CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[workswithseed 2199]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Not sure why they would need weekly antibody tests.  Seems like a single test demonstrating past infection and immune response should suffice.  

Couldn't you get infected in between tests and get everyone infected anyways?

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

That's not what you've been saying at all.  You have been using a single study with an incredibly small # of relevant patients to conclude some vastly superior immunity for those who have had Covid relative to those who haven't but who have been vaccinated.  You still haven't acknowledged the fact that in Israel the % vaccinated is extremely high, so a large % of Covid patients are . . . wait for it . . . vaccinated.

Not a small number of patients. Just turns out the number of patients in the vaxxed group or previous infected group both did well and few cases were reported in either group but natural immunity group performed better. To say this wasn't a large enough study is not the case.

 

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34040]

99% of the people dying from covid are unvaccinated. That's enough for me.

Then again I'm not a selfish prick. I can (eventually) die happy that I likely did not infect anyone else. The unvaccinated cannot say the same

[cactusflinthead 27626]

23 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

That's also correct. Also, previous SARS infections have shown natural immunity conferred out several yrs likely due to this exact reason. It doesn't matter though to many here.

Bullshit. Post a link to your evidence.

[Captainant 28260]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I hear that that lovely decision was also used to set up good precrdent too... What were those laws again? 

I don't follow - I didn't know that the 5th CT court relied on the Jacobson decision to justify SB8 - can you elaborate with some sources please?

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

9 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Bullshit. Post a link to your evidence.

LOL. OK. I expect crickets as you thought I was making this up. So arrogant.

Article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8529429/Could-immunity-17-YEARS-Singaporean-researchers-SARS-patients-crucial-T-cells.html

Study:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z_reference.pdf

 

Investigations showed all patients 'still possess long-lasting memory T cells' reactive to the virus.

The findings 'support the notion that Covid-19 patients will develop long-term T cell immunity,' the researchers wrote

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[jimmyjazz 46749]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not sure why they would need weekly antibody tests.  Seems like a single test demonstrating past infection and immune response should suffice.  

Maybe not weekly, but there should be some testing interval to mimic the presumably-required boosters for those who vax.  Obviously there should be no assumption that either form of acquired immunity lasts forever, or even a year.

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe not weekly, but there should be some testing interval to mimic the presumably-required boosters for those who vax.  Obviously there should be no assumption that either form of acquired immunity lasts forever, or even a year.

Antibodies aren't necessarily a good marker for long lasting immunity.

[Captainant 28260]

3 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

LOL. OK.

Article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8529429/Could-immunity-17-YEARS-Singaporean-researchers-SARS-patients-crucial-T-cells.html

Study:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z_reference.pdf

you sure do like dailymail as a primary source lol - but I thought after all the shit you gave me you'd never cite a study that only has a sample size of 36 people

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

you sure do like dailymail as a primary source lol - but I thought after all the shit you gave me you'd never cite a study that only has a sample size of 36 people

I quoted the actual study. Did you miss that? I was asked for the data and I posted it. I am not claiming it is exactly what will happen with SARS COVID-2 but it is likely a good indicator. BTW did I say never cite a small study? I just would be less likely to do it when it is against a massively larger study.

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[bad_teammate 13442]

1) Do you think the government should step in against an employer who demands vaccination records as part of employment decisions?

2) Do you think employers should be able to demand antibody tests as a part of employment decisions?

[workswithseed 2199]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't follow - I didn't know that the 5th CT court relied on the Jacobson decision to justify SB8 - can you elaborate with some sources please?

It was used in Buck v Bell. 

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1) Do you think the government should step in against an employer who demands vaccination records as part of employment decisions?

2) Do you think employers should be able to demand antibody tests as a part of employment decisions?

I think employers should be able to do what they want more or less and if vaccine is mandated then that's fine. Now if a vaccine mandate is forced upon private business by the govt then I have an issue with that.

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[Beau Vine 55596]

16 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%).

Hold the fucking phone here... 238/16215 = 1.47% and 19/16215 = 0.12%.  

Is this actually using the entire population (vaxxed plus acquired immunity) as the denominator to determine the likelihood of getting a breakthrough infection, without taking into account that the # of vaxxed patients was far higher than the # of acquired immunity patients?

Unless I'm reading that wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  

[Anastasis 23655]

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Hold the fucking phone here... 238/16215 = 1.47% and 19/16215 = 0.12%.  

Is this actually using the entire population (vaxxed plus acquired immunity) as the denominator to determine the likelihood of getting a breakthrough infection, without taking into account that the # of vaxxed patients was far higher than the # of acquired immunity patients?

Unless I'm reading that wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  

The calculated odds ratios using a series of multivariable logistic regression models.  Here is the actual study pre-print:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf

 

[bad_teammate 13442]

5 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

I think employers should be able to do what they want more or less and if vaccine is mandated then that's fine. Now if that mandate is forced upon private business by the govt then I have an issue with that.

So the whole "BUT THEIR LIVELIHOOD!" thing was kind of BS huh?

[Anastasis 23655]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe not weekly, but there should be some testing interval to mimic the presumably-required boosters for those who vax.  Obviously there should be no assumption that either form of acquired immunity lasts forever, or even a year.

But boosters are not required, and not even recommended except for certain circumstances.  If we are going to require weekly tracking of antibody levels for previously infected, we should be doing the same for vaccinated.  But none of that even makes sense because we don't know what the right threshold for protection are to interpret the data (tree-fiddy).

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13442]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The calculated odds ratios using a series of multivariable logistic regression models. 

*They

idiot

lol

 

(I don't know what any of those words mean)

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So the whole "BUT THEIR LIVELIHOOD!" thing was kind of BS huh?

how is that? most of these businesses would not be risking all this unless the pressure from the govt and the upcoming mandate. Most businesses still aren't requiring it and will not until forced by the govt. They know the headache and shitstorm it is going to cause with chunks of their employees.

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 hours ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

I've personally had covid and I won't be getting the vax because I know the data. Why should I be forced to take it? 

Because you touch yourself at night thinking about “the data” and should feel bad about it. 

[956 Worldwide 35251]

Y’all are arguing with someone “doing his own research.”

 

[Captainant 28260]

11 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

It was used in Buck v Bell. 

Got ya, so are you saying that vaccine mandates are a form of eugenics? I don't get your point bringing it up, nevermind that buck v bell was also weakened and limited by the ADA

[C-Man 27591]

30 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

99% of the people dying from covid are unvaccinated. That's enough for me.

That really should be the hammer to any discussion right there. Maybe add in that 90%+ or those hospitalized with COVID are unvaxxed.

Game ... blouses.

[bad_teammate 13442]

1 minute ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

how is that? most of these businesses would not be risking all this unless the pressure from the govt and the upcoming mandate. Most businesses still aren't requiring it and will not until forced by the govt. They know the headache and shitstorm it is going to cause with chunks of their employees.

Plenty of businesses mandate vaccines even without the threat of gov't intervention. You're OK with that, even thought it destroys people's livelihoods which earlier you were claiming was a problem. Just pointing out disingenuousness.

[Anastasis 23655]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

*They

idiot

lol

 

(I don't know what any of those words mean)

The fact that they described them as "multivariate logistic regression models" instead of "multivariable logistic regression models" had me on tilt. 

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

Y’all are arguing with someone “doing his own research.”

 

are you arguing with Fauci?

 

 

[bad_teammate 13442]

Just now, Anastasis said:

The fact that they described them as "multivariate logistic regression models" instead of "multivariable logistic regression models" had me on tilt. 

no doubt no doubt

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Plenty of businesses mandate vaccines even without the threat of gov't intervention. You're OK with that, even thought it destroys people's livelihoods which earlier you were claiming was a problem. Just pointing out disingenuousness.

not true because that is the business doing it and not being forced by the govt to do it although a lot of it is because of the upcoming mandate.  I believe in the right of a private business owner being able to set his/her own rules of employment free from govt telling them they have to make their employees get vaccinated or tested weekly or large fines. The law of unintended consequences will go into effect here. When the supply chain gets even more fucked up from this mandate I have a good feeling this will either not be enforced or will not be mandatory. Maybe I will be wrong and Biden will stick to his guns and just say fuck it I'm driving this economy off the cliff.

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[Anastasis 23655]

10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Y’all are arguing with someone “doing his own research.”

The dogmatic position taking around vaccine strategy in the setting of incomplete and ambiguous data has been quite something over the past year. 

[RomaVicta 30372]

4 hours ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

It'll be funnier if you die from it being vaccinated. I'll feel pretty safe with my natural immunity backed by some strong studies confirming it. 

 

3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You are so incredibly stupid it is breathtaking.  

 

We fall too easily into dismissing the malign intents of persons like the PassiveAggressiveCoach as stupidity. He's not stupid. He's practicing sophistry to further the Trumpist Death Cult agenda. 

3 hours ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

So funny. Im giving very logical arguments questioning being forced to get a vaccine for people with previous covid infections and in the end all y'all can do is neg rep. That's when I know I'm right. You know logically I'm probably right and people with previous infections probably shouldn't be forced into a vaccine but the vaccine is so political you are dug in and can't admit it.  

You're a disingenuous piece of shit. You probably actually do think you can make yourself argument-proof by claiming any emotion attached to those whom disagree with you proves you're right.

Sophistry is arguing without regard for truth or even the best outcome. It's an excercise in being slimy. It can be fun sometimes when you're just playing around. It's disastrous in public discourse over affairs that impact the republic.

I believe your posts are more a part of the Destroy Truth wing of the Trump/Putin assault on the US than any real concern over Covid. Whether you do it out of blind loyalty to your team or knowing deception is of no matter to me. Your lies are not petty. 

Congratulate yourself on your rightness; I'm joining the negfest, fuckwad.

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The dogmatic position taking around vaccine strategy in the setting of incomplete and ambiguous data has been quite something over the past year. 

It's been draconian and not subject to adjustment to changing facts on the ground. It's because it has turned 100% political in nature. That's the reason. Medical policy dictated by politics and not science. No room for nuance or change.

[Neonmoon 38130]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The dogmatic position taking around vaccine strategy in the setting of incomplete and ambiguous data has been quite something over the past year. 

Do you have a both sides cape you wear, or is it just more of a mask?

[jimmyjazz 46749]

24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But boosters are not required, and not even recommended except for certain circumstances.  If we are going to require weekly tracking of antibody levels for previously infected, we should be doing the same for vaccinated.  But none of that even makes sense because we don't know what the right threshold for protection are to interpret the data (tree-fiddy).

We already know that there is some fade in immune response at 120 days, manufacturer-dependent.  I don't think it's realistic to imagine an employer-mandated vaccine without imagining followup boosters (or newly developed vaccines).

EDIT:  I would add that I think "regular" testing might be a better solution, regardless of vax status.  Setting the standard is, as you imply, tricky, but I would hope the science would start to point us in the right direction.

Edited October 19, 2021 by jimmyjazz

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Do you have a both sides cape you wear, or is it just more of a mask?

or maybe he sees how ridiculous some of this mandate policy is given the science? crazy thought, I know.

[956 Worldwide 35251]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The dogmatic position taking around vaccine strategy in the setting of incomplete and ambiguous data has been quite something over the past year. 

NaTuRaL iMuNnItY iS sUpErI0r! is a feint and a dodge. No one making that argument is going to scrupulously test their levels and go get the vax if/when they fall below what the vaccine offers. They’ll just roll along to the next thing. 
 

That’s why it’s not worth arguing, it’s not an argument made in good faith. 

[Captainant 28260]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Do you have a both sides cape you wear, or is it just more of a mask?

Tbf he has criticized both sides today - he disliked how for-profit medical coverage doesn't actually prioritize good health outcomes. Which is like a meta-bothsides move.

He's learning

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

NaTuRaL iMuNnItY iS sUpErI0r! is a feint and a dodge. No one making that argument is going to scrupulously test their levels and go get the vax if/when they fall below what the vaccine offers. They’ll just roll along to the next thing. 
 

That’s why it’s not worth arguing, it’s not an argument made in good faith. 

because that argument also should accompany the vaccinated having to get the same regular tests unless boosters also become mandate for all.

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[jimmyjazz 46749]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The dogmatic position taking around vaccine strategy in the setting of incomplete and ambiguous data has been quite something over the past year. 

Do you mean like your rants about getting single shots in different arms instead of multiple shots in the same arms?  ("Different" = different human.)

Not that I thought you had no shot (ahem) at a good point, it was a reasonable hypothesis at the time, but the data were pretty murky, too.

[Captainant 28260]

Just now, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

because that argument also should accompany the vaccinated having to get the same regular tests.

Except that we know that vaccinations consistently induce an immune response, whereas we cannot rely on prior infection inducing a comparable response. On around a one out of three basis. 

So apples and oranges. 

Unfortunately, you do have to read past the headline to understand  

[C-Man 27591]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

NaTuRaL iMuNnItY iS sUpErI0r! is a feint and a dodge. No one making that argument is going to scrupulously test their levels and go get the vax if/when they fall below what the vaccine offers. They’ll just roll along to the next thing. 
 

That’s why it’s not worth arguing, it’s not an argument made in good faith. 

Has @PassiveAggressiveCoach ever told us when he supposedly had COVID? Does he have his antibody levels tested regularly? I've said this many times, I had COVID in March 2020 and by December, there were no detectable antibodies remaining in my system. Do we carry forward any sort of residual immunity? I don't think the science is there but people have been infected twice. It does happen. I don't disagree that natural immunity is probably better than a vaccine. The question is how long are you protected from not getting it again?

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Except that we know that vaccinations consistently induce an immune response, whereas we cannot rely on prior infection inducing a comparable response. On around a one out of three basis. 

So apples and oranges. 

Unfortunately, you do have to read past the headline to understand  

the outcome data in the large Israeli study would indicate otherwise.

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

7 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Has @PassiveAggressiveCoach ever told us when he supposedly had COVID? Does he have his antibody levels tested regularly? I've said this many times, I had COVID in March 2020 and by December, there were no detectable antibodies remaining in my system. Do we carry forward any sort of residual immunity? I don't think the science is there but people have been infected twice. It does happen. I don't disagree that natural immunity is probably better than a vaccine. The question is how long are you protected from not getting it again?

I have had it. Lost smell and taste for 2 mos and was sick for a week last Nov. I do not get tested for antibodies regularly. I had it done a few mos ago during my check up when i asked my doctor. BTW, antibodies are justy one part of the immune response and probably not even the best indicator. T cells play a major roll. To your last point a breakthough infection can occur in the previously infected as it can with the vaccinated. Although a lower likelihood than just having the vax.

Edited October 19, 2021 by PassiveAggressiveCoach

[bad_teammate 13442]

An antibody passport is more invasive on personal information than a vaccine passport.

MY RIGHTS! folks should think about that.

[Captainant 28260]

Just now, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

the outcome data in the large Israeli study would indicate otherwise.

it really doesn't. Having antibodies doesn't make you immune from reinfection - it just means that you are extremely likely to fight it off effectively and with no long-term effects. The Israeli data comes to no conclusions on the quantity or even presence of antibodies. And as the study itself and annie have pointed out - there's quite a lot of bias in the reporting as well that generated the data

So no, the israeli data does not indicate otherwise. But if you'd care to argue the opposite you're welcome to actually back the argument with more than rhetoric.

[bad_teammate 13442]

PAC won me over, we should force everyone to get COVID.

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

An antibody passport is more invasive on personal information than a vaccine passport.

MY RIGHTS! folks should think about that.

I agree. Thats as retarded as a vaccine passport.

[RomaVicta 30372]

21 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

It's been draconian and not subject to adjustment to changing facts on the ground. It's because it has turned 100% political in nature. That's the reason. Medical policy dictated by politics and not science. No room for nuance or change.

Thanks for this booster shot of disingenuousness. I bet it feels clever. 

The side hating truth and science claims to rely on truth and science. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by RomaVicta

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

PAC won me over, we should force everyone to get COVID.

I would not recommend it. I wouldve got the vax if it was available at the time. I'd of rather not had it or if i did get mild symptoms.

[bad_teammate 13442]

"This is all politics!" I scream at my nurse as my lungs fill with fluid, god damn liberal effusion

[PassiveAggressiveCoach 118]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

"This is all politics!" I scream at my nurse as my lungs fill with fluid, god damn liberal effusion

I'd get the vax if not infected before especially if in a high risk group. Why risk it? Well, unless your teenage boy and I think the risk of the vax in that population is worse than odds of bad covid outcomes.