| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I believe I've seen similar processes laid out for various things on the MSM, surely they talk about this kind of stuff behind closed doors. I think you misunderstand me; I'm ok with people getting vaccinated, I'm not OK with state mandating me to do so in order to participate in society. I was mostly just poking fun at the other users reply in saying that stuff, expressing that I have equal freedom to not want to have vaccines forced on me just as he has freedom to want to work in a place that requires them. I especially disagree when the pro-vax solution involves playing cat and mouse with variants through boosters, and fail to provide sterilizing immunity (enabling transmission). Repeated boosters is unstudied and it seems the risk of vaccine side effects may increase with each booster. So the pro-vax solution is either boosters for life (undefined risk ceiling), or boosters until you want to face COVID risk. I'm OK with simply facing COVID risk right now, and don't believe I'm harming anyone by doing so. And then on top of this, we have Pfizer being investigated for faulty data, and the 'safe and effective' Moderna being withdrawn across Nordic countries. Edited by junk_f00d (11/14/21 01:28 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/28/10 Posts: 8,546 Loc: |
| ||||||
you don’t just multiply .3 by 52, you’re literally just making up statistics.One google search about myocarditis in that age group turns up : https://www.newscientist.com/ar Following infection- Quote: So let’s compare that number to the one in the article you cited, and kids could be 10x more likely to get myocarditis from Covid than from the vaccine. If you care about the children so much then the optimal choice is obvious. Or are you just using feigned concern for kids to support your faulty argument? There is no valid argument that any demographic is at higher risk from the vaccine than the virus. Hundreds of millions have gotten the virus, hundreds of millions have gotten Covid, the data is overwhelming and you literally need to close your eyes to not see it. You’re being deliberately disingenuous. Essentially everyone will either get Covid while vaccinated or get Covid while unvaccinated, according to the data choosing to get it while vaccinated will always be the safer choice unless you’re deathly allergic to a specific ingredient. The vaccines are very “robust to variants”, they still lessen hospitalizations and deaths exponentially and boosters provide nearly full protection against infection itself. There’s also no argument that the vaccine doesn’t greatly prevent both severity of illness and transmission, this is settled science. You can google it yourself. Feel free to cherry pick the inevitable outliers and try to build a case that the earth is flat. The ivermectin thing has been discussed to death on here, you cited one study that confirms your bias but ignore the dozens of others that do not. Once the current studies that seem to be using actual valid designs get published the picture will be a lot clearer. You want things to be a certain way and you’re twisting reality and doing mental gymnastics to try to convince yourself and others that that’s the way things really are. There may be an argument that government mandating vaccines is overreach, but maybe try making that argument without saturating it in bullshit?
| |||||||
|
Ribbit Registered: 05/26/11 Posts: 106,329 Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes |
| ||||||
|
Covid has killed more children in the last year than all other infectious diseases combined in the US. Fourth leading cause of death after accidents, cancer and homicides. Just because children fare better than adults doesn’t mean covid isn’t the most serious disease affecting children right now.
-------------------- “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Why wouldn't you? It'd be better to sum each week individually for a whole year, but 0.3 * 52 gives you the annual total if every week was equal to the week supplied. It was just napkin math to get an idea, I don't see anything wrong with it and it shows the John Hopkins article still reflects lower risk from COVID than vaccines in the selected demographics, which you were arguing against. Quote: The data I'm basing the greater myocarditis risk on is the 5-11 year olds. And where you getting your 10x figure from? The link only says 6x. At any rate, several othe resources, such as the John Hopkins article, point the other way. For as long as the data is inconclusive, mandates should not be considered or implemented imo. It is important to note also that it seems vaccines will require continual boosters, so it's not as simple as choosing between vaccinating and no COVID risk, or just risking COVID. Any honest risk analysis must reflect this. Quote: The sources I've provided disagree. I'm not being disingenuous, just addressing your points as they come. Quote: How can you say they're robust to variants? Lot's of data shows otherwise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ Quote: This also demonstrates that the science is not 'settled'. The data is still inconclusive IMO, but this is an example of it not necessarily reducing spread. Additionally, since efficacy trends toward 0, it only protects against infection as long as you've had a booster within some time frame. Quote: I just pulled the first one I found up as an example. Why are you so opposed to it? It's being actively researched and you're being very dismissive toward it, I encourage all avenues to be looked into and if Ivermectin is effective that's great, I hope it is as it'd save more lives. Nothing wrong with that. I haven't looked into it, like I said, I don't really care, but I do find peoples opposition to it a bit off putting. I also find peoples obsession with it off putting. But if it's an avenue of harm reduction, it should be considered. I don't see how I'm twisting reality or whatever you're saying. I'm just addressing your points and defending mine, using acceptable sources. I don't think I've said anything that's unreasonable or false. No need to get rude, and you should be able to address my points plainly, without resorting to saying that I'm twisting reality or whatever. I'm just citing sources. I very clearly said earlier that all I need to show is that consensus is weak or doesn't yet exist, as then the mandates shouldn't be implemented. So yes, I search for things that break consensus, from respectable and reputable sources. This isn't mental gymnastics, but what I think is a fair approach to the dialogue. Edited by junk_f00d (11/14/21 02:31 PM)
| |||||||
|
Ribbit Registered: 05/26/11 Posts: 106,329 Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes |
| ||||||
|
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.
Risk for myocarditis in college age covid patients is between 2-15%. (15% of college athletes at the university of Ohio had myocarditis after a covid infection) far more than the the risk from the vaccine and vaccine induced myocarditis is not as severe as covid induced. SARS-cov2 infects heart muscle. Not sure why you think getting covid is the better choice. Quote: Wow this is just terrible analysis. The week ending July 24 is close to the lowest level of infection seen for the entire pandemic and before schools opened. You are comparing the number of children in the entire country who were hospitalized for covid during one week to the number of children who will get myocarditis from the vaccine. Apples and oranges. 1 out 50 or so kids who have covid will get myocarditis. That’s a much higher risk than the vaccine. The risk of hospitalization from covid for kids is 1 in 100, from myocarditis due to the vaccine is 1 in 20000 In every category and every demographic, covid outcomes are far worse than vaccine outcomes. Not even close. -------------------- “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her” Edited by koods (11/14/21 02:43 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I need you to source all your numerical claims as they seem way off. The highest rate of hospitalization per week in the US for children under 18 was 3 per 100k. For young adults, the highest was 10 per 100k. Is the proposal with vaccination not to continually subscribe to boosters? I believe just dealing with COVID may be the better solution, and so far, given that it's a known fact that efficacy trends toward 0 in as little as 3-6 months, I don't see how this isn't the case. Side effects seem to be more common with more boosters as well. As far as the terrible analysis, you can adjust yourself if you'd like, as I did earlier. Vaccine side effects are likely under reported as well. For an accurate analysis, you must also compare likelihood of catching COVID when considering it's risk. The choice is not between a syringe of COVID vs a syringe of vaccine, but between a syringe of vaccine and the chance of catching COVID. Of course, as time goes on, the likelihood of catching COVID may near 100%. What is also unstudied is whether or not one may be MORE susceptible to COVID after your efficacy has waned. I don't know why this would be the case, but its something I'd want to know about before considering. At any rate, I'm ok with vaccinations, I'm not OK with mandates, especially when natural immunity is for some reason not an option. Edited by junk_f00d (11/14/21 03:06 PM)
| |||||||
|
Universally Loathed and Reviled Registered: 03/11/15 Posts: 21,259 Loc: Foreign Lands |
| ||||||
|
It's an option. A bad option, but an option nonetheless. It's better than drinking miracle bleach or eating heroic doses of deworming drugs though, so that's something.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/28/10 Posts: 8,546 Loc: |
| ||||||
Quote: The risk is 6x for the general public according to that article. The risk increases as age decreases. There was no data cited for 5-12 but with the 12-17year old group at 800 per million it would likely be at least 500 per million in 5-11, more likely 1000+ assuming the clear trend continues. A quote from one person who works at Hopkins and doesn’t understand statistics isn’t a source. Quote: Boosters have always been essential for many vaccines and no vaccine will ever be 100% effective, that’s just how the immune system works. What point are you trying to make? Quote: No, the data show that the vaccines are still extremely effective against hospitalization and death (so what it was designed to do), but doesn’t 100% prevent transmission. They weren’t expected to and no one is claiming they do, though data on the Pfizer boosters is showing they decrease infection greatly. The bloomberg link explains part of why the vaccine is effective in preventing community spread, you clear the virus more quickly, and are less likely to catch it in the first place. Household transmission often implies extremely prolonged exposure to about as high of a viral load as you can get from an infected person... the link suggests vaccination still offers greater protection than not being vaccinated, but I don’t think anyone’s claiming you’re guaranteed not to get infected if you share a living space with an infected person. Quote: As I said it’s been discussed to death on here and if you search it you’ll find tons of posts where I discuss some of the data and studies in depth. I have immunocompromised family members so when the miraculous research results first started coming out last year I started paying attention. When you look at the entirety of the research (minus the redacted and fraudulent studies) it’s obvious that it is no miracle drug, fairest likely that it does nothing, and we’ll have a much clearer picture in the next few months.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: He's a surgeon, professor, and has leadership roles within WHO and JH, it's not a random nobody. Sure, the example figures he used may have been misleading, but as I mentioned earlier, if his '50 per million' figure is accurate, than the risk of vaccination may be greater than the risk of both catching and being hospitalized covid, for some demographics. If this is true, then clearly we're not reducing harm at all by vaccinating these demographics. Quote: That the risk ceiling is undefined. Side effects seem to occur more frequently in later dosages, and if the pro-vax solution is a booster every 6 months, what might your risk profile look like in 3 years? It's possible natural immunity may provide lesser long term risk in such a scenario. Another thing that hasn't been studied but is essential to the risk calculation is how susceptible the vaccinated are to COVID after their efficacy wanes. What if, for example, there risk goes up for some reason? I haven't seen any data to suggest this, but also haven't seen it discussed. I get my tetanus shots but that's like once every 5 years and it's a totally different (and more intuitive) technology. Getting a shot that pumps out spike proteins every 6 months is a much different proposal. Quote: This was your statement: Quote: I provided a source showing showing the opposite. But yes, a household is a very particular scenario. It was just a counterexample to your statement. Edited by junk_f00d (11/14/21 03:28 PM)
| |||||||
|
Ribbit Registered: 05/26/11 Posts: 106,329 Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: You’re fabricating this out of thin air. The vaccines prevent most infections. Moderna still prevents 80-85% of infections from occurring. If a vaccine that had 95% efficacy loses half that efficacy, then it still prevents 90% of infections. Maximum immunity to covid requires at least two separate exposures to the virus or viral antigens at least 3 months apart. Neither the one or two dose vaccines (spaced far too close at one month or less) nor a single infection satisfy this. The third shot six months out blows natural immunity from infection out of the water. Neither natural or vaccine immunity trends towards zero. Circulating antibodies decline at the same rate for both groups. The only way to boost them is exposure to more antigens. Sterilizing immunity for this virus probably lasts no more than a month to six months for either type of immunity. But after your first exposure, your body can produce these antibodies on demand. Without an exposure it takes around a week to start producing neutralizing antibodies. If you’ve had covid more than six months ago, you will benefit just a much from a booster shot as people who were vaccinated do. -------------------- “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: What am I fabricating? He said it is a fact that it reduces or prevents transmission, I supplied a source indicating that's not necessarily true, and in that study the odds of transmission were actually equal. In response to your claims of natural immunity being inferior, I provide these: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/m https://www.clarkcountytoday.co Some sources seem to indicate natural immunity may last a lifetime, and may provide better protection on the whole, and that a follow up booster provides no benefit.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 11/04/21 Posts: 278 Last seen: 1 year, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
What I found curious during the vaccine rollout (off the back of lockdowns) was the advertising campaign surrounding it. It wasn't focused on the need to get vaccinated for health reasons, rather it was about getting back to freedoms.
With regards to being vaccinated, it should be an individual choice. The reality - as it always has been - is that it doesn't truly affect enough of the population to justify a real emergency in my opinion; and that's without going into the accuracy of the tests in the first place. Of course people are dying from this, but so are they from a lot of other things that somehow don't seem to matter as much now, as the focus is on this mysterious virus. I hope this post doesn't cause offence to anyone, just laying out my thoughts.
| |||||||
|
Ribbit Registered: 05/26/11 Posts: 106,329 Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: Your article demonstrated a 35% reduction in infections for exposed vaccinated household members. It’s said nothing about rates of vaccinated people infecting others. BTW, if there’s any type of exposure that can overcome acquired immunity, it is cohabitation with an infected person. Chance of infection is directly proportional to the number of viral particles you are exposed to. Circulating antibodies change this number. Maybe on average it takes 20,000 viruses to reliably infect an unvaccinated person, while it could be 100,000 for an immune person. A big enough viral load can overcome almost all neutralizing immunity. Quote: Please show me where it says that -------------------- “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It says in the first paragraph: Quote: I understand your point about the context of exposure, but the point still stands. It is not 'settled science' that vaccines prevent transmission, it's a dynamic thing and we're still learning about it. In this instance, it did not meaningfully prevent transmission vs unvaccinated. I would be interested in seeing a similar study comparing those with natural immunity to those already vaccinated. Edited by junk_f00d (11/14/21 03:56 PM)
| |||||||
|
Ribbit Registered: 05/26/11 Posts: 106,329 Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: What sources. You literally just posted an article about an Israeli study that showed natural immunity fading significantly over a year. What do you mean lifetime immunity? There’s no such thing as lifetime sterilizing immunity to coronaviruses. At most infections, protect for a year or two. Quote: I doubt the study actually says that. I can’t read the article anymore. What that study likely says is infected vaccinated people are as likely to spread the virus to household contacts. Of course, a vaccinated person is far less likely to infect a household contact because they are far less likely to get covid in the first place. -------------------- “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I invite you to reread them, but here's some relevant excerpts: Quote: The vaccine's efficacy fades as well, too. It seems like you missed the point, which was that natural immunity provides both longer and stronger protection. Here is an article that supports the notion that immunity may last a lifetime: https://www.nature.com/articles Why should I elect to take something that offers shorter and weaker protection? Why would this be a sensible thing for the state to mandate? My risk of hospitalization and death is statistically insignificant, and I'd prefer the option that confers better and longer lasting protection, without the undefined upper limit on risk that continual boosters provide. Do you care more about immunity and harm reduction, or pwn'ing anti-vaxxers? Again, all I'm trying to do is show consensus doesn't necessarily exist, or that it's possible to contradict ideas that otherwise make mandates sensible. Edited by junk_f00d (11/14/21 04:30 PM)
| |||||||
|
Ribbit Registered: 05/26/11 Posts: 106,329 Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes |
| ||||||
|
That article isn’t talking about sterilizing immunity, which is what you are talking about. Sterilizing immunity is the kind that prevents reinfection. Sterilizing immunity fades quickly for both groups and depends primarily on circulating antibodies. That article is talking about the ability of the body to mount a defense when you are reinfected.
-------------------- “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I'm not necessarily talking about sterilizing immunity. I'm comparing the immunity profiles between vaxxed and unvaxxed. The study on natural immunity did state however that natural immunity conferred better protection against infection, which is equivelant to stating it provides better sterilizing immunity. Edited by junk_f00d (11/14/21 04:55 PM)
| |||||||
|
Ribbit Registered: 05/26/11 Posts: 106,329 Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs Last seen: 1 hour, 2 minutes |
| ||||||
Quote: It has nothing to do with pwning antibaxxers. They are pwning themselves. You’re just not thinking straight if you believe getting covid is the better harm reduction strategy. It’s crazy. -------------------- “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/04/15 Posts: 933 Last seen: 1 year, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: My risk is minimal, insignificant actually, and so I'll take that in exchange for better/longer protection and not having to get boosters every 6 months (which may or may not cause harm - we don't know what the risk profile's like after 10 boosters, or how they may increase susceptibility once efficacy wanes). I don't think it's crazy to trade insignificant risk for a better end result, to me it's logical. Given that it may provide better sterilizing immunity and robustness to variants as well, it may even be more beneficial toward society this way. I'm Doing My Part TM. At any rate, I'm opposed to mandates, and just trying to explain why. I'm all for people having the option to get vaxxed, but there is logic to preferring natural immunity and opposing mandates, and it doesn't make one a stupid anti-vaxxer just spreading misinformation. Edited by junk_f00d (11/14/21 05:21 PM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Credibility | 677 | 7 | 07/15/04 07:08 PM by Redo | ||
![]() |
Christians on PalTalk Chat Service Tracked by Radical Islamic Web Site | 721 | 0 | 03/06/06 08:37 AM by Rogues_Pierre | ||
![]() |
Another rant about JFK and the government's credibility ( |
1,838 | 26 | 06/08/03 04:08 PM by mike | ||
![]() |
PATERSON'S EXCUSE IS SIMPLY INN-CREDIBLE | 480 | 5 | 03/25/08 09:50 AM by lonestar2004 | ||
![]() |
WWII in chat | 564 | 4 | 07/22/05 10:27 AM by Madtowntripper | ||
![]() |
Capitalism at work ( |
17,383 | 480 | 10/30/15 08:29 PM by hostileuniverse | ||
![]() |
This is why we need GMO labeling ( |
99,348 | 2,475 | 12/02/16 08:51 AM by hostileuniverse | ||
![]() |
Bernie 2016! ( |
116,019 | 5,003 | 01/14/17 04:00 AM by GPryder |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 59,122 topic views. 5 members, 3 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

you don’t just multiply .3 by 52, you’re literally just making up statistics.