[WO/Hat-Gang Only - MODERATED] The fucking COVID vax thread (No hat? Fuck off!)

[Torque]

FiRE UnVaXXed nurSEs BecAusE ItS aBoUT HeALtH

[1714765162]

1714765162

[1714765162]

1714765162

[1714765162]

1714765162

[Torque]

"But...bbut...the vaccines are supposed to protect from serious illness and death, right? Right?"

[suchmoon]

But...bbut...the vaccines are supposed to protect from serious illness and death, right? Right?

I don't know if you're seriously misinformed or just trolling, but I'll try anyway.

All other things being equal, 90% of population vaccinated with an 80%-effective vaccine would mean that roughly two thirds of hospitalizations and deaths would be among vaccinated and one third among vaccinated. I.e. in a perfect sample of 100 people, 90 vaccinated, vaccine not effective for 20 percent of them (18 people) so they have the same chance of getting hospitalized and/or die as the 10 unvaccinated, 18/28 ~ 64%.

80% of population vaccinated: ~45% of hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated.

95% of population vaccinated: ~80% of hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated.

And so on.

IOTW a higher vaccination rate means a higher percentage of total deaths is among vaccinated but results in a much lower number of said total deaths.

AFAIK vaccination rate in England is ~90% so 63% doesn't seem out of line, it probably indicates vaccine effectiveness of about 80% as per above.

#math

[Torque]

But...bbut...the vaccines are supposed to protect from serious illness and death, right? Right?

I don't know if you're seriously misinformed or just trolling, but I'll try anyway.

All other things being equal, 90% of population vaccinated with an 80%-effective vaccine would mean that roughly two thirds of hospitalizations and deaths would be among vaccinated and one third among vaccinated. I.e. in a perfect sample of 100 people, 90 vaccinated, vaccine not effective for 20 percent of them (18 people) so they have the same chance of getting hospitalized and/or die as the 10 unvaccinated, 18/28 ~ 64%.

80% of population vaccinated: ~45% of hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated.

95% of population vaccinated: ~80% of hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated.

And so on.

IOTW a higher vaccination rate means a higher percentage of total deaths is among vaccinated but results in a much lower number of said total deaths.

AFAIK vaccination rate in England is ~90% so 63% doesn't seem out of line, it probably indicates vaccine effectiveness of about 80% as per above.

#math

So you are saying that a higher hospitalization and death rate for vaccinated individuals is completely normal, just because there are more of them?

Your math may be correct, but your mental gymnastics that completely discounts the (negligible) efficacy of the vaccines is off the charts. This so-called "vaccine" was supposed to COMPLETELY PREVENT serious illness and death, not just a mild "protection" from. "Breakthrough" infections weren't even supposed to exist within the vaccinated, much less hospitalization and/or death.

I guess that when England gets to a 100% vaccination rate, then those that get hospitalized and die (of? with?) Covid and all are 100% vaccinated, and the hospitals still overrun, will all make perfect sense.  

Who's trolling who?

#stupidmathisstupid

[suchmoon]

So you are saying that a higher hospitalization and death rate for vaccinated individuals is completely normal, just because there are more of them?

The number you posted is not a hospitalization/death rate among vaccinated but you seem to be interpreting it as such. It's a comparison of absolute numbers from two samples of vastly different size. It's statistically meaningless without additional information (e.g. sample size).

If everyone was vaccinated then 100% of deaths would be among vaccinated. If no one was vaccinated, 0% of deaths would be among vaccinated. Not rocket surgery.

Your math may be correct, but your mental gymnastics that completely discounts the (negligible) efficacy of the vaccines is off the charts. This so-called "vaccine" was supposed to COMPLETELY PREVENT serious illness and death, not just a mild "protection" from.

It's in all caps so it must be true.

#stupidstrawmanisstupid

[Torque]

The number you posted is not a hospitalization/death rate among vaccinated but you seem to be interpreting it as such. It's a comparison of absolute numbers from two samples of vastly different size. It's statistically meaningless without additional information (e.g. sample size).

In the chart, the number of vaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (278,212 - 47%) was roughly equal to the number of unvaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (257,357 - 43%). But the vaxxed had 70% of the total # of patient deaths, 1779 out of 2,542 that died).

In that scenario shouldn't the vaxxed have far less % of deaths than the unvaxxed, not the other way around?

[suchmoon]

In the chart, the number of vaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (278,212 - 47%) was roughly equal to the number of unvaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (257,357 - 43%). But the vaxxed had 70% of the total # of patient deaths, 1779 out of 2,542 that died).

Shouldn't the vaxxed have far less deaths than the unvaxxed, not the other way around?

The chart says "positive tests", not hospitalizations.

[xhomerx10]

In the chart, the number of vaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (278,212 - 47%) was roughly equal to the number of unvaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (257,357 - 43%). But the vaxxed had 70% of the total # of patient deaths, 1779 out of 2,542 that died).

Shouldn't the vaxxed have far less deaths than the unvaxxed, not the other way around?

The chart says "positive tests", not hospitalizations.

 If the percentage of vaccinated folk are quite high, then those numbers seem to indicate that you are more likely to get infected with the Delta variant of covid if you have not been vaccinated but less likely to die from it. 

[Torque]

In the chart, the number of vaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (278,212 - 47%) was roughly equal to the number of unvaxxed hospitalized Covid patients (257,357 - 43%). But the vaxxed had 70% of the total # of patient deaths, 1779 out of 2,542 that died).

Shouldn't the vaxxed have far less deaths than the unvaxxed, not the other way around?

The chart says "positive tests", not hospitalizations.

Those positive tests were done at the ER or hospital. But yes you are right, let's don't use those numbers. Let's look at the overnight hospitalization admission numbers.

Still about equal ratio sample sizes vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.

[suchmoon]

If the percentage of vaccinated folk are quite high, then those numbers seem to indicate that you are more likely to get infected with the Delta variant of covid if you have not been vaccinated but less likely to die from it. 

If unvaccinated are 10 times more likely to have a positive test but out of positive tests they're half as likely to die, they're still 5x more likely to die than vaccinated. To me that doesn't say "less likely" to die. It may show that unvaccinated get tested a lot more often with milder cases, but more data would be needed to figure that out.

Also keep in mind that this sort of comparison depends a lot on age, for example elderly are more likely to be vaccinated but more likely to die of COVID so their breakthrough cases may skew the numbers significantly. Unfortunately this level of detail is impossible to convey in a simple chart but if you care to dive into it - read up on Simpson's paradox.

Still about equal ratio sample sizes vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.

Not sure why you still think the sample size is similar. It's not. Vaccination rate in England is significantly higher than 50%.

[dragonvslinux]

But...bbut...the vaccines are supposed to protect from serious illness and death, right? Right?

I don't know if you're seriously misinformed or just trolling, but I'll try anyway.

All other things being equal, 90% of population vaccinated with an 80%-effective vaccine would mean that roughly two thirds of hospitalizations and deaths would be among vaccinated and one third among vaccinated. I.e. in a perfect sample of 100 people, 90 vaccinated, vaccine not effective for 20 percent of them (18 people) so they have the same chance of getting hospitalized and/or die as the 10 unvaccinated, 18/28 ~ 64%.

80% of population vaccinated: ~45% of hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated.

95% of population vaccinated: ~80% of hospitalizations and deaths among vaccinated.

And so on.

IOTW a higher vaccination rate means a higher percentage of total deaths is among vaccinated but results in a much lower number of said total deaths.

AFAIK vaccination rate in England is ~90% so 63% doesn't seem out of line, it probably indicates vaccine effectiveness of about 80% as per above.

#math

So you are saying that a higher hospitalization and death rate for vaccinated individuals is completely normal, just because there are more of them?

Yes, suchmoon is completely correct here. I think he gave you enough examples to show his workings etc, the stawman arguments doesn't really serve much useful purpose here imo.

Your math may be correct, but your mental gymnastics that completely discounts the (negligible) efficacy of the vaccines is off the charts. This so-called "vaccine" was supposed to COMPLETELY PREVENT serious illness and death, not just a mild "protection" from. "Breakthrough" infections weren't even supposed to exist within the vaccinated, much less hospitalization and/or death.

Yes it was supposed to be 100% effective, then 95%, followed by 90%, now we see around 78% (as of September 2021). So it's effectiveness has either declined based on initial Pfizer/CDC claims compared to recent data, either that or they were exaggerating (or simply lying) about it's effectiveness from the start in order to get it "approved". As quite obviously 80% for vaccine effectiveness is still quite poor statistically speaking (compared to other vaccines) for multi-billion dollar funding and widespread use, unless it's a pandemic of course then more of a case of "throw against a wall and see if it sticks".

[Torque]

Still about equal ratio sample sizes vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.

Not sure why you still think the sample size is similar. It's not. Vaccination rate in England is significantly higher than 50%.

Maybe now, but it wasn't then.

The chart data runs from 2/2021 to 9/2021.

Vaccination rate is not a static number. If we take UK population at 56.191M. According to the UK govt's data, by 2/2021 only 8,362,868 vaccinations had been administered (14.8% of the population). By 6/2021, only 33,085,145 had been administered (58.8% of the population). By end of 9/2021, they had administered 40,979,175 vaccines (72% of the population).

So you do the math on what the average "percentage vaxxed vs. unvaxxed" was at the time the data was gathered. I'm guessing it's not 90%.

Also, we know that vaccine efficacy (if you can even call it that) wanes quickly over time, in just a few months. How many got their first shot early on and never got another?

[suchmoon]

Yes it was supposed to be 100% effective, then 95%, followed by 90%, now we see around 78% (as of September 2021). So it's effectiveness has either declined based on initial Pfizer/CDC claims compared to recent data, either that or they were exaggerating (or simply lying) about it's effectiveness from the start in order to get it "approved". As quite obviously 80% for vaccine effectiveness is still quite poor statistically speaking (compared to other vaccines) for multi-billion dollar funding and widespread use, unless it's a pandemic of course then more of a case of "throw against a wall and see if it sticks".

Pfizer/Moderna were claimed to be 90%+ effective against early variants, likely less so against Delta. Not sure about AZ (widely used in England).

Immunity does seem to decline over time (thus boosters). There is also data to suggest that vaccination followed by a COVID infection/recovery increases immunity compared to vaccination alone or infection alone.

Vaccination rate is not a static number. If we take UK population at 56.191M. According to the UK govt's data, in 2/2021 only 8,362,868 vaccinations had been administered (14.8% of the population). By 6/2021, only 33,085,145 had been administered (58.8% of the population). By end of 9/2021, they had administered 40,979,175 vaccines (72% of the population).

UK or England? Your charts referred to England. Did you exclude children under 18? You should because they weren't being vaccinated until later in the year. Even other age groups may need to be adjusted because the rollout started from the oldest.

So you do the math on what the "percentage vaxxed" was at the time the data was gathered.

If you do that you should adjust hospitalization/death data as well - it was not linear during that time period.

[Hueristic]

The newly unredacted emails show that by February 2, 2020, scientists were already trying to shut down the debate into the laboratory leak theory

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/scientists-believed-covid-leaked-from-wuhan-lab-but-feared-further-discussion-would-be-harmful-emails

An email from Dr. Ron Fouchier to Farrar said: “Further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.”

[OutOfMemory]

Let's resume:

1. vaccines work, but not good at stopping the pandemic.
MSM's "vaccines are the way out of this pandemic" bubble just popped by Omicron.

2. vaccines can't be distributed as needed, worldwide.
Guarantee for globally spreading variants, forever.

3. Almost all people dying or needing ICU treatment are old or not healthy.

4. Masks and distancing is about as effective as vaccination, if done RIGHT.

5. Most Long Covid patients have virus rna in their urine.

6. Nobody knows what will happen to the immune system about many subsequent jabs, some months apart.

All of which leads to:

Protect the weak and sick, use vaccines for the endangered and likely endangered folks, leave the rest alone and make politics invest in their (our) healthcare system(s).


It's just that if you take part in a new game, you want to learn the rules to work out how to win, right? What the world tries to do is changing the game with global, unidimensional measures. China can't lock down the virus forever.
Ask you sane mind: How likely is this to actually work out?

OT: Aside of Covid, China isn't appearing as often in the news since quite some time, makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

[Torque]

19nt gene sequences found in CV-19, patented by Moderna in 2015.

Chances of natural occurrence in the virus: P=1 in 4*19, or roughly 1 in 274,877,906,944.

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

Talking about thightening the screws just a little bit more...


LA Times-author Michael Hiltzik thinks "mocking anti-vaxxers`COVID deaths .... may be necessary".

 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-10/why-shouldnt-we-dance-on-the-graves-of-anti-vaxxers

Funnily enough, the original title of that piece can still be found in the URL, as you can see in the link provided.

"Why shouldn`t we dance on the graves of anti-vaxxers"

Another winner is the fact that he introduces himself in his bio on latimes.com as "Pulitzer Price-winning journalist" (yeah, those really are the very first words), while at the same time you can read in his wiki that he was suspended without pay in 2006 for sockpuppeting on his own blog.



Then we have Biden`s Education Secretary Miguel Cardona asking the National School Board Association to send a letter comparing protesting parents to domestic terrorists.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/41-republicans-demand-cardona-resign-links-nsba-letter-protesting-parents



With this one, I am not sure if it fits into the thightened screws category or could rather be actually good news.

"US Army`s `super vaccine` could protect against all COVID variants".

https://www.cnet.com/health/army-super-vaccine-spfn-shows-promise-all-covid-variants-including-omicron/

It does have Fauci`s seal of approval after all, so hm....
Didn`t Spartacus mention something about a cure-it-all in his thread?

 

[vapourminer]

LA Times-author Michael Hiltzik thinks "mocking anti-vaxxers`COVID deaths .... may be necessary".

 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-10/why-shouldnt-we-dance-on-the-graves-of-anti-vaxxers

https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

[OutOfMemory]

19nt gene sequences found in CV-19, patented by Moderna in 2015.

Chances of natural occurrence in the virus: P=1 in 4*19, or roughly 1 in 274,877,906,944.

Interesting, but...
Did you double check?
Do you have a source?

[Torque]

19nt gene sequences found in CV-19, patented by Moderna in 2015.

Chances of natural occurrence in the virus: P=1 in 4*19, or roughly 1 in 274,877,906,944.

Interesting, but...
Did you double check?
Do you have a source?

https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/how-to-blast-your-way-to-the-truth

https://twitter.com/chrismartenson/status/1481680433536405504

https://twitter.com/JikkyKjj/status/1481725525442048000

Also funny how the MSM was dead silent on this revelation the day it came out, and still is.