Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
This was just too much fun not to post. They recently released the raw data from the Bangladesh mask study. This is a fun read of the mathematical problems behind it. Quick dumbdown is they concluded "masks work!' based on extrapolating a handful of cases. Interesting discussion too which dad4 and I have delved into between reduction in cases and efficiency. I look forward to dad4's critique.
Revisiting the Bangladesh Mask RCT.
Musings on systems, information, learning, and optimization.
www.argmin.net
E=Mc2 is another bs math magician nonsense. I can't wait to teach everyone on here that everything is "zero" and not 1+1. Magnetism is the truth, not stupid Einstein WHO only ate Ice Cream and was just an actor. Dude was used as some genius's who used more of his left side of his brain ((ego)) then others and help helped then create a monster bomb to kill. Oh boy, what a place to live in fear.....
Rogan had Gupta on his show after all. It's not Rogan's fault that Gupta embarrassed himself. True, Gupta did not have a home field advantage, but if anything Gupta embarrassed himself because he's not used to debating outside the echo chamber like CNN. It's the reason the View ladies beclown themselves when they are outside their forum too and veto hard debating conservatives in the right leaning seat or strong conservative guests. On the left, figures that regularly challenge themselves with opposing views, like Maher, or Ana Kasparian (who held her own and even did better in a recent debate with Ben Shapiro) do well.
Too many players are grabbing at their chest. This did not happen before, right?
Nothing to see here! Just another football player collapsing on the pitch!
Video taken from COVID VACCINE VICTIMS AND FAMILIES. - Adama Treore went down clutching at his chest, mainstream media are reporting ‘chest pains’. Telegram: https://t.me/covid19vaccinevictims
www.bitchute.com
Help!!!
Santa Cruz County in California issued a mask mandate for all indoor settings, including private homes, ahead of the holiday season.
The mandate went into effect at 11:59 p.m. on November 21 and requires “all individuals to wear a face covering when indoors regardless of vaccination status.”
“Unfortunately, a potential winter surge appears to be a significant threat to the health and safety of our community,” said Santa Cruz County Health Officer Dr. Gail Newel in the announcement. “As we look forward to spending time with those we love during the holidays, it is important to protect vulnerable friends and family members by wearing a mask indoors.
Santa Cruz County in California issued a mask mandate for all indoor settings, including private homes, ahead of the holiday season.
The mandate went into effect at 11:59 p.m. on November 21 and requires “all individuals to wear a face covering when indoors regardless of vaccination status.”
“Unfortunately, a potential winter surge appears to be a significant threat to the health and safety of our community,” said Santa Cruz County Health Officer Dr. Gail Newel in the announcement. “As we look forward to spending time with those we love during the holidays, it is important to protect vulnerable friends and family members by wearing a mask indoors.
met61
GOLD
...left vs. liberal point...classic liberals like Maher are realizing the left is a cancer and rapidly taking over the party... whereas, The View clowns are the left's useful idiot foot soldiers.
...I for one look forward to VA on a National scale next year.
Bruddah IZ
DA
More on the Age Distribution of Covid's Victims
Don Boudreaux
Here’s a slightly modified version of a comment that I left at EconLog on this post by Thomas Firey – a post in which Firey argues that official Covid death counts are likely not overestimated.
Tom:
Your analysis here is solid and important. Thanks for doing it. (While I still have some lingering worry about possible distortions introduced into the data by the point raised by commenter DeservingPorcupine, your analysis significantly weakens my suspicion that the premium paid to hospitals for each Medicare patient listed as having Covid creates a serious over counting of Covid deaths.)
But I want to warn against a possible, although unintentional, misimpression created when you write that
though COVID’s dead were predominantly aged, it doesn’t appear that much of that death toll can be dismissed as simply depriving a few weeks of life from already-deteriorating victims. Again, half-a-million-plus more people died in 2020 than 2019.
“Predominantly” is an understatement. A more-accurate descriptor is “overwhelmingly.” According the latest CDC data, more than half – 52 percent – of Covid deaths in the U.S. are of people 75 years old and older, with 27 percent of Covid deaths being of people 85 years old and older.
Seventy-five percent of Covid deaths in America are of people retirement age (65) and older.
On the other side, only 7 percent of Covid deaths are of people below the age of 50.
Also, the argument made by those of us who insist on the relevance of the undeniable and very steep age gradient of Covid’s serious health consequences does not rest on any claim that most Covid deaths are of people whose remaining life expectancies were only a few weeks. For example, the typical 85-year-old in the U.S. can expect to live about another six or seven years. And so while Covid is more likely to kill an 85-year-old who is unusually ill for his or her age (than to kill a healthier 85-year-old), it’s still unlikely that the typical elderly person killed by Covid had only a few weeks of life remaining. That person likely had several months or even a few years of life remaining.
Covid is real and it really kills. And such a loss of life is, of course, unfortunate. No serious person ignores these deaths or wants them to be “dismissed” as unimportant. Yet two related realities loom that too many people ignored since early 2020.
The first of these realities is that a disease that overwhelmingly reserves most of its dangers for the elderly should be recognized as such, especially by policymakers and people in the media. But this reality was played down and even ignored, while others who acknowledged this reality denied its relevance. Even now many people act – and seem to believe – that Covid’s risks are general. The mania for closing schools, masking children, and mandating vaccination very much reflect, I think, the public’s continuing failure to understand that Covid poses little risk to the bulk of the population, and virtually no risk at all to children and young adults.
The fact that the typical elderly person killed by Covid had, at the time of his or her death, an expected life span of more than a few weeks is true enough, but it doesn’t begin to nullify the relevance of the reality that the great bulk of Covid’s dangers are reserved for the elderly.
The second of these realities is that the failure to recognize and act on the distinct age profile of Covid’s effects means that the response to Covid was not only disproportionate to the danger posed by the SARS-Cov-2 pathogen to the general population, but likely harmful to the vulnerable population.
Resources are scarce. By spending these resources indiscriminately across the entire population, these resources were not concentrated – “Focused” (as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration wisely recommended) – on where they would have the greatest positive benefits.
The following analogy (like any other analogy) isn’t perfect, but it conveys an important truth. Suppose that category 5 hurricane Mortimer devastates New Orleans. If so, the appropriate response is to concentrate emergency supplies on that city. A wholly inappropriate response would be to declare as a disaster area the entire United States and send emergency supplies indiscriminately across the country. If the latter course were taken, the toll of death and destruction from Mortimer in New Orleans would wind up being worse than if the emergency response and supplies were focused on that city.
Also scarce are human attention and fellow-feeling. And so just as calamitously as the failure to focus material resources on the vulnerable, by treating Covid as if everyone is at equal risk of suffering from it, human attention and fellow-feeling were spread too thinly. A mother who believes that her fifteen-year-old son and her 45-year-old husband – and she herself – are as likely to die from Covid as are her 75-year-old parents will not concentrate as much of her loving attention and concern on her parents as she would were she aware that she, her husband, and her son are at much less risk of suffering from Covid than are her parents.
No one will ever be able to say for sure if – and if so, how many – lives were failed to be saved by the indiscriminate, unfocused response to Covid (as opposed to the focused response recommended by the Great Barrington Declaration – and by many public-health experts prior to 2020). But I can’t believe that this number is small.
Don Boudreaux
Here’s a slightly modified version of a comment that I left at EconLog on this post by Thomas Firey – a post in which Firey argues that official Covid death counts are likely not overestimated.
Tom:
Your analysis here is solid and important. Thanks for doing it. (While I still have some lingering worry about possible distortions introduced into the data by the point raised by commenter DeservingPorcupine, your analysis significantly weakens my suspicion that the premium paid to hospitals for each Medicare patient listed as having Covid creates a serious over counting of Covid deaths.)
But I want to warn against a possible, although unintentional, misimpression created when you write that
though COVID’s dead were predominantly aged, it doesn’t appear that much of that death toll can be dismissed as simply depriving a few weeks of life from already-deteriorating victims. Again, half-a-million-plus more people died in 2020 than 2019.
“Predominantly” is an understatement. A more-accurate descriptor is “overwhelmingly.” According the latest CDC data, more than half – 52 percent – of Covid deaths in the U.S. are of people 75 years old and older, with 27 percent of Covid deaths being of people 85 years old and older.
Seventy-five percent of Covid deaths in America are of people retirement age (65) and older.
On the other side, only 7 percent of Covid deaths are of people below the age of 50.
Also, the argument made by those of us who insist on the relevance of the undeniable and very steep age gradient of Covid’s serious health consequences does not rest on any claim that most Covid deaths are of people whose remaining life expectancies were only a few weeks. For example, the typical 85-year-old in the U.S. can expect to live about another six or seven years. And so while Covid is more likely to kill an 85-year-old who is unusually ill for his or her age (than to kill a healthier 85-year-old), it’s still unlikely that the typical elderly person killed by Covid had only a few weeks of life remaining. That person likely had several months or even a few years of life remaining.
Covid is real and it really kills. And such a loss of life is, of course, unfortunate. No serious person ignores these deaths or wants them to be “dismissed” as unimportant. Yet two related realities loom that too many people ignored since early 2020.
The first of these realities is that a disease that overwhelmingly reserves most of its dangers for the elderly should be recognized as such, especially by policymakers and people in the media. But this reality was played down and even ignored, while others who acknowledged this reality denied its relevance. Even now many people act – and seem to believe – that Covid’s risks are general. The mania for closing schools, masking children, and mandating vaccination very much reflect, I think, the public’s continuing failure to understand that Covid poses little risk to the bulk of the population, and virtually no risk at all to children and young adults.
The fact that the typical elderly person killed by Covid had, at the time of his or her death, an expected life span of more than a few weeks is true enough, but it doesn’t begin to nullify the relevance of the reality that the great bulk of Covid’s dangers are reserved for the elderly.
The second of these realities is that the failure to recognize and act on the distinct age profile of Covid’s effects means that the response to Covid was not only disproportionate to the danger posed by the SARS-Cov-2 pathogen to the general population, but likely harmful to the vulnerable population.
Resources are scarce. By spending these resources indiscriminately across the entire population, these resources were not concentrated – “Focused” (as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration wisely recommended) – on where they would have the greatest positive benefits.
The following analogy (like any other analogy) isn’t perfect, but it conveys an important truth. Suppose that category 5 hurricane Mortimer devastates New Orleans. If so, the appropriate response is to concentrate emergency supplies on that city. A wholly inappropriate response would be to declare as a disaster area the entire United States and send emergency supplies indiscriminately across the country. If the latter course were taken, the toll of death and destruction from Mortimer in New Orleans would wind up being worse than if the emergency response and supplies were focused on that city.
Also scarce are human attention and fellow-feeling. And so just as calamitously as the failure to focus material resources on the vulnerable, by treating Covid as if everyone is at equal risk of suffering from it, human attention and fellow-feeling were spread too thinly. A mother who believes that her fifteen-year-old son and her 45-year-old husband – and she herself – are as likely to die from Covid as are her 75-year-old parents will not concentrate as much of her loving attention and concern on her parents as she would were she aware that she, her husband, and her son are at much less risk of suffering from Covid than are her parents.
No one will ever be able to say for sure if – and if so, how many – lives were failed to be saved by the indiscriminate, unfocused response to Covid (as opposed to the focused response recommended by the Great Barrington Declaration – and by many public-health experts prior to 2020). But I can’t believe that this number is small.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Mandates are the hype.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wonder why You Tube turned off the comments and there are no "dislikes".
Bruddah IZ
DA
The use of cloth facemasks in community settings has become an accepted public policy response to decrease disease transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet evidence of facemask efficacy is based primarily on observational studies that are subject to confounding and on mechanistic studies that rely on surrogate endpoints (such as droplet dispersion) as proxies for disease transmission. The available clinical evidence of facemask efficacy is of low quality and the best available clinical evidence has mostly failed to show efficacy, with fourteen of sixteen identified randomized controlled trials comparing face masks to no mask controls failing to find statistically significant benefit in the intent‐to‐treat populations. Of sixteen quantitative meta‐analyses, eight were equivocal or critical as to whether evidence supports a public recommendation of masks, and the remaining eight supported a public mask intervention on limited evidence primarily on the basis of the precautionary principle. Although weak evidence should not preclude precautionary actions in the face of unprecedented events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical principles require that the strength of the evidence and best estimates of amount of benefit be truthfully communicated to the public.--Prassad & Darrow
From Gate's Notes: Some scientists are not treating the germline as a red line. As Isaacson covers with nuance, three years ago a Chinese researcher named He Jiankui used CRISPR to edit the genomes of human embryos and then implanted these embryos in women who consented to carrying them to term. Two babies, named Nana and Lulu, have now been born from those embryos. If Nana and Lulu someday have babies of their own, their babies will inherit the genetic modifications Nana and Lulu received. The Chinese researcher’s intentions were good—helping HIV-positive couples give birth to children who had a gene that would confer resistance to infection with HIV—but he disregarded scientific guardrails established by Chinese and American authorities.
More from Gate's Notes about CRISPR: that’s super important, because the ethics of CRISPR’s use are not clear.
As she says to Isaacson, “If you think we face inequalities now, imagine what it would be like if society became genetically tiered along economic lines and we transcribed our financial inequality into our genetic code.”
As with artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and other digital technologies, the public should play an engaged role in drawing the ethical lines
As she says to Isaacson, “If you think we face inequalities now, imagine what it would be like if society became genetically tiered along economic lines and we transcribed our financial inequality into our genetic code.”
As with artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and other digital technologies, the public should play an engaged role in drawing the ethical lines
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
And you have a Degree in ?
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
thirteenknots
SILVER ELITE
John Fleck: Sheffield United midfielder 'conscious' when taken to hospital after collapse at Reading
The Sheffield United midfielder received urgent medical care on the pitch before being taken to hospital; the 30-year-old was on his feet and using an oxygen mask before being stretchered off, with play halted for almost 11 minutes against Reading