|
feevers


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc:
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27545852 - 11/16/21 02:18 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
junk_f00d said: I'm not sure why you guys are so reluctant to admit natural immunity may provide superior protection.
Superior protection against what?
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,201
Last seen: 57 minutes, 35 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
#27545855 - 11/16/21 02:19 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
He’s got some Kruger Dunning going on.
-------------------- 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.
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
#27545857 - 11/16/21 02:19 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said: Your first link is an abstract that says nothing and the second one has nothing to do with hospitalizations. Myself and koods already pointed out your faulty statistics twice, you responded by doubling down and somehow following it up with even worse math.
Please point out the errors then, as I don't believe I've made any. On the other hand, you just made one by not considering respective population sizes. That's a very fundamental error, but I'm not sure if you were joking and intentionally overlooking that.. And Koodz has made a handful as well.
The only thing you had a problem with was my napkin math example, which wasn't even faulty. It just demonstrated that you could extend the base rate from that particular week to a year to get an idea of total case count if that was the annual average base rate. That's not wrong, that's napkin math. I didn't have access to the authors data so I couldn't see what the actual average or variance was like. If variance was low enough, it'd actually be a reasonably accurate estimate. I wasn't intending to imply that was factual, however, and I thought that was obvious.
We're talking about waning efficacy, both the links were relevant. Here's another: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/11/science/vaccine-waning-immunity.html
Quote:
against what
What do you think? Read the study yourself: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 02:40 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 minutes, 41 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers] 1
#27545873 - 11/16/21 02:36 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said:
Quote:
junk_f00d said: I'm not sure why you guys are so reluctant to admit natural immunity may provide superior protection.
Superior protection against what?
0% protection against infection
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
feevers


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc:
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27545879 - 11/16/21 02:41 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
junk_f00d said: Please point out the errors then, as I don't believe I've made any. On the other hand, you just made one by not considering population sizes. And Koodz has made a handful as well.
We're talking about waning efficacy, both the links were relevant. Here's another: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/11/science/vaccine-waning-immunity.html
Already did.
That link is paywalled. I just read the full text of the abstract you posted, it was about infections and not hospitalizations like I was talking about. The authors stated that it’s unclear that hospitalizations among vaccinated people are increasing. You literally just have a narrative in your head that you want to be true and are trying to shape reality to fit it, that’s the opposite of scientific thinking.
Infections will go up as antibodies decrease, serious illness will be mostly prevented for years for those with fully intact immune systems who generated a proper immune memory cell response after vaccination. Boosters will bolster things all around.
Quote:
What do you think? Read the study yourself: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
I thought you said natural immunity was a good thing? According to that study every single person with natural immunity caught Covid. If that’s the kind of protection that natural immunity offers you might as well just get the virus itself.
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
#27545880 - 11/16/21 02:41 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
feevers said:
Quote:
junk_f00d said: I'm not sure why you guys are so reluctant to admit natural immunity may provide superior protection.
Superior protection against what?
0% protection against infection
Natural immunity may have greater protection against infection. Not sure why you're so hung up about this. Obviously it has to be acquired before you have it.
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
#27545887 - 11/16/21 02:45 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said:
Quote:
junk_f00d said: Please point out the errors then, as I don't believe I've made any. On the other hand, you just made one by not considering population sizes. And Koodz has made a handful as well.
We're talking about waning efficacy, both the links were relevant. Here's another: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/11/science/vaccine-waning-immunity.html
Already did.
That link is paywalled. I just read the full text of the abstract you posted, it was about infections and not hospitalizations like I was talking about. The authors stated that it’s unclear that hospitalizations among vaccinated people are increasing. You literally just have a narrative in your head that you want to be true and are trying to shape reality to fit it, that’s the opposite of scientific thinking.
Infections will go up as antibodies decrease, serious illness will be mostly prevented for years for those with fully intact immune systems who generated a proper immune memory cell response after vaccination. Boosters will bolster things all around.
Quote:
What do you think? Read the study yourself: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
I thought you said natural immunity was a good thing? According to that study every single person with natural immunity caught Covid. If that’s the kind of protection that natural immunity offers you might as well just get the virus itself.
I see you refuse to point them out, so whatever. Every time you've 'pointed out' an error it's been either you misunderstanding or not adjusting the parameters on that graph properly. I know how to do stats, if there's one thing I'm confident in in this discussion it's that. I'm not looking to be your adversary and try and make you look dumb like you are to me, I'm looking for discussion in which address core points reasonably and logically. I don't like interfacing with someone that just wants to distort everything I say to make it sound unreasonable. That's annoying and not productive. I was hoping that'd be mutual, but you guys won't even admit basic facts like waning immunity, or acknowledge that natural immunity may be superior. I have no narrative, I believe people should be able to chose what they want. But it sure seems like you guys have a narrative the excludes natural immunity and any criticism of vaccines. I'm not denying scientific consensus like you guys are.
The link is not paywalled, just close boxes and scroll down. IDK, maybe they have a weird '3 free views then paywalled' thing or something. But it wasn't for me, it's just a weird site.
We were talking about waning efficacy, which all sources I've linked recently address. I'm not trying to get fit any narrative, I'm trying to teach you that efficacy does wane. Not sure why you're turning this into hospitalizations, the conversations been about waning efficacy in the past few posts.
Geeze.. OBVIOUSLY you have to get COVID to get natural immunity, lol guys come on. You get it, recover, then enjoy your potentially superior immunity. Not sure why this trips you guys up so hard but whatever.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 02:51 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 minutes, 41 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27545892 - 11/16/21 02:49 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I got my booster too quickly.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 minutes, 41 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods] 2
#27545904 - 11/16/21 02:58 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Geeze.. OBVIOUSLY you have to get COVID to get natural immunity, lol guys come on. You get it, recover, then enjoy your potentially superior immunity. Not sure why this trips you guys up so hard but whatever.
So relying on natural immunity to prevent infection is completely insane since you have to get infected to get it. We are all not exactly sure why you don’t get the significance of this.
You want to just completely ignore the fact that 100% of people with natural immunity got infected and then turn around and criticize the vaccine because some vaccinated people got infected.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (11/16/21 03:03 PM)
|
feevers


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc:
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d] 1
#27545912 - 11/16/21 03:05 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
We were talking about waning efficacy, which all sources I've linked recently address. I'm not trying to get fit any narrative, I'm trying to teach you that efficacy does wane. Not sure why you're turning this into hospitalizations, the conversations been about waning efficacy in the past few posts.
One of the primary ways (and likely the most valuable) to measure vaccine efficacy is looking at severe illness and hospitalizations/deaths. I said that hospitalizations among the vaccinated only seemed to be increasing among the immunocompromised/elderly, you literally quoted me and said “You are wrong” and responded with an article that said there’s no evidence hospitalizations are increasing... so in hamhead fashion your source said the opposite of what you were you saying
Your ‘napkin math’ has nothing to do with your risk of severe side effects if you catch Covid which you tried to pass it off as. That chart is a total population level measurement with endless variables. It doesn’t factor in the most important part of the risk of having Covid, and that is actually having Covid. We’ve explained it in more depth 3 times already, no point in going for a fourth.
|
feevers


Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,546
Loc:
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d]
#27545914 - 11/16/21 03:06 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
junk_f00d said: You get it, recover, then enjoy your potentially superior immunity.
Immunity to what?
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
#27545933 - 11/16/21 03:19 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Geeze.. OBVIOUSLY you have to get COVID to get natural immunity, lol guys come on. You get it, recover, then enjoy your potentially superior immunity. Not sure why this trips you guys up so hard but whatever.
So relying on natural immunity to prevent infection is completely insane since you have to get infected to get it. We are all not exactly sure why you don’t get the significance of this.
It's not insane, since my risk is statistically insignificant and the immunity it provides may help reduce overall transmission more.
Quote:
feevers said:
Quote:
We were talking about waning efficacy, which all sources I've linked recently address. I'm not trying to get fit any narrative, I'm trying to teach you that efficacy does wane. Not sure why you're turning this into hospitalizations, the conversations been about waning efficacy in the past few posts.
One of the primary ways (and likely the most valuable) to measure vaccine efficacy is looking at severe illness and hospitalizations/deaths. I said that hospitalizations among the vaccinated only seemed to be increasing among the immunocompromised/elderly, you literally quoted me and said “You are wrong” and responded with an article that said there’s no evidence hospitalizations are increasing... so in hamhead fashion your source said the opposite of what you were you saying
Your ‘napkin math’ has nothing to do with your risk of severe side effects if you catch Covid which you tried to pass it off as. That chart is a total population level measurement with endless variables. It doesn’t factor in the most important part of the risk of having Covid, and that is actually having Covid. We’ve explained it in more depth 3 times already, no point in going for a fourth.
You said 'Vaccine immunity is mostly only waning in the elderly/immunocompromised in terms of hospitalizations', and this is wrong. It is waning across all demographics, and is waning in terms of infection and transmission as well, as the links I provided indicate. If you want links that cover efficacy against hospitalization waning, Israel has a bunch. There's an abundance of links covering waning efficacy, it is not just limited to the elderly/immunocomprimised hospitalization rates but to infection, transmission and symptomatic disease as well.
There's literally nothing illogical or improper about how I'm using that CDC hospitalization rate source. I'm not claiming it's perfect, but those that experience these COVID related side effects that require hospitalization should be reflected in that graph, as well. It is literally titled 'Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19-Associated Hospitalizations'. If you end up in the hospital and it's associated with COVID, you're supposed to be on that graph. So it should therefore encompass additional risk like heart inflammation. You're making this issue up entirely. If you have better data, please share it.
If you want to convince people to get vaccinated, you should start by accepting scientific consensus and not denying whatever you don't like.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 03:30 PM)
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: feevers]
#27545934 - 11/16/21 03:19 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said:
Quote:
junk_f00d said: You get it, recover, then enjoy your potentially superior immunity.
Immunity to what?
What do you think? I invite you to read the study yourself, again.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 minutes, 41 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d] 1
#27545954 - 11/16/21 03:31 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It's not insane, since my risk is statistically insignificant and the immunity it provides may help reduce overall transmission more.
The immunity you seek requires you to get infected so HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT REDUCE OVERALL TRANSMISSION?
You aren’t thinking logically
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
#27545967 - 11/16/21 03:39 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
It's not insane, since my risk is statistically insignificant and the immunity it provides may help reduce overall transmission more.
The immunity you seek requires you to get infected so HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT REDUCE OVERALL TRANSMISSION?
You aren’t thinking logically
If the immunity provided is sufficiently superior, then it may pay itself off in the long run. For an extremely exaggerated example to demonstrate my point, say initial infection with no prior immunity causes me to spread for a week, but afterwards I have a lifetime of 100% perfect sterilizing immunity, so it's physically impossible for me to spread afterward. On the other hand, say vaccine-induced immunity is never perfect and gives me some probability to spread that approaches levels equal to those with no immune response after 3 months, then I'm always running some probability of spreading. This may add up to be more total lifetime spreading than natural immunity.
Putting it another way, pretend natural immunity is as good as the measles vax, then even though you spread for sometime while initially infection, your immunity afterwards is lifetime and amazing. It's feasible that this could lower the overall lifetime spread more than the vaccines.
So it depends on how much better natural immunity is at preventing infection and transmission over time, and how the efficacy rates of vaccines wrt spread hold up over time, along with what variants the future holds.
Please note that I'm not stating this is the case, just demonstrating how it may be possible.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 03:46 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 minutes, 41 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d] 1
#27545975 - 11/16/21 03:45 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If the immunity provided is sufficiently superior
IF IF IF
Quote:
afterwards I have a lifetime of 100% perfect sterilizing immunity,
You won’t and it’s absurd to think that you would. Every single human coronavirus can reinfect you after a year or two. You are making decisions based on a fantasy, which is easily dispelled by the fact that people are getting reinfected all the time.
Edited by koods (11/16/21 03:48 PM)
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
#27545983 - 11/16/21 03:50 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
If the immunity provided is sufficiently superior
IF IF IF
Quote:
afterwards I have a lifetime of 100% perfect sterilizing immunity,
You won’t and it’s absurd to think that you would.
Like I said, it was example. What do you not understand about hypotheticals? I do not at all believe natural immunity provides anything close to 100% sterilizing immunity. I was very explicit in stating it was exaggerated scenario to show you how the logic works. It doesn't have to be 100% sterilizing for it potentially reduce spread more than vaccines.
The study I've been linking regarding natural immunity concluded it was 27x more effective at preventing symptomatic infections. Considering they also found it last longer, this is a pretty substantial finding. Is it enough to say it will reduce spread more, once acquired? I don't know, I don't think anyone does. If you're looking for overall harm minimization though, this should be considered and categorically denied. I'm not at significant risk for COVID harm, so if this immunity does lower spread more than vaccines, it could be selfish of me to forego it. Do you see how that's logically sound, if it does do that?
Of course this depends on IF, everything does. That's why I've been saying 'if' or 'may', yet you ignorantly refuse to even give it that much ground. The consensus is developing. You're ruling it out as a possibility because you have some narrative.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 03:55 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 minutes, 41 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d] 1
#27545987 - 11/16/21 03:53 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The study I've been linking regarding natural immunity concluded it was 27x more effective at preventing symptomatic infections.
What study? That sounds like total bullshit and I suspect this is a case of poor reading comprehension
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
junk_f00d


Registered: 12/04/15
Posts: 933
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: koods]
#27545990 - 11/16/21 03:55 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
The study I've been linking regarding natural immunity concluded it was 27x more effective at preventing symptomatic infections.
What study? That sounds like total bullshit and I suspect this is a case of poor reading comprehension
The same one I've been linking repeatedly, and asking you to read. Do you see how if this is true, it may be a better route, depending on your personal risk and environment (i.e, can get infected without risking others)? It depends on how natural immunity compares to vaccine-induced. This is just logic, math.
Edited by junk_f00d (11/16/21 04:01 PM)
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 minutes, 41 seconds
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: junk_f00d] 1
#27545996 - 11/16/21 04:02 PM (2 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I have no idea what study you are referring to, probably because I read it and it doesn’t say what you think it says
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (11/16/21 04:03 PM)
|
|