Covid-19

[XU_Lou]

So you took raw data from one area and made a blanket statement regarding infections in vaccinated vs non-vaccinated people?

Do you even know what "raw data" is? Do you realize how stupid you look with this question?

[Final4]

I see open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity is not your strong suit. That new X curriculum just isn't what is was in the early '90's.

Here's your challenge: First tell me the only geography that still provides some breakdown of cases/hospitalizations/deaths by vaccination status. Hint: the last place (I'm aware of) still providing some raw data on this is an island nation with a horse-toothed, authoritarian leader.

Now go look at their data and tell me about statistical analysis.

Here is what you said, “As to the vax, yes, it is faulty. Not only does it not stop transmission, but the vaxxed/boosted are getting COVID now at greater rates than the unvaccinated, and it’s not even close”.

So 100 vaccinated people are exposed to the virus and 10 of them subsequently test positive for COVID. The conclusion you (and your butt buddy Lou) draw from that data is that the vaccine is useless and provides no prophylactic benefit.

And if 100 unvaccinated people are exposed to the virus and 80 of them subsequently test positive for COVID do you not arrive at a different conclusion? And please spare me the BS of the 100 people in my first example are young and healthy and the 100 in the second are old and fat. That’s not relevant to this argument. The point is the only way you can arrive at the conclusion you are professing above is by pulling it out of your ass………certainly not through any kind of statistical modeling.

[XU_Lou]

Here is what you said, “As to the vax, yes, it is faulty. Not only does it not stop transmission, but the vaxxed/boosted are getting COVID now at greater rates than the unvaccinated, and it’s not even close”.

So 100 vaccinated people are exposed to the virus and 10 of them subsequently test positive for COVID. The conclusion you (and your butt buddy Lou) draw from that data is that the vaccine is useless and provides no prophylactic benefit.

And if 100 unvaccinated people are exposed to the virus and 80 of them subsequently test positive for COVID do you not arrive at a different conclusion? And please spare me the BS of the 100 people in my first example are young and healthy and the 100 in the second are old and fat. That’s not relevant to this argument. The point is the only way you can arrive at the conclusion you are professing above is by pulling it out of your ass………certainly not through any kind of statistical modeling.

Dude - didn't I address this - exactly - but you completely blew it off? And this the analysis you've been teasing us for 2 days now?

I totally understand what you're insinuating. Unfortunately that data doesn't exist in the US, therefore neither of us can prove our points, right? Why doesn't the CDC break down data between unvaxxed and vaxxed populations? What are they hiding? So I know you're going to tell me "of course the vast majority of people getting Covid are vaxxed, it's because the vast majority of people are vaxxed". But c'mon, you have to admit that wasn't supposed to happen, right? I can show you a video of newspaper headlines and Fauci going on TV explaining ad nauseam that the vax would prevent people from getting Covid. That's what we were sold way back in late 2020/early 2021.

So England used to report covid data by vax status, but stopped right after this report (published earlier this year). The vast majority of cases, hospitalizations and deaths were among those with at least 3 doses. Vaxxed were also more likely to die (you can go back before this report and see similar data).

My points are that (1) these numbers should not be happening if the vax worked as originally advertised and (2) most people think that only unvaxxed people are getting Covid.


unvax / 3 doses / % vax
Cases: / 167402 / 544745 / 76.49%
Hosp : / 1504 / 4505 / 74.97%
Deaths / 286 / 2082 / 87.92%

% hosp / 0.90% / 0.83%
% deaths /19.02% / 46.22%


https://assets.publishing.service.go..._-_week_10.pdf

[Muskie in dayton]

This is a perfect example of why fact-based discussions are often difficult here. You note that "Aerosols (airborne particles) are far and away the primary mechanism for COVID transmission,"
Then you say seek truth from sources other than TV.

So...obviously you did not click through to the report I provided, where microbiologists did a study on the effectiveness of masks in the covid spread from aerosols.

How can we have fact based discussions when all you do is sling out criticisms without bothering to read what someone provides?

Well, I already beat up on you enough for citing droplet transmission, I thought I'd spare you the embarrassment of calling out the "study" you cited. Did you read it? It's a simulation of two dummies puffing air at each other.

So tell me, which is a better way to measure of mask effectiveness:
A) A simulation study of dummies puffing air.
B) Two comprehensive research studies with thousands of human subjects, and 2+ years of real-world data?

Hopefully you answered B), otherwise there is no point. Please let me know.

[Muskie in dayton]

Here is what you said, “As to the vax, yes, it is faulty. Not only does it not stop transmission, but the vaxxed/boosted are getting COVID now at greater rates than the unvaccinated, and it’s not even close”.

So 100 vaccinated people are exposed to the virus and 10 of them subsequently test positive for COVID. The conclusion you (and your butt buddy Lou) draw from that data is that the vaccine is useless and provides no prophylactic benefit.

And if 100 unvaccinated people are exposed to the virus and 80 of them subsequently test positive for COVID do you not arrive at a different conclusion? And please spare me the BS of the 100 people in my first example are young and healthy and the 100 in the second are old and fat. That’s not relevant to this argument. The point is the only way you can arrive at the conclusion you are professing above is by pulling it out of your ass………certainly not through any kind of statistical modeling.

I don't know what you are looking at or thinking I looked at. What I can tell you is that I was looking at case/death rates by vax status. Until this spring, there were several geographies that reported covid data by vaccination status: UK, Israel, Australia (New South Wales specifically) and NZ. Moreover, they also provided nice graphs of the rates per 100K population of that vax status. All through the Spring (Omicron wave), each week the data looked less and less favorable to the vax narrative. Not coincidentally, one by one, each geography, except for NZ, stopped even reporting the data.

What I can tell you is that my "butt-buddy" (strange term for someone else who actually looks at data vs. swallowing the mainstream narrative hook, line and sinker) posted a link to the UK reports from this spring. I also first mentioned this in this thread about 6 months ago when the trend became apparent. Data in ALL (xville) of these geographies show that the vaxxed/boosted are getting infected at the highest rates. While the unvaxxed are still getting hospitalized and dying at the greatest rate, the gap has closed substantially, to where it's not a discernable difference.

Could it be that the vax, designed for the native strain, is ineffective against current variants? Could it be that the vax is even suppressing the immune system's ability to respond to current variants? Both are certainly not without precedent.

Note I'm not an anti-vaxxer, in fact you can go back in this thread to spring/summer '21 and see that I supported it and got vaxxed. However, things have changed. Radically. Please keep an open mind.

[paulxu]

I'll take American Society of Microbiologists with aerosol study for $200, Alex.

[Final4]

Dude - didn't I address this - exactly - but you completely blew it off? And this the analysis you've been teasing us for 2 days now?




So England used to report covid data by vax status, but stopped right after this report (published earlier this year). The vast majority of cases, hospitalizations and deaths were among those with at least 3 doses. Vaxxed were also more likely to die (you can go back before this report and see similar data).

My points are that (1) these numbers should not be happening if the vax worked as originally advertised and (2) most people think that only unvaxxed people are getting Covid.


unvax / 3 doses / % vax
Cases: / 167402 / 544745 / 76.49%
Hosp : / 1504 / 4505 / 74.97%
Deaths / 286 / 2082 / 87.92%

% hosp / 0.90% / 0.83%
% deaths /19.02% / 46.22%


https://assets.publishing.service.go..._-_week_10.pdf

Alex, I mean Lou, I’ll preface this by saying I only skimmed the article you linked. Having said that, I couldn’t find the values you extracted……..maybe they were buried in multiple slides on multiple pages and I missed them or maybe you pulled them out of your ass. I did however find the following on pages 38 and 39:

Results

“The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns. The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals.”

Interpretation of Data

“This data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used 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.”

I’ll once again go back to the statement by MID regarding infection rates between vax and unvax populations and my contention that using that rate as your metric to determine jab efficacy is flawed logic. That’s my only point.

[XU_Lou]

Alex, I mean Lou, I’ll preface this by saying I only skimmed the article you linked. Having said that, I couldn’t find the values you extracted……..maybe they were buried in multiple slides on multiple pages and I missed them or maybe you pulled them out of your ass. I did however find the following on pages 38 and 39:

Results

“The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns. The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals.”

Interpretation of Data

“This data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used 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.”

I’ll once again go back to the statement by MID regarding infection rates between vax and unvax populations and my contention that using that rate as your metric to determine jab efficacy is flawed logic. That’s my only point.

You've perfectly demonstrated why smug libs like you and 82 never learn anything...

[paulxu]

Interpretation of Data

“This data should be considered in the context of the vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective. This is especially true because vaccination has been prioritised in individuals who are more susceptible or more at risk of severe disease. Individuals in risk groups may also be more at risk of hospitalisation or death due to non-COVID-19 causes, and thus may be hospitalised or die with COVID-19 rather than from COVID-19. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths should not be used 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.”

It's almost like this statement should be followed with....DUH.

[Xville]

You've perfectly demonstrated why smug libs like you and 82 never learn anything...

Pot meet kettle. This is the difference between raw data and statistical analysis, something you still are unwilling to grasp. You and your buddy mid believe that by looking at some raw data in one specific area of one country that coincides with your beliefs, means you have found some holy grail and can point fingers at the entire health community and msm and say “see I’m right and you’re wrong,” and pat yourselves on the back. It’s mind bogglingly ignorant.