Over 70% of COVID deaths in UK are fully vaccinated during month of September

[theman93]

https://i.ibb.co/MSym0xQ/vaccinated-death.png

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf

Safe and effective

[Off the Court]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021

That's UK Gov.

[theman93]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021

That's UK Gov.

Yeah, between January and the end of September. Separate data set.

[Loco 50]

https://i.ibb.co/MSym0xQ/vaccinated-death.png

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf

Safe and effective

:oldlol: Why'd you cut off the last 2 columns of the chart you posted where it compared the rates of death of persons vaccinated with 2 doses versus the rates of death of the unvaccinated?

Did you parse the other graphs and come away thinking that they were showing vaccination wasn't effective?

Why'd you post this paper if you're trying to argue vaccination isn't effective?

Did you read this paper?

Can you read a paper?

Can you read?

:oldlol: This is embarrassing........almost every page of this paper includes a graph or a passage indicating the benefit of vaccination.

Bless your unvaccinated heart.:yaohappy:

[Axe]

:oldlol: Why'd you cut off the last 2 columns of the chart you posted where it compared the rates of death of persons vaccinated with 2 doses versus the rates of death of the unvaccinated?

Did you parse the other graphs and come away thinking that they were showing vaccination wasn't effective?

Why'd you post this paper if you're trying to argue vaccination isn't effective?

Did you read this paper?

Can you read a paper?

Can you read?

:oldlol: This is embarrassing........almost every page of this paper includes a graph or a passage indicating the benefit of vaccination.

Bless your unvaccinated heart.:yaohappy:
That's op and his failing propaganda against covid vaccines. :roll:

[theman93]

:oldlol: Why'd you cut off the last 2 columns of the chart you posted where it compared the rates of death of persons vaccinated with 2 doses versus the rates of death of the unvaccinated?

Did you parse the other graphs and come away thinking that they were showing vaccination wasn't effective?

Why'd you post this paper if you're trying to argue vaccination isn't effective?

Did you read this paper?

Can you read a paper?

Can you read?

:oldlol: This is embarrassing........almost every page of this paper includes a graph or a passage indicating the benefit of vaccination.

Bless your unvaccinated heart.:yaohappy:

You're worried about per capita rate when the actual impact of the data is 7 out of every 10 covid deaths are among those who are vaccinated? :facepalm

And yes, the vaccine is also less effective in preventing infection those 40-49+. You know, the most vulnerable age groups.

Safe and effective.

[bladefd]

:oldlol: Why'd you cut off the last 2 columns of the chart you posted where it compared the rates of death of persons vaccinated with 2 doses versus the rates of death of the unvaccinated?

Did you parse the other graphs and come away thinking that they were showing vaccination wasn't effective?

Why'd you post this paper if you're trying to argue vaccination isn't effective?

Did you read this paper?

Can you read a paper?

Can you read?

:oldlol: This is embarrassing........almost every page of this paper includes a graph or a passage indicating the benefit of vaccination.

Bless your unvaccinated heart.:yaohappy:

I continue to wonder why are they making daily threads on covid.. It's not like anyone is listening to them. They are in the small minority yelling at the top of their lungs to be taken seriously.

Facts:
As of yesterday, 3.31 billion are fully vaccinated and 7.74 billion covid vaccines have been injected so far.
If you are making new threads daily on covid/vaccines, the vast majority beyond your little group doesn't give a sh!t about what you think or feel.

[Off the Court]

Why'd you post this paper if you're trying to argue vaccination isn't effective?

Did you read this paper?

Can you read a paper?

Can you read?

:oldlol: This is embarrassing........almost every page of this paper includes a graph or a passage indicating the benefit of vaccination.

He didn't read it. The entire PDF shows that the vaccine works and works well.

What's troubling is that we have people out there who are openly rooting for the vaccine to fail and going out of their way to convince people it isn't working when it is. Tribal politics is powerful stuff.

[theman93]

He didn't read it. The entire PDF shows that the vaccine works and works well.

What's troubling is that we have people out there who are openly rooting for the vaccine to fail and going out of their way to convince people it isn't working when it is. Tribal politics is powerful stuff.

70% of deaths occurred in the vaccinated.

The most vulnerable age groups are more likely to be infected with covid if they've been vaccinated.

"The vaccine works and works well."

[n00bie]

I continue to wonder why are they making daily threads on covid.. It's not like anyone is listening to them. They are in the small minority yelling at the top of their lungs to be taken seriously.

Facts:
As of yesterday, 3.31 billion are fully vaccinated and 7.74 billion covid vaccines have been injected so far.
If you are making new threads daily on covid/vaccines, the vast majority beyond your little group doesn't give a sh!t about what you think or feel.

Their daily anti-vax threads are almost as bad as the news with daily breaking Covid news.

[Rooster]

He didn't read it. The entire PDF shows that the vaccine works and works well.

What's troubling is that we have people out there who are openly rooting for the vaccine to fail and going out of their way to convince people it isn't working when it is. Tribal politics is powerful stuff.

LMAO he cherrypicked to fit his narrative. :oldlol:

He’s counting on that echo chamber for confirmation bias so he disseminate misleading information.

Easy to fool people but harder to convince they are being fooled.

[tomtucker]

He didn't read it. The entire PDF shows that the vaccine works and works well.

What's troubling is that we have people out there who are openly rooting for the vaccine to fail and going out of their way to convince people it isn't working when it is. Tribal politics is powerful stuff.

they do not work well........why else would you need a 2, 3, 4 ,5 shot?

after 5 or 6 months the vaccine does not work anymore.

you suggest 2 shots a year for the rest of our lives? everyone on earth?
you call that working well?

[8Ball]

https://i.ibb.co/wyBsTP0/Screen-Shot-2021-11-24-at-6-13-26-PM.png

Nice paper. Gonna read through it more thoroughly.

[theman93]

https://i.ibb.co/wyBsTP0/Screen-Shot-2021-11-24-at-6-13-26-PM.png

Nice paper. Gonna read through it more thoroughly.

Meanwhile..

https://i.ibb.co/ZVP2vFk/vaccinedeaths.png

[Loco 50]

Meanwhile..

https://i.ibb.co/ZVP2vFk/vaccinedeaths.png

Approximately 46 million in your vaccinated population in the UK.

Approximately 21 million in your unvaccinated population in the UK.

So over twice as many folks vacced vs unvacced and you can't understand why deaths of the unvaccinated outnumber the vaccinated by hundreds? This is why the death rate columns that you cropped off were important. For folks that fail to understand basic stats.

These very basic numbers, plus add the fact that the deaths are occurring largely in the senior citizen population (lower immune system function), so they have a compromised ability to produce antibodies should be proof of the importance of others getting vacced to protect aging populations.

If you're American you are a prime example of our failing educational system.

[theman93]

Approximately 46 million in your vaccinated population in the UK.

Approximately 21 million in your unvaccinated population in the UK.

So over twice as many folks vacced vs unvacced and you can't understand why deaths of the unvaccinated outnumber the vaccinated by hundreds? This is why the death rate columns that you cropped off were important. For folks that fail to understand basic stats.

These very basic numbers, plus add the fact that the deaths are occurring largely in the senior citizen population (lower immune system function), so they have a compromised ability to produce antibodies should be proof of the importance of others getting vacced to protect aging populations.

If you're American you are a prime example of our failing educational system.

If the vaccine was effective then it shouldn't matter if there are 10 times as many unvaxed people vs vaxed, the vaxed should not still be dying - especially not 7 out of every 10. That is the point.

Vaccines are supposed to make you immune to disease. These vaccines do not make you immune to covid. And for that reason, the CDC changed it's definition of vaccine and vaccination.

[Loco 50]

If the vaccine was effective then it shouldn't matter if there are 10 times as many unvaxed people vs vaxed, the vaxed should not still be dying - especially not 7 out of every 10. That is the point.

Vaccines are supposed to make you immune to disease. These vaccines do not make you immune to covid. And for that reason, the CDC changed it's definition of vaccine and vaccination.
There is not a single intervention in medicine that works at a rate of 100% effectiveness. It's naive to think otherwise.

Drugs/surgeries/vaccines/therapy all fail in certain percentages. This is why it's important in the case of a pandemic to overwhelm cases to provide insurance against those failures.

Medicine has changed drastically over the years. The definition needed to be changed with the times.

[jstern]

Approximately 46 million in your vaccinated population in the UK.

Approximately 21 million in your unvaccinated population in the UK.

So over twice as many folks vacced vs unvacced and you can't understand why deaths of the unvaccinated outnumber the vaccinated by hundreds? This is why the death rate columns that you cropped off were important. For folks that fail to understand basic stats.

These very basic numbers, plus add the fact that the deaths are occurring largely in the senior citizen population (lower immune system function), so they have a compromised ability to produce antibodies should be proof of the importance of others getting vacced to protect aging populations.

If you're American you are a prime example of our failing educational system.

Help me clarify. So 68.7% are vaccinated and 31.3% are not vaccinated. Yet 70% the Covid deaths in the UK are of those vaccinated. I might be missing something because that would mean that the vaccine are having zero effects. And that would be big news. Again, I'm tired and I'm quickly looking at this so perhaps I misinterpreted something.

[Loco 50]

Help me clarify. So 68.7% are vaccinated and 31.3% are not vaccinated. Yet 70% the Covid deaths in the UK are of those vaccinated. I might be missing something because that would mean that the vaccine are having zero effects. And that would be big news. Again, I'm tired and I'm quickly looking at this so perhaps I misinterpreted something.

https://www.edx.org/learn/statistics

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability

https://www.coursera.org/courses?query=statistics

Help yourself.

[PistonsFan#21]

https://www.edx.org/learn/statistics

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability

https://www.coursera.org/courses?query=statistics

Help yourself.

I don't think you actually addressed his point at all. If there is a Covid outbreak at a crowded event where 70% of the people were wearing red shirts and 30% of the people wore blue shirts then you would expect the same ratio of people represented in the hospitals. Statistically 7 out of 10 patients hospitalized should have been the ones wearing red.

In the case of the Covid deaths for the month of September in the UK, there was about 68% of the population vaccinated, yet they accounted for over 70% of the total deaths. And that is for a vaccine that is supposed to reduce the risks of hospitalization and death.

Have we ever had such a ratio for any other vaccines? Was there any smallpox, measle, polio outbreaks where the percentage of death was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated?

[theman93]

There is not a single intervention in medicine that works at a rate of 100% effectiveness. It's naive to think otherwise.

Drugs/surgeries/vaccines/therapy all fail in certain percentages. This is why it's important in the case of a pandemic to overwhelm cases to provide insurance against those failures.

Medicine has changed drastically over the years. The definition needed to be changed with the times.

Which vaccine in the history of vaccines has allowed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths against the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against?

Meanwhile I'm the one the educational system has failed when you're the one wanting to rewrite definitions? :lol :lol

You are such a good CDC sheep. Keep that head in the sand.

[Loco 50]

I don't think you actually addressed his point at all. If there is a Covid outbreak at a crowded event where 70% of the people were wearing red shirts and 30% of the people wore blue shirts then you would expect the same ratio of people represented in the hospitals. Statistically 7 out of 10 patients hospitalized should have been the ones wearing red.

In the case of the Covid deaths for the month of September in the UK, there was about 68% of the population vaccinated, yet they accounted for over 70% of the total deaths. And that is for a vaccine that is supposed to reduce the risks of hospitalization and death.

Have we ever had such a ratio for any other vaccines? Was there any smallpox, measle, polio outbreaks where the percentage of death was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated?
The numbers he was searching for were in the data that was cropped from the chart in the op. If he were truly interested the least he could do would be to follow the conversation and maybe even glance at the paper, true or false?

In the meantime, I believe he's a joke character, but the guy that runs the account could use some lessons in stats as I've told him before. So I provided him some info.

As for your question about the historical efficacies of vaccines, why ask me or rely on me? Why not look into things yourself?

Regardless, vaccines improve with time as most things in medicine do.

If you truly are having difficulty finding info here is an informative website that provides some history of vaccination.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00269/full#h32

If you read into things, you'll find the more things change, the more they stay the same. Meaning that there will always be doubters and folks that will swear the vaccine doesn't work, or is dangerous, or causes autism......One day in all probability they may be right about one of em. That day isn't here yet.

I'll close with this. Drug companies are garbage and should be held liable for many of the harms that they have inflicted upon society. The opiate addiction crisis, medications causing heart defects, asbestos in baby powder, altering formulas so that something as simple as insulin can avoid loss of patent, etc, etc caused the deaths of a lot of folks needlessly.

Vaccines are not one of these problems.

Consider things from a greedy, self-survival point of view from one of the pharm giants. Billions of dollars on the line. Do you really think another competitor wouldn't leap at the chance to jump on any point of weakness one of these vaccines had to offer an alternative of their own? Maybe it's a cheaper formula, maybe it's safer, maybe it's more efficacious. If one of the vaccines were actually dangerous, do you really think the other companies are going to collude to protect the profits of Pfizer, J&J or Moderna? Cmon son. Everyone involved knows what's on the line.

[Loco 50]

Which vaccine in the history of vaccines has allowed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths against the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against?

Meanwhile I'm the one the educational system has failed when you're the one wanting to rewrite definitions? :lol :lol

You are such a good CDC sheep. Keep that head in the sand.

Read the above post. You're barking up the wrong tree and if you knew my true thoughts of the CDC after having encountered them professionally then you'd realize how off this comment was.

Stop relying on someone else to interpret for you. I'll take a wild guess that you plucked this off social media somewhere and thought you really had something like many other users here before you.

Read and try to comprehend the actual literature.

[theman93]

Read the above post. You're barking up the wrong tree and if you knew my true thoughts of the CDC after having encountered them professionally then you'd realize how off this comment was.

Stop relying on someone else to interpret for you. I'll take a wild guess that you plucked this off social media somewhere and thought you really had something like many other users here before you.

Read and try to comprehend the actual literature.

I already read it and you gave zero answer to the question I posed to you: Which vaccine in the history of vaccines has allowed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths against the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against?

[Loco 50]

I already read it and you gave zero answer to the question I posed to you: Which vaccine in the history of vaccines has allowed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths against the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against?

Why do you need things to be spoonfed to you? You don't even have to go back far in history. 3 years ago we ****ed up the flu vaccine severely by the guessing the strain incorrectly. It was estimated to be only 29% effective, yet guess what? It was still not only recommended to everyone, but was a requirement to work in most hospitals in the U.S. same as it's been for as long as I've known it.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/flu-vaccine-had-another-disappointing-year-will-this-year-be-different

Virology and Immunology is difficult work, but hey, if you think you can do better why not start studying, get your degree, and show the experts how things really should be done.

[FKAri]

Help me clarify. So 68.7% are vaccinated and 31.3% are not vaccinated. Yet 70% the Covid deaths in the UK are of those vaccinated. I might be missing something because that would mean that the vaccine are having zero effects. And that would be big news. Again, I'm tired and I'm quickly looking at this so perhaps I misinterpreted something.

What you're missing is selection bias. The most at-risk are far more likely to be in the vaccinated group. And with COVID the risk is orders of magnitude greater for the at-risk compared to your regular joe. Then there's the fact that the vaccine effectiveness wanes over time and the most at-risk were probably the first ones getting them.

[jstern]

What I got from the part not covered in the screenshot of the chart in the OP, week 34, is an incredibly low death rate for both group, per 100,000 person.

https://images2.imgbox.com/66/bf/7JttSICz_o.png

Death for Unvaccinated
Under 18: 0%
18 to 29: .00030%
30 to 39: .00120%
40 to 49: .00380%
50 to 59: .01240%
60 to 69: .02310%
70 to 79: .06640%
80+ : .15600%

Death for Vaccinated
Under 18: 0%
18 to 29: .00010%
30 to 39: .00020%
40 to 49: .00050%
50 to 59: .00140%
60 to 69: .00450%
70 to 79: .01310%
80+ : .04950%

[theman93]

Why do you need things to be spoonfed to you? You don't even have to go back far in history. 3 years ago we ****ed up the flu vaccine severely by the guessing the strain incorrectly. It was estimated to be only 29% effective, yet guess what? It was still not only recommended to everyone, but was a requirement to work in most hospitals in the U.S. same as it's been for as long as I've known it.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/flu-vaccine-had-another-disappointing-year-will-this-year-be-different

Virology and Immunology is difficult work, but hey, if you think you can do better why not start studying, get your degree, and show the experts how things really should be done.

You are not answering the question. Read it again. Which vaccine in the history of vaccines has allowed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths against the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against?

A vaccine that is 29% effective is not a vaccine that offers immunity or much of any protection at all. You’re either not very bright or being purposely obtuse.

[bladefd]

Approximately 46 million in your vaccinated population in the UK.

Approximately 21 million in your unvaccinated population in the UK.

So over twice as many folks vacced vs unvacced and you can't understand why deaths of the unvaccinated outnumber the vaccinated by hundreds? This is why the death rate columns that you cropped off were important. For folks that fail to understand basic stats.

These very basic numbers, plus add the fact that the deaths are occurring largely in the senior citizen population (lower immune system function), so they have a compromised ability to produce antibodies should be proof of the importance of others getting vacced to protect aging populations.

If you're American you are a prime example of our failing educational system.

Ahh, talk about akrazotile being disingenuous.. Using absolute number instead of rate of death :facepalm

Yup, another argument to discard. Continues to show why he deserves to be blocked.

[tpols]

There is not a single intervention in medicine that works at a rate of 100% effectiveness. It's naive to think otherwise.

Drugs/surgeries/vaccines/therapy all fail in certain percentages. This is why it's important in the case of a pandemic to overwhelm cases to provide insurance against those failures.

Medicine has changed drastically over the years. The definition needed to be changed with the times.

Uh... Vaccines generally did have a ridiculously high prevention rate. That's why in the first world things like smallpox, polio, and measles no longer exist like they used to. Its clear here that this one isn't doing jack shit. You really are a useful idiot lmao.

[Loco 50]

Ahh, talk about akrazotile being disingenuous.. Using absolute number instead of rate of death :facepalm

Yup, another argument to discard. Continues to show why he deserves to be blocked.

:oldlol: They both suffer from the same functional illiteracy so you may be right. I had my doubts initially, tbh, otherwise I never would have tried to teach him something. What a waste of time.

[theman93]

Uh... Vaccines generally did have a ridiculously high prevention rate. That's why in the first world things like smallpox, polio, and measles no longer exist like they used to. Its clear here that this one isn't doing jack shit. You really are a useful idiot lmao.

“It’s naive to think any intervention works at a rate of 100% effectiveness.” - Loco 50

“But it’s not naive to think it just so happened that the definition of vaccine and vaccination needed to be changed in 2021 after the effectiveness of the covid vaccines waned so low that boosters are needed only months after the second dose.” - Also Loco 50

[theman93]

:oldlol: They both suffer from the same functional illiteracy so you may be right. I had my doubts initially, tbh, otherwise I never would have tried to teach him something. What a waste of time.

Still waiting for your response. You’ve dodged/failed to understand the question 3 times now:


You are not answering the question. Read it again. Which vaccine in the history of vaccines has allowed tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths against the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against?

A vaccine that is 29% effective is not a vaccine that offers immunity or much of any protection at all. You’re either not very bright or being purposely obtuse.

[Rooster]

:oldlol: They both suffer from the same functional illiteracy so you may be right. I had my doubts initially, tbh, otherwise I never would have tried to teach him something. What a waste of time.


LMAO :roll:

Look at him, he is still asking a question you already answered. It’s like taking to a blind cult . :roll:They only want to read what they want to hear.

[theman93]

LMAO :roll:

Look at him, he is still asking a question you already answered. It’s like taking to a blind cult . :roll:They only want to read what they want to hear.

No he didn't, unless you believe a 29% effective flu vaccine is a vaccine that offers immunity let alone much protection at all.

Meanwhile, there was a 141% increase (+6,364) in the amount of deaths among the fully vaccinated in a 1 month period between September and October in the US alone. No wonder you clowns want to go changing the definition of a vaccine :lol. Such good little sheep.

[Rooster]

No he didn't, unless you believe a 29% effective flu vaccine is a vaccine that offers immunity let alone much protection at all.

Meanwhile, there was a 141% increase (+6,364) in the amount of deaths among the fully vaccinated in a 1 month period between September and October in the US alone. No wonder you clowns want to go changing the definition of a vaccine :lol. Such good little sheep.


LMAO You’re truly trying hard. Vaccine is not all or nothing solution brah. It’s a preventative measures. Some virus like flu mutates faster creating different strain. Flu vaccine is developed for whatever dominant strain in that particular year. That 29% was anomaly. Flu vaccine is generally 40-60% efficacy annually and still kill ten thousands of people every year despite of susceptibility to few of anti viral that is available .

Please enlighten me what anti-Vaccine contribution to society?

[theman93]

LMAO You’re truly trying hard. Vaccine is not all or nothing solution brah. It’s a preventative measures. Some virus like flu mutates faster creating different strain. Flu vaccine is developed for whatever dominant strain in that particular year. That 29% was anomaly. Flu vaccine is generally 40-60% efficacy annually and still kill ten thousands of people every year despite of susceptibility to few of anti viral that is available .

Please enlighten me what anti-Vaccine contribution to society?

You are not answering the question.

I guess I will try it a different way and use the flu and it’s vaccine as the example.

How many people die to the flu each year who were fully vaccinated against it?

[baudkarma]

If the vaccine was effective then it shouldn't matter if there are 10 times as many unvaxed people vs vaxed, the vaxed should not still be dying - especially not 7 out of every 10. That is the point.

Vaccines are supposed to make you immune to disease. These vaccines do not make you immune to covid. And for that reason, the CDC changed it's definition of vaccine and vaccination.

Vaccines are not supposed to make you immune to the disease. They make it less likely that you'll contract the disease if you're exposed to it, and if a sufficiently high percentage of the population is inoculated, then the disease can't find enough vectors to propagate. We've virtually done away with smallpox and polio, but not because the vaccines are 100% effective. It's because virtually 100% of the population is vaccinated against those diseases.

[theman93]

Vaccines are not supposed to make you immune to the disease. They make it less likely that you'll contract the disease if you're exposed to it, and if a sufficiently high percentage of the population is inoculated, then the disease can't find enough vectors to propagate. We've virtually done away with smallpox and polio, but not because the vaccines are 100% effective. It's because virtually 100% of the population is vaccinated against those diseases.

Traditionally, yes. But with the covid vaccines you are just as likely to transmit the virus if you are vaccinated than if you weren’t.

[Rooster]

You are not answering the question.

I guess I will try it a different way and use the flu and it’s vaccine as the example.

How many people die to the flu each year who were fully vaccinated against it?

LMAO Now you’re reaching for the vaccinated. LMAO Fluvaccination was associated with a 26% lower risk of ICU admission and a 31% lower risk of death from flu compared to those who were unvaccinated.

Again how many times do you need to read that Vaccines is a mitigating measures. It’s not a cure nor it’s all or nothing solution. Every virus have different mutation rate.

[Axe]

Traditionally, yes. But with the covid vaccines you are just as likely to transmit the virus if you are vaccinated than if you weren’t.
Poooor coach. Still clueless that the urgency of these vaccines haven't given them enough time for them to be developed to the point where they attain full immunity against covid-19. If the world waited for five years, just imagine how many deaths would have been recorded since last year. :ohwell:

That's why they're currently issuing booster shots and if you're a covid survivor (you tested positive before but was able to recover from it) while being fully vaccinated, there's a big, significant chance that you wouldn't test positive anymore.

[Rooster]

Traditionally, yes. But with the covid vaccines you are just as likely to transmit the virus if you are vaccinated than if you weren’t.

LMAO you’re disseminating a misleading information to fit your narrative. Recent studies conducted are for Delta variant. The Covid vaccines (not the booster) were made for the original Covid alpha variant. Not all vaccines are one and done. Flu vaccines are every year. Some are 2-3 doses.

[Rooster]

Poooor coach. Still clueless that the urgency of these vaccines haven't given them enough time for them to be developed to the point where they attain full immunity against covid-19. If the world waited for five years, just imagine how many deaths would have been recorded since last year. :ohwell:

That's why they're currently issuing booster shots and if you're a covid survivor (you tested positive before but was able to recover from it) while being fully vaccinated, there's a big, significant chance that you wouldn't test positive anymore.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages

If deaths are what most of these kind of people only care about , numbers don’t lie.

[Axe]

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages

If deaths are what most of these kind of people only care about , numbers don’t lie.
Lol they're likely to believe that graph/data though if that were ivermectin.

[theman93]

LMAO Now youÂ’re reaching for the vaccinated. LMAO Fluvaccination was associated with a 26% lower risk of ICU admission and a 31% lower risk of death from flu compared to those who were unvaccinated.

Again how many times do you need to read that Vaccines is a mitigating measures. ItÂ’s not a cure nor itÂ’s all or nothing solution. Every virus have different mutation rate.

I’m not reaching on anything. You just don’t understand what the argument has been this entire time.

I’m asking how many people die from the flu annually who are vaccinated against it.

Which vaccine has ever had so many people die from the disease it was designed to protect against?

What about a vaccine that had a 141% increase in deaths over a month period from the disease it was designed to protect against?

[Cleverness]

What's the absolute risk reduction of hospitalization and death after becoming vaccinated?


What you're missing is selection bias. The most at-risk are far more likely to be in the vaccinated group. And with COVID the risk is orders of magnitude greater for the at-risk compared to your regular joe. Then there's the fact that the vaccine effectiveness wanes over time and the most at-risk were probably the first ones getting them.

Right. That's why we needed a RCT to show that it reduces hospitalization and death.

But over the past few months in the UK we've seen a higher infection rate in vaccinated that unvaccinated in age groups 18+, even when adjusting for age:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFDxLuyVQAIE6Uy?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFDxLuyVQAIE6Uy?format=jpg&name=medium

[theman93]

LMAO you’re disseminating a misleading information to fit your narrative. Recent studies conducted are for Delta variant. The Covid vaccines (not the booster) were made for the original Covid alpha variant. Not all vaccines are one and done. Flu vaccines are every year. Some are 2-3 doses.

Nope. The narrative this entire time had been how effective these vaccines were even against the Delta variant and because of that everyone needs to get vaccinated anyways. Now the goal posts are shifting and it turns out “fully vaccinated” isn’t “fully vaccinated” anymore and the entire definition of vaccine and vaccination has changed.

[Rooster]

Nope. The narrative this entire time had been how effective these vaccines were even against the Delta variant and because of that everyone needs to get vaccinated anyways. Now the goal posts are shifting and it turns out “fully vaccinated” isn’t “fully vaccinated” anymore and the entire definition of vaccine and vaccination has changed.


LMAO I dunno if you’re being disingenuous or trying to make an argument on exception.

It’s clear that Covid vaccinated against Delta variant

5x less likely than unvaccinated to have breakthrough infection

10x less likely to be hospitalized

10x less likely to die

:roll:

[PistonsFan#21]

Vaccines are not supposed to make you immune to the disease. They make it less likely that you'll contract the disease if you're exposed to it, and if a sufficiently high percentage of the population is inoculated, then the disease can't find enough vectors to propagate. We've virtually done away with smallpox and polio, but not because the vaccines are 100% effective. It's because virtually 100% of the population is vaccinated against those diseases.

Uhh except that they are supposed to do exactly that...

Vaccine original definition: "a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease."

Nearly 100% of the populatuon vaccinated isn't gonna eradicate a disease if it doesn't give you immunity or prevent transmission, which both the smallpox and polio vaccine do at a very high level (95% effective at doing that if im not mistaken)

[Bronbron23]

LMAO I dunno if you’re being disingenuous or trying to make an argument on exception.

It’s clear that Covid vaccinated against Delta variant

5x less likely than unvaccinated to have breakthrough infection

10x less likely to be hospitalized

10x less likely to die

:roll:

5x more less likely is something you cherry picked. I could find studies that show it's nowhere near that. The vaccines aren't effective in significantly reducing the spread of covid. They were never designed to do so and with delta most studies reflect this.

People are however much less likely to die or be hospitalized but even this is a generalization because those numbers apply mostly to the high risk groups. Children and young adults aren't 10x less likely. Those with natural immunity aren't 10x less likely.

[theman93]

LMAO I dunno if you’re being disingenuous or trying to make an argument on exception.

It’s clear that Covid vaccinated against Delta variant

5x less likely than unvaccinated to have breakthrough infection

10x less likely to be hospitalized

10x less likely to die

:roll:

You’re not the brightest bulb in the bunch are you? We’re not talking vaccinated vs unvaccinated. We’re talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine in an individual once it’s been administered. Not to mention all of those figures you listed will decrease as time goes on and that was proven yet again from the 141% increase in deaths among the fully vaccinated from September through October.

So I’ll go ahead and pose the question again. Try not to dodge it this time:

Which vaccine has ever allowed tens of thousands of people to die from the disease it was designed to provide immunity against?

Which vaccine has ever had it’s effectiveness wane to such low levels that you have to get it again in a matter of mere months?

[Rooster]

You’re not the brightest bulb in the bunch are you? We’re not talking vaccinated vs unvaccinated. We’re talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine in an individual once it’s been administered. Not to mention all of those figures you listed will decrease as time goes on and that was proven yet again from the 141% increase in deaths among the fully vaccinated from September through October.

So I’ll go ahead and pose the question again. Try not to dodge it this time:

Which vaccine has ever allowed tens of thousands of people to die from the disease it was designed to provide immunity against?

Which vaccine has ever had it’s effectiveness wane to such low levels that you have to get it again in a matter of mere months?

LMAO I can’t even. :facepalm

Vaccine efficacy is % reduction in disease incidence in a vaccinated group compared to an unvaccinated group under optimal conditions (eg RCT)

Effectiveness is to prevent hospitalization and deaths. Every single data pretty indicate the effectiveness of vaccines. Sure there are deaths but the numbers don’t lie. Vaccinated is 10 times more protected. You’re just too deep in your rabbit hole thinking you’re some kind of individual thinker when you clearly in that echo chamber. :roll:

You need flu vaccines every year and every year ten thousands of people still from it.

[Rooster]

5x more less likely is something you cherry picked. I could find studies that show it's nowhere near that. The vaccines aren't effective in significantly reducing the spread of covid. They were never designed to do so and with delta most studies reflect this.

People are however much less likely to die or be hospitalized but even this is a generalization because those numbers apply mostly to the high risk groups. Children and young adults aren't 10x less likely. Those with natural immunity aren't 10x less likely.

Those are CDC numbers.

Vaccines designed for alpha variants fared much better. When Delta variant emerge. it’s less effective and that is why boosters are recommended by FDA. Now we have another variant that spread by young people in South Africa which so far is only 24% vaccinated who supposed to have 10 mutations (Delta is 2) .

I anticipate a bloody market tomorrow.

[Cleverness]

10x less likely to be hospitalized

10x less likely to die

Can you share your source for these claims?

[Loco 50]

Can you share your source for these claims?

:whatever:Can you not attempt to use stats without understanding them? Shit's been going on for months.

One would assume a dude named Cleverness would have been able to figure it out on his own.:yaohappy:

Tks

[Loco 50]

LMAO :roll:

Look at him, he is still asking a question you already answered. It’s like taking to a blind cult . :roll:They only want to read what they want to hear.

Just have to accept certain cognitive deficits in these folks. I can only handle a conversation with peak stupid for so long.

[8Ball]

Anti vaxxers are low IQ. Prove me wrong.

[dankok8]

Another factor to consider is that in place with vaccine passports (Canada and some parts of US like New York) people who are vaccinated enjoy much more mobility and can attend restaurants, night clubs, NBA games etc. Thus they are much more likely to be exposed to Covid as well so the vaccine is probably better at preventing cases too than the raw data shows.

[BurningHammer]

Anti vaxxers are low IQ. Prove me wrong.


There is a big ass thread about this a while ago. It seems to be proven right. :oldlol:

[theman93]

LMAO I can’t even. :facepalm

Vaccine efficacy is % reduction in disease incidence in a vaccinated group compared to an unvaccinated group under optimal conditions (eg RCT)

Effectiveness is to prevent hospitalization and deaths. Every single data pretty indicate the effectiveness of vaccines. Sure there are deaths but the numbers don’t lie. Vaccinated is 10 times more protected. You’re just too deep in your rabbit hole thinking you’re some kind of individual thinker when you clearly in that echo chamber. :roll:

You need flu vaccines every year and every year ten thousands of people still from it.

You still are not answering the question.

I’m not asking how many people die from the flu every year. I’m asking how many people die from the flu every year who are vaccinated against it? This isn’t a hard question to understand.

[8Ball]

There is a big ass thread about this a while ago. It seems to be proven right. :oldlol:

I made the thread to bring in anti vaxxers together to prove to me how high their IQ was.

I was disappointed.

[Cleverness]

Can you not attempt to use stats without understanding them? Shit's been going on for months.

One would assume a dude named Cleverness would have been able to figure it out on his own.

What are you even talking about? I asked for the source of his claims. Shit's been going on for months. But you clowns keep disappearing.

We asked you to back up your claims here: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?477454-Official-coronavirus-news-discussion-thread&p=14429447&viewfull=1#post14429447 But, like a small child, you threw a tantrum and couldn't back them up. People can spend lifetimes working/studying the world of micrbiology/virology and have less confidence in their thoughts than you're expressing. When your claims are tested with basic cross examination, you've disappeared and/or crumbled.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?477454-Official-coronavirus-news-discussion-thread&p=14429720&viewfull=1#post14429720


What are your excuses for not getting the vaccine if you are 30 years or older?

Why are you holding out?

Why are you so afraid?

Lay it out here.


I got the 2nd dose a few weeks ago and had ZERO symptoms. No fatigue. No fever. No bumps. Nothing.

My immune system is so strong it was apparently not impressed with the 5G nano particles injected in me.

For shits and giggles maybe I will go get me a booster shot just for the fun of it in a few months. Then I will be a covid terminator.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFImvSMVIAcTBaM?format=jpg&name=small

I made the thread to bring in anti vaxxers together to prove to me how high their IQ was.

Sounds more like you made the thread to sell the Trump Vaccine to people on ISH, but weren't able to answer basic follow-up questions:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?497275-Anti-Vaxxers-are-Low-IQ-Prove-me-Wrong&p=14459393&viewfull=1#post14459393

[Chick Stern]

What are you even talking about? I asked for the source of his claims. Shit's been going on for months. But you clowns keep disappearing.

We asked you to back up your claims here: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?477454-Official-coronavirus-news-discussion-thread&p=14429447&viewfull=1#post14429447 But, like a small child, you threw a tantrum and couldn't back them up. People can spend lifetimes working/studying the world of micrbiology/virology and have less confidence in their thoughts than you're expressing. When your claims are tested with basic cross examination, you've disappeared and/or crumbled.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?477454-Official-coronavirus-news-discussion-thread&p=14429720&viewfull=1#post14429720





Sounds more like you made the thread to sell the Trump Vaccine to people on ISH, but weren't able to answer basic follow-up questions:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?497275-Anti-Vaxxers-are-Low-IQ-Prove-me-Wrong&p=14459393&viewfull=1#post14459393
The “trump vaccine”? Lol.
Which one is that? The ineffective one?

[Cleverness]

The “trump vaccine”? Lol.
Which one is that? The ineffective one?

https://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/yo-hodor-app.png?w=1200&strip=all


Trump NEVER advocated for mask wearing.

Nice nitpick, but we're still waiting for you to followup your bogus claim back in this thread: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?495878-60-of-people-being-admitted-to-hospital-with-coronavirus-have-two-COVID-jabs&p=14399857&viewfull=1#post14399857

[Loco 50]

What are you even talking about? I asked for the source of his claims. Shit's been going on for months. But you clowns keep disappearing.


:oldlol: This

What's the absolute risk reduction of hospitalization and death after becoming vaccinated?


Continues to reflect your poor comprehension. You've been attempting to use this for what, months now? A year? Yet you never bothered to read up on what those stats mean and how they're used.

Nobody avoids you other than it gets boring trying to explain things to you.

:yaohappy: You're a free 2. A dunk. Got you out here thinking you're making a statement when you just get postered over and over.

https://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/001/928/798/hi-res-52695213_crop_exact.jpg?w=1200&h=1200&q=75

You're ISH's Shawn Bradley.

[SATAN]

:oldlol: This

Continues to reflect your poor comprehension. You've been attempting to use this for what, months now? A year? Yet you never bothered to read up on what those stats mean and how they're used.

Nobody avoids you other than it gets boring trying to explain things to you.

:yaohappy: You're a free 2. A dunk. Got you out here thinking you're making a statement when you just get postered over and over.

https://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/001/928/798/hi-res-52695213_crop_exact.jpg?w=1200&h=1200&q=75

You're ISH's Shawn Bradley.

:roll:

[Axe]

I made the thread to bring in anti vaxxers together to prove to me how high their IQ was.

I was disappointed.
I feel bad for coach. He still doesn't believe what the actual numbers tell him. :ohwell:

[Cleverness]

:oldlol: This

Continues to reflect your poor comprehension. You've been attempting to use this for what, months now? A year? Yet you never bothered to read up on what those stats mean and how they're used.

Nobody avoids you other than it gets boring trying to explain things to you.

:yaohappy: You're a free 2. A dunk. Got you out here thinking you're making a statement when you just get postered over and over.

I asked for the source of his claims. You've had two chances to cite some sources to back up those claims, and both of your responses have nothing to do with the actual claims or a source to back up the claims. :facepalm

I'll ask again a third time - where is the source for the claims he made about 10x less likely to be hospitalized and 10x less likely to die?



You've been attempting to use this for what, months now? A year? Yet you never bothered to read up on what those stats mean and how they're used

Lol, I'm out here asking basic questions regarding the benefits of the vaccine, such as the actual reduction in chances of being hospitalized and dying - after all, isn't that supposed to be a benefit of getting the vaccine? So, what is the absolute risk reduction of hospitalization and death after becoming vaccinated?


You've been attempting to use this for what, months now? A year? Yet you never bothered to read up on what those stats mean and how they're used

Wtf are you even talking about? I've been asking you basic followup questions to your claims (and similar claims that others make) and your response has no sources. You can't even answer the basic followup questions.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499467-Over-70-of-COVID-deaths-in-UK-are-fully-vaccinated-during-month-of-September&p=14482720&viewfull=1#post14482720

[Cleverness]

Got you out here thinking you're making a statement when you just get postered over and over.

You're the one making statements about social distancing measures, school closures, mask mandates, travel bans, (NPIs), vaccines, etc.

I'm the one asking the basic followup questions. And after ~20 months you're still having a really difficult time defending your assertions. Instead of being professional and defending your statements, you post about being boring, dunking, and Shawn Bradley.

Again, we asked you to back up your claims here: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?477454-Official-coronavirus-news-discussion-thread&p=14429447&viewfull=1#post14429447 But, like a small child, you threw a tantrum and couldn't back them up. Even FKari kinda called you out on it. People can spend lifetimes working/studying the world of micrbiology/virology and have less confidence in their thoughts than you're expressing. When your claims are tested with basic cross examination, you've disappeared and/or crumbled.

[BurningHammer]

"Bold Claims" Cleverness is at it again. :roll:

[theman93]

I asked for the source of his claims. You've had two chances to cite some sources to back up those claims, and both of your responses have nothing to do with the actual claims or a source to back up the claims. :facepalm

I'll ask again a third time - where is the source for the claims he made about 10x less likely to be hospitalized and 10x less likely to die?




Lol, I'm out here asking basic questions regarding the benefits of the vaccine, such as the actual reduction in chances of being hospitalized and dying - after all, isn't that supposed to be a benefit of getting the vaccine? So, what is the absolute risk reduction of hospitalization and death after becoming vaccinated?



Wtf are you even talking about? I've been asking you basic followup questions to your claims (and similar claims that others make) and your response has no sources. You can't even answer the basic followup questions.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499467-Over-70-of-COVID-deaths-in-UK-are-fully-vaccinated-during-month-of-September&p=14482720&viewfull=1#post14482720

This seems to be a pattern with these 2.

When asked which vaccine has ever had so many people die from the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against, their response was the 2018 flu vaccine that was 29% effective. A 29% effective vaccine is not a vaccine that is designed to provide immunity, but they cannot grasp that very simple concept and fail to provide any new example when they've been asked multiple times.

Given their love for using the flu vaccine as their example, they also couldn't answer how many people die to the flu each year who were fully vaccinated against it?

Rooster also never answered which vaccine has ever had it’s effectiveness wane to such low levels that you have to get it again in a matter of months.

Both are free to answer these questions, but their continual disappearing acts (or maybe inability to understand the basic question?) is telling.

[theman93]

The Lancet

"Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study"


Findings: Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards....

Overall, vaccine effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome severe Covid-19, effectiveness waned from 89% (95% CI, 82-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 42% (95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21) from day 181 and onwards, with sensitivity analyses showing notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities

Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410

Safe and effective *except for the fully vaccinated who are most at risk.

[Cleverness]

"Bold Claims" Cleverness is at it again. :roll:

Ah, you're the one who claimed Texas hospitals are "wrecked" and "in trouble." But when I asked some basic followup questions (eg the number of hospital beds available/taken) you said "irrelevant stats" and bailed. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?477454-Official-coronavirus-news-discussion-thread&p=14417959&viewfull=1#post14417959)

You're still free to back up your claim.

[BurningHammer]

Ah, you're the one who claimed Texas hospitals are "wrecked" and "in trouble." But when I asked some basic followup questions (eg the number of hospital beds available/taken) you said "irrelevant stats" and bailed. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?477454-Official-coronavirus-news-discussion-thread&p=14417959&viewfull=1#post14417959)

You're still free to back up your claim.

Questions so basic it was irrelevant to what happened at that moment (lack of ICU beds) and yet you keep insisting on your own irrelevant points (total beds from years before the pandemic). :oldlol:

You're still free to back up your claim. :oldlol:

[Cleverness]

Questions so basic it was irrelevant to what happened at that moment (lack of ICU beds) and yet you keep insisting on your own irrelevant points (total beds from years before the pandemic). :oldlol:

You're still free to back up your claim. :oldlol:

What claim are you talking about? You're the one who made the claim that Texas hospitals are "wrecked" and "in trouble," not me. I asked two, highly relevant, basic followup questions: one, why Texas had 5,541 more beds available than before Covid-19 and two, the data on ICUs from 2014-2019 to prove they're are any worse now than they were before Covid-19. Again, you're free to answer.

[BurningHammer]

What claim are you talking about? You're the one who made the claim that Texas hospitals are "wrecked" and "in trouble," not me. I asked two, highly relevant, basic followup questions: one, why Texas had 5,541 more beds available than before Covid-19 and two, the data on ICUs from 2014-2019 to prove they're are any worse now than they were before Covid-19. Again, you're free to answer.

You just can't stop yourself, do you? Keep saying that I claimed it when I just reflected a piece of news and then you just keep throwing irrelevant questions, just like what you do to other "vaxxers", to throw them off. And again you are pushing total beds instead of ICU beds and old ICU data, that you don't bother digging them up and proving it yourself, that are irrelevant to COVID-19-affected data during the pandemic.

Vintage Cleverness.

Again, you're free to answer. :roll:

[Cleverness]

You just can't stop yourself, do you? Keep saying that I claimed it when I just reflected a piece of news and then you just keep throwing irrelevant questions, just like what you do to other "vaxxers", to throw them off. And again you are pushing total beds instead of ICU beds and old ICU data, that you don't bother digging them up and proving it yourself, that are irrelevant to COVID-19-affected data during the pandemic.

I asked you a couple of questions about the "wrecked and in trouble" Texas hospital system; you still haven't answered and instead called them "irrelevant."

So let's be clear:

If one claims that a hospital system is "wrecked and in trouble," then is the number of hospital beds available/taken and normally available/taken irrelevant?

[Rooster]

This seems to be a pattern with these 2.

When asked which vaccine has ever had so many people die from the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against, their response was the 2018 flu vaccine that was 29% effective. A 29% effective vaccine is not a vaccine that is designed to provide immunity, but they cannot grasp that very simple concept and fail to provide any new example when they've been asked multiple times.

Given their love for using the flu vaccine as their example, they also couldn't answer how many people die to the flu each year who were fully vaccinated against it?

Rooster also never answered which vaccine has ever had it’s effectiveness wane to such low levels that you have to get it again in a matter of months.

Both are free to answer these questions, but their continual disappearing acts (or maybe inability to understand the basic question?) is telling.

LMAO You’re really confuse.:oldlol:


I handicapped your inadequacies with definitions to compensate with your deficit and still manage to fail.:facepalm


Let me put it in simple Layman term for you


0% efficacy = unvaccinated


I also put a reduction rate on Flu deaths and you still can’t figure it out


And incessantly mental *********e on your shortcoming


Let me spoon fed this in a simple count


Unvaccinated that are hospitalized from Flu is more like to die 2 to 5 times more than vaccinated


So if there is average 30 k Flu deaths annually


Unvaccinated -20 to 25 K deaths
Vaccinated - 5 to 10K deaths


Those are not the most important FACT. Flu is the most commoncause of hospitalization among our children and 8 out of 10 deaths attributed to flu are unvaccinated.


You can’t count, you can’t comprehend


You’re waste of time. :roll:

[Rooster]

You just can't stop yourself, do you? Keep saying that I claimed it when I just reflected a piece of news and then you just keep throwing irrelevant questions, just like what you do to other "vaxxers", to throw them off. And again you are pushing total beds instead of ICU beds and old ICU data, that you don't bother digging them up and proving it yourself, that are irrelevant to COVID-19-affected data during the pandemic.

Vintage Cleverness.

Again, you're free to answer. :roll:

do not bother with that resident idiot.

Texas is huge . ICU beds availability .LMAO

If there’s an outbreak in SoCal and hospitals are overwhelmed , Ambulances will not drive pts who has difficulty breathing to Central to Northern California . LOL

This is plain and basic common sense.

same thing with heart issues. Ambulance will not take patients to hospital without catch lab.

[Loco 50]

Lol, I'm out here asking basic questions regarding the benefits of the vaccine, such as the actual reduction in chances of being hospitalized and dying - after all, isn't that supposed to be a benefit of getting the vaccine? So, what is the absolute risk reduction of hospitalization and death after becoming vaccinated?



Wtf are you even talking about? I've been asking you basic followup questions to your claims (and similar claims that others make) and your response has no sources. You can't even answer the basic followup questions.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499467-Over-70-of-COVID-deaths-in-UK-are-fully-vaccinated-during-month-of-September&p=14482720&viewfull=1#post14482720
Here-in lies the problem. You think you're asking "basic" questions. Your "basic" question demonstrates your lack of "basic" knowledge.

Absolute risk reduction is not a useful stat by itself in virology/immunology/epidemiology. Relative risk reduction is needed as well.

The absolute risk reduction of covid vaccination ranges from .8% to 1.2%, but your smarmy ass already knew that. What you don't understand is that the absolute risk reduction of the small pox or polio vaccine are 0%. Why, because they've already been eradicated, but they wouldn't have been destroyed had anti-vaxxers had their way. Absolute risk reduction will decrease with time due to several factors like improved understanding on how to treat the novel virus and increasing numbers of your vacced population.

Relative risk reduction should be the number you're really interested in, but you chose to ignore it, why? Was it because you didn't know it even existed or because you didn't like what it was showing? Relative risk reduction will show the difference in outcomes between treatment/vaccination and non-treatment/non-vacced. The outcomes we're most interested in now are transmission of infection, hospitalization and deaths. RRR ranges from 68 to 95%.

The higher the relative risk reduction associated with a vaccine the quicker the absolute risk reduction will fall. Ideally, reaching zero, like small pox and polio. That being said, Covid will never reach zero for several reasons including viral mutation rate of an incredibly transmissible pathogen and the sheer amount of cognitively challenged anti-vaccer know-it-alls that will, in some instances, fight vaccination all the way to their grave.

This stuff isn't "basic". It's medical stats. A college-level course taught to those specifically interested in careers requiring these tools.

It's crazy hubristic of you to attempt to Monday morning quarterback this when you don't even understand the "basics."

[Loco 50]

This seems to be a pattern with these 2.

When asked which vaccine has ever had so many people die from the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against, their response was the 2018 flu vaccine that was 29% effective. A 29% effective vaccine is not a vaccine that is designed to provide immunity, but they cannot grasp that very simple concept and fail to provide any new example when they've been asked multiple times.

Given their love for using the flu vaccine as their example, they also couldn't answer how many people die to the flu each year who were fully vaccinated against it?

Rooster also never answered which vaccine has ever had it’s effectiveness wane to such low levels that you have to get it again in a matter of months.

Both are free to answer these questions, but their continual disappearing acts (or maybe inability to understand the basic question?) is telling.

:oldlol: The amount of dumb in this post is unfixable.

[Loco 50]

The Lancet

"Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study"



https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410

Safe and effective *except for the fully vaccinated who are most at risk.

The last sentence reads "This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose."

Broooooooo, your reading comprehension is gutter tier..........:roll:

Nevermind the fact that the paper is still in preprint and hasn't been peer reviewed........sit this one out.

[Loco 50]

do not bother with that resident idiot.

Texas is huge . ICU beds availability .LMAO

If there’s an outbreak in SoCal and hospitals are overwhelmed , Ambulances will not drive pts who has difficulty breathing to Central to Northern California . LOL

This is plain and basic common sense.

same thing with heart issues. Ambulance will not take patients to hospital without catch lab.
:whatever: Imagine having to explain to a person with Clever in his name that an empty hospital bed in rural, bum****, Texas 5 hours away from a big city, viral epicenter is not going to do anyone much good.:yaohappy:

[bladefd]

Why are you arguing with a troll such as Akrazotile? Guy has multiple alt accounts and he is a straight-up nutcase.

[Axe]

Why are you arguing with a troll such as Akrazotile? Guy has multiple alt accounts and he is a straight-up nutcase.
This. He also lied frequently about retiring on this board lol.

[Cleverness]

do not bother with that resident idiot.

Texas is huge . ICU beds availability .LMAO

If there’s an outbreak in SoCal and hospitals are overwhelmed , Ambulances will not drive pts who has difficulty breathing to Central to Northern California . LOL

This is plain and basic common sense.

same thing with heart issues. Ambulance will not take patients to hospital without catch lab.

Interesting. I asked for a source for your claims, then you call me a "resident idiot."

If you're going to make bold claims regarding social distancing, masks, travel bans, school closures, vaccines, etc, you should have a strong case. This is plain and basic common sense.

[PistonsFan#21]

The last sentence reads "This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose."

Broooooooo, your reading comprehension is gutter tier..........:roll:

Nevermind the fact that the paper is still in preprint and hasn't been peer reviewed........sit this one out.

Honest question: are you willing to take booster shots every 6 months for the rest of your life for a disease that has a 99.7% survival rate for healthy adults and which barely reduces the rate of transmission? What about the fact that there is now new variants coming out that are supposedly escaping vaccines protection?

At what point do you think it is safe to learn to live with it the same way we are doing with the flu? Because i doubt we ever reached close to 75-80% of our population vaccinated against the flu on any given season.

"Anti vaxxers" didn't just appear overnight so you can't blame this ongoing pandemic on them and also make the claim that we eradicated some previous diseases because they weren't alive back then. The truth is this vaccine is simply subpar when compared to those other vaccines and didn't work like it was originally planned. This is why the CDC had to backtrack on their statements about vaccinated people not needing to isolate and wear mask indoors anymore.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html


Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective

This is the real reason why polio was eradicated. It was almost perfect at preventing infections and stopping the spread. The vaccinated people were basically immune.The main goal of the Covid vaccines trial was to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death for the vaccinated person. It didn't measure how much it stops transmission and it was known that it wouldn't give the person immunity.

Am i missing something here?

[Cleverness]

Here-in lies the problem. You think you're asking "basic" questions. Your "basic" question demonstrates your lack of "basic" knowledge.

Absolute risk reduction is not a useful stat by itself in virology/immunology/epidemiology. Relative risk reduction is needed as well.

The absolute risk reduction of covid vaccination ranges from .8% to 1.2%, but your smarmy ass already knew that. What you don't understand is that the absolute risk reduction of the small pox or polio vaccine are 0%. Why, because they've already been eradicated, but they wouldn't have been destroyed had anti-vaxxers had their way. Absolute risk reduction will decrease with time due to several factors like improved understanding on how to treat the novel virus and increasing numbers of your vacced population.

Relative risk reduction should be the number you're really interested in, but you chose to ignore it, why? Was it because you didn't know it even existed or because you didn't like what it was showing? Relative risk reduction will show the difference in outcomes between treatment/vaccination and non-treatment/non-vacced. The outcomes we're most interested in now are transmission of infection, hospitalization and deaths. RRR ranges from 68 to 95%.

The higher the relative risk reduction associated with a vaccine the quicker the absolute risk reduction will fall. Ideally, reaching zero, like small pox and polio. That being said, Covid will never reach zero for several reasons including viral mutation rate of an incredibly transmissible pathogen and the sheer amount of cognitively challenged anti-vaccer know-it-alls that will, in some instances, fight vaccination all the way to their grave.

This stuff isn't "basic". It's medical stats. A college-level course taught to those specifically interested in careers requiring these tools.

It's crazy hubristic of you to attempt to Monday morning quarterback this when you don't even understand the "basics."

A major part of the official narrative is that the vaccine reduces risk of hospitalization and death. Absolute risk reduction tells me how much it will reduce the risk of hospitalization and death. I can't put it any more simpler than that. So, what's the absolute risk reduction of hospitalization and death after becoming vaccinated?

I'm not Monday morning anything. You guys are out here making bold claims about social distancing, masks, other NPIs, vaccines, etc, and I'm asking for their known (or at least estimated) benefits/risks with sources. There are also alarming statements being made about hospitals - I'm trying to investing the truth of those claims as well.

[Cleverness]

This seems to be a pattern with these 2.

When asked which vaccine has ever had so many people die from the disease it was supposed to provide immunity against, their response was the 2018 flu vaccine that was 29% effective. A 29% effective vaccine is not a vaccine that is designed to provide immunity, but they cannot grasp that very simple concept and fail to provide any new example when they've been asked multiple times.

Given their love for using the flu vaccine as their example, they also couldn't answer how many people die to the flu each year who were fully vaccinated against it?

Rooster also never answered which vaccine has ever had it’s effectiveness wane to such low levels that you have to get it again in a matter of months.

Both are free to answer these questions, but their continual disappearing acts (or maybe inability to understand the basic question?) is telling.

@theman93

It really is. As I've shown time and time again, the slightest bit of cross-examination and these guys crumble. Ad hominem seems to be their go-to tactic now.

Them: "The hospitals are overwhelmed!"

Me: "Let's take a look at the data."

Them: "LMAO! Data? Idiot! Texas is huge! LMAO Common sense! LMAO!" "Imma dunk on you!! You don't have knowledge!! You don't even understand!"

[theman93]

The last sentence reads "This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose."

Broooooooo, your reading comprehension is gutter tier..........:roll:

Nevermind the fact that the paper is still in preprint and hasn't been peer reviewed........sit this one out.

Uhh you do realize that actually strengthens my argument and weakens yours right? This isn't a reading comprehension issue, this is a constant inability for you to understand a basic argument issue.

YOU are telling me how effective this vaccine is. If the vaccine is as effective as you claim, how come a fully (emphasis on the **fully** part) vaccinated individual as defined by the CDC (2 weeks after 2nd dose) has to get ANOTHER shot a few months AFTER they are defined as fully vaccinated? Which vaccine in the past has this been the case?

This paper doesn't even need to be peer reviewed to confirm what we're seeing (for example a 141% increase in deaths among the fully vaccinated over a 1 month period) and why it's already been established all over the globe that a 3rd shot must be administered or the vaccine becomes more and more useless over the course of a few months. Which vaccine in the past has this been the case?

[theman93]

LMAO You’re really confuse.:oldlol:


I handicapped your inadequacies with definitions to compensate with your deficit and still manage to fail.:facepalm


Let me put it in simple Layman term for you


0% efficacy = unvaccinated


I also put a reduction rate on Flu deaths and you still can’t figure it out


And incessantly mental *********e on your shortcoming


Let me spoon fed this in a simple count


Unvaccinated that are hospitalized from Flu is more like to die 2 to 5 times more than vaccinated


So if there is average 30 k Flu deaths annually


Unvaccinated -20 to 25 K deaths
Vaccinated - 5 to 10K deaths


Those are not the most important FACT. Flu is the most commoncause of hospitalization among our children and 8 out of 10 deaths attributed to flu are unvaccinated.


You can’t count, you can’t comprehend


You’re waste of time. :roll:

Fail. :facepalm :facepalm

Hospitalizations =/= death.

LINK me the data that proves of the amount of people that die from the flu 16-30% of them are vaccinated against it (as you claim).

[Cleverness]

Fail. :facepalm :facepalm

Hospitalizations =/= death.

LINK me the data that proves of the amount of people that die from the flu 16-30% of them are vaccinated against it (as you claim).

Data from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden-averted/2017-2018.htm

810,000 hospitalizations, and 61,000 deaths from influenza

~140,000,000 flu vaccinations (I suspect the vaccination rate is very high in the elderly, but don't have that data readily available).

"CDC estimates that influenza vaccination during the 2017–2018 influenza season prevented... 91,000 hospitalizations and 5,700 deaths associated with influenza"

In other words, ~140,000,000 vaccinations prevented an estimated 5,700 deaths associated with influenza. It's unclear how many of those "influenza associated" deaths would have occurred regardless of being "influenza associated".

Hope this helps. :cheers:

[theman93]

Honest question: are you willing to take booster shots every 6 months for the rest of your life for a disease that has a 99.7% survival rate for healthy adults and which barely reduces the rate of transmission? What about the fact that there is now new variants coming out that are supposedly escaping vaccines protection?

At what point do you think it is safe to learn to live with it the same way we are doing with the flu? Because i doubt we ever reached close to 75-80% of our population vaccinated against the flu on any given season.

"Anti vaxxers" didn't just appear overnight so you can't blame this ongoing pandemic on them and also make the claim that we eradicated some previous diseases because they weren't alive back then. The truth is this vaccine is simply subpar when compared to those other vaccines and didn't work like it was originally planned. This is why the CDC had to backtrack on their statements about vaccinated people not needing to isolate and wear mask indoors anymore.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html



This is the real reason why polio was eradicated. It was almost perfect at preventing infections and stopping the spread. The vaccinated people were basically immune.The main goal of the Covid vaccines trial was to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death for the vaccinated person. It didn't measure how much it stops transmission and it was known that it wouldn't give the person immunity.

Am i missing something here?

The only thing your missing is the moving goal post of "vaccinated" which you actually already addressed on page 4 and why they had to change the definition.

Couple that with the fact that "fully" means totally, completely, entirely, or wholly. The CDC defines an individual as fully vaccinated once it's been 2 weeks after the 2nd dose. If an individual is fully vaccinated 2 weeks after the 2nd dose, then a 3rd dose would not be needed. But it is.

So not only has the goal post moved on the actual definition of vaccinated, but so has the goal post for what is considered to be fully vaccinated.

Loco 50 and Rooster are of course good little sheep and have no issue with shifting goal posts and the totally coincidental timing of redefining what a vaccine is.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/71385122.jpg

[Loco 50]

Honest question: are you willing to take booster shots every 6 months for the rest of your life for a disease that has a 99.7% survival rate for healthy adults and which barely reduces the rate of transmission? What about the fact that there is now new variants coming out that are supposedly escaping vaccines protection?

Honest reply: I firmly believe that won't be necessary. Medicine tends to speak in a cya manner to the media and report things in a worst case scenario prognosis because when things end up worse people have to scramble. Unfortunately, laypeople don't understand that.

This is also why when you google search a certain symptom damn near every result will include cancer.....While it's true that many things can be symptomatic of cancer, it's difficult to convey the slim likelihood of that being your actual problem. But you don't want to be the doc that tells someone it ain't cancer, when it does in fact turn out to be cancer. That would not only feel really bad, but open you up to liability.

It also doesn't help when the media doesn't really understand what they're reporting, but eh, that's why it's best to go straight to the source if possible. Neither Foxnews, CNN, MSNBC can tell their elbow from their asshole in terms of medical reporting so they've only contributed to problems as far as I'm concerned.



At what point do you think it is safe to learn to live with it the same way we are doing with the flu? Because i doubt we ever reached close to 75-80% of our population vaccinated against the flu on any given season.

I believe we've already entered this phase, if you're vaccinated. From what I have read thus far, Omicron while extremely contagious is mild symptomatically. This is great news, if true. I believe the natural progression will be for this virus to continue to mutate into far less lethal strains and become essentially just another common cold we all deal with. The vaccinated population is already essentially there. The folks that end up dying are by and large, either unvaccinated or immunocompromised in some manner that has made them extremely vulnerable to covid. I am an eternal optimist however and could be wrong. It could easily mutate into something far more lethal which is why we'd prefer as many people to get vaccinated as possible. To mitigate mutation as much as possible.




"Anti vaxxers" didn't just appear overnight so you can't blame this ongoing pandemic on them and also make the claim that we eradicated some previous diseases because they weren't alive back then.

Definitely not solely their fault. They certainly do their best to slow things down however. The claim was not that anti-vaccers didn't exist back then, the claim was the vaccine prevails despite them.

In my opinion, it's best to think of a viral outbreak as a fire. If you stomp it out quickly damage is minimal. If you let it spread by ignoring it, shit gets out of hand quickly. Anti-vax stuff is essentially ignoring a fire.



The truth is this vaccine is simply subpar when compared to those other vaccines and didn't work like it was originally planned. This is why the CDC had to backtrack on their statements about vaccinated people not needing to isolate and wear mask indoors anymore.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-duration-protection.html

Nah. You've got unrealistic expectations for people that were working extremely quickly on a very new vaccine for a very initially fatal virus. The CDC can only report things that they know as they understand them in that moment. The very essence of research/science is that we will learn more with time and improve our response. But, that requires changing the message as well.

There's no way to prep for something as massive as this.....although, not denying it's a problem in the first place can help get things progressing more rapidly.




This is the real reason why polio was eradicated. It was almost perfect at preventing infections and stopping the spread. The vaccinated people were basically immune.The main goal of the Covid vaccines trial was to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death for the vaccinated person. It didn't measure how much it stops transmission and it was known that it wouldn't give the person immunity.

Am i missing something here?
Your timeline is what's missing.

You're missing the fact that polio was believed to be discovered in 1773.
First documented outbreak of polio in the United States in 1894.
Polio vaccine was invented in 1955.
Polio believed to be eradicated in the U.S. in 1979.

So it took well over 200 years of learning/research/experimenting/failure/disease/paralysis/death to completely overcome polio. That vaccine didn't start out at 95% percent efficacy.

Covid-19 was discovered we believe......2019.
The vaccines, while imperfect, created in 2020.

And you expect it to be as refined as the polio vaccine in a years time? Unrealistic.

You've got excellent and fair questions. Nice change for this place.

[theman93]

Data from the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden-averted/2017-2018.htm

810,000 hospitalizations, and 61,000 deaths from influenza

~140,000,000 flu vaccinations (I suspect the vaccination rate is very high in the elderly, but don't have that data readily available).

"CDC estimates that influenza vaccination during the 2017–2018 influenza season prevented... 91,000 hospitalizations and 5,700 deaths associated with influenza"

In other words, ~140,000,000 vaccinations prevented an estimated 5,700 deaths associated with influenza. It's unclear how many of those "influenza associated" deaths would have occurred regardless of being "influenza associated".

Hope this helps. :cheers:

Lmao. It seems the only people being dunked on balls to the face style here is Loco 50 and Rooster.

[Manny98]

https://i.postimg.cc/prmmjSxN/RDT-20211129-1132264549370826122409279.jpg

[SATAN]

Oh, he's one of these Fox News viewers. That explains it then.

[hiphopanonymous]

https://i.postimg.cc/prmmjSxN/RDT-20211129-1132264549370826122409279.jpg

I haven't read a single other conversation in this thread but glancing at this one comment do you know how life expectancy works? Everyone take their political glasses off and learn how to understand it: Tuckers data is almost certainly comparing the all-encompassing life expectancy chart of the UK (from BIRTH) which includes all the chances you might die in infancy / childhood / etc. And I doubt he understands that because he's more concerned about looking right for his 3 minute political segments than actually deep diving anything.

Let's say you've already made it to 80 years old? What's your life expectancy then? 81 right?

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Statistically bout 9 more years at least in the U.S. and my guess is that's not really different in the U.K. So if you've already made it to 80, you're likely to live 9 more years. (Unless of course you believe in the risk of things like Coronavirus, or just callously strike 80 year olds off since "81" is the age you expected an 80 year old to have died anyways based on aforementioned data you previously didn't understand).

Of all people who made it to 100 collectively even they have another 2.5 years life expectancy. Strange right? But it makes sense if you understand that it becomes exclusionary the older you get.

Life expency is a curve that changes as time goes by based on how old you already are and the longer you live (especially past certain milestone ages that were difficult for the rest of the population to make it to, like say, after the age of 80). Older you get the more likely you are to live longer than the "average life expency" because every moment you're alive you've made it past points other people involved in the all encompassing statistic (since birth) died via illness/accident/etc.

Why does this matter for the above pic? Even assuming Tuckers numbers are accurate for median / etc. We know Coronavirus affects elderly more than anyone else. So OF COURSE it's going to look like a high number. It kills young people at extremely disproportionately low rates so they don't even blip the chart and it's basically all heavily weighted towards the elderly.

Which as I pointed out if you make it to certain ages your life expectancy is actually a lot higher than "average". If you make it to 80 should you expect to drop off at 81 like a fly since 81 is the National Average? If you have a relative that is 81 should you tell them why bother taking any more health measures like cancer treatements, vaccinations, etc since you think they've reached the average? No because technically on average they had 8-10 more years they should be expecting to live because once you make it to 80 you've actually already survived a lot that kills younger folks. But Coronavirus seems to be a thing that is particularly effective at quickly killing people in this age range in spite of the surprising amount of years they still should be living. If of course, you believe it - knowing how polarizing this thread probably is I'm sure many don't.

[n00bie]

I haven't read a single other conversation in this thread but glancing at this one comment do you know how life expectancy works? Everyone take their political glasses off and learn how to understand it: Tuckers data is almost certainly comparing the all-encompassing life expectancy chart of the UK (from BIRTH) which includes all the chances you might die in infancy / childhood / etc. And I doubt he understands that because he's more concerned about looking right for his 3 minute political segments than actually deep diving anything.

Let's say you've already made it to 80 years old? What's your life expectancy then? 81 right?

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Statistically bout 9 more years at least in the U.S. and my guess is that's not really different in the U.K. So if you've already made it to 80, you're likely to live 9 more years. (Unless of course you believe in the risk of things like Coronavirus, or just callously strike 80 year olds off since "81" is the age you expected an 80 year old to have died anyways based on aforementioned data you previously didn't understand).

Of all people who made it to 100 collectively even they have another 2.5 years life expectancy. Strange right? But it makes sense if you understand that it becomes exclusionary the older you get.

Life expency is a curve that changes as time goes by based on how old you already are and the longer you live (especially past certain milestone ages that were difficult for the rest of the population to make it to, like say, after the age of 80). Older you get the more likely you are to live longer than the "average life expency" because every moment you're alive you've made it past points other people involved in the all encompassing statistic (since birth) died via illness/accident/etc.

Why does this matter for the above pic? Even assuming Tuckers numbers are accurate for median / etc. We know Coronavirus affects elderly more than anyone else. So OF COURSE it's going to look like a high number. It kills young people at extremely disproportionately low rates so they don't even blip the chart and it's basically all heavily weighted towards the elderly.

Which as I pointed out if you make it to certain ages your life expectancy is actually a lot higher than "average". If you make it to 80 should you expect to drop off at 81 like a fly since 81 is the National Average? If you have a relative that is 81 should you tell them why bother taking any more health measures like cancer treatements, vaccinations, etc since you think they've reached the average? No because technically on average they had 8-10 more years they should be expecting to live because once you make it to 80 you've actually already survived a lot that kills younger folks. But Coronavirus seems to be a thing that is particularly effective at quickly killing people in this age range in spite of the surprising amount of years they still should be living. If of course, you believe it - knowing how polarizing this thread probably is I'm sure many don't.

Some people in this thread might not have enough common sense to understand your post. All they care about are stats found on social media.

Old people don't matter to em. Wearing a face masks is too inconvenient if it only provides a small chance of protecting the elderly.

Why care about Covid when you're young right? Let the old people die.

[BurningHammer]

Some people in this thread might not have enough common sense to understand your post. All they care about are stats found on social media.

Old people don't matter to em. Wearing a face masks is too inconvenient if it only provides a small chance of protecting the elderly.

Why care about Covid when you're young right? Let the old people die.

So they probably are gonna commit suicide when they start to get old? :confusedshrug:

[jstern]

All of us here on ISH have known for well over a year that the average Corona death is over the average life expectancy. And the average deaths for many other disease is probably over the average life expectancy. I imagine that's also the case for the flu.

And that makes perfect sense, since 83 years old is an extreme age. The average person at that age, Corona or not, doesn't have much long to live. 30% of all Corona deaths are of those 85 years and older.

The question is, since it clearly doesn't affect younger people as much, especially kids. Is the response appropriate or agenda driven. Should whole economies be shut down, billions of dollars be spent on vaccinating kids, people lose their jobs, for a vaccine that doesn't even stop the spread.

[tpols]

https://i.postimg.cc/prmmjSxN/RDT-20211129-1132264549370826122409279.jpg

Wow... 83 years old. And that means roughly half the people were over that age... in their late 80s and 90s even. Pretty blatantly obvious that any old person that died of natural causes was simply listed COVID. That's why the ages match. (actually its ABOVE life expectancy... unreal) And we have 30 year olds on this board freaking out over it. Talks about chicken littles.

[Axe]

Some people in this thread might not have enough common sense to understand your post. All they care about are stats found on social media.

Old people don't matter to em. Wearing a face masks is too inconvenient if it only provides a small chance of protecting the elderly.

Why care about Covid when you're young right? Let the old people die.
And by not following some crucial mandates, they are also letting the virus spread more. Leading to more variants being discovered. Thus, leading to slower recovery, more people suffering and delayed herd immunity. I think a little restriction to some freedom won't hurt if everybody complied. But then again, many people are too retarded to grasp that and prefer things their own way.

[AKA_AAP]

And by not following some crucial mandates, they are also letting the virus spread more. Leading to more variants being discovered. Thus, leading to slower recovery, more people suffering and delayed herd immunity. I think a little restriction to some freedom won't hurt if everybody complied. But then again, many people are too retarded to grasp that and prefer things their own way.

"2020 Insidehoops ROTY" and 21k posts in less than 2 years. You consider this an accomplishment, a milestone to your life?

[BurningHammer]

"2020 Insidehoops ROTY" and 21k posts in less than 2 years. You consider this an accomplishment, a milestone to your life?

I love when trolls have no other choices but directly verbally attack people. :oldlol:

[Axe]

I love when trolls have no other choices but directly verbally attack people. :oldlol:
:lol

GOP fanboys usually resort to ad hominem whenever they can't properly counter arguments so what he did isn't surprising anymore.

[theman93]

And by not following some crucial mandates, they are also letting the virus spread more. Leading to more variants being discovered. Thus, leading to slower recovery, more people suffering and delayed herd immunity. I think a little restriction to some freedom won't hurt if everybody complied. But then again, many people are too retarded to grasp that and prefer things their own way.

Why would anyone with a functioning brain follow these blanket mandates when the CDC admits it has no evidence that people with natural immunity spread COVID? https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1458953737397948418?s=20

It's retards like you who follow these mandates blindly.

[Cleverness]

Some people in this thread might not have enough common sense to understand your post. All they care about are stats found on social media.

Old people don't matter to em. Wearing a face masks is too inconvenient if it only provides a small chance of protecting the elderly.

Why care about Covid when you're young right? Let the old people die.

What is the alternative?

When was the last pandemic virus with a median age of death above average life expectancy?

I read his post, but I think a lot of people don't realize
1) the median age of death with Covid-19 is very high
2) people overestimate their own risk
3) very old people (and especially old & frail) die all the time.
4) ~16 million people die of infectious diseases every year, ~160 million over the past 10 years, and nobody on this forum has given two ****s about it until Covid

Go check out a few thousand random charts of the people who died with Covid-19. Go check out a ID ward. I bet you'll find lots of old/frail people with weakened immune systems... lots diagnosed with sepsis/pneumonia on an IV cephalosporin + vanco about ready to pass or be transferred to hospice.

[Cleverness]

10x less likely to be hospitalized

10x less likely to die


Can you share your source for these claims?


do not bother with that resident idiot.


:lol

GOP fanboys usually resort to ad hominem whenever they can't properly counter arguments so what he did isn't surprising anymore.

Ad hominem seems to be their thing (BurningHammer, Rooster, Loco 50), but I don't think they're GOP. They make all kinds of bold claims and yet when it comes to basic cross examination they crumble and disappear.


Lmao. It seems the only people being dunked on balls to the face style here is Loco 50 and Rooster.

Several days later and those two still haven't answered the basic questions regarding NPIs and the vaccine effectiveness.

I asked about the vaccine - how much it reduces one's chances of being hospitalized w/ source(s). Still waiting for their response. :rolleyes:

Also asked about their assertions regarding NPIs, but they disappear over and over again. Really difficult for them to tell us the benefits of the bullshit that Trump, Fauci, Rooster, Loco 50, BurningHammer, etc keep pushing.

[Cleverness]

And by not following some crucial mandates, they are also letting the virus spread more. I think a little restriction to some freedom won't hurt if everybody complied. But then again, many people are too retarded to grasp that and prefer things their own way.

But we did use restrictions and continue to do so.

We've used up to 18+ months of:

-mass test and some trace
-stay-at-home orders
-business restrictions
-school closures
-mask mandates
-vaccine passports
-travel restrictions

Cumulatively, how many infections have each of those NPIs prevented so far?

[Axe]

Why would anyone with a functioning brain follow these blanket mandates when the CDC admits it has no evidence that people with natural immunity spread COVID? https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1458953737397948418?s=20

It's retards like you who follow these mandates blindly.
Lmao didn't you read what i said? I clearly indicated 'some mandates' that may be crucial. It could be something simple, like wearing face masks at all times whenever you're outside your home, in your workplace, inside other establishments, etc. Or requiring vaccinations for those who want to enjoy their privileges. I do agree that there are lots of other mandates that are shitty, tiresome and useless (like requiring negative test results for the fully vaccinated during leisure travels, etc.) but just because they are doesn't mean the most simple ones are as well. So go figure, coach.

[theman93]

Lmao didn't you read what i said? I clearly indicated 'some mandates' that may be crucial. It could be something simple, like wearing face masks at all times whenever you're outside your home, in your workplace, inside other establishments, etc. Or requiring vaccinations for those who want to enjoy their privileges. I do agree that there are lots of other mandates that are shitty, tiresome and useless (like requiring negative test results for the fully vaccinated during leisure travels, etc.) but just because they are doesn't mean the most simple ones are as well. So go figure, coach.

If the CDC has no evidence that people with natural immunity spread COVID, what is the point of blanket mandates such as universal masking and forced vaccinations in order to participate in society?

You're also confusing privileges with rights btw.

[Axe]

If the CDC has no evidence that people with natural immunity spread COVID, what is the point of blanket mandates such as universal masking and forced vaccinations in order to participate in society?
:facepalm

There are no strong evidences that ivermectin is effective as an alternative to the vaccine against fighting the virus either. :confusedshrug:


You're also confusing privileges with rights btw.
Eh maybe but you still get what i mean. That nowadays they give more incentives to the vaccinated compared to those who aren't.

[Loco 50]

Ad hominem seems to be their thing (BurningHammer, Rooster, Loco 50), but I don't think they're GOP. They make all kinds of bold claims and yet when it comes to basic cross examination they crumble and disappear.



Several days later and those two still haven't answered the basic questions regarding NPIs and the vaccine effectiveness.

I asked about the vaccine - how much it reduces one's chances of being hospitalized w/ source(s). Still waiting for their response. :rolleyes:

Also asked about their assertions regarding NPIs, but they disappear over and over again. Really difficult for them to tell us the benefits of the bullshit that Trump, Fauci, Rooster, Loco 50, BurningHammer, etc keep pushing.

:oldlol: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-epidemiology-virology-and-prevention?topicRef=129849&source=related_link

Seek and you and op shall find, my functionally illiterate friends.

[theman93]

:facepalm

There are no strong evidences that ivermectin is effective as an alternative to the vaccine against fighting the virus either. :confusedshrug:

Except I am not the one demanding people's rights be stripped if they don't take ivermectin. You on the other hand are.

Also, there are a multitude of peer reviewed double blind RCT's showing ivermectin as an effective treatment. So your statement is false.


Eh maybe but you still get what i mean. That nowadays they give more incentives to the vaccinated compared to those who aren't.

Rights aren't the governments to give. They are inherent. You should read the United States Constitution sometime.

[Loco 50]

Except I am not the one demanding people's rights be stripped if they don't take ivermectin. You on the other hand are.

Also, there are a multitude of peer reviewed double blind RCT's showing ivermectin as an effective treatment. So your statement is false.

No. There aren't.

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-management-in-hospitalized-adults

Others — Many other agents with known or putative antiviral or immunomodulating effects have been proposed for use in patients with COVID-19 but have insufficient evidence of clinical benefit. Use of these agents for COVID-19 should be limited to clinical trials, if used at all; their efficacy has not been proven, and extensive off-label use may result in excess toxicity and critical shortages of drugs for proven indications. A registry of international clinical trials can be found at covid-trials.org, as well as on the WHO website and at clinicaltrials.gov.


Ivermectin – In patients with COVID-19, we reserve ivermectin for prevention of Strongyloides reactivation in select individuals receiving glucocorticoids (see "Strongyloidiasis", section on 'Preventive treatment'). We do not use ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, as with other interventions that are not supported by high-quality data, consistent with recommendations from the WHO [3]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ivermectin with placebo or standard of care have highlighted that the data on ivermectin for COVID-19 are of low quality [51,52,110,111]. As an example, in a meta-analysis of 16 trials evaluating ivermectin (only four included patients with severe disease), the effects on mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospitalization were all very uncertain because of limitations in trial design and low numbers of events [51]. Although some meta-analyses have suggested clinical benefit (including mortality benefit) with ivermectin [112-114], these analyses pooled trials with active comparators (such as hydroxychloroquine), with unclear ascertainment of infection and disease severity, and with uncertain outcome assessment, all of which contribute further to low confidence in the findings; one large unpublished trial that suggested a mortality benefit and was included in these meta-analyses was subsequently removed by the preprint server [115]. Although ivermectin administered in a hospital setting has not been associated with excess serious adverse events in studies, gastrointestinal and neurologic side effects have been reported in individuals who obtained ivermectin at high or uncertain doses without prescription (eg, from internet or veterinary sources) [116]. Ivermectin had originally been proposed as a potential therapy based on in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2; however, the drug levels used in the in vitro studies far exceed those achieved in vivo with safe drug doses [117].

[Axe]

Except I am not the one demanding people's rights be stripped if they don't take ivermectin. You on the other hand are.

Also, there are a multitude of peer reviewed double blind RCT's showing ivermectin as an effective treatment. So your statement is false.



Rights aren't the governments to give. They are inherent. You should read the United States Constitution sometime.
Coach..

Through this response of yours, you're only showing to us that you really are a snowflake lmao.

[theman93]

No. There aren't.

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-management-in-hospitalized-adults

Others — Many other agents with known or putative antiviral or immunomodulating effects have been proposed for use in patients with COVID-19 but have insufficient evidence of clinical benefit. Use of these agents for COVID-19 should be limited to clinical trials, if used at all; their efficacy has not been proven, and extensive off-label use may result in excess toxicity and critical shortages of drugs for proven indications. A registry of international clinical trials can be found at covid-trials.org, as well as on the WHO website and at clinicaltrials.gov.


Ivermectin – In patients with COVID-19, we reserve ivermectin for prevention of Strongyloides reactivation in select individuals receiving glucocorticoids (see "Strongyloidiasis", section on 'Preventive treatment'). We do not use ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, as with other interventions that are not supported by high-quality data, consistent with recommendations from the WHO [3]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ivermectin with placebo or standard of care have highlighted that the data on ivermectin for COVID-19 are of low quality [51,52,110,111]. As an example, in a meta-analysis of 16 trials evaluating ivermectin (only four included patients with severe disease), the effects on mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospitalization were all very uncertain because of limitations in trial design and low numbers of events [51]. Although some meta-analyses have suggested clinical benefit (including mortality benefit) with ivermectin [112-114], these analyses pooled trials with active comparators (such as hydroxychloroquine), with unclear ascertainment of infection and disease severity, and with uncertain outcome assessment, all of which contribute further to low confidence in the findings; one large unpublished trial that suggested a mortality benefit and was included in these meta-analyses was subsequently removed by the preprint server [115]. Although ivermectin administered in a hospital setting has not been associated with excess serious adverse events in studies, gastrointestinal and neurologic side effects have been reported in individuals who obtained ivermectin at high or uncertain doses without prescription (eg, from internet or veterinary sources) [116]. Ivermectin had originally been proposed as a potential therapy based on in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2; however, the drug levels used in the in vitro studies far exceed those achieved in vivo with safe drug doses [117].

Yes. There are.

https://ejmo.org/pdf/A%20Comparative%20Study%20on%20IvermectinDoxycycli ne%20and%20HydroxychloroquineAzithromycin%20Therap y%20on%20COVID19%20Patients-16263.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03000605211013550

https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/272991/1-s2.0-S1201971220X00166/1-s2.0-S1201971220325066/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEEgaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQDV 3u6mmers0mcPGwq0LOWS9SCkh0tA%2BGAJD10kPq1HygIgZMc4 WeeEtoju8E%2FXO%2BcmTbe5qkazaInJsYKTo9W2Wkkq%2BgMI IRAEGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDDyYvPZuFRu1I%2BsnLCrXA72Q 13uJYLbIJjw3qbmJMjxE5wTdOhLYmBMP9zvNv%2FbyM5iifHbQ RPSgUaFST%2Fjf1pkFxliC%2FjeWN2efHZI2lHpU7QZEllRaRz KvQprGCqyYgWPzZ7Sak5u6dbf0oClPOsMwT%2F%2B3Ri%2BmSS uTA0xJGrEV1jKxgjvlZ93Cly1EXbZLfDC1Iw6nLHx9vK%2FWPi bDgFDConJQ2J%2FnIr27aJml3imbNknZAq93e2hOvitsa01XOQ 4Ey4zbPQcAab1z7XQBV3%2B%2F84VqcEJF5w8fmtbTaptm7IzH I9wo%2F1AaVo8IxCZgr0%2BkbMfj8tApUmwLVd8mMbsMBkFpDy KBfwiTAA5r4loIbhAkumq06BMP7rGQXo4xyQf2nbmN64vNIhcn sJ8%2BMPsulxgDfI5hdLQsRJvKbOToo60sWsd9gMjDyEjblCai GCFDXnaoYp3sqvQ86%2FveuEw5syflD7R%2BEBeFxYRZki87rW HJEfbB%2FX15t3WZRoB%2B8tF8eHG3D5XOfX7aT8m%2FTp6wUQ xhamt75g1A%2FqCWM5Y7SMP%2FpXeo%2FnLDRWhXRONakA4f5B hrKDDch70m3UDbGVVx%2BHnKGWkeTzgx5zS5iveBEll431Oh6B DnREkxlXYgsN2nzJn6%2BjCOlaCNBjqlARR97kelhEK99eu0Mh ZeDbLjj%2BHsifhVWEXe2gxMekCN4Rkf3BKZIkqFiqZJaH0or3 sKRU7g%2BS44gcdv5QKOtiLUgKv1LXlLh5Ej4Xt6Hru6Jsl9kH zHuYj%2BEngXmZF9uzJTjlq7vXxZQMgq%2BxVs%2FZ41RpsqXm aM7sOJcFkQ%2Fz80GiST%2B5rpOl0vMILy1wnTs69TtvR0ZN6R fHjsHy9xAYX4QPglJw%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20211202T004618Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYWWWQ2RPM%2F20211202%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=07ae5cdefcdc1c0b65ccdd5f6f074e7f7ccdce9d bfe759d697f5ff1d02831fe2&hash=a03c705168b31b149809fca1049b5af54548c201287b9 d592fa3389a0cac433a&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd08 6a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1201971220325066&tid=spdf-22f80fec-192a-4228-833c-d78c1e3c60ac&sid=dcb8152e4e38d-424e-adc4-b840f3faa55cgxrqa&type=client

https://watermark.silverchair.com/hcab035.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3 ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAt8wggLbBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggLMMI ICyAIBADCCAsEGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM tzAGAm097_wddbsQAgEQgIICkj6hFsv8aBxJkZ0FIkIZUSXu6g HviRX1pPoYkmDbFKfv65koVQIEn9mSZoFs0rCnJmcIOPBypR60 JaP7WUFr29wFEiS8YqMi7Mwayj316tvl3f4f7-t3YrFE0MZPvTbWnKK68_c3LNH6oBdQ1LwR-Yg_VJg7e0S6pLIcJ7vNF9poLpQqhnr83J_d-HPKiFdSFSqGKyY80SfFe1k6tDr6QNVrEIGsWqtXrf7TNHCB2do U20LwguQtBuqLzZ3wYBoRZ_H1VPhdXt_iiQ-HR8mI0P6NoPDmpyD4DLMCP2104JbJIvDsAtGQ_2806fLyVFCE-uciP7VHdr9gbN8e2r8fiveYFWdLdxrnMcU2T7XkbaBe8BZViPu BfEhUsrBycIpy3mQyoT607lccOfFmQ6eOIWnA1ETeh2zx7ch1A blr1OEp7sKvjA8y63yGcI1mIspuA4Tt1G9yX_kj_EbteUa2E2f apq-6Fnb4C839GilpneihZrhc1N-H6ti6uefu9Jja5OLMMtG4Tad-SClsk-aLV6HSj0vehsmtIbDTC69RoqLDDchEFHU2Ov_QP190VWbZRGkd jMTnK-33gBc7ex5XR4zif8smgW8ZFtcYBY0975GhTX5H69IgQP6b90FR zTibKV9EAHeXf4BAieB33HSbyGsfztehwZtxXVsvPmWjC9Hf31 FEXEeOpx1Ri89CfOr9ZHQdeJ3QwqFJ2doe-tGY9H474D3yK_WEm8iNRKTsrEcGZvtGM0riNn27YNBPhkuemD9 h_VwCsFY5-lPNTE3ZcARhnAJ64-kno7ncW-5DbJviLRg-v2nKN_2Sy66_zrIe1aOhr5fy5boSEL9uKLPI79IJ4jUojIusX2 c4wkr64OeuQfQ

Also, which vaccine has ever been so effective that it wears off in a matter of months?

[theman93]

Coach..

Through this response of yours, you're only showing to us that you really are a snowflake lmao.

No, you just can't justify your position. Feel free to answer the question this time without deflecting:


If the CDC has no evidence that people with natural immunity spread COVID, what is the point of blanket mandates such as universal masking and forced vaccinations in order to participate in society?

[Loco 50]

Yes. There are.

https://ejmo.org/pdf/A%20Comparative%20Study%20on%20IvermectinDoxycycli ne%20and%20HydroxychloroquineAzithromycin%20Therap y%20on%20COVID19%20Patients-16263.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03000605211013550

https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/272991/1-s2.0-S1201971220X00166/1-s2.0-S1201971220325066/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEEgaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQDV 3u6mmers0mcPGwq0LOWS9SCkh0tA%2BGAJD10kPq1HygIgZMc4 WeeEtoju8E%2FXO%2BcmTbe5qkazaInJsYKTo9W2Wkkq%2BgMI IRAEGgwwNTkwMDM1NDY4NjUiDDyYvPZuFRu1I%2BsnLCrXA72Q 13uJYLbIJjw3qbmJMjxE5wTdOhLYmBMP9zvNv%2FbyM5iifHbQ RPSgUaFST%2Fjf1pkFxliC%2FjeWN2efHZI2lHpU7QZEllRaRz KvQprGCqyYgWPzZ7Sak5u6dbf0oClPOsMwT%2F%2B3Ri%2BmSS uTA0xJGrEV1jKxgjvlZ93Cly1EXbZLfDC1Iw6nLHx9vK%2FWPi bDgFDConJQ2J%2FnIr27aJml3imbNknZAq93e2hOvitsa01XOQ 4Ey4zbPQcAab1z7XQBV3%2B%2F84VqcEJF5w8fmtbTaptm7IzH I9wo%2F1AaVo8IxCZgr0%2BkbMfj8tApUmwLVd8mMbsMBkFpDy KBfwiTAA5r4loIbhAkumq06BMP7rGQXo4xyQf2nbmN64vNIhcn sJ8%2BMPsulxgDfI5hdLQsRJvKbOToo60sWsd9gMjDyEjblCai GCFDXnaoYp3sqvQ86%2FveuEw5syflD7R%2BEBeFxYRZki87rW HJEfbB%2FX15t3WZRoB%2B8tF8eHG3D5XOfX7aT8m%2FTp6wUQ xhamt75g1A%2FqCWM5Y7SMP%2FpXeo%2FnLDRWhXRONakA4f5B hrKDDch70m3UDbGVVx%2BHnKGWkeTzgx5zS5iveBEll431Oh6B DnREkxlXYgsN2nzJn6%2BjCOlaCNBjqlARR97kelhEK99eu0Mh ZeDbLjj%2BHsifhVWEXe2gxMekCN4Rkf3BKZIkqFiqZJaH0or3 sKRU7g%2BS44gcdv5QKOtiLUgKv1LXlLh5Ej4Xt6Hru6Jsl9kH zHuYj%2BEngXmZF9uzJTjlq7vXxZQMgq%2BxVs%2FZ41RpsqXm aM7sOJcFkQ%2Fz80GiST%2B5rpOl0vMILy1wnTs69TtvR0ZN6R fHjsHy9xAYX4QPglJw%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20211202T004618Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYWWWQ2RPM%2F20211202%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=07ae5cdefcdc1c0b65ccdd5f6f074e7f7ccdce9d bfe759d697f5ff1d02831fe2&hash=a03c705168b31b149809fca1049b5af54548c201287b9 d592fa3389a0cac433a&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd08 6a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1201971220325066&tid=spdf-22f80fec-192a-4228-833c-d78c1e3c60ac&sid=dcb8152e4e38d-424e-adc4-b840f3faa55cgxrqa&type=client

https://watermark.silverchair.com/hcab035.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3 ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAt8wggLbBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggLMMI ICyAIBADCCAsEGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM tzAGAm097_wddbsQAgEQgIICkj6hFsv8aBxJkZ0FIkIZUSXu6g HviRX1pPoYkmDbFKfv65koVQIEn9mSZoFs0rCnJmcIOPBypR60 JaP7WUFr29wFEiS8YqMi7Mwayj316tvl3f4f7-t3YrFE0MZPvTbWnKK68_c3LNH6oBdQ1LwR-Yg_VJg7e0S6pLIcJ7vNF9poLpQqhnr83J_d-HPKiFdSFSqGKyY80SfFe1k6tDr6QNVrEIGsWqtXrf7TNHCB2do U20LwguQtBuqLzZ3wYBoRZ_H1VPhdXt_iiQ-HR8mI0P6NoPDmpyD4DLMCP2104JbJIvDsAtGQ_2806fLyVFCE-uciP7VHdr9gbN8e2r8fiveYFWdLdxrnMcU2T7XkbaBe8BZViPu BfEhUsrBycIpy3mQyoT607lccOfFmQ6eOIWnA1ETeh2zx7ch1A blr1OEp7sKvjA8y63yGcI1mIspuA4Tt1G9yX_kj_EbteUa2E2f apq-6Fnb4C839GilpneihZrhc1N-H6ti6uefu9Jja5OLMMtG4Tad-SClsk-aLV6HSj0vehsmtIbDTC69RoqLDDchEFHU2Ov_QP190VWbZRGkd jMTnK-33gBc7ex5XR4zif8smgW8ZFtcYBY0975GhTX5H69IgQP6b90FR zTibKV9EAHeXf4BAieB33HSbyGsfztehwZtxXVsvPmWjC9Hf31 FEXEeOpx1Ri89CfOr9ZHQdeJ3QwqFJ2doe-tGY9H474D3yK_WEm8iNRKTsrEcGZvtGM0riNn27YNBPhkuemD9 h_VwCsFY5-lPNTE3ZcARhnAJ64-kno7ncW-5DbJviLRg-v2nKN_2Sy66_zrIe1aOhr5fy5boSEL9uKLPI79IJ4jUojIusX2 c4wkr64OeuQfQ

Also, which vaccine has ever been so effective that it wears off in a matter of months?

No. There aren't.

The authors of each paper already copped to the limitations of there papers in their own discussions. So they agreed to this statement I already highlighted for you.


Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ivermectin with placebo or standard of care have highlighted that the data on ivermectin for COVID-19 are of low quality [51,52,110,111].



There are several vaccines that require a series of shots before a person is considered fully immunized.

Varicella, HPV, Hep A and B, Meningococcus, Haemophilus B among others. Besides the annual flu vaccine that has already been mentioned that you continue to have some bizarro miscomprehension of it's actual function.

This discussion is above your paygrade so on the occasion that you post some dumb shit in the future and I'm unfortunate enough to see it or care about it, I'll just post a link from experts disputing your claims and not waste any more time on back and forth. Tks.

[theman93]

No. There aren't.

The authors of each paper already copped to the limitations of there papers in their own discussions. So they agreed to this statement I already highlighted for you.

Wrong. I never argued the studies were or were not limited. You're attacking a straw man and failing to understand the argument, again.

I argued they showed ivm is shown to be effective, which it was, which is why the call for larger studies were made.


There are several vaccines that require a series of shots before a person is considered fully immunized.

Varicella, HPV, Hep A and B, Meningococcus, Haemophilus B among others. Besides the annual flu vaccine that has already been mentioned that you continue to have some bizarro miscomprehension of it's actual function.

This discussion is above your paygrade so on the occasion that you post some dumb shit in the future and I'm unfortunate enough to see it or care about it, I'll just post a link from experts disputing your claims and not waste any more time on back and forth. Tks.

Another failure to understand a basic question.

I didn't ask you how many shots are needed for full immunization. I asked you which vaccine has been so effective it wears off in months

Btw I stopped reading at Varicella as it turns out your clueless :lol :lol. You may want to read up on it's duration of protection (hint: it's longer than a few months like the covid vaccines: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/varicella/hcp-effective-duration.htm).

[Loco 50]

Flawed studies don't carry much water.

Vaccine effectiveness drop is not huge but is mitigated by a 3rd shot for those that are more in need. Call it a booster or call it a 3rd in a series. Makes a difference to nobody that matters.

[theman93]

Flawed studies don't carry much water.

Vaccine effectiveness drop is not huge but is mitigated by a 3rd shot for those that are more in need. Call it a booster or call it a 3rd in a series. Makes a difference to nobody that matters.

A 31-73% drop in effectiveness isn’t huge? You’re just lying at this point lmao.


The Moderna two-dose vaccine went from being 89% effective in March to 58% effective in September, according to a story about the study in theLos Angeles Times.

Meanwhile, the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine went from being 87% effective to 45% effective over the same time period.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine showed the biggest drop -- from 86% effectiveness to 13% over those 6 months.

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20211105/covid-vaccine-protection-drops-study

And no, a 3rd shot is recommended to all adults by the CDC, not just those that are more in need.

[theman93]

And speaking of the ineffective Ivermectin :lol...


An Illinois family whose loved one was "desperately ill" and hospitalized earlier this month with COVID-19 says he's now home and doing well after a judge had to order a Naperville hospital to treat him with Ivermectin.

On Nov. 8, the family won a legal battle to gain approval to administer the controversial drug to 71-year-old Sun Ng, who had been on a ventilator since October 19.

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/illinois-family-credits-ivermectin-with-saving-life-of-father-hospitalized-with-covid-19

[Axe]

No, you just can't justify your position. Feel free to answer the question this time without deflecting:
Coach..

What the cdc said doesn't affect me big time as you do tho. And like i said, i have no problems with following some simple mandates, the ones that you call "blanket". But if it's hard for you then that's your problem. I won't force you on that because you seem to value your so-called precious freedom too much.

[Cleverness]

:oldlol: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-epidemiology-virology-and-prevention?topicRef=129849&source=related_link

Seek and you and op shall find, my functionally illiterate friends.

I asked for how much it reduces one's chances of being hospitalized - not how much it reduces one's chances of being hospitalized with Covid-19.

Try again my illiterate friend.

We've also asked you how many infections each NPI that you support has prevented so far in the US. We're still waiting on that data as well.

[ThRRR3tardSatan]

I continue to wonder why are they making daily threads on covid.. It's not like anyone is listening to them. They are in the small minority yelling at the top of their lungs to be taken seriously.

Facts:
As of yesterday, 3.31 billion are fully vaccinated and 7.74 billion covid vaccines have been injected so far.
If you are making new threads daily on covid/vaccines, the vast majority beyond your little group doesn't give a sh!t about what you think or feel.

You deserve to die of blood clots and heart failure.

[Axe]

You deserve to die of blood clots and heart failure.
Yikes, who made this miserable dup.

[bladefd]

You deserve to die of blood clots and heart failure.

Facts (updated):
As of yesterday, 3.53 billion are fully vaccinated and 8.3 billion covid vaccines have been injected so far.
If you are making new threads daily on covid/vaccines or alt accounts, the vast majority beyond your little group doesn't give a sh!t about what you think or feel.

source: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_WRL

[BurningHammer]

You deserve to die of blood clots and heart failure.

A sad state of some ISHers.

[warriorfan]

Vax cuck fats absolutely fuming right now :roll:

[SATAN]

A sad state of some ISHers.

:oldlol:

[Cleverness]

Well, it's been 24 days since I asked ITT (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?499467-Over-70-of-COVID-deaths-in-UK-are-fully-vaccinated-during-month-of-September&p=14482340&viewfull=1#post14482340) and Loco and Rooster (and tontoz, lol) still haven't answered what the absolute risk reduction of hospitalization and death is after becoming vaccinated.

[GimmeThat]

lets just say that a show, comprised of English actors/actress, won several awards including the Emmy, while having a plot line where the father is upset at the child for killing his mother during birth, then followed such act by sleeping with the same women the child slept with.

in what world would people not deserve to die after being vaxed?


how ****ed in the head can you be, to actually move your hands/finger to write that out, word by word.