last rolling four weeks give the following totals.

Unvaxxed (no shots): 1458 deaths
Vaxxed (two shots): 6294 deaths.

You keep going back to the UK stuff and interpreting their tables in a way in which the authors specifically say not to interpret them. In the United States, there is zero question that the death rates are far higher among those not vaccinated than they are among those who are fully vaccinated. There are clearly strong correlations between higher State by State vaccination rates and lower State by State case and death rates.

Just stop. You are a allowing yourself to be a purveyor of misinformation in a way that is dangerous to people.

[AZGrizFan]

I fail to see how asking it twice supports your claim.

On one hand we have one whole year of 2020 in which roughly 300K unvaxxed people perished. On the other, in 2021 we had a vaccine that is 95% effective introduced in January, but yet over 300K have perished, which includes both vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Just at face value, the totals should be less, especially considering the low hanging fruit got knocked off in 2020.

How about England Public Health? I'll pull those latest numbers and get back to you.

Edit: A quick look at the last rolling four weeks give the following totals.

Unvaxxed (no shots): 1458 deaths
Vaxxed (two shots): 6294 deaths.

You keep going back to the UK stuff and interpreting their tables in a way in which the authors specifically say not to interpret them. In the United States, there is zero question that the death rates are far higher among those not vaccinated than they are among those who are fully vaccinated. There are clearly strong correlations between higher State by State vaccination rates and lower State by State case and death rates.

Just stop. You are a allowing yourself to be a purveyor of misinformation in a way that is dangerous to people.

Well good lord, you of all people would know misinformation, being the biggest “purveyor” of it on this site.

[JohnStOnge]

Well, the image below from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... %20kingdom is interesting. So...when did the vaccines become available. I think it was late 2020, right?

[AZGrizFan]

Are you kidding me? This is going to be the hill you die on, just like the recent time you tried to tell me Evolution was false?

At this point, I will just chalk this up to trolling, because you really are out of your league on this conversation, just like the last time.

Is there any subject that you are not a self-proclaimed expert on?

[JohnStOnge]

You keep going back to the UK stuff and interpreting their tables in a way in which the authors specifically say not to interpret them. In the United States, there is zero question that the death rates are far higher among those not vaccinated than they are among those who are fully vaccinated. There are clearly strong correlations between higher State by State vaccination rates and lower State by State case and death rates.

Just stop. You are a allowing yourself to be a purveyor of misinformation in a way that is dangerous to people.

Well good lord, you of all people would know misinformation, being the biggest “purveyor” of it on this site.

Oh come on man. You can see that his stuff on vaccines is nonsense. I don't know why it's so important to him to believe something that is true is false but that's what's happening.

[JohnStOnge]

Are you kidding me? This is going to be the hill you die on, just like the recent time you tried to tell me Evolution was false?

At this point, I will just chalk this up to trolling, because you really are out of your league on this conversation, just like the last time.

Is there any subject that you are not a self-proclaimed expert on?

Sure. But I am an expert on data analysis, study design, etc. I actually teach courses on those things. Probably shouldn't say it because I don't like to get into what I do on line. But it is what it is. The data CLEARLY show that the vaccines are safe and very effective. The idea that it's been shown that we can't vaccinate our way out of this when we only have a 60% vaccination rate is absurd. So on and so forth.

It has really gotten to the point of being ridiculous. At this point the evidence suggesting that there's a good chance that we COULD vaccinate our way out of this IF we could just get everybody who does not have a specific contraindication vaccinated is overwhelming. But we continue to have people doing crap like SG is doing.

[89Hen]

The data CLEARLY show that the vaccines are safe and very effective.

What do you mean by "effective"? Asking honestly.

[SeattleGriz]

I fail to see how asking it twice supports your claim.

On one hand we have one whole year of 2020 in which roughly 300K unvaxxed people perished. On the other, in 2021 we had a vaccine that is 95% effective introduced in January, but yet over 300K have perished, which includes both vaxxed and unvaxxed.

Just at face value, the totals should be less, especially considering the low hanging fruit got knocked off in 2020.

How about England Public Health? I'll pull those latest numbers and get back to you.

Edit: A quick look at the last rolling four weeks give the following totals.

Unvaxxed (no shots): 1458 deaths
Vaxxed (two shots): 6294 deaths.

You keep going back to the UK stuff and interpreting their tables in a way in which the authors specifically say not to interpret them. In the United States, there is zero question that the death rates are far higher among those not vaccinated than they are among those who are fully vaccinated. There are clearly strong correlations between higher State by State vaccination rates and lower State by State case and death rates.

Just stop. You are a allowing yourself to be a purveyor of misinformation in a way that is dangerous to people.

Deaths don't mean deaths? We weren't talking rate, we were talking deaths year over year. You understand what is happening now don't you? The vaccine is wearing off and those that were at risk and wisely took the vaccine are now unfortunately at risk now. It's common sense. Covid is working it's way up from the low hanging fruit. Holy moley.

[SeattleGriz]

Well, the image below from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... %20kingdom is interesting. So...when did the vaccines become available. I think it was late 2020, right?

I don't know either, but they were around 5-7 (best guess) weeks ahead of the US, so your guess sounds good.

Why do you think I look at their data? They publish shit weekly the CDC does not and it SHOULD give us a window into what is going to happen in the US in 5-7 weeks. Very easy to read and understand what is happening. Do you want to talk about the lack of N Antibodies too? How about Original Antigenic Sin?

All the bad shit is happening at the ends of the bell curve, both COVID and vaccines. The middle is healthy enough to deal with both like an everyday problem for the most part.