Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covid-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RhodyYanksFan
    replied
    Not the Onion.

    FCF35aWXsAU770m?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Texsahara
    replied
    Originally posted by False1 View Post
    I posted above with links the CDC's own concerns that while the vaccines clearly seem to reduce hospitalizations and deaths in those that receive them, there is not a certainty that it reduces transmissibility. It may be the vaccinated person that knocks on your door that brings ill tidings.
    You should read more.

    Leave a comment:


  • False1
    replied
    Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post

    You can try this one but there are plenty of studies on the various vaccine effectiveness.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...183-8/fulltext
    Thanks. There are plenty of studies I've seen that speak clearly and plainly about the effectiveness of vaccines in terms of reducing severity of symptoms of infection in terms of lower incident rates of hospitalization and death... but I can't find one that speaks clearly and plainly making the case for effectiveness in the reduction of infection or transmission. As I said earlier, the CDC as of now says more research is needed on that.

    I tried to muscle through this one. It's odd that I'd have to. You'd think these researchers and the CDC would have a banner with GIFs and flashing lights around any meaningful study-borne statistic that shows that transmissibility is reduced by x% via vaccination.

    It seemed to be a bunch of gobbledygook (not surprising for a medical study) that might have had some data that could help draw that out, but the tables are situated in such a way that I could decipher transmission rate between the two groups.

    I did open the supplementary material and found appendix table 6 that shows cases relative to "person years." They shows the gross #s for unvaxxed and vaxxed but not the rates. But using their data in that table, for age group 16-44 (seems like a really odd grouping), here are the rates I derived from their data for cases per person year:
    • Unvaxxed: 0.36 cases per person year
    • Fully Vaxxed (<1 month): 0.29 cases per person year
    • Fully Vaxxed (>1 month <2 months): 0.57 cases per person year
    • Fully Vaxxed (>2 months <3 months): 0.15 cases per person year
    • Fully Vaxxed (>3 months <4 months): 0.29 cases per person year
    • Fully Vaxxed (>=5 months): 0.72 cases per person year

    That doesn't seem to support the 5 to 8 times less likely to contract Covid statistic you mentioned in your prior post. And if this study is in any way declarative, why the lack of declaration on this point? Why does some knucklehead like me have to have the combination of curiosity and boredom to take your link, review the massive block of words that is the study, find and download a separate appendix and manually calculate the data they have in some table I found there. Worse yet, I fully admit I'm not totally clear on whether I'm interpreting their data correctly to get to a meaningful rate comparison. Why not do the math and interpret it for the reader instead of risking misinterpretation?

    You'd think you'd see in their summarized view right at the very top, in bold size 80 font, something less like this...

    Our results provide support for high effectiveness of BNT162b2 against hospital admissions up until around 6 months after being fully vaccinated, even in the face of widespread dissemination of the delta variant. Reduction in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections over time is probably primarily due to waning immunity with time rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection.
    ....and more like this...
    • Vaccines reduce transmission rate by 5x
    • Vaccines reduce hospitalization rate by 10x
    • Vaccines reduce death rate by 20x

    ...yet we don't. Why is that?

    Also worth noting... this study was funded by Pfizer and performed by those with interests in Pfizer.

    JMZ, SG, KP, FJA, LJ, SRV, and JMM are employees of and hold stock and stock options in Pfizer. TBF holds shares of Pfizer stock. SYT, JMS, HF, VH, BKA, ONR, TBF, and OAO received research support from Pfizer during the conduct of this study that was paid directly to KPSC. For work unrelated to this project, SYT received research funding from Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, and Genentech; BKA received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Dynavax, Genentech, Novartis, Seqirus, and Moderna; JMS received research funding from Novavax, Dynavax, and ALK; and HF received research funding from Genentech.
    No one trusts big pharma until it says what they want to hear.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankee Tripper
    replied
    Originally posted by False1 View Post
    I haven’t seen that data, but would like to. Where is that from?
    You can try this one but there are plenty of studies on the various vaccine effectiveness.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...183-8/fulltext

    Leave a comment:


  • False1
    replied
    Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post

    If you get COVID while vaccinated it appears that you can transmit just as much as an unvaccinated person with Covid.

    but a vaccinated individual is 5 to 8 times less likely to contact COViD in the first place v an unvaccinated vector.
    I haven’t seen that data, but would like to. Where is that from?

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankee Tripper
    replied
    Originally posted by False1 View Post
    I posted above with links the CDC's own concerns that while the vaccines clearly seem to reduce hospitalizations and deaths in those that receive them, there is not a certainty that it reduces transmissibility. It may be the vaccinated person that knocks on your door that brings ill tidings.
    If you get COVID while vaccinated it appears that you can transmit just as much as an unvaccinated person with Covid.

    but a vaccinated individual is 5 to 8 times less likely to contact COViD in the first place v an unvaccinated vector.

    Leave a comment:


  • False1
    replied
    Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

    It's a public health crisis. It's not about them. They have no right to let the disease knock on my vaccinated door. They should not be allowed that "choice". Mandate vaccines. Full stop.
    I posted above with links the CDC's own concerns that while the vaccines clearly seem to reduce hospitalizations and deaths in those that receive them, there is not a certainty that it reduces transmissibility. It may be the vaccinated person that knocks on your door that brings ill tidings.

    Leave a comment:


  • False1
    replied
    Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

    Nursing homes are not always choices at least not in the way you are presenting it. Not sure if you are displaying ignorance or just being deliberately obtuse.
    ​​​​​
    I think we need a nationwide mandate. Full stop. Medical exemptions only. As it stands, if you work in a front facing job of any kind and you are choosing not to be vaccinated, yeah, you may have blood on your hands. I hold some people such as cops and healthcare workers to an even higher standard. Nothing but contempt for them.
    I'm doing neither of those things. I'm not anti-mandate (although NGL I am wary) and I'm not anti-vax. I'm anti-damning-47%-of-the-population-to-hell.

    Leave a comment:


  • False1
    replied
    Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
    There is pretty great medicine including transplants and cancer treatment worldwide and without the financial burden. Not sure what you're basing this on.
    I'm basing this on the fact that this "garbage country" has funded more medical R&D in general in history than any other - by far - and has pioneered treatment capabilities and strategies in the referenced fields and all others. This country has done more for medical advancements globally than any other.

    The US spends >$600B on medical R&D annually. Spain only invests $22B ($473 per capita, only 25% of the per capita rate of the US) but their citizens have and continue to benefit greatly from the broader investment and advancements funded by the US. Finland's annual medical R&D budget is <$10B. China is the only country even remotely close to the US in gross R&D investments, but their per capita rate ($386) is <20% than that of the US. Yes, this country needs to do far better in terms of how we pay for healthcare, but many wouldn't be stressing about how to pay for treatments but rather that the treatments weren't available in the first place if it weren't for this "garbage country."

    Leave a comment:


  • jlw1980
    replied
    Originally posted by RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees View Post

    She's doing better than she has in a long time. Right now she's on chemo which she's handling well (it mostly just makes her tired for a day) and at some point in the future she'll be getting a bone marrow transplant.
    I'm so glad to read this! I know she'd been having repeated, major setbacks for a long time. She and you deserve a break!

    Leave a comment:


  • YankeePride1967
    replied
    Originally posted by jlw1980 View Post

    Yeah, pretending that everyone is able-bodied and/or moneyed enough to care for a disabled family member (I couldn't due to my own disabilities), and that civilized countries (those with universal coverage) don't have high quality transplant medicine and cancer treatment is... something.

    Rick was right.
    I have told this story before but it bears repeating. My 77 year old mother has a rare blood cancer that has been successfully treated with a medication no insurance will cover. Not because it doesn’t work, because it costs too much. About $150,000 a year. What non billionaire can afford that? Only reason she can be on it is because she gets a grant that she has to apply for each year. Each time they deny it but they eventually approve after appeal or appeals. This while she stresses will this be the year I die because I can’t get the medication? Also that time may come soon. Her eligibility is based on household income which includes my salary. Even though my salary and their income combined doesn’t equal $150,000, they would deem us too wealthy to qualify. What civilized nation makes a 77 year old woman literally beg for her life? What a garbage country

    Leave a comment:


  • Maynerd
    replied
    Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

    It's a public health crisis. It's not about them. They have no right to let the disease knock on my vaccinated door. They should not be allowed that "choice". Mandate vaccines. Full stop.
    I have no issues with that. I've said it before........this is about the most stupid issue to have become politicized.

    Leave a comment:


  • YankeePride1967
    replied
    My patience and tolerance for these selfish. Stupid and privileged pro death snd pro covid lover “freedom” losers is gone. These garbage losers think I can die so they don’t have to be inconvenienced by wearing a damn mask. They can all rot you know where

    Leave a comment:


  • Texsahara
    replied
    Originally posted by Maynerd View Post
    This is pretty much where I'm at. I don't wish the disease on anyone. I don't hope anyone dies. But, if you have chosen to ignore the recommendations, you have brought about the consequences. Don't expect sympathy from me.

    As most of you know, I don't particularly trust the government to do its job well. I have worked in and for the federal government for too many years to think they're effective or efficient....or even competent. But, I also don't believe there's a conspiracy within that government to act poorly. So, when the government makes a recommendation to get a vaccination, I roll up my sleeve. If you choose NOT to do so, so be it, but don't expect me to weep and wail when the disease knocks on your unvaccinated door.

    Completely different point, but the State Department issued a travel advisory recommending American citizens get out of Haiti back in August. If people ignored that recommendation, they should not expect government intervention when they are subsequently kidnapped there. Much like Afghanistan.

    Covid? Haiti? Afghanistan? You were warned, and elected to ignore the warnings. You need to live or die with the consequences. You should NOT expect governmental investment in your plight. The government did its due diligence in issuing the warnings. You didn't listen.
    It's a public health crisis. It's not about them. They have no right to let the disease knock on my vaccinated door. They should not be allowed that "choice". Mandate vaccines. Full stop.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maynerd
    replied
    Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post

    I said this elsewhere and I’ll repeat it here I don’t want the unvaccinated to die, I just don’t want them to be plague rats either.

    however at this point I have little sympathy for the unvaccinated who do die when there is a readily available and free vaccine available.
    This is pretty much where I'm at. I don't wish the disease on anyone. I don't hope anyone dies. But, if you have chosen to ignore the recommendations, you have brought about the consequences. Don't expect sympathy from me.

    As most of you know, I don't particularly trust the government to do its job well. I have worked in and for the federal government for too many years to think they're effective or efficient....or even competent. But, I also don't believe there's a conspiracy within that government to act poorly. So, when the government makes a recommendation to get a vaccination, I roll up my sleeve. If you choose NOT to do so, so be it, but don't expect me to weep and wail when the disease knocks on your unvaccinated door.

    Completely different point, but the State Department issued a travel advisory recommending American citizens get out of Haiti back in August. If people ignored that recommendation, they should not expect government intervention when they are subsequently kidnapped there. Much like Afghanistan.

    Covid? Haiti? Afghanistan? You were warned, and elected to ignore the warnings. You need to live or die with the consequences. You should NOT expect governmental investment in your plight. The government did its due diligence in issuing the warnings. You didn't listen.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X