Vaccine

[watfly]

The data is fine. You just need to not mix time frames.

A narrow delta window gets you a consistent 65-80% reduction across age groups. Kind of what team panic expected.

The narrow Omicron window puts it at a huge (79%) reduction for 65+, and a moderate ( 30-35%) reduction for 18-49 and 50-64. And almost no reduction at all for 12-17. 12%. I chose 1/9-1/16.

I have no idea what is behind the age dependency. It only shows up Omicron. You have very robust protection for 65+, and a minimal impact on 12-17. Same virus, same vaccine. Completely different results.

No sense in declaring a reason yet. Could be medical (vax works differently in kids?), or it could be environmental (transmission is different in crowded indoor places like schools?). Above my pay grade anyway.

I'm not sure I follow the math, but that's on me. Nor do I believe breaking it out in time frames helps your argument. Clearly not for Omicron. For adults I think it has to do in part with age associated behavior. 65+ aren't generally in the workplace. 19-49 are in the workplace and more likely to be out in public, but most of all, more likely to be living with more housemates (roommates, children etc). Just way more points of exposure for that age group. Children are the wild card. Generally they are just less likely to get it overall, regardless of vaccination status. None of this changes the fact that the vaccinated get infected at a material rate, but I doubt its equal to the unvaccinated.

The reason I question the data, is because we all know that a lot of people tested negative (especially since Xmas) that didn't have any results recorded or reported. I think cases are grossly undercounted for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you believe the vaccination prevents serious, treatment required, issues then I would imagine that the vaccinated have the most underreported cases.

 

[baldref]

I'm not sure I follow the math, but that's on me. For adults I think it has to do in part with age associated behavior. 65+ aren't generally in the workplace. 19-49 are in the workplace and more likely to be out in public, but most of all, more likely to be living with more housemates (roommates, children etc). Just way more points of exposure for that age group. Children are the wild card. Generally they are just less likely to get it overall, regardless of vaccination status. None of this changes that fact that the vaccinated get infected at a material rate, but I doubt its equal.

The reason I question the data, is because we all know that a lot of people tested negative (especially since Xmas) that didn't have any results recorded or reported. I think cases are grossly overcounted for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you believe the vaccination prevents serious, treatment required, issues then I would imagine that the vaccinated have the most underreported cases.

The reality doesn't jive with the models and graphs. I'm going with the reality.

 

[watfly]

The reality doesn't jive with the models and graphs. I'm going with the reality.

But the studies Baldref. You just can't believe your eyes. You need someone smarter (or more emotional) than you to interpret reality for you.

 

[soccersc]

I understand why you and your friends don't want to talk about all the studies you cite to "support" the exact opposite of what they actually say. It's pretty humiliating for sure. I do like how you claimed that words don't mean what they mean because "cherry picking". Again, I think you'll get a lot more traction from your fellow nutters if you stick to pulling pond scum out of deeper, darker parts of the web instead of trying to tell people that left means right and up means down. Even the most brain addled of your kind can figure out what words mean if they ever chose to read them.

okay buddy, how many different alias' do you really have @EOTL @dad4 @GoldenGate I am sure there is more...so defending your theories by responding to one of your own theories by a different alias, says something about you!!! I'm still waiting for your study regarding the spread of omicron, not some chart from the cdc...that is only calculated by those who are tested, usually in the hospital setting. Show me an actual case study, you won't find it. Good luck though

I'll tell you what we do have case studies about...the vaccine is becoming less effective from Delta to Omicro to the next variant. There are case studies about that

 

[dad4]

I'm not sure I follow the math, but that's on me. Nor do I believe breaking it out in time frames helps your argument. Clearly not for Omicron. For adults I think it has to do in part with age associated behavior. 65+ aren't generally in the workplace. 19-49 are in the workplace and more likely to be out in public, but most of all, more likely to be living with more housemates (roommates, children etc). Just way more points of exposure for that age group. Children are the wild card. Generally they are just less likely to get it overall, regardless of vaccination status. None of this changes the fact that the vaccinated get infected at a material rate, but I doubt its equal to the unvaccinated.

The reason I question the data, is because we all know that a lot of people tested negative (especially since Xmas) that didn't have any results recorded or reported. I think cases are grossly undercounted for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you believe the vaccination prevents serious, treatment required, issues then I would imagine that the vaccinated have the most underreported cases.

I didn’t break it out to support my argument. I broke it out to understand it. The original time frame mixed apples and machine parts. You couldn’t understand anything from that.

If anything, the age dependency makes me doubt school vaccine mandates. It’s one thing to mandate an 80-90% effective vaccine in order to protect the community. That argument falls apart if it is 12%. Not there yet, but more doubtful than I was.

If MN has mandatory school testing, then underreporting is a plausible explanation for the small reduction in school age cases. For youth, you are measuring total cases. For 50 year olds, you are measuring symptomatic cases. The vaccine could be working the same in both groups, but our testing is measuring different things.

The 35% reduction to incoming transmission is completely consistent with your experience. An hour in an enclosed conference room is apparently more than long enough to fill the room with aerosols and breathe them in. And, given that peak viral loads are unchanged, you may just have had the bad luck to schedule your meeting on your most contagious day.

 

[dad4]

okay buddy, how many different alias' do you really have @EOTL @dad4 @GoldenGate I am sure there is more...so defending your theories by responding to one of your own theories by a different alias, says something about you!!! I'm still waiting for your study regarding the spread of omicron, not some chart from the cdc...that is only calculated by those who are tested, usually in the hospital setting. Show me an actual case study, you won't find it. Good luck though

I'll tell you what we do have case studies about...the vaccine is becoming less effective from Delta to Omicro to the next variant. There are case studies about that

It’s simple. The vaccine has tiny microchips that control yiur brain. Both @GoldenGate and I are vaccinated, so our brains are controlled by the same space lasers.

@watfly got moderna, and that vaccine uses a different microchip. His brain is being controlled by a different Pharma overlord.

It’s all so simple. I’m kind of amazed you haven’t figured it out yet.

Don’t worry. The vaccine swat teams will be out soon, and then you’ll be one of us. If you’re lucky, you get to go for a ride in a black helicopter!

 

[watfly]

I didn’t break it out to support my argument. I broke it out to understand it. The original time frame mixed apples and machine parts. You couldn’t understand anything from that.

If anything, the age dependency makes me doubt school vaccine mandates. It’s one thing to mandate an 80-90% effective vaccine in order to protect the community. That argument falls apart if it is 12%. Not there yet, but more doubtful than I was.

If MN has mandatory school testing, then underreporting is a plausible explanation for the small reduction in school age cases. For youth, you are measuring total cases. For 50 year olds, you are measuring symptomatic cases. The vaccine could be working the same in both groups, but our testing is measuring different things.

The 35% reduction to incoming transmission is completely consistent with your experience. An hour in an enclosed conference room is apparently more than long enough to fill the room with aerosols and breathe them in. And, given that peak viral loads are unchanged, you may just have had the bad luck to schedule your meeting on your most contagious day.

I can buy 12% and 35% or thereabouts.

 

[NorCalDad]

...sure, ok...beats a shitty life though.

Oh man...what a burn!

 

[soccersc]

It’s simple. The vaccine has tiny microchips that control yiur brain. Both @GoldenGate and I are vaccinated, so our brains are controlled by the same space lasers.

@watfly got moderna, and that vaccine uses a different microchip. His brain is being controlled by a different Pharma overlord.

It’s all so simple. I’m kind of amazed you haven’t figured it out yet.

Don’t worry. The vaccine swat teams will be out soon, and then you’ll be one of us. If you’re lucky, you get to go for a ride in a black helicopter!

Have you found the case study yet? Crickets

 

[dad4]

Have you found the case study yet? Crickets

Not your research assistant.

Try evil goalie's chart. It has half of what you need.

 

[what-happened]

The alt right crowd can't handle it when others use their tactic of insulting people against them. It's no wonder their snowflakey children are too emotionally feeble to wear masks at school.

You do a disservice to everyone by trying to have honest conversation with people who are not willing to engage in honest conversation. It only gives them and others the impression that their beliefs and opinions are anything more than an absolute embarrassment and a joke. In the last few days you have seen: (1) the self-proclaimed "serious legal scholar" Grace T. cite a twitter post to support her anti-mask agenda, although the attached study attached related to the unique situation in Catalonia, Spain and, more importantly, acknowledged two American studies (which she blithely ignores of course) about America's situation which show that wearing masks substantially reduces transmission here; (2) clown boy soccersc citing an article he claims shows vaccines aren't important in schools, although the article itself says exactly the opposite (to which he rationalizes that his inability to understand what words mean is "cherry picking"), and although he ignores (yet again) your point and the fact that the study also undermines his anti-mask position (actual cherry picking in other words); (3) desert cactus claiming NZ is doing a terrible job with Covid-19 while AZ is going bigly great with policies that kill more people of Covid on a typical day than NZ has had die of Covid in two freakin' years; (4) multiple anti-vaxxers/maskers and conspiracy theorists minimizing studies that establish Covid-19 was not created in a Wuhan lab to reduce population, because they haven't been "peer reviewed", but who then turn around and cite twitter and Tik tok instead; (5) their blatantly racist anti-vax/mask friend claiming in another thread that the U.S. has 27 super, duper secret biological weapons plants in the Ukraine where they're also hiding Hillary's emails about her et lasagna recipe; and (6) all of them conveniently ignoring their biggest anti-vax/mask proponents crush and the racist, who remind everyone daily which side has the whackadoos.

Some day you will understand that you can't reason with people like this. Humiliating them is the only way to get them to take off their viking hats and face paint, and resign themselves to staying in their lane, which is the (intellectually) slow one.

such a warrior. glad you are on the front lines.

 

[dad4]

The reality doesn't jive with the models and graphs. I'm going with the reality.

That is the difference between a scientist and someone looking for confirmation.

 

[soccersc]

Not your research assistant.

Try evil goalie's chart. It has half of what you need.

Don’t kid yourself..if you could find it you would have posted it. I find it interesting that during Delta you could find multiple studies showing how the unvaccinated spread the virus at a much more rapid pace, they were actually calling it the virus of the unvaccinated. But now, after Omicron, sidedly no case studies or research showing how unvaccinated and vaccinated spread the virus? Hmmm

They know they can’t post a study like that. If the transition rate is the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated they lose a big big arguement on mandated vaccination.

 

[GoldenGate]

But the studies Baldref. You just can't believe your eyes. You need someone smarter (or more emotional) than you to interpret reality for you.

You anti-vaxxers all live in opposite world. In fact, relying on your anecdotal "evidence" instead of actual medical and scientific studies is the very definition of emotional no matter how much you claim the opposite. See: When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias - ScienceDirect . Of course, morons like you completely ignore scientific studies based on your anecdotal "evidence", because it is the only place you can go to support the confirmation bias that you are looking for: Confirmation bias | Cram.

No one is surprised that the anti-vax/mask clown car crowd ignores studies and science because they're too emotional to understand what is happening, because that's who whiny Karens are. It's what you do.

 

[GoldenGate]

That is the difference between a scientist and someone looking for confirmation.

I see you're still trying to reason with clowns. How is that going for you? I mean, other than them just telling you they've now completely abandoned all studies relating to mask and vaccine mandates (not just the ones that haven't been peer reviewed) because they saw with their own eyes that their vaccinated and masked kids have gone to school and not gotten Covid-19.

 

[GoldenGate]

I'm not sure I follow the math, but that's on me. Nor do I believe breaking it out in time frames helps your argument. Clearly not for Omicron. For adults I think it has to do in part with age associated behavior. 65+ aren't generally in the workplace. 19-49 are in the workplace and more likely to be out in public, but most of all, more likely to be living with more housemates (roommates, children etc). Just way more points of exposure for that age group. Children are the wild card. Generally they are just less likely to get it overall, regardless of vaccination status. None of this changes the fact that the vaccinated get infected at a material rate, but I doubt its equal to the unvaccinated.

The reason I question the data, is because we all know that a lot of people tested negative (especially since Xmas) that didn't have any results recorded or reported. I think cases are grossly undercounted for both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. If you believe the vaccination prevents serious, treatment required, issues then I would imagine that the vaccinated have the most underreported cases.

I see. You disregard scientific studies because you "think" cases are grossly undercounted? That sounds very compelling. I do have a some quick questions about that. You also said that you will rely on what you see with your own eyes, right? So now you're telling us that you rely not only on what you see with your own eyes, but also what you don't see at all? In other words, you just make up whatever the fuck you want and reach whatever ridiculous conclusion you want so long as it is the opposite of what peer reviewed scientific study concluded? Unless the "scientific study" is a Tik tok that confirms your bias? What is one standard deviation from your anecdotal story and 330 million Americans anyway?

I do like your "scientific approach", so let's try it out. I have not seen a single student who has been fully vaccinated and wears their mask at school die of Covid, so they must work. I have also not seen a single student slash their wrists because they were such a snowflake that wearing masks was too much for them, so it must be complete and utter b.s. That settles that.

 

[soccersc]

You anti-vaxxers all live in opposite world. In fact, relying on your anecdotal "evidence" instead of actual medical and scientific studies is the very definition of emotional no matter how much you claim the opposite. See: When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias - ScienceDirect . Of course, morons like you completely ignore scientific studies based on your anecdotal "evidence", because it is the only place you can go to support the confirmation bias that you are looking for: Confirmation bias | Cram.

No one is surprised that the anti-vax/mask clown car crowd ignores studies and science because they're too emotional to understand what is happening, because that's who whiny Karens are. It's what you do.

still can’t find a case study or any articles related to Covid transmission huh!? Are you just going on anecdotal evidence? I haven’t seen any proof that there is a difference in transmission rates between the two,can you not support your bias?

 

[GoldenGate]

Don’t kid yourself..if you could find it you would have posted it. I find it interesting that during Delta you could find multiple studies showing how the unvaccinated spread the virus at a much more rapid pace, they were actually calling it the virus of the unvaccinated. But now, after Omicron, sidedly no case studies or research showing how unvaccinated and vaccinated spread the virus? Hmmm

They know they can’t post a study like that. If the transition rate is the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated they lose a big big arguement on mandated vaccination.

The first Omicron variant was detected three months ago in the US and there weren't enough cases and spread to even start a study until January. Yet here you are claiming two months later that it's perfectly fine to parade around unvaccinated and unmasked because there hasn't been a peer reviewed study in the mere two months that it even became possible to start conducting a study. Honestly, you are about as stupid as they get. So please tell me the exact day that this study should have been completed and peer reviewed to meet your "rigorous" standards? And how does the fact that a study hasn't been published in two months "prove" that there is no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated? I feel like you let someone repeatedly hit you over the head with an Easton brand baseball bat because there hasn't been a scientific study proving that those brands will also give you a concussion, so surely you'll be fine. If there hasn't been a definitive study (which we know from your time here that you would disregard anyway because it does not fit your Karen-y emotional snowflake confirmation bias) yet to prove something is happening, it clearly isn't happening, right? And you know that because you've seen with your own microscopic eyes how Omicron is spread, right?

 

[soccersc]

The first Omicron variant was detected three months ago in the US and there weren't enough cases and spread to even start a study until January. Yet here you are claiming two months later that it's perfectly fine to parade around unvaccinated and unmasked because there hasn't been a peer reviewed study in the mere two months that it even became possible to start conducting a study. Honestly, you are about as stupid as they get. So please tell me the exact day that this study should have been completed and peer reviewed to meet your "rigorous" standards? And how does the fact that a study hasn't been published in two months "prove" that there is no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated? I feel like you let someone repeatedly hit you over the head with an Easton brand baseball bat because there hasn't been a scientific study proving that those brands will also give you a concussion, so surely you'll be fine. If there hasn't been a definitive study (which we know from your time here that you would disregard anyway because it does not fit your Karen-y emotional snowflake confirmation bias) yet to prove something is happening, it clearly isn't happening, right? And you know that because you've seen with your own microscopic eyes how Omicron is spread, right?

You just make up dates and number whenever you want but you condemn others for how they perceive what is happening. How very Karen of you!! You are wrong about so many things in such a short port, it goes back to that poor education you have and your intellectual reasoning. The first Omicron case was the end of November, first of December, so you have bad math if you get months. December, January, February, and this is March, you aren’t very smart to get only 2 months later out of that…it sure didn’t take long for them to come out with Delta studies while Delta was spreading like crazy, but that fit the narrative and this doesn’t. Simple. Keep spinning, eventually you will get something right

 

[soccersc]

The first Omicron variant was detected three months ago in the US and there weren't enough cases and spread to even start a study until January. Yet here you are claiming two months later that it's perfectly fine to parade around unvaccinated and unmasked because there hasn't been a peer reviewed study in the mere two months that it even became possible to start conducting a study. Honestly, you are about as stupid as they get. So please tell me the exact day that this study should have been completed and peer reviewed to meet your "rigorous" standards? And how does the fact that a study hasn't been published in two months "prove" that there is no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated? I feel like you let someone repeatedly hit you over the head with an Easton brand baseball bat because there hasn't been a scientific study proving that those brands will also give you a concussion, so surely you'll be fine. If there hasn't been a definitive study (which we know from your time here that you would disregard anyway because it does not fit your Karen-y emotional snowflake confirmation bias) yet to prove something is happening, it clearly isn't happening, right? And you know that because you've seen with your own microscopic eyes how Omicron is spread, right?

You know what even try to find a pre-print study…Good luck, it’s not there, or maybe it is and they pull it because it’s misinformation….like the data they tried to keep from you for 75 years until a judge said no…hmm, guess they don’t think you are smart enough to try and figure it out on your own, even they think you are stupid…lol

and I did a quick search to see how long it took for pre-print studies to come out after Delta…this study took from May and June and was printed the first of August…so how does your timeline work again? You really aren’t that bright, you do try though

Delta’s rise is fuelled by rampant spread from people who feel fine

People infected with the Delta variant generally do not have COVID-19 symptoms until two days after they start shedding the coronavirus.

www.nature.com