5 5
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, winsor said:

However, I am reminded of Chief Dan George's observation "sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't."

As vaccines go, the efficacy of the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines is truly abysmal:

But, the "magic" doesn't work 100% of the time if you don't try it. 

It's why I didn't get too upset about  the Ivermectin, Hydro, and other myriad of things Doctors were trying when we were in the early stages of COVID. They were trying. And, according to the study you posted; it helps when = > 70% of the population gets vaccinated. No Vaccination is 100%. We still have the flu (and its annual mutations) and some people who get their flu shots still die from the flu (100 years later). But, it's a fighting chance that's better than nothing.

Anything greater than nothing is "magic."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, lippy said:

By what standards?  I guess you went to the same medical school as Westerly.

Who?

If the rate of vaccination is statistically insignificant w.r.t. the rate of infection, the vaccine sucks out loud.

What part of that confuses you?

Edited by winsor
Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, winsor said:

What part of that confuses you?

After seeing months of the drivel you post in the 'Woke' thread I'm not going to waste any more of my time getting into a pissing match with you.  From everything I've read (including articles cited in the link you posted to back up your 'abysmal' claim), the vaccines are pretty effective at reducing the likelihood of infection and extremely effective at reducing serious infections leading to hospitalization/death.  They ain't perfect, but just about all accounts they're quite effective: certainly not abysmal

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
12 hours ago, winsor said:

Having had breakthrough infections to previous vaccinations (Polio, Smallpox), I still get pretty much every vaccine I can.

However, I am reminded of Chief Dan George's observation "sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't."

As vaccines go, the efficacy of the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines is truly abysmal:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/#CR4

It's good that we have made progress, but we are in no position to rest on our laurels.  I hope that whatever comes next is much, much better.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

You have a 100% chance of being shot when entering a room. I offer you a 40% chance not to be.

Do you take it, or do you go 'nah. That's abysmal. I'm waiting for the 99.99% offer.'?

 

And who exactly is resting on their laurels? I can guarentee you that the pharma industry continues to pour billions into further research on treatments for new covid strains, if only because it will make them even more in the future. Of course everyone is hoping that what happens next is better.

You're arguing  against positions that noone is taking.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zostavax was the original shingles vaccine with a 50% efficacy. Did I take the opportunity to cut my odds in half of getting shingles? You are damned right I did. The newer Shingrix has >90% efficacy, and I took that once available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, winsor said:

Having had breakthrough infections to previous vaccinations (Polio, Smallpox), I still get pretty much every vaccine I can.

However, I am reminded of Chief Dan George's observation "sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't."

That's very true!  But I still use a helmet when I bike.

Quote

As vaccines go, the efficacy of the current crop of COVID-19 vaccines is truly abysmal

Well, you can define "abysmal" however you like; you might call the protection of a bike helmet "abysmal" because they only reduce the odds of serious head injury by 60%.  Still, the smart money is on the helmet.

Recent results from a large population Lancet study of US health care outcomes:  (looking specifically at the Pfizer vaccine)

Protection against any COVID infection:
Vaccinated within 5 months: 88%
Vaccinated after 5 months: 47%

Protection against the Delta variant:
Vaccination within 4 months: 93%
Vaccination after 4 months: 53%

Protection against the non-Delta variant:
Within 4-5 months: 97%
After 4-5 months: 67%

Protection against hospitalization with Delta:
Vaccinated within 6 months: 93%

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext

Quote

It's good that we have made progress, but we are in no position to rest on our laurels.

Agreed.  Which is why we're not.  We are, for example, about to approve the Pfizer vaccine for 5-11 year olds, which will reduce spread further.  Molnupiravir is in the pipeline for approval.  Pfizer is running trials on a Delta-variant booster.

Although, since through the hard work of a lot of anti-vaxxers we are hovering at about 50-60% vaccination rates, expect to see new variants appear soon.  A half-vaccinated population is an ideal breeding ground for new vaccine-resistant variants.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
13 hours ago, billvon said:

Many, many wonderous things.

Please be so good as to explain away the study I cited that shows, to a high degree of assurance, absolutely no correlation between percent of the population vaccinated and rate of infection. 

If vaccination conferred herd immunity as would be expected, there should be maximum infection in countries with the lowest rates of vaccination and minimum infection in those with the highest rates of vaccination.  Instead, there is, if anything, a higher rate of infection in the countries with the highest rate of vaccination.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/#CR4

"Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States"

and

"The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants. Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real world effectiveness of the vaccines."

This is not from www.tinfoilhat.com.

The net benefit of the vaccine is, unfortunately, quite marginal overall.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Edited by winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now gone 2 years without a respiratory infection of any kind, the longest by far in  my adult life (and probably my childhood too).  I attribute this to fairly diligent use of masks and "social distancing" (a nasty phrase) that has kept even the common cold at bay.  A mild inconvenience with a very positive outcome.

I just don't understand the fools who oppose these measures, and the even bigger fools who oppose vaccination.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

The net benefit of the vaccine is, unfortunately, quite marginal overall.

Other than that whole “the vaccines provide protection against severe immunization and death” thing. It’s a stopgap; it’s the only stopgap we have that doesn’t consist of masking and social distancing (which has been ruinous for lots of adults living in aggregate situations). 
We can’t go back, only forward. Making masses of people go forward slowly is generally better than doing it all at once. People with plenty of resources (which includes most of the people on this forum) have options. Not everyone does. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, winsor said:

This is not from www.tinfoilhat.com.

The net benefit of the vaccine is, unfortunately, quite marginal overall.

Two things seem to be happening. As John just pointed out, more people are dropping precautions. This allows the newly mutated and more efficiently transmitted virus more opportunities. At the same time we are finding that the vaccine confers resistance to the worst sickness, but often does not stop infections from occurring. We were all hoping for a magic wand to make the pandemic go away, but we were warned about possible limitations. The benefits of vaccination are still very large as evidenced by the declining number of hospitalizations. There is now room in ICUs for more people with other conditions and more elective surgeries are finally being done. The exception being those areas with stubbornly low vaccination rates. Vaccines are the reason we have been able to open up our society to a point that is not far from pre-covid days. 

Your call for treatments and drug therapies is being worked on. But as always, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Two things seem to be happening. As John just pointed out, more people are dropping precautions. This allows the newly mutated and more efficiently transmitted virus more opportunities. At the same time we are finding that the vaccine confers resistance to the worst sickness, but often does not stop infections from occurring. We were all hoping for a magic wand to make the pandemic go away, but we were warned about possible limitations. The benefits of vaccination are still very large as evidenced by the declining number of hospitalizations. There is now room in ICUs for more people with other conditions and more elective surgeries are finally being done. The exception being those areas with stubbornly low vaccination rates. Vaccines are the reason we have been able to open up our society to a point that is not far from pre-covid days. 

Your call for treatments and drug therapies is being worked on. But as always, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

By and large I agree with you.

My problem is that the vaccine does precious little to halt infection, given the references already cited, and has the potential to cause harm due to the cytotoxic nature of the spike proteins generated and its propensity for migrating:

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/06/04/we-made-a-big-mistake-covid-vaccine-spike-protein-travels-from-injection-site-can-cause-organ-damage/

This source smacks of www.tinfoilhat.com, but the data check out.

I've personally gone whole hog on the vaccine, but the benefit analysis for, say, an 11 year old kid is not as clear cut.  Getting immunity from an asymptomatic case of the delta variant may well pose less overall risk than that of the vaccine migrating to prepubescent testes.

If I hadn't seen permanent side effects of the vaccine, or if its efficacy was better, the decision would be simpler.

Having worked in the industry for decades, I try to keep the skepticism in check.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, winsor said:

Please be so good as to explain away the study I cited that shows, to a high degree of assurance, absolutely no correlation between percent of the population vaccinated and rate of infection. 

No, I will not try to "explain it away."  That's not how science works.

However, you may perhaps be placing too much reliance in a single-variable study.  For example, if I constructed a scenario where there was a massive vaccination campaign to vaccinate everyone over age 50, with vaccination for those under age 50 not encouraged, and then studied the results, I would see that more deaths came from the vaccinated population.  This could be interpreted as "the vaccine is DEADLY!" but would be more likely due to the fact that primarily older people were vaccinated, and younger people had better outcomes even without the vaccine.  Indeed, younger people are more likely to have asymptomatic infections and never even be aware that they were infected.

However, if the outcomes of vaccination on each group were considered individually (i.e. in the 20%-vaccinated younger population vs the 80%-vaccinated older population) it would become clear that vaccination within each group significantly lowered infection risk.

Interestingly, this is exactly what happened in Israel.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated

Likewise, it is becoming clear that the vaccine is pretty effective but its effectiveness falls off rapidly with time.  (See Lancet study above.)  Thus, in a country where an early and massive vaccine push got all the at-risk people vaccinated is compared with a country where the push came later, the country with the early effort will likely now be seeing higher rates - since those vaccinations happened 9 months ago, and the protection is starting to wane.

Vaccines are still the best weapon we have to reduce Re - for now.  And the only thing that will end the pandemic is a lower Re.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, winsor said:

 

Which is why my wife and I had the person doing the injecting aspirate (pull back on the needle) to check for blood before injecting.  We didn't do that for the doses back in February/March, but did in August/October after the study was published showing mRNA vaccines injected intravenously can cause perimyocarditis.  My wife had blood in the syringe twice, I did not.  Supposedly such hits are one in a thousand/ten thousand.

It was already known for 15 years that intravenous adenovirus vaccines could cause the rare type of blood clots seen in rare cases following the J&J and Astrazeneca vaccination.

Unfortunately, the CDC continues to recommend against aspiration, since it can cause a slight increase of injection pain in infants.  

Edited by headoverheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, winsor said:

My problem is that the vaccine does precious little to halt infection, given the references already cited, and has the potential to cause harm due to the cytotoxic nature of the spike proteins generated and its propensity for migrating:

What Bill also forgot to address was your choice of terms.  The vaccine does reduce infection, but mostly it significantly reduces the ability to transmit once infected, reduces hospitalizations and greatly reduces the chance of death if infected.   Add in that only in the very beginning of the vaccination effort did we think the chances of a vaccinated person transmitting the virus to be close to nil (recall the guidance was you could remove your mask only if you were vaccinated, whereas unvaccinated people were still asked to keep their germs to themselves).

Besides that point, we were still encouraged to continue the other preventive measures in addition to getting vaccinated.  All these methods together could have stopped this virus by now.  Eradicated?  Probably not, but the variants (Delta specifically) wouldn't have wreaked such havoc on our population had people implemented all options at their disposal to protect each other. 

The vaccine does help the person who gets it. But more importantly, it helps society as a whole by making it harder for the virus to flourish.  It also helps those who can't be protected by the vaccine, such as those with compromised immune systems and young children.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2021 at 7:08 AM, winsor said:

 

I've personally gone whole hog on the vaccine, but the benefit analysis for, say, an 11 year old kid is not as clear cut.  Getting immunity from an asymptomatic case of the delta variant may well pose less overall risk than that of the vaccine migrating to prepubescent testes.

 

Tell that to a colleague of mine who's 7 year old is now paralysed from complications from catching Covid. Another friend has permanent loss of taste and smell - can you imagine how much less enjoyable life is like that?

I think you're dramatically underestimating the imapct of long term covid symptoms - something we're still figuring out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2021 at 6:14 PM, TriGirl said:

The vaccine does help the person who gets it. But more importantly, it helps society as a whole by making it harder for the virus to flourish.  It also helps those who can't be protected by the vaccine, such as those with compromised immune systems and young children.

And there you hit on the philosophical differences between people. 'My freedoms' vs ''sacrifice' for others'. (and 'sacrifice' is in BIG fucking inverted commas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yoink said:

Tell that to a colleague of mine who's 7 year old is now paralysed from complications from catching Covid.

Yep.  MIS-C is nothing to sneeze at.  Even long COVID is no picnic.

I had a grade school teacher who was in a wheelchair due to polio.  I am willing to bet that she didn't think her "natural immunity" to polio was worth her legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  MIS-C is nothing to sneeze at.  Even long COVID is no picnic.

I had a grade school teacher who was in a wheelchair due to polio.  I am willing to bet that she didn't think her "natural immunity" to polio was worth her legs.

Everyone my age (76) growing up in the UK knows or knew someone paralyzed by polio.  I can recall visiting a relative in hospital when I was a kid and walking past the ward with a dozen or so "iron lungs" in it - all occupied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting CDC data for the last week. FL has been trending down and now has the lowest death rate in the country with CT a close second (also trending down). CA , which was with FL a week ago, is trending upward. It's interesting that FL and CA have two distinctly different thoughts on managing COVID yet the results are what they are. Last week they were about even. 

Great example of how stats may be misleading. One has to look at this data over a period of time and consider all the factors, which could be too many to make meaningful conclusions. Adding blue/red political analysis/comments is just silly.

So many factors that may or may not impact the data. FL - maybe most of the old and vulnerable already croaked. TX - maybe it's the illegal immigrants causing the problem. And that may be true since the northern states of OK and Kansas are quite high, and the east/west states are similar to TX. CA - maybe the reporting is better or it's tourists bringing it in. SC - live free or die, we're just stubborn, or maybe it's the huge influx of northerners escaping the taxes and politics up north. 

Oh well, here comes cold weather when people go inside and pass around stuff. We'll see.

Deaths in the last 7 days, rate per 100,000, 
FL - 5, 0.02, 

CT - 26, 0.7

CA - 635, 1.6

IL - 206, 1.6

MI - 194, 1.9

Oregon - 88, 2.1

SC - 168, 3.2

TX - 909, 3.1

OK - 178, 4.5

Kansas - 204, 7

Montana - 99, 9.3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billeisele said:

Interesting CDC data for the last week. FL has been trending down and now has the lowest death rate in the country with CT a close second (also trending down). CA , which was with FL a week ago, is trending upward. It's interesting that FL and CA have two distinctly different thoughts on managing COVID yet the results are what they are. Last week they were about even. 

Where exactly are you seeing this data? The JHU data does not seem to agree [link].

91-DIVOC-states-normalized-California.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nwt said:

Where exactly are you seeing this data?

Perhaps he's talking about that tiny blip at the end of the CA death data?  And that FL has been level but is down a fraction since last week?

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest"

Edited to add: I was also curious about his claim that Florida "has the lowest death rate in the country" so I checked that out as well.  Results below.  Looks like it is well above average.

FloridaCovid.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, billvon said:

Perhaps he's talking about that tiny blip at the end of the CA death data?

He must be, but his description is certainly not accurate for when he wrote it. It seems it *may* have been plausible a week or two prior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

5 5