Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

Mrs Whiggins

By Mrs Whiggins
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Captainant

Captainant 28538

Posted
Posted
Just now, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

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.

please show me on the doll where the vaccine touched you. 

There is not a significant risk associated with getting the COVID vax. Please stop repeating this dangerous disinformation.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Anastasis

    2588

  • jimmyjazz

    1665

  • 4th&Five

    1305

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1226

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

safe sex
safe sex

I'd just like to point out that neither myself nor any of my fellow nurses, fellow advanced nurse practitioners, and other healthcare providers ever swore an oath that we would lay down our lives for

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Welp, it finally happened. I snapped in public today. I went into work for a bit this morning because I’m trying to figure out the safest way to host physicians we are recruiting given our CV-19 sit

safe sex
safe sex

I don't really know what to say anymore tbh. What happened last night is hard to put into words for anyone who hasn't worked in a hospital healthcare setting. Just unreal. Everyone is getting fucked.

Posted Images

Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 34104

Posted
Posted
42 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.

You can't spell disingenuous without 'genius'. - MAGA, probably

 

2 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

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.

So do you really believe that if you got covid last year you are protected from any of the current variants?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21796

Posted
Posted
24 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. 

Meme Reaction GIF by Robert E Blackmon

22 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

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

Fine be me. Let's do it. I'm sure that you'll go right to CVS if your test isn't what you anticipate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13523

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

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.

Do you think that because of data you've seen?

Probably not.

Hospitalization rates were 10 times higher among unvaccinated than among fully vaccinated adolescents.

Not that COVID is a huge threat to teens, of course, but it's a much bigger threat than the vaccine.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27627

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

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

On the fly. Terse reply.

Having immunity doesn't mean it's better or more effective to have the disease than the vaccine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23718

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

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.

Yeah, that's a good example. The public health/regulatory apparatus in this country stubbornly refused to consider the merits of first dose optimization strategies, mix match regimens, and extended dosing intervals early on. Those approaches were deployed in other Western countries where there was less regulatory dogmatism.  Those countries let some basic understanding of immunology help guide decision making in unprecedented circumstances where the data were incomplete and/or ambiguous. They made the right decision. Once again in this case, we are faced with a situation where the data are incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory.  And once again, some people are falling into very dogmatic position taking.    

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PassiveAggressiveCoach

PassiveAggressiveCoach 118

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

please show me on the doll where the vaccine touched you. 

There is not a significant risk associated with getting the COVID vax. Please stop repeating this dangerous disinformation.

I never said that. When did I say that? The only group I would have a double thought about giving it to would be Boys 12-15 as per a UK study. The adverse events in that sub group were higher than the odds of hospitalization from covid. Either way it is super low odds. You are really trying to get me cancelled here. So funny.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

Edited by PassiveAggressiveCoach
  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28538

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

I never said that. When did I say that? The only group I would have a double thought about giving it to would be Boys 12-15 as per a UK study. The adverse events in that sub group were higher than the odds of hospitalization from covid. Either way it is super low odds either way. You are really trying to get me cancelled here. So funny.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

Just so you know... that underlying study is not peer reviewed, is pre-print, and is simply a study of reported VAERS data - which has zero confirmation or oversight and is generally not considered "clean" data. It's not a clinical study.

I don't want to cancel you - I just want you to stop spreading disinformation that motivates people to refuse vaccination.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47195

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

I never said that. When did I say that? The only group I would have a double thought about giving it to would be Boys 12-15 as per a UK study. The adverse events in that sub group were higher than the odds of hospitalization from covid. Either way it is super low odds either way. You are really trying to get me cancelled here. So funny.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

Even your own source indicates a large discrepancy between studies:

Quote

In the latest study, which has yet to be peer reviewed, Dr Tracy Høeg at the University of California and colleagues analysed adverse reactions to Covid vaccines in US children aged 12 to 17 during the first six months of 2021. They estimate the rate of myocarditis after two shots of Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to be 162.2 cases per million for healthy boys aged 12 to 15 and 94 cases per million for healthy boys aged 16 to 17.

Quote

According to the UK medicines regulator, the rate of myocarditis after Covid vaccination is only six per million shots of Pfizer/BioNTech.

 

So, is it 162/1M or 6/1M?  Makes a difference.  Covid hospitalization rate for that age group is cited as 44/1M.  So, two significantly different conclusions could be drawn . . . seems like either more research or better reporting is in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PassiveAggressiveCoach

PassiveAggressiveCoach 118

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just so you know... that underlying study is not peer reviewed, is pre-print, and is simply a study of reported VAERS data - which has zero confirmation or oversight and is generally not considered "clean" data. It's not a clinical study.

I don't want to cancel you - I just want you to stop spreading disinformation that motivates people to refuse vaccination.

the clinical data from that study was strong enough for the JCVI in the UK not to recommend the Pfizer vax in the Boys 12-15 group.

Edited by PassiveAggressiveCoach
  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 55865

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

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

 

Do you not think it's pretty suspicious that you get the exact same results just dividing the cases by the total population?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28538

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

the clinical data from that study was strong enough for the JVCI in the UK not to recommend the Pfizer vax in the Boys 12-15 group.

there's no clinical data in that study. It's all synthesis and inference of numbers based on unconfirmed VAERS data and macro vaccine rates.

The study itself refers to its count per million of myocarditis as "crude" - and even points out that in the cases that were tracked in VAERS, about 3/4th of them cleared up within a week with no other measured side effects.

Talk about the study on its merits if you want to build your argument on top of it - don't rely on """people are saying/doing""" hollow trumpian rhetoric

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PassiveAggressiveCoach

PassiveAggressiveCoach 118

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

there's no clinical data in that study. It's all synthesis and inference of numbers based on unconfirmed VAERS data and macro vaccine rates.

The study itself refers to its count per million of myocarditis as "crude" - and even points out that in the cases that were tracked in VAERS, about 3/4th of them cleared up within a week with no other measured side effects.

Talk about the study on its merits if you want to build your argument on top of it - don't rely on """people are saying/doing""" hollow trumpian rhetoric

It was literally the reason the UK isn't recommending it in that subset.

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28538

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

It was literally the reason the UK isn't recommending it in that subset.

the same UK that's still blasting it's own dick off with brexit fuckups left and right? They sure do seem like thought leaders and someone to blindly follow without actually considering that the underlying study is bunk

So hooray, we agree that the UK government is making decisions using bad information? 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 35594

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, that's a good example. The public health/regulatory apparatus in this country stubbornly refused to consider the merits of first dose optimization strategies, mix match regimens, and extended dosing intervals early on. Those approaches were deployed in other Western countries where there was less regulatory dogmatism.  Those countries let some basic understanding of immunology help guide decision making in unprecedented circumstances where the data were incomplete and/or ambiguous. They made the right decision. Once again in this case, we are faced with a situation where the data are incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory.  And once again, some people are falling into very dogmatic position taking.    

I’d like to offer the following counter: a substantial portion of our population is made up of cretins enthralled by charlatans. They will seize on even the mildest ambiguity or nuance as an opportunity to eat horse dewormer.

With that sort of psychological terrain, a constant drumbeat of “get your gotdamn shots now” is really the only message that should be pushed. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23718

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’d like to offer the following counter: a substantial portion of our population is made up of cretins enthralled by charlatans. They will seize on even the mildest ambiguity or nuance as an opportunity to eat horse dewormer.

With that sort of psychological terrain, a constant drumbeat of “get your gotdamn shots now” is really the only message that should be pushed. 

Some people are going to suck horse paste out of a tube no matter what you say and how you say it. I think that there is room in public health messaging for transparency and nuance, esp to the extent that we are considering the use of government mandates to achieve the end goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23718

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Do you not think it's pretty suspicious that you get the exact same results just dividing the cases by the total population?

It was a 1:1 matched analysis.  Each group had 16,215 individuals included in that particular analysis set after the matching procedure. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27627

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Israeli study was a delta variant study.

What about that Israeli study suggesting natural immunity is stronger? Infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD, MPH, FIDSA, carefully evaluates the study design of the retrospective Maccabi Health System study in his Aug. 31 briefing. In the briefing, he identifies two concerning sources of error that were not corrected for: survivorship bias and selection bias.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23718

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

What??  So they purposely threw away data so that both samples had the exact same size?  

Bored The Office GIF

Matching is fairly common in epidemiological studies in attempt to control for potential confounding factors. But they definitely should have reported raw numbers in an analysis of the unmatched data for a frame of reference, imo. I am inclined to think that their matching procedures introduced a substantial selection bias.  The ORs reported for model 1 in particular just strain plausibility. That they are substantially reduced in model 2 when the index date match is removed would seem to support a strong selection bias introduced via the match.  

Edited by Anastasis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satoshi

Satoshi 129

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

What about that Israeli study suggesting natural immunity is stronger? Infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD, MPH, FIDSA, carefully evaluates the study design of the retrospective Maccabi Health System study in his Aug. 31 briefing. In the briefing, he identifies two concerning sources of error that were not corrected for: survivorship bias and selection bias.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination

 

 

Here you go my man. I’ll cross post it over here. 
 

National infection survey and data analysis in Uk finds that during last delta wave, natural immunity was equivalent to Pfizer vaccination. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticleimpactofvaccinationontestingpositiveintheuk/latest

 

 

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21796

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Satoshi said:

Here you go my man. I’ll cross post it over here. 
 

National infection survey and data analysis in Uk finds that during last delta wave, natural immunity was equivalent to Pfizer vaccination. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticleimpactofvaccinationontestingpositiveintheuk/latest

 

 

And, for the hundredth time, are you cool with subjecting these people to testing to verify that they have the proper natural immunities in place before giving them an exemption, or are we just taking everyone's word for it?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4763

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

And, for the hundredth time, are you cool with subjecting these people to testing to verify that they have the proper natural immunities in place before giving them an exemption, or are we just taking everyone's word for it?

Why would they lie about it?

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satoshi

Satoshi 129

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

@Satoshi attacking vaccines. I’m shocked 

Nope. They work about as well as getting infected, without all the dying risk. 
 

1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

And, for the hundredth time, are you cool with subjecting these people to testing to verify that they have the proper natural immunities in place before giving them an exemption, or are we just taking everyone's word for it?

No. You would only need to provide record of positive PCR test or a one time positive nucleocapsid antibody test. You’re still provided protection even after antibodies are gone. Same with vaccines.
 

Do you think we should be tracking double vaxxed people’s antibodies?
 

The implications are thus, a portion of the population is being excluded and some forced out of work for no reason. They are similar to double Pfizer vaxxed, almost certainly superior to J&J vaxxed. That doesn’t make any sense to me. It will to y’all. Whatever. 

Edited by Satoshi
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21796

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Why would they lie about it?

It's not even the lying. Though, obviously, you'd see plenty of that, and, all of the sudden, everyone in the country has already had Covid. It's that nobody really has a damn clue, even the ones that know for certain they've had Covid. It's not a guarantee a week out, let alone months, that your body has the necessary immunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...