Vaccine

Grace T. said:
Again basic math. If the vaccine is no where near 100 effective in blocking risk of infection (even if say we give you the benefit of the doubt and say fifty percent, which so far no data seems to support), by vaccinating you are exposing students to two potential myocarditis risks (one from the vaccine and one from the infection). The only way this works out to make sense is if the vaccine is good at reducing myocarditis in natural infection and the risk from vaccination is less than myocarditis risk naturally....so far the data doesn't support that....and it certainly 100 percent doesn't support that for boosters beyond the initial shot, which is why many more countries are reluctant to recommend boosters for this age group.
Click to expand...
Grace, the “basic math” in this case is about four years beyond anything you took.

Also, your numbers are completely wrong on booster effectiveness against omicron. You can keep saying “40%“ or “50%”, but that doesn’t make it true. CDC is putting it at 82% or 90%. 90% is hospitalization. 82% is doctor visit. (urgent care)

www.cdc.gov

Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA Vaccines ...

This report describes COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness time frames among people who received their first and second doses of the vaccine series, and effectiveness of third vaccine doses during both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
 
dad4 said:
Grace, the “basic math” in this case is about four years beyond anything you took.

Also, your numbers are completely wrong on booster effectiveness against omicron. You can keep saying “40%“ or “50%”, but that doesn’t make it true. CDC is putting it at 82% or 90%. 90% is hospitalization. 82% is doctor visit. (urgent care)

www.cdc.gov

Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA Vaccines ...

This report describes COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness time frames among people who received their first and second doses of the vaccine series, and effectiveness of third vaccine doses during both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
Click to expand...
Wow you broke my Orwellian translator on this one. First you lead with the subtle insult despite always playing the victim. Then you fail to explain how the equation (which admittedly is very simplified) is wrong. Next the 40/50 numbers were the ones posted 10 weeks out for boosters from Europe (not just one vaccine…depending on the weeks out it’s anywhere from 5/25% for the adult pfizer full course). Next you ignore the prior post I put up on why even those numbers are inflated. Then you cite the cdc which is laughable considering all the bad science and propaganda they put out, especially in light of the fact kids boosters didn’t go through the normal vetting procedures and there have been fda resignations over those shots. There doesn’t appear to be a covidian propaganda you don’t like. Finally rather than transmission numbers (which is what’s relevant if you are talking subjecting an individual to a risk event) you shift the goalposts to hospitalizations and doctor visits. Man two years out and you dig deeper and deeper into your fantasies…you went from a thinker to now clutching that blue pill tightly as the narrative collapses all around you. Literally shaking my head at what probably is the worst post you’ve ever posted since this began.
Ps the Bari Weiss piece I put up outlines exactly the case against kids and boosters…you just prefer to ignore it
 
Grace T. said:
Wow you broke my Orwellian translator on this one. First you lead with the subtle insult despite always playing the victim. Then you fail to explain how the equation (which admittedly is very simplified) is wrong. Next the 40/50 numbers were the ones posted 10 weeks out for boosters from Europe (not just one vaccine…depending on the weeks out it’s anywhere from 5/25% for the adult pfizer full course). Next you ignore the prior post I put up on why even those numbers are inflated. Then you cite the cdc which is laughable considering all the bad science and propaganda they put out, especially in light of the fact kids boosters didn’t go through the normal vetting procedures and there have been fda resignations over those shots. There doesn’t appear to be a covidian propaganda you don’t like. Finally rather than transmission numbers (which is what’s relevant if you are talking subjecting an individual to a risk event) you shift the goalposts to hospitalizations and doctor visits. Man two years out and you dig deeper and deeper into your fantasies…you went from a thinker to now clutching that blue pill tightly as the narrative collapses all around you. Literally shaking my head at what probably is the worst post you’ve ever posted since this began.
Ps the Bari Weiss piece I put up outlines exactly the case against kids and boosters…you just prefer to ignore it
Click to expand...
Subtle? It's not subtle at all.

Twice, you condescendingly refer to your argument as basic math, implying that anyone who disagrees must be stupid.

The second time, I called you on it.
 
Grace T. said:
Wow you broke my Orwellian translator on this one. First you lead with the subtle insult despite always playing the victim. Then you fail to explain how the equation (which admittedly is very simplified) is wrong. Next the 40/50 numbers were the ones posted 10 weeks out for boosters from Europe (not just one vaccine…depending on the weeks out it’s anywhere from 5/25% for the adult pfizer full course). Next you ignore the prior post I put up on why even those numbers are inflated. Then you cite the cdc which is laughable considering all the bad science and propaganda they put out, especially in light of the fact kids boosters didn’t go through the normal vetting procedures and there have been fda resignations over those shots. There doesn’t appear to be a covidian propaganda you don’t like. Finally rather than transmission numbers (which is what’s relevant if you are talking subjecting an individual to a risk event) you shift the goalposts to hospitalizations and doctor visits. Man two years out and you dig deeper and deeper into your fantasies…you went from a thinker to now clutching that blue pill tightly as the narrative collapses all around you. Literally shaking my head at what probably is the worst post you’ve ever posted since this began.
Ps the Bari Weiss piece I put up outlines exactly the case against kids and boosters…you just prefer to ignore it
Click to expand...
Since he loves “filters”, please make those CDC #’s are filtered using hospitalizations “from” and “with” Covid (as estimates have been roughly 40% of the hospitalizations are “with”, meaning they came in for something g other than Covid and tested positive while being admitted).
 
dad4 said:
Subtle? It's not subtle at all.

Twice, you condescendingly refer to your argument as basic math, implying that anyone who disagrees must be stupid.

The second time, I called you on it.
Click to expand...
When you change the parameters, you change the question and therefore the math.

How can you eliminate transmission rates from the effectiveness calculation of a vaccine?
 
dad4 said:
Subtle? It's not subtle at all.

Twice, you condescendingly refer to your argument as basic math, implying that anyone who disagrees must be stupid.

The second time, I called you on it.
Click to expand...
Because its basic math and it’s hilarious that you can’t see it. Like most math types you wrap yourself up in such fancy rules you can’t see the very basic elements sitting in front of you: if the risk events can’t be avoided, two risks are more risky than one (or if you prefer even more simple and remedial…you rather take one roll of the dice than two). You still haven’t explained what’s wrong with that proposition. Basic basic basic and the great mathematician can’t see it. How humiliating.
 
L
Kicker 2.0 said:
Since he loves “filters”, please make those CDC #’s are filtered using hospitalizations “from” and “with” Covid (as estimates have been roughly 40% of the hospitalizations are “with”, meaning they came in for something g other than Covid and tested positive while being admitted).
Click to expand...
Yeah but they are irrelevant to the argument which is why he is goalpost moving (again). The only way he can really make out a case is if the transmission prevention numbers are reasonably high (we know for anything shy of the moderna booster they aren’t especially as they decline in time) and if the risk from myocarditis in young men is less in vaccination than natural infection (and there’s at least some evidence that it isn’t). That forces him move the goalpost to deaths, long covid, hospitalization and (in one of the stupidest and most irrelevant statements he’s ever made) doctor/er visits which we already know for the under 30 set is incredibly low and lower than a vaxxed 50 year old for the kids. Even then, his best case scenario (were he to be right in all his assumptions) is vaccinated the immunonaive once (but boosters enter truly looney bin land).
 
dad4 said:
Grace, the “basic math” in this case is about four years beyond anything you took.

Also, your numbers are completely wrong on booster effectiveness against omicron. You can keep saying “40%“ or “50%”, but that doesn’t make it true. CDC is putting it at 82% or 90%. 90% is hospitalization. 82% is doctor visit. (urgent care)

www.cdc.gov

Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA Vaccines ...

This report describes COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness time frames among people who received their first and second doses of the vaccine series, and effectiveness of third vaccine doses during both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
Click to expand...
Those numbers have nothing to do with the young.

So giving the young doesn't solve or help anything.

They are not getting sick now or going to the hospital.

Further with o the vax doesn't stop the spread of the virus.

So there isn't any reason to give them the vaxx.
 
Kicker 2.0 said:
When you change the parameters, you change the question and therefore the math.

How can you eliminate transmission rates from the effectiveness calculation of a vaccine?
Click to expand...
How do you design an experiment to measure vaccine effectiveness with respect to transmission?

I agree it would be nice to have, but I don't see an ethical way to do it.
 
dad4 said:
Grace, the “basic math” in this case is about four years beyond anything you took.

Also, your numbers are completely wrong on booster effectiveness against omicron. You can keep saying “40%“ or “50%”, but that doesn’t make it true. CDC is putting it at 82% or 90%. 90% is hospitalization. 82% is doctor visit. (urgent care)

www.cdc.gov

Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA Vaccines ...

This report describes COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness time frames among people who received their first and second doses of the vaccine series, and effectiveness of third vaccine doses during both Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov
Click to expand...
So, one size fits all?
 
dad4 said:
How do you design an experiment to measure vaccine effectiveness with respect to transmission?

I agree it would be nice to have, but I don't see an ethical way to do it.
Click to expand...
True, but we are talking about data analysis right now. You made a false claim based on the argument being made (not false if you add cherry picked parameters, but that changes the argument).

they have data, they know who got it and of those who where vaxx’d and boosted. A few things that would skew the numbers are asymptomatic and untested and/or unreported home test positives, but likely not in a direction that would improve the effectiveness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top