Covid-19

[principal]

I'm quite amused how Ville, 82 and others have gotten so exorcised by my "questions". It's pretty obvious that this is truly the proverbial elephant in the room. Is it that deep down they know the risks are quite low for healthy individuals, but they don't want to admit it (never give an inch!)?

a) Regardless of whether or not those that are getting sick are vaccinated or not, those 4 questions are still the most relevant questions to ask if we're trying to determine the true risk for the young and healthy populations.

b) The faux outrage that I had the gall not to ask what percentage are unvaccinated is quite rich. As if I've never addressed this. See post #5662

c) Finally, you say that my 4 questions are somehow extreme? Really, that's quite amusing because I've shared data on these 4 topics on several occasions - including data from the CDC website itself! And that's not good enough for ville and 82? That's your problem - not mine. If you want to stick your heads up your asses and pretend that these aren't the key factors for negative Covid outcomes, it doesn't change reality.


Any time you see Fauci or someone in the media spouting off a bunch of dire Covid fearmongering numbers, you need to ask these 4 questions:

* What's the average age compared to last winter or last year?

* What percent are overweight?

* What percent have a comorbidity?

* What percent have a vitamin D deficiency?

Below is an excerpt from an interesting article from the NIH website. The article was written in 2008 and discusses the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. It states that when determining the usefulness of a treatment it is the absolute risk reduction that should be considered moreso than the relative risk reduction. Here is the excerpt which explains each term and states that absolute risk reduction is "the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision making".

Here is the excerpt:

"How do you interpret the results of a randomised controlled trial? A common measure of a treatment is to look at the frequency of bad outcomes of a disease in the group being treated compared with those who were not treated. For instance, supposing that a well-designed randomised controlled trial in children with a particular disease found that 20 per cent of the control group developed bad outcomes, compared with only 12 per cent of those receiving treatment. Should you agree to give this treatment to your child? Without knowing more about the adverse effects of the therapy, it appears to reduce some of the bad outcomes of the disease. But is its effect meaningful?

This is where you need to consider the risk of treatment versus no treatment. In healthcare, risk refers to the probability of a bad outcome in people with the disease.

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making. In this example, the ARR is 8 per cent (20 per cent - 12 per cent = 8 per cent). This means that, if 100 children were treated, 8 would be prevented from developing bad outcomes. Another way of expressing this is the number needed to treat (NNT). If 8 children out of 100 benefit from treatment, the NNT for one child to benefit is about 13 (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5)."

Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/

The reason I wound up reading this article is because someone sent an article to me regarding the efficacy of COVID vaccines which pointed out that the 95% figure we have heard is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute risk reduction. The article states that the relative risk reduction of the COVID shots ranges anywhere from 67% (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johson) to 94-95% (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). It further states that the absolute risk reduction ranges from .084% (Pfizer) to 1.2-1.3% (AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech).

Now, I'm not sure what to make of all of this information. From what I recall the vaccine manufacturers are reporting the relative risk reduction figures (their calculations are all over the Internet and should not be tough to verify). It should not be hard to calculate the absolute risk reduction - the formula is provided above. If the absolute risk reduction is accurately reported above, why is the vaccine being pushed for those who are not in high risk categories?

MiD and XU_Lou - any thoughts?

Principal

[Strange Brew]

Below is an excerpt from an interesting article from the NIH website. The article was written in 2008 and discusses the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. It states that when determining the usefulness of a treatment it is the absolute risk reduction that should be considered moreso than the relative risk reduction. Here is the excerpt which explains each term and states that absolute risk reduction is "the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision making".

Here is the excerpt:

"How do you interpret the results of a randomised controlled trial? A common measure of a treatment is to look at the frequency of bad outcomes of a disease in the group being treated compared with those who were not treated. For instance, supposing that a well-designed randomised controlled trial in children with a particular disease found that 20 per cent of the control group developed bad outcomes, compared with only 12 per cent of those receiving treatment. Should you agree to give this treatment to your child? Without knowing more about the adverse effects of the therapy, it appears to reduce some of the bad outcomes of the disease. But is its effect meaningful?

This is where you need to consider the risk of treatment versus no treatment. In healthcare, risk refers to the probability of a bad outcome in people with the disease.

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making. In this example, the ARR is 8 per cent (20 per cent - 12 per cent = 8 per cent). This means that, if 100 children were treated, 8 would be prevented from developing bad outcomes. Another way of expressing this is the number needed to treat (NNT). If 8 children out of 100 benefit from treatment, the NNT for one child to benefit is about 13 (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5)."

Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/

The reason I wound up reading this article is because someone sent an article to me regarding the efficacy of COVID vaccines which pointed out that the 95% figure we have heard is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute risk reduction. The article states that the relative risk reduction of the COVID shots ranges anywhere from 67% (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johson) to 94-95% (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). It further states that the absolute risk reduction ranges from .084% (Pfizer) to 1.2-1.3% (AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech).

Now, I'm not sure what to make of all of this information. From what I recall the vaccine manufacturers are reporting the relative risk reduction figures (their calculations are all over the Internet and should not be tough to verify). It should not be hard to calculate the absolute risk reduction - the formula is provided above. If the absolute risk reduction is accurately reported above, why is the vaccine being pushed for those who are not in high risk categories?

MiD and XU_Lou - any thoughts?

Principal

Thank you! Public reps!

[Muskie in dayton]

Not a first place trophy you really want:

Crazy. It’s almost like Florida is our southern most State and the virus has a summer peak.

Paul it’s going to really suck for your fabricated liberal narrative when Florida cases drop for no apparent reason. Go recheck that 7-day moving average today. The reproduction rate is now well below 1. https://covidestim.org/

[principal]

Crazy. It’s almost like Florida is our southern most State and the virus has a summer peak.

Paul it’s going to really suck for your fabricated liberal narrative when Florida cases drop for no apparent reason. Go recheck that 7-day moving average today. The reproduction rate is now well below 1. https://covidestim.org/

Bloomberg/Yahoo reported the following in regards to MiD’s point:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/covid...155250892.html

[Muskie in dayton]

Not advocating for refusing to treat unvaccinated but the examples above are not overwhelming hospitals and stretching resources thin.

The unvaccinated COVID-19 patients would have plenty of capacity for treatment if not for those smokers, druggies, fat-asses, and people who don’t seek preventive care.

They all stretch equally.

By the way, can you refer me to a good dentist? Mine refused to fill my cavity since I haven’t been flossing.

[STL_XUfan]

The unvaccinated COVID-19 patients would have plenty of capacity for treatment if not for those smokers, druggies, fat-asses, and people who don’t seek preventive care.

They all stretch equally.

By the way, can you refer me to a good dentist? Mine refused to fill my cavity since I haven’t been flossing.

This simply isn’t true, as was explained by the medical people that have been posting. I am seeing the same thing with my significant other working 12 hour days trying to keep on top of covid patients. But continue spreading bull shit disinformation.

[bobbiemcgee]

The unvaccinated COVID-19 patients would have plenty of capacity for treatment if not for those smokers, druggies, fat-asses, and people who don’t seek preventive care.

They all stretch equally.

By the way, can you refer me to a good dentist? Mine refused to fill my cavity since I haven’t been flossing.

Lying through your teeth does not count as flossing.

[Strange Brew]

This simply isn’t true, as was explained by the medical people that have been posting. I am seeing the same thing with my significant other working 12 hour days trying to keep on top of covid patients. But continue spreading bull shit disinformation.

Fair. The same would be true of most outbreaks of this nature.

No snark. How much difference would you see in terms of capacity if the vaccination rate was above 80%? 90%? Is it higher than last year with no vax available. I think the vax is helpful and I have it.

[XU_Lou]

Below is an excerpt from an interesting article from the NIH website. The article was written in 2008 and discusses the difference between absolute risk and relative risk. It states that when determining the usefulness of a treatment it is the absolute risk reduction that should be considered moreso than the relative risk reduction. Here is the excerpt which explains each term and states that absolute risk reduction is "the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision making".

Here is the excerpt:

"How do you interpret the results of a randomised controlled trial? A common measure of a treatment is to look at the frequency of bad outcomes of a disease in the group being treated compared with those who were not treated. For instance, supposing that a well-designed randomised controlled trial in children with a particular disease found that 20 per cent of the control group developed bad outcomes, compared with only 12 per cent of those receiving treatment. Should you agree to give this treatment to your child? Without knowing more about the adverse effects of the therapy, it appears to reduce some of the bad outcomes of the disease. But is its effect meaningful?

This is where you need to consider the risk of treatment versus no treatment. In healthcare, risk refers to the probability of a bad outcome in people with the disease.

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making. In this example, the ARR is 8 per cent (20 per cent - 12 per cent = 8 per cent). This means that, if 100 children were treated, 8 would be prevented from developing bad outcomes. Another way of expressing this is the number needed to treat (NNT). If 8 children out of 100 benefit from treatment, the NNT for one child to benefit is about 13 (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5)."

Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/

The reason I wound up reading this article is because someone sent an article to me regarding the efficacy of COVID vaccines which pointed out that the 95% figure we have heard is the relative risk reduction, not the absolute risk reduction. The article states that the relative risk reduction of the COVID shots ranges anywhere from 67% (AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johson) to 94-95% (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech). It further states that the absolute risk reduction ranges from .084% (Pfizer) to 1.2-1.3% (AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech).

Now, I'm not sure what to make of all of this information. From what I recall the vaccine manufacturers are reporting the relative risk reduction figures (their calculations are all over the Internet and should not be tough to verify). It should not be hard to calculate the absolute risk reduction - the formula is provided above. If the absolute risk reduction is accurately reported above, why is the vaccine being pushed for those who are not in high risk categories?

MiD and XU_Lou - any thoughts?

Principal

Principal - coincidentally, I ran into an article today that discussed this very concept. It's the first time I heard/read anything with regards to "absolute risk reduction" - and may very well be the same article that you read. I thought it was a bit of an eye opener, and made a lot of sense to me. That's my 2 cents, and I just got a raise the other day.....

[xu82]

This simply isn’t true, as was explained by the medical people that have been posting. I am seeing the same thing with my significant other working 12 hour days trying to keep on top of covid patients. But continue spreading bull shit disinformation.

They think they can just say stuff, and that makes it true.

I really don’t believe either extreme, but I usually know BS when I see it.