|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27544880 - 11/15/21 08:52 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: Because it isn't logical, it's based on the erroneous belief that natural immunity is equivalent or superior to vaccination and it would be silly to let you and your ilk take up all the air in the room with your nonsense when you don't understand the subject matter and aren't interested in learning.
Why do you believe this is erroneous? Did you read the study I supplied that came to that conclusion? It's one of, if not, the, largest studies done on the matter.
You can't just dismiss it because you don't like it.. Consult the study or post evidence to the contrary if you disagree. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
Natural exposure implies exposure to the whole virus, to me it's only sensible this would imply stronger immunity over exposure to just a spike protein based off the first variant..
And I'm not sure why you think I'm not interested in learning. Go ahead and skim my post and find all my request for sources that were ignored.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/15/21 09:05 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27544902 - 11/15/21 09:06 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Explain why that sounds sensible to you and I might take you seriously.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27544919 - 11/15/21 09:19 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: Explain why that sounds sensible to you and I might take you seriously.
What, particularly? Why natural immunity is probably better, just intuitively? For one, we shouldn't rely on intuition, but data (imo), but if you insist.
Assuming you could skip the infection process, if you were able to choose between the immune response or antibodies of someone who had come in contact with the virus and accessed it's full spectrum of antigenic sites, and someone who had only come into contact with spike proteins from a vaccine, what would you choose? I'd certainly choose the former, especially given that spike proteins can, and do, mutate, so relying on those may prove less and less effective as it drifts away from what the vaccines were designed against. Exposure the full virus just imprints way more information into your system to help you defend against it.
Consider that all traditional vaccines aim to mimic natural immunity, this is how vaccines have historically been developed (I mean theoretically or scientifically developed, how they've been considered), and it's sensible. If you don't see the intuitive appeal of this, then you fail to see the intuitive appeal of getting vaccinated, ironically. It should come as no surprise natural immunity is superior. Unfortunately this is not a traditional deactivated virus vaccine, so there is a difference between vaccine-induced immunity and natural immunity. It is then a question of risk analysis that the two ideas propose, which I've talked about already as well.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/15/21 09:25 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27544923 - 11/15/21 09:24 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Why do you have to choose? Virtually every vaccinated person will be exposed to coronaviruses. This is one reason why your position is nonsense. Vaccines aren't force fields.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27544928 - 11/15/21 09:28 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: Why do you have to choose? Virtually every vaccinated person will be exposed to coronaviruses. This is one reason why your position is nonsense. Vaccines aren't force fields.
The 'choice' was a hypothetical example to demonstrate why natural immunity is intuitively better (once achieved, that is), since you asked.... It should be clear the natural immunity was the better choice.
Your point about vaccinated individuals being exposed to SARS-COV-2 was something I've talked about as well, but I'm not entirely sure what you're implying. I have never claimed vaccines are force fields. At any rate, if you're not at a significant risk for COVID, why accept the risk of vaccination* and COVID? For people in selected demographics, their potentially increasing they're risk in exchange for an inferior immune response. COVID is a non-risk for me, so I'd rather acquire natural immunity than commit to boosters indefinitely. It can also be argued that because natural immunity to COVID confers better prevention of infection, that helping reduce spread more, thus helping society more. So I think it's a logical stance given my risk profile and tolerance.
*: Risk profile of vaccination as a COVID risk reduction solution is presently undefined as we don't know how many boosters it will take (could be every 3-6 months indefinitely), what mutations the future holds that lessen it's protection or increase risk to COVID, potential unseen harm (reproductive, mental etc), nor how the adverse events may increase with each booster. Additionally, we don't have much evidence regarding the biodistribution or harm of the spike proteins, or what harm non-symptomatic SARS-COV-2 infection may still incur (i.e, maybe vaccines don't protect against 'long COVID or some mental effects such as fatigue). I know this is a tedious, tiring disclaimer but these may be possibilities so it must be included for an accurate comparison. So far I've seen evidence that suggest adverse reactions increase with booster count. No idea if that trend will continue, but it does that's not good.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/15/21 09:53 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27544946 - 11/15/21 09:52 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
There is evidence that hybrid immunity is superior to both.
Honest question: What do you think spike proteins do?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa] 1
#27544958 - 11/15/21 10:04 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: There is evidence that hybrid immunity is superior to both.
Honest question: What do you think spike proteins do?
So you do accept that it's possible that natural immunity may be superior to vaccine induced immunity, and that this is not 'erroneous' and something that should be immediately dismissed, as you did moments ago? The study I linked evaluated some with (partial) hybrid immunity by the way, but still concluded natural immunity was favorable.
Spike proteins have been shown to contribute to the formation of clots and may cause other harm (can't find much more, but I was under the impression that the SARS-COV-2 spike protein being harmful was commonly accepted knowledge, and that it's something you want to minimize exposure to): https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-558954/v1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100279/
Also, this bombshell dropped recently suggesting that SARS-COV-2 proteins may inhibit DNA repair: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm
Quote:
Our findings reveal a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines
But essentially it's a little grabber that the virus uses to bind onto and inject itself into the host cell.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/15/21 10:11 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27544970 - 11/15/21 10:13 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Lol, no, absolutely not.
Grabber is a good word, let's run with that. We can both agree that a knife wielding maniac is dangerous right? A disembodied hand clutching a knife is a little bit dangerous too, but any reasonable person knows that it's less dangerous than a live maniac, yet you're having trouble with this concept...
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27544976 - 11/15/21 10:17 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: Lol, no, absolutely not.
Grabber is a good word, let's run with that. We can both agree that a knife wielding maniac is dangerous right? A disembodied hand clutching a knife is a little bit dangerous too, but any reasonable person knows that it's less dangerous than a live maniac, yet you're having trouble with this concept...
What are you trying to imply or dispute? That the vaccine spike protein is less deadly since there's no virus? I haven't claimed it's deadly if that's what you're saying.
I understand the vaccines cause you to produce a modified spike protein that's supposedly safer, and that this is what you develop antibodies against. If you're disputing that SARS-COV-2 spike proteins have been shown to cause harm, check out those links.
I accept your concession that I'm not necessarily 'erroneous' in claiming natural immunity may be superior, and that you wrong to claim such.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/15/21 10:21 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27544982 - 11/15/21 10:22 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, that's right, your type don't make claims, you're "just asking questions".
Got it
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27544990 - 11/15/21 10:28 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: Oh, that's right, your type don't make claims, you're "just asking questions".
Got it
No, I never claimed the spike proteins from the vaccines are deadly or even harmful. I have made many claims, but that was not one. To the contrary, you've been the one asking question and sidestepping my responses.
Here's more evidence of spike proteins causing harming, this time when separated from the virus: https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-archive/2021/august/covid-19-spike-protein-binds-to-and-changes-cells-in-the-heart
Edited by junk_f00d (11/15/21 10:32 PM)
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,837
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27544995 - 11/15/21 10:32 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What do you think live virus does?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27545000 - 11/15/21 10:35 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: What do you think live virus does?
Attempt to inject itself into host cells in order to replicate. How long are you going to ask these kinds of questions rather than just pointing out whatever you found so illogical or unfounded about my argument?
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27545032 - 11/15/21 11:01 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
By the way, Koodz, earlier you said:
Quote:
Children have about a 1% risk of hospitalization after covid infection. Young adults are a little over 1%. Thinking your risk is lower than 1 in 26,000 is insane. If you’re in your early 20s it’s about 1 in 90.
This says risk of hospitalization is 90 / 100,000 for children 0-18, and 300 / 100,000 for adults 18-29: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html
That's much, much lower than what you're thinking, and when adjusting for co-morbidities or otherwise unhealthy populations my risk really vanishes. At least a third of those 300 are likely obese, for example, too.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/15/21 11:01 PM)
|
feevers


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc:
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d] 3
#27545185 - 11/16/21 04:41 AM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
junk_f00d said: By the way, Koodz, earlier you said:
Quote:
Children have about a 1% risk of hospitalization after covid infection. Young adults are a little over 1%. Thinking your risk is lower than 1 in 26,000 is insane. If you’re in your early 20s it’s about 1 in 90.
This says risk of hospitalization is 90 / 100,000 for children 0-18, and 300 / 100,000 for adults 18-29: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html
That's much, much lower than what you're thinking, and when adjusting for co-morbidities or otherwise unhealthy populations my risk really vanishes. At least a third of those 300 are likely obese, for example, too.
You really don’t read other peoples’ posts do you?
It’s not worth taking the time to explain to you why you’re wrong anymore, you have no interest in actually learning and would prefer to keep misinterpreting easy to interpret data/science and shifting goal posts when called out. Seriously, read koods’ post, look at your link, and try to figure out why your response isn’t relevant... we already went over this once.
There’s no argument that natural immunity is better. You essentially have an option to take a shot of a safe and effective vaccine, or take a shot of something that’s killed millions worldwide and maimed hundreds of millions. The vaccine is safer in every way for every demographic. It’s crazy and sad that people have become either so politically or conspiratorially brainwashed that they simply can’t accept that a vaccine which essentially gives you a free pass against a deadly pandemic virus is safe and effective. These people are dying by the tens of thousands each week choosing natural immunity over the vaccine because they “did their research”.
Millions of people have died from their dose of natural immunity. The vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions of people in America and the safety profile has shown to be extremely safe. To put it nicely, only someone with seriously impaired cognition would spend their time arguing that natural immunity was in any way better. The car crash can’t be better for you than the seat belt without doing mental gymnastics to make it so.
You keep talking like you aren’t at risk from Covid. You are. Death is a very small slice of the pie in terms of the damage it causes. I work in neurological and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation at my state’s primary Covid rehab facility, throughout the pandemic hearing all the dunning Kruger’s like you spout your nonsense while my hours were spent with people (many previously “young and healthy”) who were so physically damaged by the virus that they could no longer do things like walk or feed themselves. Fortunately because of my county’s extremely high vaccination rates we barely even see Covid anymore, while our rural facility in the more unvaccinated part of the state still has a fairly steady stream.
In 11 months at 2 different hospitals I’ve seen 2 vaccine side effects patients, both were elderly women who had falls while walking to the bathroom at night with a fever. With the hundreds of millions of doses given in a short time span, if the vaccines were even a fraction of as risky as Covid (and therefore natural immunity), hospitals would be over run with vaccine victims. Instead... nothing, hospitals are pretty much only being over run in the areas where people are flocking to get their dose of superior natural immunity. Natural immunity is so good that people are literally dying for it
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
#27545541 - 11/16/21 11:18 AM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said:
Quote:
junk_f00d said: By the way, Koodz, earlier you said:
Quote:
Children have about a 1% risk of hospitalization after covid infection. Young adults are a little over 1%. Thinking your risk is lower than 1 in 26,000 is insane. If you’re in your early 20s it’s about 1 in 90.
This says risk of hospitalization is 90 / 100,000 for children 0-18, and 300 / 100,000 for adults 18-29: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html
That's much, much lower than what you're thinking, and when adjusting for co-morbidities or otherwise unhealthy populations my risk really vanishes. At least a third of those 300 are likely obese, for example, too.
You really don’t read other peoples’ posts do you?
It’s not worth taking the time to explain to you why you’re wrong anymore, you have no interest in actually learning and would prefer to keep misinterpreting easy to interpret data/science and shifting goal posts when called out. Seriously, read koods’ post, look at your link, and try to figure out why your response isn’t relevant... we already went over this once.
There’s no argument that natural immunity is better. You essentially have an option to take a shot of a safe and effective vaccine, or take a shot of something that’s killed millions worldwide and maimed hundreds of millions. The vaccine is safer in every way for every demographic. It’s crazy and sad that people have become either so politically or conspiratorially brainwashed that they simply can’t accept that a vaccine which essentially gives you a free pass against a deadly pandemic virus is safe and effective. These people are dying by the tens of thousands each week choosing natural immunity over the vaccine because they “did their research”.
Millions of people have died from their dose of natural immunity. The vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions of people in America and the safety profile has shown to be extremely safe. To put it nicely, only someone with seriously impaired cognition would spend their time arguing that natural immunity was in any way better. The car crash can’t be better for you than the seat belt without doing mental gymnastics to make it so.
You keep talking like you aren’t at risk from Covid. You are. Death is a very small slice of the pie in terms of the damage it causes. I work in neurological and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation at my state’s primary Covid rehab facility, throughout the pandemic hearing all the dunning Kruger’s like you spout your nonsense while my hours were spent with people (many previously “young and healthy”) who were so physically damaged by the virus that they could no longer do things like walk or feed themselves. Fortunately because of my county’s extremely high vaccination rates we barely even see Covid anymore, while our rural facility in the more unvaccinated part of the state still has a fairly steady stream.
In 11 months at 2 different hospitals I’ve seen 2 vaccine side effects patients, both were elderly women who had falls while walking to the bathroom at night with a fever. With the hundreds of millions of doses given in a short time span, if the vaccines were even a fraction of as risky as Covid (and therefore natural immunity), hospitals would be over run with vaccine victims. Instead... nothing, hospitals are pretty much only being over run in the areas where people are flocking to get their dose of superior natural immunity. Natural immunity is so good that people are literally dying for it 
The only reason my post wouldn't apply to Koodz post was that he's talking about after infection. I was aware of that, but he didn't supply a source like I'd asked. I doubt that it's true, given that I've heard almost 80% or so of Americans have been exposed by now. I'd be very surprised if people in the 20-29 demographic have a 1 in 90 chance of being hospitalized, and that'd conflict with CDC's data (assuming 80% infection already), so I asked for a source. I'm not shifting goal posts or misinterpreting data, I keep asking you guys to clearly point out my error but you don't, you just try to discredit me wholesale instead. You guys don't address what I say either and keep implying I 'refuse to learn', when that's never been the case. I've been requesting sources left and right.
There is a clear, evidence based argument natural immunity is better, see: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1. It's acquiring it that's the issue, but I'm not at risk, and my chance of hospitalization was reflected by my last post (where I had shown the current rate is 300 / 100,000). Adjusting for my good health it's much, much lower. No matter how you look at it, it's a statistically insignificant risk, but again, I invite you supply sources showing otherwise. Everything I've seen, from official sources, shows insignificant risk for me. You need to show me otherwise if you want to convince me.
The proposal with shots isn't just COVID vs one or two shots, it's that it may be continual shots every 3-6 months in order to mitigate COVID risk, and the long term effects of such are unknown. I'm not claiming vaccines in their current form are causing hospitals to be overrun, or that they're more deadly than COVID. I'm claiming my risk is so insignificant as it is, that I'd prefer the stronger immunity conferred by exposure, and that the risk profile for continual boosters is unknown. It's likely lower, but it may be greater - I'm content with my COVID risk profile personally. I'm also claiming it's unknown whether vaccines may prevent some of the 'long COVID' issues, or even myocarditis from infection, though I'd like to be wrong here, I've seen no evidence either way (but if infections can still occur, I don't see why SARS-COV-2 couldn't still do damage, especially non-symptomatic damage). You're putting words in my mouth and building strawmen. I'm not telling anyone not to get shots, to be clear.
You guys have yet to explain how I'm hurting anyone but myself by obtaining natural immunity. Sure, there will be a window where I transmit, but the same is true those vaccinated. Afterward, I may have greater infection prevention (and thus lower transmission rates). If it only hurts me, what's the issue? Especially when it may help others.
I carefully read and reply to everything you guys say, and ask for sources when I'm unsure. I don't know why you guys are so against the idea that natural immunity may provide superior protection, and I think you guys tend to also overlook that the full vaccine solution will likely involve continual boosters. It's been shown a few times the risk of myocarditis is higher in the subsequent shots than the first, if that trend continues it's cause for revaluation. In addition, it's unknown that boosters will provide full protection from all 'long COVID' symptoms, like brain fog. The risk analysis is different than you've been presenting in several ways.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 11:49 AM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 46 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27545596 - 11/16/21 11:46 AM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Your previous post doesn’t show risk of hospitalization. You seem confused by the concept. You’re looking at weekly incidence rates, which vary depending on case rates and vaccination rates. It tells you almost nothing about your own personal risk.
Here’s a relative risk chart
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html
18-29 have 1/15th hospitalization risk of 85 year olds. Younger people tend to spend more time in the hospital than older people. Hospitalizations do not scale with deaths. HospitaliZations are more evenly distributed throughout the population. For the past three months 18-49 had the most number of hospitalizations of any age demographic
Here’s a hospitalizations risk calculator
Healthy 18 y/o male non smoker has 1.2% chance of hospitalization. Nobody ever calls being male a comorbidity but it clearly is when it comes to covid. Assumption here is you will get covid because you will get covid if you haven’t been vaccinated. 85 year old male with same stats has 8.7% chance. The difference is the 18 year old has a low likely hood of dying while an 85 year old isn’t going to make it out
https://riskcalc.org/COVID19Hospitalization/
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (11/16/21 11:51 AM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 46 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
#27545616 - 11/16/21 11:56 AM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, there will be a window where I transmit, but the same is true those vaccinated.
Holy shit it’s not. Vaccinated people are infected about half as long as unvaccinated people. Combine that with unvaccinated people getting infected at 5x (2 dose) 25x (booster) higher rates. Multiply these numbers and your infectiveness risk is 10-50x times higher than a vaccinated person.
Unvaccinated people are fucking up the world. We’re all waiting for everyone to get their acquired immunity, so do us a favor and get vaccinated or get covid so we can all move on from this pandemic.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (11/16/21 12:05 PM)
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,201
Last seen: 2 minutes, 38 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27545624 - 11/16/21 12:00 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
You’re hurting me because my insurance rates increase when your dumbass ends up in the hospital with Covid.
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
Edited by christopera (11/16/21 12:01 PM)
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
#27545635 - 11/16/21 12:03 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: Your previous post doesn’t show risk of hospitalization. You seem confused by the concept. You’re looking at weekly incidence rates, which vary depending on case rates and vaccination rates. It tells you almost nothing about your own personal risk.
Here’s a relative risk chart
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html
18-29 have 1/15th hospitalization risk of 85 year olds. Younger people tend to spend more time in the hospital than older people. Hospitalizations do not scale with deaths. For the past three months 18-49 had the most number of hospitalizations of any age demographic
Here’s a hospitalizations risk calculator
Healthy 18 y/o male non smoker has 1.2% chance of hospitalization. Nobody ever calls being male a comorbidity but it clearly is when it comes to covid. Assumption here is you will get covid because you will get covid if you haven’t been vaccinated
https://riskcalc.org/COVID19Hospitalization/
You have to adjust the chart yourself, the parameter adjustments are not saved through the link. I was looking at cumulative hospitalizations in select demographics, you can do the same pretty easily if you choose to. I assure you I am not 'confused by the concept', it's a simple cumulative death graph once you make the right parameter adjustments.
The first link you sent I've seen hundreds of times already, but it useless without knowing what the base rate or 'reference group' is.
Your risk calc doesn't allow me to adjust such that I can filter out those with comorbidities like obesity. Removing obesity likely removes a good portion of that 1.2%. Removing others will narrow it down further. This would more accurately reflect my personal risk profile.
At any rate, that calculator is based off of this: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237419. It's a model based off 4,536 patients. At this point, there should be much better data available.
|
|