Another chuckle. You are doing exactly what you claim to hate. Noted.Realistic. The author has a history of making outrageous statements, which bears directly on his credibility.
Another chuckle. You are doing exactly what you claim to hate. Noted.Realistic. The author has a history of making outrageous statements, which bears directly on his credibility.
This is a reasonable and well thought out critique unlike espolasLink to the more serious paper on the same topic.
All of these are being phrased as how many adverse events per million patients. Overall it is 1 or 2 per million, depending on the vaccine. Risk from the virus is around 40 per million. The next question is to do the same analysis for men 16-25.
Perfectly reasonable question for CDC and NIH. They may well recommend that we stop giving Moderna to men under 40.
Totally stupid thing to politicize, though. Prasad is arguing about whether it is 16 or 160 non-fatal events per ten million patients. California has already had 1.6 million covid cases and 1278 covid deaths among the 10 million people aged 17-34. The vaccine is the smaller risk in this picture, even among men under 40.
Ps the nature article was posted by someone (or a reference to it) a few days back. It’s a preprint. What happened is the scientific community ask for a release of the numbers. The reference I posted was a critique of the released numbers.Link to the more serious paper on the same topic.
All of these are being phrased as how many adverse events per million patients. Overall it is 1 or 2 per million, depending on the vaccine. Risk from the virus is around 40 per million. The next question is to do the same analysis for men 16-25.
Perfectly reasonable question for CDC and NIH. They may well recommend that we stop giving Moderna to men under 40.
Totally stupid thing to politicize, though. Prasad is arguing about whether it is 16 or 160 non-fatal events per ten million patients. California has already had 1.6 million covid cases and 1278 covid deaths among the 10 million people aged 17-34. The vaccine is the smaller risk in this picture, even among men under 40.
This is a reasonable and well thought out critique unlike espolas
three notes back:
1. It doesn’t speak as to whether different vaccines should be used for the under 40. It also doesn’t speak to the question of why we don’t have other vaccines for this population when az and novovax should both be pursued as options given the problem
2. particularly if there is no substantial reduction in community spread, it undermines the question of mandates. Whether to take such risks (either with the vaccine or the virus) should be a question of discussion between doctors and their patients so the patient can make the ultimate decision (particularly if there are no other options beyond moderna and Pfizer)
3. In particular it negates the need for a booster shot in this group if the booster does not provide additional support against severe disease in this population (which when you get down to teens the risk is especially negligible). But instead we have colleges around the us that are requiring the boosters for men this age and it should give us pause before extending to high school.
Another chuckle. You are doing exactly what you claim to hate. Noted.
Au contraire as you once again hold up highly partisan hyperbole in lieu of serious research. Then at at some point you will in fact circle back and attempt to use it as confirmation for what you will try to pass as “your opinion”.Another chuckle. You are doing exactly what you claim to hate. Noted.
Well, I listened to my amazing son and bought a box of masks so I don't have to ask for a mask. That was his advise and it was genius. My wife got asked three times yesterday to put a mask on. It's on folks. This time I will play with them and obey. It's all about the mask and the cases on the rise again Grace. They pivot better then any group I have ever met in my life. They lie to your face and cheat in front of you better then anyone I know and nothing you can do. It's past to no return to normal.I had to go into the T-Mobile store (for some reason they blocked my credit card...they keep claiming its my bank but my bank has investigated and they say it's a vendor problem...called online help but they couldn't fix it so they sent me to the store...which was idiotic because the store just called online help which said they couldn't fix it). Every customer in the store (about 5 of them) had their masks under their nose when I walked in. Maybe it's a t-mobile thing.
Oh this is an interesting revisionism. Noted. So if I were to discuss your posting history by noting you are a moron when there is reason to believe you are lost rather than understanding something that’s totally ok. Got it.What I "claim to hate" is ad hominems based on lies. Discussing an author's posting history is appropriate when there is reason to believe that he is following a political pathway rather than medical logic.
Let me run this one through my Orwellian fact checkerAu contraire as you once again hold up highly partisan hyperbole in lieu of serious research. Then at at some point you will in fact circle back and attempt to use it as confirmation for what you will try to pass as “your opinion”.
The cut & paste dizzy school of spin.
Talk about spin and talking points. Again it depends on the age group. For a healthy teen the risk of death is negligible. For someone in their 20s without cormorbidities same. For someone in their 30s it’s much more tricky since there is a small but very real risk.Some factors for your ongoing cost/benefit analysis: The inflammations and arrhythmias cited are temporary. Death from covid is permanent.
You don’t/can’t/won’t allow your set to see it so I will explain if you don’t mind. You continue to use your own opinion as the citation you refer to as back up for your opinion.Oh this is an interesting revisionism. Noted. So if I were to discuss your posting history by noting you are a moron when there is reason to believe you are lost rather than understanding something that’s totally ok. Got it.
this really is comedy gold.
I post a variety of things of interest much of which you and your set discount as not one of your experts and fringe if it disagrees with your narrative. Then when something like the Bangladesh mask study come out you guys, despite all its flaws and the criticisms, try to take it to a new level by claiming it’s proof positive of your narrative. But you guys here are doing the exact opposite…rather than rebut the numbers or the suggested conclusions you guys have gone the route either of misdirection (because you can’t abide that if true it’s another nail in the mandate coffin) or you do things like attack the author or the poster. Sad but this appears to be the game plan.You don’t/can’t/won’t allow your set to see it so I will explain if you don’t mind. You continue to use your own opinion as the citation you refer to as back up for your opinion.
It's a Borg Collective of Trolls - or 1 guy. The practical difference is meaningless.Talk about spin and talking points.
It’s a sign when the 3+ dad4 freak out about something. The normal reaction to something like that would be “interesting but here’s the problems with that”. Instead, because it challenges the narrative, what we get is their little freak out. It tends to signify they consider a particular issue of danger to the narrative so it just causes me to pay attention more and put it in the “this is interesting” bucket instead of the “this may be nothing” bucket.It's a Borg Collective of Trolls - or 1 guy. The practical difference is meaningless.
It's all they got left Grace T. All jabbed in so they just twist and turn and move a goal post here and then move one over here. Cases everywhere now, shut the airports down, shut down certain colleges ((I guess only some teams have Covid)) s not to spread Omicron. They have nowhere to go now and nowhere to run. No more gasoline and no time to run. Backs up against a wall they cannot climb. No rope no nothing. They went all in with jabs and booster. Now booster is only good for a few weeks. I think a booster every two months is coming for those who are going down with the booster ship.It’s a sign when the 3+ dad4 freak out about something. The normal reaction to something like that would be “interesting but here’s the problems with that”. Instead, because it challenges the narrative, what we get is their little freak out. It tends to signify they consider a particular issue of danger to the narrative so it just causes me to pay attention more and put it in the “this is interesting” bucket instead of the “this may be nothing” bucket.
Every. Single. Time.It’s a sign when the 3+ dad4 freak out about something. The normal reaction to something like that would be “interesting but here’s the problems with that”. Instead, because it challenges the narrative, what we get is their little freak out. It tends to signify they consider a particular issue of danger to the narrative so it just causes me to pay attention more and put it in the “this is interesting” bucket instead of the “this may be nothing” bucket.
You post twenty times about a myocarditis risk that is smaller than the risk from a short car trip. Then you accuse others of freaking out?It’s a sign when the 3+ dad4 freak out about something. The normal reaction to something like that would be “interesting but here’s the problems with that”. Instead, because it challenges the narrative, what we get is their little freak out. It tends to signify they consider a particular issue of danger to the narrative so it just causes me to pay attention more and put it in the “this is interesting” bucket instead of the “this may be nothing” bucket.
the difference is people get to make the choice about the short term car risk. It’s about the mandate not the vaccine (particularly the colleges mandating boosters)You post twenty times about a myocarditis risk that is smaller than the risk from a short car trip. Then you accuse others of freaking out?
Got it.