Coronavirus is one mutation away from infecting millions

[spurraider21]

No

The word you might be look8ng for is "reduces" not "prevents"

Follow da science :tu
prevent was your word :tu

and in the way you used it, you were absolutely wrong :tu

[hater]

prevent was your word :tu

and in the way you used it, you were absolutely wrong :tu

Yes. And its absolutely right. The vax does not prevent spread.

Follow the science :tu

[spurraider21]

Yes. And its absolutely right. The vax does not prevent spread.

Follow the science :tu
i said it protects the vaccinated and people around them and you responded in disagreement

you were wrong, as usual.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes. And its absolutely right. The vax does not prevent spread.

Follow the science :tuApology accepted.:tu

[hater]

i said it protects the vaccinated and people around them and you responded in disagreement

you were wrong, as usual.

Lets roll the tape:



glad my general point that it reduces transmissions (which is what i was arguing with hater about, as he outright said "the vaccine does not prevent spread. stop spreading fake news")

You specifically said you argued my statement "the vaccine does not prevent spread"

You were wrong as something reducing something else does not = something preventing it

Follow the science :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Lets roll the tape:



You specifically said you argued my statement "the vaccine does not prevent spread"

You were wrong as something reducing something else does not = something preventing it

Follow the science :tu
Apology accepted.:tu

[pgardn]

Lets roll the tape:



You specifically said you argued my statement "the vaccine does not prevent spread"

You were wrong as something reducing something else does not = something preventing it

Follow the science :tu

NO vaccine prevents the spread unless the vaccine is taken by a significant portion of the population, AND people follow measures TO PREVENT the spread. Masking etc. The vaccine works incredibly well. It is OUR behavior that has let this loose. Its called PUBLIC HEALTH and you dont believe in it, so in your world, we would have never stopped any disease from running rampant with vaccines. Mainly because we would have actually attempted to help it to spread. And as infective as it is the problems would have been mitigated if we could just stop cases from all coming in single waves one after another, over whelming our health care system that Trump has fixed so well.

[spurraider21]

Lets roll the tape:



You specifically said you argued my statement "the vaccine does not prevent spread"

You were wrong as something reducing something else does not = something preventing it

Follow the science :tu
:lmao you quoted my post where i said "my point is that it reduces transmissions"

[pgardn]

Honest to God we go over the same stuff time and time again with hater...

It will not sink in and then when it does for a millisecond, he plays word games.
Tomorrow, the facts will have leaked out of his head and we will start over again.

[Ef-man]

Hater getting owned left, right, up, down, and diagonally! :lmao

Follow the laughter :tu :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Ignore these ignorant, stupid, unserious mofos.

[hater]

:lmao you quoted my post where i said "my point is that it reduces transmissions"

Yeah and also this where you admit you were arguing my statment:

(which is what i was arguing with hater about, as he outright said "the vaccine does not prevent spread)

:lmao


Follow da science :tu

[hater]

he plays word games.

:lmao

Its called the English language :lmao

[spurraider21]

Yeah and also this where you admit you were arguing my statment:

(which is what i was arguing with hater about, as he outright said "the vaccine does not prevent spread)

:lmao


Follow da science :tu
it demonstrably prevents spread, just not 100% of the time :tu

[hater]

it demonstrably prevents spread, just not 100% of the time :tu

Nowhere near 100% so it demonstrably DOES NOT PREVENT SPREAD

Follow da science :tu

[ChumpDumper]

Nowhere near 100% so it demonstrably DOES NOT PREVENT SPREADIn many individuals it does prevent spread 100%.

Apology accepted.:tu

[Ef-man]

In many individuals it does prevent spread 100%.

Apology accepted.:tu

Hater with the apologies! :lmao

[hater]

Nowhere near 100% so it demonstrably DOES NOT PREVENT SPREAD

Follow da science :tu

Furthermore. This is straight from CDC website:

Q: Does the vaccine protect against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection? (Asymptomatic infection is when someone is infected with SARS-CoV-2 but does not have signs or symptoms of COVID-19.)

A: It is not known if the vaccine protects against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

Q: If a person has received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, will the vaccine protect against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination?

A: Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.



https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions



Called it :tu

Follow da science ma niglets :tu

[SnakeBoy]

oh, ok :lol

glad my general point that it reduces transmissions (which is what i was arguing with hater about, as he outright said "the vaccine does not prevent spread. stop spreading fake news") was correct :tu

lol claiming you've been correct all along

You've moved from vaccines prevent infection to well it reduces transmission

[spurraider21]

lol claiming you've been correct all along

You've moved from vaccines prevent infection to well it reduces transmission
did i ever claim that vaccinated people cannot catch covid?

[hater]

did i ever claim that vaccinated people cannot catch covid?

You claimed by saying it reduces transmission (which according to CDC is still unknown) it succesfully counters my statement that "vaccine doesnot prevent transmission"

It doesnt. You were wrong.

Follow the science.:tu

[ChumpDumper]

It clearly prevents transmission in enough individuals to reduce transmission overall.

:lol all-or-nothing vaxxed antivax Trumptards

[hater]

It clearly prevents transmission in enough individuals to reduce transmission overall.

:lol all-or-nothing vaxxed antivax Trumptards

FDA.GOV: While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...sked-questions


:lmao chump

[spurraider21]

You claimed by saying it reduces transmission (which according to CDC is still unknown) it succesfully counters my statement that "vaccine doesnot prevent transmission"

It doesnt. You were wrong.

Follow the science.:tu
so, no

apology accepted

[hater]

it demonstrably prevents spread, just not 100% of the time :tu

FDA.GOV: While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...sked-questions



:lmao :lol :lmao :lol

[spurraider21]

FDA.GOV: While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...sked-questions



:lmao :lol :lmao :lol
now you're arguing with Cuck Ross's article and the study it was citing to

[hater]

now you're arguing with Cuck Ross's article and the study it was citing to

Yup.

Your turn.

Which do you value more? FDA website or Cuck Ross article?

[spurraider21]

Yup.

Your turn.

Which do you value more? FDA website or Cuck Ross article?
given that your link doesnt work, do you know when that particular bit was written?

[hater]

given that your link doesnt work, do you know when that particular bit was written?

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions

I'm pretty sure those pages are constantly updated. so its latest info.

cheers :tu

[Ef-man]

FDA.GOV: While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-prepar...sked-questions

:lmao :lol :lmao :lol

Go to the link and what do you see?

Typical hater result: “Page Not Found” :lmao :lmao :lmao

Apologies accepted!

[Ef-man]

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions

I'm pretty sure those pages are constantly updated. so its latest info.

cheers :tu

And what do you see?

On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued the first emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older.

On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and is now marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 in individuals 16 years of age and older.



Apologies accepted! :lmao

[hater]

Dummy above :rolleyes

Mistaking prevention of transmission with prevention of disease :lol

[Cuck Ross]

Dummy above :rolleyes

Mistaking prevention of transmission with prevention of disease :lol

:lol

[Ef-man]

How about the CDC.

Vaccination protects against Covid-19 more strongly than previous infection does, CDC study finds.

Vaccination protects people against coronavirus infection much better than previous infection does, a team of researchers led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Friday.

Apologies accepted (https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/health/covid-vaccine-protects-better-previous-infection/index.html). :tu

[Cuck Ross]

How about the CDC.

Vaccination protects against Covid-19 more strongly than previous infection does, CDC study finds.

Vaccination protects people against coronavirus infection much better than previous infection does, a team of researchers led by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Friday.

Apologies accepted (https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/health/covid-vaccine-protects-better-previous-infection/index.html). :tu


Dummy above :rolleyes

Mistaking prevention of transmission with prevention of disease :lol

[hater]

You hate to see it :lmao

[ElNono]

from the paper the article cites to:

Interpretation

Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts. Host–virus interactions early in infection may shape the entire viral trajectory.

so i was wrong about peak viral load for breakthrough cases when it comes to delta (the paper confirms that it reduced peak viral load for the alpha strain). but i was correct that:

1) vaccinated individuals dont spread it for nearly as long, since their viral clearance is accelerated
2) being vaccinated reduces the risk of infection to begin with

the paper also demonstrated that vaccinated household members were less likely to catch covid than unvaccinated household members

so again, yes, it has the net effect of reducing transmissions :tu.

should follow the science.

lol, were you expecting them to read the paper? lmao

[ElNono]

i said it protects the vaccinated and people around them and you responded in disagreement

you were wrong, as usual.


Lets roll the tape:

You specifically said you argued my statement "the vaccine does not prevent spread"

You were wrong as something reducing something else does not = something preventing it

Follow the science :tu

hater folds :tu

[spurraider21]

Dummy above :rolleyes

Mistaking prevention of transmission with prevention of disease :lol
what's the difference? what do you think transmission of a disease means?

[hater]

what's the difference? what do you think transmission of a disease means?

:lmao for the 3rd time. From FDA:

Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.


One thing is preventing the disease. Which is what this vax does.

The 2nd is preventing transmission. Which FDA says: "scientific community does not know.yet"


Smh its not rocket science. A child can understand this :lol

[Winehole23]

what silly semantics, preventing transmission does prevent disease

[DMC]

You hate to see it :lmao

But you expect to see it anyhow :lol

[DMC]

what silly semantics, preventing transmission does prevent disease
:lol says "silly semantics" then follows with silly semantics

[spurraider21]

:lmao for the 3rd time. From FDA:

Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.


One thing is preventing the disease. Which is what this vax does.

The 2nd is preventing transmission. Which FDA says: "scientific community does not know.yet"


Smh its not rocket science. A child can understand this :lol
im just asking you what the difference is between preventing disease and preventing transmission of the disease?

[DMC]

im just asking you what the difference is between preventing disease and preventing transmission of the disease?

:lmao
Phio again with the goal post move "nuh uh, not me, I wasn't even talking about that so I wasn't wrong.. that was someone else... I just wanted to bandwagon again"

Grow a pair, Philo, good lord.

[DMC]

:lol people not understanding how "prevents" and "slows" are two different things.

"I prevented Lebron from scoring!"

Lebron finished with 56 points.

"OK so? Just not 100% of the time"

[spurraider21]

:lol people not understanding how "prevents" and "slows" are two different things.

"I prevented Lebron from scoring!"

Lebron finished with 56 points.

"OK so? Just not 100% of the time"
i said the vaccine offers protection. hater is the one who moved the goalpost to "IT DOESNT PREVENT"

this is why we dont need Poster B jumping in mid-conversation

[hater]

im just asking you what the difference is between preventing disease and preventing transmission of the disease?

Seriously?

Preventing disease: im vaxed I get infected with Covid. But the immune protection by the vaccines prevents me from getting very sick (the disease)

Not preventing transmission: i am vaxed and infected with covid. With very mild symptoms. But I can still spread the virus to both vaxed and non vaxed.

Smdh

[hater]

:lol people not understanding how "prevents" and "slows" are two different things.

"I prevented Lebron from scoring!"

Lebron finished with 56 points.

"OK so? Just not 100% of the time"

Yeah thats another thing. Its pretty clear but nigas here say im playing "word games" :lol

Its not a fucking game. Different words have different meanings :lol

[daboom1]

:lol

[Winehole23]

no transmission = no disease

slowing transmission does prevent cases at the population level

[DMC]

no transmission = no disease

slowing transmission does prevent cases at the population level

So masks don't work.

[Winehole23]

So masks don't work.how does that follow?

[DMC]

i said the vaccine offers protection. hater is the one who moved the goalpost to "IT DOESNT PREVENT"

this is why we dont need Poster B jumping in mid-conversation

You are poster B. You were dubbed as such and that's your scarlet letter now.

You're the interloper here.

[Winehole23]

there's no magic bullet, it'll take a layered approach to get the caseload below the pandemic threshold.

singling out one element of mitigation because it doesn't do the job all by itself is derpish, tbh

[DMC]

how does that follow?

Because we still have disease at the population level.

[DMC]

there's no magic bullet, it'll take a layered approach to get the caseload below the pandemic threshold.

singling out one element of mitigation because it doesn't do the job all by itself is derpish, tbh

Alec disagrees

[ChumpDumper]

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions

I'm pretty sure those pages are constantly updated. so its latest info.Prove it.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol moar all-or-nothing Trumptards checking in

[spurraider21]

Seriously?

Preventing disease: im vaxed I get infected with Covid. But the immune protection by the vaccines prevents me from getting very sick (the disease)

Not preventing transmission: i am vaxed and infected with covid. With very mild symptoms. But I can still spread the virus to both vaxed and non vaxed.

Smdh
those two definitions seem identical

[spurraider21]

So masks don't work.
you cant make up your mind about masks

remember when you claimed they were a placebo? and then when i brought that take up you denied having called them a placebo. and then when i found your posts calling them a placebo your defense was "well thats a different thread"

:lmao

[Winehole23]

:lmao

[hater]

those two definitions seem identical

Ok you win dumbest poster of the month

Smh

:lol

Dymb shithead

Transmitting a virus seems equal to getting the disease from the virus :lol

[spurraider21]

Ok you win dumbest poster of the month

Smh

:lol

Dymb shithead

Transmitting a virus seems equal to getting the disease from the virus :lol
you've been unable to articulate what you think the difference is between preventing disease and preventing transmission of the disease

[hater]

you've been unable to articulate what you think the difference is between preventing disease and preventing transmission of the disease

:lmao youve been unable to understand a concept a 3 year old would :lol

If u are infected with the virus preventing transmissions means you cannot give the virus to anyone

Preventing disease means you wont get sick from it

:lmao jfc :lol

[spurraider21]

:lmao youve been unable to understand a concept a 3 year old would :lol

If u are infected with the virus preventing transmissions means you cannot give the virus to anyone

Preventing disease means you wont get sick from it

:lmao jfc :lol
excellent. you've finally spit it out.

now, if somebody is not currently testing positive for the virus, are they able to transmit it to somebody else? no.

and do the vaccines reduce someone's chances of testing positive? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this.

and if somebody DOES test positive, does the vaccine, on average, lower the amount of time during which they'd be testing positive, and therefore be able to transmit the disease? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this

so having more people vaccinated means there will be less transmissions of the virus. what has already been demonstrated and acknowledged is that in the event of a breakthrough case (you've been vaccinated and nevertheless catch covid/test positive for it), you are still transmitting the disease as much as an unvaccinated person is... during that period of time (which again, is shorter for vaccinated people)

[DMC]

you cant make up your mind about masks

remember when you claimed they were a placebo? and then when i brought that take up you denied having called them a placebo. and then when i found your posts calling them a placebo your defense was "well thats a different thread"

:lmao
It's the natural conclusion from his statement. If slowing the spread prevents infection at the population level, and we wore masks, why haven't we prevented infection at the population level?

It doesn't prevent shit. It might retard it some, but prevention means it doesn't happen. You shouldn't need the "100%" caveat as the term itself means that already.

And no, I remember you lying about it. I said the masks you get on the street and the non-surgical masks are placebos. Wearing a bandana over your face is a placebo. That's why later it was disallowed. I said as much in my original statement but you being your normal self, you reached out for echo chamber support and now you're revising history.

[DMC]

excellent. you've finally spit it out.

now, if somebody is not currently testing positive for the virus, are they able to transmit it to somebody else? no.

Wrong.

You can test negative (or not test at all) and still transmit the virus. Stick to lying, it's your profession.



and do the vaccines reduce someone's chances of testing positive? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this.

Reducing isn't preventing. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. The old joke about a police officer explaining the difference between slowing down and stopping comes to mind. If something prevented a hammer from hitting you in the face, would it hit you still, just less often? :lol


and if somebody DOES test positive, does the vaccine, on average, lower the amount of time during which they'd be testing positive, and therefore be able to transmit the disease? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this Still not preventing it. You keep moving the goalpost to "reduce". You were using "prevent" earlier. Typical you.


so having more people vaccinated means there will be less transmissions of the virus. what has already been demonstrated and acknowledged is that in the event of a breakthrough case (you've been vaccinated and nevertheless catch covid/test positive for it), you are still transmitting the disease as much as an unvaccinated person is... during that period of time (which again, is shorter for vaccinated people)

But not prevented. Remember that word.

[DMC]

:lol

Masks work by slowing the spread which prevents cases at the population level so the purpose of masks is to prevent cases at the population level

Spread was slowed

There are still cases at the population level

Masks therefore don't work for their intended purpose

[Thread]

:lol

Masks work by slowing the spread which prevents cases at the population level so the purpose of masks is to prevent cases at the population level

Spread was slowed

There are still cases at the population level

Masks therefore don't work for their intended purpose

FYI...MF Biden lost another 3k twixt yesterday & today.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao DMC's placebos

[DMC]

FYI...MF Biden lost another 3k twixt yesterday & today.

Some said "every morning Dementia wakes up and has a cup of Joe" :lol

[spurraider21]

It's the natural conclusion from his statement. If slowing the spread prevents infection at the population level, and we wore masks, why haven't we prevented infection at the population level?

It doesn't prevent shit. It might retard it some, but prevention means it doesn't happen. You shouldn't need the "100%" caveat as the term itself means that already.

And no, I remember you lying about it. I said the masks you get on the street and the non-surgical masks are placebos. Wearing a bandana over your face is a placebo. That's why later it was disallowed. I said as much in my original statement but you being your normal self, you reached out for echo chamber support and now you're revising history.
people use the term prevent or preventative in medical care all the time without it meaning 100% foolproof. now you're the one getting hung up on semantics. ive been remarkably clear that vaccines are not 100% effective re: catching covid, or hell, even dying of covid. trying to pretend that i've held the position that no vaccinated person can be infected, or asking me to defend that position now, is stupid.

[spurraider21]

Wrong.

You can test negative (or not test at all) and still transmit the virus. Stick to lying, it's your profession.
this is dumb. obviously somebody can catch covid without taking a test. when i said somebody not testing positive, i mean somebody who does not "have covid" to the extent that they would be testing positive. its clear from the context of my post that i wasnt excluding people who have covid but are not testing. but you want to pretend otherwise


Reducing isn't preventing. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. The old joke about a police officer explaining the difference between slowing down and stopping comes to mind. If something prevented a hammer from hitting you in the face, would it hit you still, just less often? :lol
you're getting hung up on semantics. i have never held the position that nobody with a vaccine can catch covid.


Still not preventing it. You keep moving the goalpost to "reduce". You were using "prevent" earlier. Typical you.
see above


But not prevented. Remember that word.
see above

[hater]

excellent. you've finally spit it out.

now, if somebody is not currently testing positive for the virus, are they able to transmit it to somebody else? no.



Yes you dumbfuck they can trasnmit :lol



and do the vaccines reduce someone's chances of testing positive? yes. i can send you links to any number of studies or results of clinical trials supporting this.


This has nothing to do with transmission ya dumbfuck

[spurraider21]

Yes you dumbfuck they can trasnmit :lol



This has nothing to do with transmission ya dumbfuck
somebody who doesnt have covid can transmit covid?

wild

[daboom1]

Is there asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus disease?

Recent epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling reports support the possibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from persons who are presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) or asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop)

Someone who does not have Covid develop can transmit Covid.

[spurraider21]

Is there asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus disease?

Recent epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling reports support the possibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from persons who are presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) or asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop)

Someone who does not have Covid develop can transmit Covid.
im not talking about asymptomatic carriers. even people who are asymptomatic would, if tested, test positive.

i'm talking about people who dont have covid. they cannot trasmit the disease. if the vaccine can help prevent you from getting to that point, then it is also curbing transmissions :tu

[spurraider21]

:lol trying to rebut my contention while claiming to ignore my posts

[hater]

somebody who doesnt have covid can transmit covid?

wild

:lmao dumbfuck someone that has the virus but tests negative still transmits :lol

[hater]

Is there asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus disease?

Recent epidemiologic, virologic, and modeling reports support the possibility of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from persons who are presymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected before symptom onset) or asymptomatic (SARS-CoV-2 detected but symptoms never develop)

Someone who does not have Covid develop can transmit Covid.

:lmao there are ppl that test negative and still have the virus and transmit

Is assraider21 really this fucking stupid? :lmao

[spurraider21]

:lmao dumbfuck someone that has the virus but tests negative still transmits :lol
what kind of person is this? :lol

or are you going to say gotcha and say you were referring to false negatives?

[Ef-man]

what kind of person is this? :lol

or are you going to say gotcha and say you were referring to false negatives?

Hater is some kind of special!
:lol

[DMC]

people use the term prevent or preventative in medical care all the time without it meaning 100% foolproof. now you're the one getting hung up on semantics. ive been remarkably clear that vaccines are not 100% effective re: catching covid, or hell, even dying of covid. trying to pretend that i've held the position that no vaccinated person can be infected, or asking me to defend that position now, is stupid.

You were wrong. It doesn't matter if other people say it. Slows does not equal stops. Prevent equals stops. You using the "100%" caveat just the same even though I already shut that one down. I can see you coming from a mile away.

[DMC]

what kind of person is this? :lol

or are you going to say gotcha and say you were referring to false negatives?

What else would he mean? Why are you trying to head off the obvious? You were wrong again.

[DMC]

im not talking about asymptomatic carriers. even people who are asymptomatic would, if tested, test positive.

i'm talking about people who dont have covid. they cannot trasmit the disease. if the vaccine can help prevent you from getting to that point, then it is also curbing transmissions :tu

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to draw your attention to the gradual regression of the defendant's verbiage from "prevents" through "slows" to now saying "curbing". Soon I expect the vaccine will have no affect at all, given the trajectory of this individual's backpedaling. Is this some mental breakdown happening? Did this person forget they started with "prevents"? Or would it make more sense to think that this person is trying to sneak out of the original claim to safer ground, hoping perhaps some echo chamber colleague will jump in front of the bullet?

[hater]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to draw your attention to the gradual regression of the defendant's verbiage from "prevents" through "slows" to now saying "curbing". Soon I expect the vaccine will have no affect at all, given the trajectory of this individual's backpedaling. Is this some mental breakdown happening? Did this person forget they started with "prevents"? Or would it make more sense to think that this person is trying to sneak out of the original claim to safer ground, hoping perhaps some echo chamber colleague will jump in front of the bullet?

:lmao this idiot thinks he can move the goalposts without anyone noticing :lmao

[DMC]

Accuracy during the first week of symptoms versus the second
Rapid tests more accurately provided a positive COVID-19 result when administered during the first week of symptoms. The researchers found that rapid tests correctly identified COVID-19 in an average of 78.3 percent of cases during the first week.

In the second week, the average dropped to 51 percent.

[DMC]

:lmao this idiot thinks he can move the goalposts without anyone noticing :lmao

It's his mainstay. His next move will be to accuse you of asking him personal questions and balk when you call him out on it. Not to worry, he's got help on the way I'm sure. I expect the forum hermit to post almost immediately after this in fact :lol

[Ef-man]

You were wrong. It doesn't matter if other people say it. Slows does not equal stops. Prevent equals stops. You using the "100%" caveat just the same even though I already shut that one down. I can see you coming from a mile away.


What else would he mean? Why are you trying to head off the obvious? You were wrong again.


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to draw your attention to the gradual regression of the defendant's verbiage from "prevents" through "slows" to now saying "curbing". Soon I expect the vaccine will have no affect at all, given the trajectory of this individual's backpedaling. Is this some mental breakdown happening? Did this person forget they started with "prevents"? Or would it make more sense to think that this person is trying to sneak out of the original claim to safer ground, hoping perhaps some echo chamber colleague will jump in front of the bullet?


:lmao this idiot thinks he can move the goalposts without anyone noticing :lmao


Accuracy during the first week of symptoms versus the second
Rapid tests more accurately provided a positive COVID-19 result when administered during the first week of symptoms. The researchers found that rapid tests correctly identified COVID-19 in an average of 78.3 percent of cases during the first week.

In the second week, the average dropped to 51 percent.


It's his mainstay. His next move will be to accuse you of asking him personal questions and balk when you call him out on it. Not to worry, he's got help on the way I'm sure. I expect the forum hermit to post almost immediately after this in fact :lol

ECHO CHAMBER!

Bingo.

[spurraider21]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like to draw your attention to the gradual regression of the defendant's verbiage from "prevents" through "slows" to now saying "curbing". Soon I expect the vaccine will have no affect at all, given the trajectory of this individual's backpedaling. Is this some mental breakdown happening? Did this person forget they started with "prevents"? Or would it make more sense to think that this person is trying to sneak out of the original claim to safer ground, hoping perhaps some echo chamber colleague will jump in front of the bullet?
You accused me of getting hung up on semantics. That’s all you’ve been arguing

my position has been clear and proven correct by the article cuck Ross linked to. The only point i was wrong on was that unlike the alpha strain, vaccinated people who catch the delta strain of covid do not have lower viral loads than unvaccinated people. But my larger point that it decreases transmission was correct.

If you want to get hung up on the word “prevent” to imply that i argued that vaccinated people cannot possibly catch covid then you’re just arguing a strawman or semantics

[DMC]

You accused me of getting hung up on semantics. That’s all you’ve been arguing

:lol no I didn't.
:lol Anytime you're wrong it's all about semantics.

Keep trying to create a new narrative.



my position has been clear and proven correct by the article cuck Ross linked to. The only point i was wrong on was that unlike the alpha strain, vaccinated people who catch the delta strain of covid do not have lower viral loads than unvaccinated people. But my larger point that it decreases transmission was correct.

:lol According to you, the virus has been prevented, slowed then it parked near a curb. Yeah really clear :lol


If you want to get hung up on the word “prevent” to imply that i argued that vaccinated people cannot possibly catch covid then you’re just arguing a strawman or semantics


I just want to get hung up on what you were arguing against :lol
Hater told you this from the get go and you continued arguing. :lol

[DMC]

It's his mainstay. His next move will be to accuse you of asking him personal questions and balk when you call him out on it. Not to worry, he's got help on the way I'm sure. I expect the forum hermit to post almost immediately after this in fact :lol

Immediately after...

ECHO CHAMBER!

Bingo.

:lol

[Winehole23]

DemsoMenso, What a charlatan.

It’s like he thinks he owns the dictionary and regulates the use of common words.

[Ef-man]

DemsoMenso, What a charlatan.

It’s like he thinks he owns the dictionary and regulates the use of common words.

He is desperately patting his own back for comfort. Charlatan indeed.

[DMC]

DemsoMenso, What a charlatan.

It’s like he thinks he owns the dictionary and regulates the use of common words.

And you own Bingo :lol
Needing to move goalposts against Hater :lol

Christ 'O mighty these are strange times

[spurraider21]

:lol no I didn't.
:lol Anytime you're wrong it's all about semantics.

Keep trying to create a new narrative.

:lol According to you, the virus has been prevented, slowed then it parked near a curb. Yeah really clear :lol



I just want to get hung up on what you were arguing against :lol
Hater told you this from the get go and you continued arguing. :lol
If you read through the discussion you’d know that i never made the claim that vaccinated people cannot catch covid. Any argument to the contrary is disingenuous and uninteresting

im done with that. You can keep claiming it’s not semantics but you’re hung up on the word prevent when my position was made very clear and it was hater who used the word “prevent” not me

[Ef-man]

DemsoMenso, What a charlatan.

It’s like he thinks he owns the dictionary and regulates the use of common words.

And you trigger him so easily. :lol

[Winehole23]

And you own Bingo :lol
Needing to move goalposts against Hater :lol

Christ 'O mighty these are strange timesYou and hater putting words in others’ mouths isn’t me moving the goalposts, tbh.

So denso in the menso.

[hater]

If you read through the discussion you’d know that i never made the claim that vaccinated people cannot catch covid. Any argument to the contrary is disingenuous and uninteresting

im done with that. You can keep claiming it’s not semantics but you’re hung up on the word prevent when my position was made very clear and it was hater who used the word “prevent” not me

You claimed vaccines reduce transmission (false) and with that you claimed it makes the stamement "vaccines do not prevent spread" false (false again)

You alsl confused preventing spread with preventing disease

You fucked up all kinds of ways tonight ma nig :lmao

Wrong wrong wrong wrong

Boy you were wrong many times

[Winehole23]

Que payaso el hater :lol

[Winehole23]

DMC seems to think emojis advance the ball too.

[Winehole23]

That's not the goal line guys, that's just where your arguments fell down.

[pgardn]

You claimed vaccines reduce transmission (false) and with that you claimed it makes the stamement "vaccines do not prevent spread" false (false again)

You alsl confused preventing spread with preventing disease

You fucked up all kinds of ways tonight ma nig :lmao

Wrong wrong wrong wrong

Boy you were wrong many times

Your entire existence on this board is wrong. Things that I dont know about that you comment on I must assume are wrong because thats what you are.

Why did you correct DMC when he made a statement that virus were alive?
Explain yourself.

[DMC]

If you read through the discussion you’d know that i never made the claim that vaccinated people cannot catch covid. Any argument to the contrary is disingenuous and uninteresting

im done with that. You can keep claiming it’s not semantics but you’re hung up on the word prevent when my position was made very clear and it was hater who used the word “prevent” not me

Hater: "It was not prevented"
You: "Sure it was..."
Me: ":lol"
You: "It was slowed"
Hater: "Slowed isn't prevented"
Me: ":lol:"
You: "It was curbed"
Hater: "Curbed is not prevented"
Me: "lol"
You: "semantics!!"

[DMC]

Que payaso el hater :lol


DMC seems to think emojis advance the ball too.

:lmao

[pgardn]

You claimed vaccines reduce transmission (false) and with that you claimed it makes the stamement "vaccines do not prevent spread" false (false again)

You alsl confused preventing spread with preventing disease

You fucked up all kinds of ways tonight ma nig :lmao

Wrong wrong wrong wrong

Boy you were wrong many times

They do reduce transmission per unit time which is EXACTLY what we were attempting to do so as to not interrupt our medical system, school, economy...

[hater]

Hater: "It was not prevented"
You: "Sure it was..."
Me: ":lol"
You: "It was slowed"
Hater: "Slowed isn't prevented"
Me: ":lol:"
You: "It was curbed"
Hater: "Curbed is not prevented"
Me: "lol"
You: "semantics!!"

You hate to see it

[DMC]

They do reduce transmission per unit time which is EXACTLY what we were attempting to do so as to not interrupt our medical system, school, economy...

Keep looking for a "w" in every crevice.

[SnakeBoy]

Hater: "It was not prevented"
You: "Sure it was..."
Me: ":lol"
You: "It was slowed"
Hater: "Slowed isn't prevented"
Me: ":lol:"
You: "It was curbed"
Hater: "Curbed is not prevented"
Me: "lol"
You: "semantics!!"

:lol

[Winehole23]

Hater: "It was not prevented"
You: "Sure it was..."
Me: ":lol"
You: "It was slowed"
Hater: "Slowed isn't prevented"
Me: ":lol:"
You: "It was curbed"
Hater: "Curbed is not prevented"
Me: "lol"
You: "semantics!!"That's a derpish recap.

Catching at words prised from all context is textbook semantics, tbh.

[Winehole23]

Telling others how they must use words or twitting them for using the wrong words when explanation and context make their intent clear, is semantics.

[hater]

English is hard! :(

[ElNono]

Vaccination Offers Better Protection Than Previous COVID-19 Infection

A new study from the [CDC] finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 than a previous infection with the virus (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579133-cdc-study-vaccination-offers-better-protection-than-previous-covid-19?rl=1). The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated. The study released Friday (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w) examined more than 7,000 people across nine states and 187 hospitals, comparing those who were unvaccinated and had previously had the coronavirus in the last three to six months and those who were vaccinated over the same time frame.

The CDC urged even those who were previously infected to get their shots. [...] Overall, [CDC Director Rochelle Walensky] said at a press briefing earlier this week that the hospitalization rate among unvaccinated people is 12 times higher than for vaccinated people. The vaccination rate for those 12 and older has now reached 78 percent with at least one shot, but Walensky noted that still leaves more than 60 million eligible Americans unvaccinated.

[Thread]

Vaccination Offers Better Protection Than Previous COVID-19 Infection

A new study from the [CDC] finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 than a previous infection with the virus (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579133-cdc-study-vaccination-offers-better-protection-than-previous-covid-19?rl=1). The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated. The study released Friday (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w) examined more than 7,000 people across nine states and 187 hospitals, comparing those who were unvaccinated and had previously had the coronavirus in the last three to six months and those who were vaccinated over the same time frame.

The CDC urged even those who were previously infected to get their shots. [...] Overall, [CDC Director Rochelle Walensky] said at a press briefing earlier this week that the hospitalization rate among unvaccinated people is 12 times higher than for vaccinated people. The vaccination rate for those 12 and older has now reached 78 percent with at least one shot, but Walensky noted that still leaves more than 60 million eligible Americans unvaccinated.

...so much Better that 90% of those fully vaxxed need the booster now.

Chop/chop!!!

[Winehole23]

Colorado continues to contemplate healthcare rationing

1454497209261641733

[Winehole23]

Colorado willling to ration healthcare but not to requre masking...

[Winehole23]

1454172131399397377

[Winehole23]

California gripping. Western states getting their asses kicked by COVID.


California is experiencing an unprecedented and exponential surge in COVID-19 cases, and staffing and other resources are becoming strained. COVID-19 hospitalizations have increased sevenfold over the last two months, while COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) hospitalizations have increased by over sixfold over the last two months, and large proportions of California hospitals have reached significant strain on their ability to provide adequate medical care to their communities. Over half of California hospitals have requested waivers for conventional staffing ratios per patient, and more anticipate ongoing staffing shortages. There is a shortage of ICU bed availability and many hospitals have added surge ICU beds but still need additional staffing to meet the ongoing demand. The distribution of COVID-19 hospitalizations is focused in some areas and hospitals, and the burden of care needs to be shared across our statewide healthcare resources. If this increase of COVID-19 patients continues, hospitals may be unable to provide necessary emergency and critical care to Californians.


Immediate action is necessary to preserve resources, to help prevent the need to adopt crisis standards of care, and to ensure that hospitals can continue to care for critically ill Californians suffering from COVID-19 as well as other life-threatening conditions

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/Order-of-the-State-Public-Health-Officer-Hospital-Surge_1-5-2021.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0kKMge37V-wtA1v5tz55vbBq8P-9GVq4_JxT2hFVo-2iPHryRL7IfrGCg

[DMC]

Conservative state doing bad = Red state
Dem state doing bad = Western state :lol

[pgardn]

Hater: "It was not prevented"
You: "Sure it was..."
Me: ":lol"
You: "It was slowed"
Hater: "Slowed isn't prevented"
Me: ":lol:"
You: "It was curbed"
Hater: "Curbed is not prevented"
Me: "lol"
You: "semantics!!"


Keep looking for a "w" in every crevice.

Okay Avante the hypocrite.

Just make light of the fact that we were trying to avoid these mass infections all at once so we could keep running smoothly.
this was explained and not understood by you or the rest of the trumpers.

DMC , "arbiter of the middle ground" and able to tease the facts out of any argument, sure thing grumpa.

[pgardn]

Okay Avante the hypocrite.

Just make light of the fact that we were trying to avoid these mass infections all at once so we could keep running smoothly.
this was explained and not understood by you or the rest of the trumpers.

And why did hater tell you viruses were not alive, what did you think about that? Like you have not blown him off as stupid like the rest of captain compost.

[DMC]

Why are you quoting yourself and asking yourself questions? :lol

[pgardn]

Why are you quoting yourself and asking yourself questions? :lol

So you dont have to reread anything.
And hater knows what I am talking about. He thinks he caught you on a detail.
the STATEMENT and question response was meant for him grumpa, the universe does not revolve around your old shriveled penis you miserable pile of dung.
You came flying in to protect him numbskull... So stay confused.

[Winehole23]

Conservative state doing bad = Red state
Dem state doing bad = Western state :lolNot sure what your gripe is, I didn't refer to any red state as such and singled out a blue state for criticism.

[boutons_deux]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=c5ffe9fe07&attid=0.2&permmsgid=msg-a:r4788871372633916680&th=17cd761783178d3c&view=fimg&fur=ip&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ-B2c1CBT0RLF5xJbSJTUzfZmsItuURcUnY-LX78Nw_z6wZc2O19nWUd07On0K0HFp8A17Rfk5G2grDKIMwkDR xsjRiR1TH7Y4sumOhSjPs6_obM392qRgLXj0&disp=emb&realattid=ii_kvfi6d5k1

[Winehole23]

Fwiw, several western states are really hurting right now.

Alaska, Idaho and New Mexico are rationing care, Montana is basically there already without having declared it, CA, CO and UT are drawing close.

[ElNono]

White House press secretary Jen Psaki tests positive for COVID-19 in breakthrough case

WASHINGTON – White House press secretary Jen Psaki tested positive for COVID-19, she disclosed Sunday in a statement that also said she has not been in close contact with the president or senior members of the White House staff since Wednesday.

Psaki said she last saw President Joe Biden on Tuesday, "when we sat outside more than six-feet apart, and wore masks."

Psaki, who was supposed to accompany Biden, stayed back after members of her household tested positive. (At the time, the White House announced Psaki was not going because of an unspecified "family emergency.")

She said she has been quarantined since then and tested negative every day until Sunday.

She said she disclosed the positive test "out of an abundance of transparency."

Psaki said she's experience only mild symptoms and will continue working from home until after a 10-day quarantine following a negative rapid test. She called that "an additional White House requirement, beyond CDC guidance, taken out of an abundance of caution."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/31/jen-psaki-tests-positive-covid/6227793001/

[SnakeBoy]

"You're not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations." said Joe Biden

[Winehole23]

Fwiw, several western states are really hurting right now.

Alaska, Idaho and New Mexico are rationing care, Montana is basically there already without having declared it, CA, CO and UT are drawing close.
Where did the "death panel" crew go?

We have literal death panels in three US states.

[Winehole23]

I guess the necessity of acknowledging COVID is real and still a threat is too much for some.

[Thread]

I guess the necessity of acknowledging COVID is real and still a threat is too much for some.

CNN included. Nary a story on their Internet front page.

[Winehole23]

CNN included. Nary a story on their Internet front page.it's there, you're wrong



https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/19/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

[Thread]

it's there, you're wrong



https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/19/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html

lmcontrollinao!!! Made ya talk to me.
tee, hee.

[Winehole23]

It's not hidden, all the stories are in regular newspapers.

Claims of MSM blackouts are erroneous approximately 100% of the time

[Thread]

It's not hidden, all the stories are in regular newspapers.

Don't try and get out of it now, Winester. You was reading my shit + you responded to my shit.

lmvictoriousao!!!

[Winehole23]

lmcontrollinao!!! Made ya talk to me.
tee, hee.to punt your point into the ether again.

You're welcome :lol

[Thread]

to punt your point into the ether again.

You're welcome :lol

Apology accepted.

[Winehole23]

Apology accepted.that's not an apology, it's another free ass-kicking

[Winehole23]

Hope that tides you over, go play with yourself, Dale.

[Thread]

that's not an apology, it's another free ass-kicking

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

tee, hee.

[boutons_deux]

Right-Wing COVID Myths Shredded In New Government Reports

the CDC released a report (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w) finding those who are unvaccinated and contracted COVID-19 are five times more likely to be re-infected than those who are fully vaccinated.

8) Among elderly, natural immunity is almost 20x weaker against reinfection than vaccines!!

the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 "was not developed as a biological weapon."
Further destroying right wing claims the DNI's report adds the coronavirus, known as SARS-CoV-2 "probably was not genetically engineered,"

https://www.nationalmemo.com/right-wing-covid-myths-shredded-in-new-government-reports

[Thread]

Right-Wing COVID Myths Shredded In New Government Reports

the CDC released a report (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w) finding those who are unvaccinated and contracted COVID-19 are five times more likely to be re-infected than those who are fully vaccinated.

8) Among elderly, natural immunity is almost 20x weaker against reinfection than vaccines!!

the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 "was not developed as a biological weapon."
Further destroying right wing claims the DNI's report adds the coronavirus, known as SARS-CoV-2 "probably was not genetically engineered,"

https://www.nationalmemo.com/right-wing-covid-myths-shredded-in-new-government-reports

Boiled down:::

President Trump: 400k dead AmericansPERIOD
MF Biden: 356k dead Americans. & counting, son.

[Cuck Ross]

Vaccination Offers Better Protection Than Previous COVID-19 Infection

A new study from the [CDC] finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 than a previous infection with the virus (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579133-cdc-study-vaccination-offers-better-protection-than-previous-covid-19?rl=1). The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated. The study released Friday (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w) examined more than 7,000 people across nine states and 187 hospitals, comparing those who were unvaccinated and had previously had the coronavirus in the last three to six months and those who were vaccinated over the same time frame.

The CDC urged even those who were previously infected to get their shots. [...] Overall, [CDC Director Rochelle Walensky] said at a press briefing earlier this week that the hospitalization rate among unvaccinated people is 12 times higher than for vaccinated people. The vaccination rate for those 12 and older has now reached 78 percent with at least one shot, but Walensky noted that still leaves more than 60 million eligible Americans unvaccinated.

1454313342130999301

[Cuck Ross]

Vaccination Offers Better Protection Than Previous COVID-19 Infection

A new study from the [CDC] finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 than a previous infection with the virus (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579133-cdc-study-vaccination-offers-better-protection-than-previous-covid-19?rl=1). The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated. The study released Friday (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w) examined more than 7,000 people across nine states and 187 hospitals, comparing those who were unvaccinated and had previously had the coronavirus in the last three to six months and those who were vaccinated over the same time frame.

The CDC urged even those who were previously infected to get their shots. [...] Overall, [CDC Director Rochelle Walensky] said at a press briefing earlier this week that the hospitalization rate among unvaccinated people is 12 times higher than for vaccinated people. The vaccination rate for those 12 and older has now reached 78 percent with at least one shot, but Walensky noted that still leaves more than 60 million eligible Americans unvaccinated.


https://twitter.com/WesPegden/status/1455238104340647936

https://twitter.com/YangTexan/status/1455211760181460998

[spurraider21]

:lmao

1455258984772997120

[Cuck Ross]

:lmao

1455258984772997120

Police sources told The Post roughly 6,500 of those employees put in requests to be exempt from the COVID vaccine on the urging of police unions as they attempt to fight the mandate in court (https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/nypds-largest-union-strikes-out-again-in-challenge-to-nycs-vaccine-mandate/). They are allowed to work as those applications are reviewed.
But sources added the NYPD’s Equal Employment Opportunity Division, which will review the applications, is expected to shoot down any religious exemption requests from cops who have nothing on file previously, such as requesting special accommodations for religious holidays.

[Cuck Ross]

The FDNY shut down 26 firehouses across the Big Apple as of 7:30 a.m. Saturday because of staff shortages caused by the vaccination mandate, The Post has learned.
The shuttered companies included Engine 55 in Lower Manhattan, Engine 234 in Crown Heights, Engine 231 in Brownsville, Ladder 128 in Long Island City and Engine 158 and Ladder 78 in Richmond on Staten Island, according to an FDNY alert sent Saturday morning.

[Thread]

The FDNY shut down 26 firehouses across the Big Apple as of 7:30 a.m. Saturday because of staff shortages caused by the vaccination mandate, The Post has learned.
The shuttered companies included Engine 55 in Lower Manhattan, Engine 234 in Crown Heights, Engine 231 in Brownsville, Ladder 128 in Long Island City and Engine 158 and Ladder 78 in Richmond on Staten Island, according to an FDNY alert sent Saturday morning.




CNN ain't touching this story with a 10 foot pole. And I betcha dollars to donuts FOX won't tell it either.

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/WesPegden/status/1455238104340647936

https://twitter.com/YangTexan/status/1455211760181460998

cool story

[ElNono]

Police sources told The Post roughly 6,500 of those employees put in requests to be exempt from the COVID vaccine on the urging of police unions as they attempt to fight the mandate in court (https://nypost.com/2021/10/29/nypds-largest-union-strikes-out-again-in-challenge-to-nycs-vaccine-mandate/). They are allowed to work as those applications are reviewed.
But sources added the NYPD’s Equal Employment Opportunity Division, which will review the applications, is expected to shoot down any religious exemption requests from cops who have nothing on file previously, such as requesting special accommodations for religious holidays.

Yep, both stories are actually true:

https://nypost.com/2021/11/01/heres-how-many-nypd-cops-are-on-unpaid-leave-over-vaccine-mandate/

[ElNono]

The FDNY shut down 26 firehouses across the Big Apple as of 7:30 a.m. Saturday because of staff shortages caused by the vaccination mandate, The Post has learned.
The shuttered companies included Engine 55 in Lower Manhattan, Engine 234 in Crown Heights, Engine 231 in Brownsville, Ladder 128 in Long Island City and Engine 158 and Ladder 78 in Richmond on Staten Island, according to an FDNY alert sent Saturday morning.




The FDNY’s vaccination rate stood at 72 percent for firefighters — and 77 percent agencywide — at the end of Friday, the city’s deadline for workers to get at least one dose of the vaccine, according to data from City Hall. Nearly 4,000 FDNY employees remained unvaccinated.

...

FDNY spokesman Jim Long said the closings are not permanent, describing the companies as “temporarily out of service” and the situation as “fluid” since it was shifting firefighters to units where they were needed.

As of late Saturday afternoon, the FDNY could not provide an exact number of closings that the pols said were in effect as of 7:30 am Saturday.

“The situation remains fluid. We hire manpower to get the company back in service or relocate other units to the area for coverage,” Long said.

In anticipation of a shortage of firefighters, NYPD’s Emergency Service Unit has requested the help of volunteer firefighters from Long Island and upstate to back fill the lost positions, according to an email obtained by The Post.


https://nypost.com/2021/10/30/fdny-firehouses-shuttered-over-vaccine-staffing-shortages/

[Cuck Ross]

cool story

You didn't read the methodology and posted a junk study based on the headline. Somewhat embarrassing for you but understandable after such a disgusting move by the CDC to publish.

[Cuck Ross]

Vaccination Offers Better Protection Than Previous COVID-19 Infection

A new study from the [CDC] finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 than a previous infection with the virus (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579133-cdc-study-vaccination-offers-better-protection-than-previous-covid-19?rl=1). The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated. The study released Friday (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w) examined more than 7,000 people across nine states and 187 hospitals, comparing those who were unvaccinated and had previously had the coronavirus in the last three to six months and those who were vaccinated over the same time frame.

The CDC urged even those who were previously infected to get their shots. [...] Overall, [CDC Director Rochelle Walensky] said at a press briefing earlier this week that the hospitalization rate among unvaccinated people is 12 times higher than for vaccinated people. The vaccination rate for those 12 and older has now reached 78 percent with at least one shot, but Walensky noted that still leaves more than 60 million eligible Americans unvaccinated.
A Review and Autopsy of Two COVID Immunity Studies How effective is immunity after Covid recovery relative to vaccination? An Israeli study (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1) by Gazit et al. found that the vaccinated have a 27 times higher risk of symptomatic infection than the Covid recovered. At the same time, the vaccinated were nine times more likely to be hospitalized for Covid. In contrast, a CDC study (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm) by Bozio et al. claims that the Covid recovered are five times more likely to be hospitalized for Covid than the vaccinated. Both studies cannot be right.
I have worked on vaccine epidemiology since I joined the Harvard faculty almost two decades ago as a biostatistician. I have never before seen such a large discrepancy between studies that are supposed to answer the same question. In this article, I carefully dissect both studies, describe how the analyses differ, and explain why the Israeli study is more reliable.
The Israeli Study In the Israeli study, the researchers tracked 673,676 vaccinated people who they knew not to have had Covid and 62,833 unvaccinated Covid-recovered individuals. A simple comparison of the rates of subsequent Covid in these two groups would be misleading. The vaccinated are likely older and, hence, more prone to have symptomatic disease, giving the Covid recovered group an unfair advantage. At the same time, the typical vaccinated patient received the vaccine long after the typical Covid-recovered patient got sick. Most Covid recovered patients got the infection before the vaccine was even available. Because immunity wanes over time, this fact would give an unfair advantage to the vaccinated group.
To make a fair and unbiased comparison, researchers must match patients from the two groups on age and time since vaccination/disease. That is precisely what the study authors did, matching also on gender and geographical location.
For the primary analysis, the study authors identified a cohort with 16,215 individuals who had recovered from Covid and 16,215 matched individuals who were vaccinated. The authors followed these cohorts over time to determine how many had a subsequent symptomatic Covid disease diagnosis.
Ultimately, 191 patients in the vaccinated group and 8 in the Covid recovered group got symptomatic Covid disease. These numbers mean that the vaccinated were 191/8=23 times more likely to have subsequent symptomatic disease than the Covid recovered. After adjusting the statistical analysis for comorbidities in a logistic regression analysis, the authors measured a relative risk of 27 with a 95% confidence interval between 13 and 57 times more likely for the vaccinated.
The study also looked at Covid hospitalizations; eight were in the vaccinated group, and one among the Covid recovered. These numbers imply a relative risk of 8 (95% CI: 1-65). There were no deaths in either group, showing that both the vaccine and natural immunity provide excellent protection against mortality.
This is a straightforward and well-conducted epidemiological cohort study that is easy to understand and interpret. The authors addressed the major source of bias through matching. One potential bias they did not address (as it is challenging to do) is that those with prior Covid may have been more likely to be exposed in the past through work or other activities. Since they were more likely to be exposed in the past, they may also have been more likely exposed during the follow-up period. That would lead to an underestimate of the relative risks in favor of vaccination. There may also be misclassification if some of the vaccinated unknowingly had Covid. That would also lead to an underestimate.
The CDC Study The CDC study did not create a cohort of people to follow over time. Instead, they identified people hospitalized with Covid-like symptoms, and then they evaluated how many of them tested positive versus negative for Covid. Among the vaccinated, 5% tested positive, while it was 9% among the Covid recovered. What does this mean?
Though the authors do not mention it, they adopt a de facto case-control design. While not as strong as a cohort study, this is a well-established epidemiological design. The first study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2038856/pdf/brmedj03566-0003.pdf) to show that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer used a case-control design. They compared hospitalized patients with lung cancer and found more smokers in that group compared to non-cancer patients, who served as controls. Note that if they had restricted the control group to people with (say) heart attacks, they would have answered a different question: whether smoking is a larger risk factor for lung cancer than it is for heart attacks. Since smoking is a risk factor for both diseases, such a risk estimate would differ from the one they found.
In the CDC study on Covid immunity, the cases are those patients hospitalized for Covid disease, having both Covid-like symptoms and a positive test. That is appropriate. The controls should constitute a representative sample from the population from which the Covid patients came. Unfortunately, that is not the case since Covid-negative people with Covid-like symptoms, such as pneumonia, tend to be older and frailer with comorbidities. They are also more likely to be vaccinated.
Suppose we wanted to know whether the vaccine rollout successfully reached not only the old but also frail people with comorbidities. In that case, we could conduct an age-adjusted cohort study to determine if the vaccinated were more likely to be hospitalized for non-Covid respiratory problems such as pneumonia. That would be an interesting study to do.
The problem is that the CDC study answers neither the direct question of whether vaccination or Covid recovery is better at decreasing the risk of subsequent Covid disease, nor whether the vaccine rollout successfully reached the frail. Instead, it asks which of these two has the greater effect size. It answers whether vaccination or Covid recovery is more related to Covid hospitalization or if it is more related to other respiratory type hospitalizations.
Let’s look at the numbers. Of the 413 cases (i.e., Covid positive patients), 324 were vaccinated, while 89 were Covid recovered. That does not mean that the vaccinated are at higher risk since there may be more of them. To put these numbers in context, we need to know how many in the background population were vaccinated versus Covid recovered. The study does not provide or utilize those numbers, although they are available from at least some of the data partners, including HealthPartners and Kaiser Permanente. Instead, they use Covid-negative patients with Covid like symptoms as their control group, of which there were 6004 vaccinated, and 931 Covid recovered. With these numbers in hand, we can calculate an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.77 (not reported in the paper). After covariate adjustments, the odds ratio becomes 5.49 (95% CI: 2.75-10.99).
Ignoring covariates for the moment, we will look at the unadjusted numbers in more detail for illustrative purposes. The paper does not report how many vaccinated and Covid recovered people there are in the population at risk for hospitalization with Covid-like symptoms. If there were 931,000 Covid recovered and 6,004,000 vaccinated (87%), then the proportions are the same as among the controls, and the results are valid. If, instead, there were (say) 931,000 Covid recovered and 3,003,000 vaccinated (76%), then the odds ratio would be 0.89 instead of 1.77. There is no way to know the truth without those baseline population numbers unless one is willing to assume that those hospitalized for Covid-like symptoms without having Covid are representative of the background population, which they are unlikely to be.
With a background population to define a cohort, one must still adjust for age and other covariates as in the Israeli study. Some may argue that the Covid negative hospitalized patients with Covid-like symptoms are a suitable control group because they provide a more representative sample of the population at risk of Covid hospitalization. That may be partially true compared to an unadjusted analysis, but the argument is incorrect as it does not address the key issue of the relevant medical question being asked. There is both a relationship between being vaccinated/recovered and Covid hospitalization and a relationship between being vaccinated/recovered and non-Covid hospitalization. Rather than evaluate the first one, which is of intense interest for health policy, the CDC study evaluates the contrast between the two, which is not particularly interesting.
The CDC study adjusts for covariates such as age, but the procedure does not resolve this fundamental statistical issue and may even exacerbate it. Frail people are more likely to be vaccinated, while active people are more likely to have been Covid recovered, and neither of those are properly adjusted for. With the contrast analysis, there is also more confounding that must be adjusted for: both the confounding related to the exposures and Covid hospitalizations and the confounding related to the exposures and non-Covid hospitalizations. This increases the potential for biased results.
While not the main problem, there is one other curious fact about the paper. Covariate adjustments will typically change the point estimates somewhat, but it is unusual to see a change as large as the one from 1.77 to 5.49 that was observed in the CDC study. How can this be explained? It must be because some covariates are very different between the cases and controls. There are at least two of them. While 78% of the vaccinated are older than 65, 55% of the Covid recovered are younger than 65. Even more concerning is the fact that 96% of the vaccinated were hospitalized during the summer months of June to August, while 69% of the Covid recovered were hospitalized in the winter and spring months from January to May. Such unbalanced covariates are usually best adjusted for using matching as in the Israeli study.
Epidemiologists typically rely on case-control studies when data are unavailable for a whole cohort. For example, in nutritional epidemiology, researchers often compare the eating habits of patients with a disease of interest versus a sample of representative healthy controls. Following the eating habits of a cohort over long periods is too unwieldy and costly, so a questionnaire-based case control study is more efficient. For this immunity study, there is no rationale for a case-control study since cohort data are available from multiple CDC data partners. It is surprising that CDC chose this case-control design rather than the less biased cohort design selected by the Israeli authors. Such an analysis would answer the question of interest and may have given a different result more in line with the Israeli study.

https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/

[pgardn]

^^^^^^
Brownstone and Jeffery Tucker

Another joke of a source.
TSA can reel these in.
Same guy who is used by all these nuts to falsely criticize Fauci just based on chronological deception.

*crinkle trash*

Now show the studies that say the opposite TSA, man of science.

[DarrinS]

^^^^^^
Brownstone and Jeffery Tucker

Another joke of a source.
TSA can reel these in.
Same guy who is used by all these nuts to falsely criticize Fauci just based on chronological deception.

*crinkle trash*

Now show the studies that say the opposite TSA, man of science.


Not written by Jeffery [sic, lol] Tucker

[Cuck Ross]

^^^^^^
Brownstone and Jeffery Tucker

Another joke of a source.
TSA can reel these in.
Same guy who is used by all these nuts to falsely criticize Fauci just based on chronological deception.

*crinkle trash*:lol joke of a source

Kulldorff is an internationally well-known biostatistician and epidemiologist. During his career, he has developed new statistical and epidemiological methods for disease surveillance, including the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and the post-market drug and vaccine safety monitoring. His methods are widely used by public health agencies around the world, as are his free disease surveillance software: SaTScan, TreeScan and RSequential. He has served on scientific advisory committees to the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control.


Now show the studies that say the opposite TSA, man of science.

Studies that show the opposite of what?

[pgardn]

Not written by Jeffery [sic, lol] Tucker

Yes.
Jeffrey runs the whole damn thing.
Read about Jeffrey.
Did Jeffrey publish other articles about the vaccine v. the real virus?

Yeah you wont find that in Brownstone.

[pgardn]

:lol joke of a source

Kulldorff is an internationally well-known biostatistician and epidemiologist. During his career, he has developed new statistical and epidemiological methods for disease surveillance, including the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and the post-market drug and vaccine safety monitoring. His methods are widely used by public health agencies around the world, as are his free disease surveillance software: SaTScan, TreeScan and RSequential. He has served on scientific advisory committees to the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control.



Studies that show the opposite of what?

When one has an immune response to a virus the immune system is supposed to form antibodies to ANY proteins in the virus that illicit a response. And thus theoretically produce a wide array of cellular response molecules on cells. When the immune system is given a dose of the most critical protein we know of in Covid, the spike protein, it makes ONLY response molecules and associated cells to THAT spikeprotein. Why do you think the vaccine was made for the spike protein instead of all the proteins contained in the virus. Where in the article is this mentioned? I cant find it.

[pgardn]

Just as a starter for you two that looks at the whole ball of wax.

https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine

[Cuck Ross]

When one has an immune response to a virus the immune system is supposed to form antibodies to ANY proteins in the virus that illicit a response. And thus theoretically produce a wide array of cellular response molecules on cells. When the immune system is given a dose of the most critical protein we know of in Covid, the spike protein, it makes ONLY response molecules and associated cells to THAT spikeprotein. Why do you think the vaccine was made for the spike protein instead of all the proteins contained in the virus. Where in the article is this mentioned? I cant find it.

Seriously what the fuck are you rambling about? None of what you posted has anything to do with the poor methodology the CDC used to push this garbage study, which was what the article was about.

[Cuck Ross]

Just as a starter for you two that looks at the whole ball of wax.

https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine

Countering one of the most robust studies with an infographic :lmao

[Cuck Ross]

Just as a starter for you two that looks at the whole ball of wax.

https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine

Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.


Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2)previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3)previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals. Three multivariate logistic regression models were applied. In all models we evaluated four outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. The follow-up period of June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant in Israel.



Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.



Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

[boutons_deux]

700K+ covid deaths,

40K dead per month still, heading for 300K more dead to hit 1M dead, nearly ALL 300K unvaxxed.

and anti-vaxxers are still pushing bullshit

G F Y

[Thread]

700K+ covid deaths,

40K dead per month still, heading for 300K more dead to hit 1M dead, nearly ALL 300K unvaxxed.

and anti-vaxxers are still pushing bullshit

G F Y

Boiled down:::

President Trump: 400k dead AmericansPERIOD
MF Biden: 356k dead Americans. & counting, son.

[pgardn]

Countering one of the most robust studies with an infographic :lmao

You need a graphic starter because you have no idea what you are posting dumbshit copypasta.

So its word. Its over.
End of argument.
You dont even understand wtf it means.

You dont understand the counter to why this robust study does not fit the model of why the vaccine was made the way it was and why we DID NOT USE whole attenuated viral proteins from the whole virus (would be much more like the active virus). Dont give me this shit about all the best studies coming from Israel. Thats ONE place with ONE group of people and as shown in the other article does not fit what others have found.

Quit pretending like you actually understand any of this with your wall of copy post. Just use your own words. So explain why the vaccine was made for one protein instead of all the proteins which would be more likely to mimic the active virus. Why?

[pgardn]

Background Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.


Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1)SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2)previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3)previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals. Three multivariate logistic regression models were applied. In all models we evaluated four outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease, COVID-19-related hospitalization and death. The follow-up period of June 1 to August 14, 2021, when the Delta variant was dominant in Israel.



Results SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.



Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Great.
This DOES NOT AGREE with other studies.
Especially considering it comes from one small population very likely to have similar immune systems than compared to the US.
This is continually left out of the conversation.

[pgardn]

TSA goes to another user name to toss of all the wrong he has already posted.

[Cuck Ross]

So its word. Its over.
End of arguement.
You dont even understand wtf it means.

You dont even understand the counter to why this robust study does not fit the model of why the vaccine was made the way it was and why we DID NOT USE whole attenuated viral proteins from the whole virus (would be much more like the active virus). Dont give me this shit about all the best studies coming from Israel. Thats ONE place with ONE group of people and as shown in the other article does not fit what others have found.

Quit pretending like you actually understand any of this with you wall of post. Just use your own words. So explain why the vaccine was made for one protein instead of all the proteins which would be more likely to mimic the active virus. Why?
"and as shown in the other article does not fit what others have found" The only other study I've seen that agreed with the recent CDC study was the article out of Kentucky released by.....the CDC. :lol And it was properly shit on and torn apart for cherry picking data as well.

Do you even understand what is being discussed here? Natural immunity vs vaccine induced immunity? I doesn't look like you do.

[Cuck Ross]

Great.
This DOES NOT AGREE with other studies.
Especially considering it comes from one small population very likely to have similar immune systems than compared to the US.
This is continually left out of the conversation.

Post the studies you keep referring to. Bonus points if you include both flawed CDC studies :tu

[Cuck Ross]

Vaccination Offers Better Protection Than Previous COVID-19 Infection

A new study from the [CDC] finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19 than a previous infection with the virus (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/579133-cdc-study-vaccination-offers-better-protection-than-previous-covid-19?rl=1). The analysis found people hospitalized with coronavirus-like symptoms were more than five times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 if they had had recent prior infection than if they were recently vaccinated. The study released Friday (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w) examined more than 7,000 people across nine states and 187 hospitals, comparing those who were unvaccinated and had previously had the coronavirus in the last three to six months and those who were vaccinated over the same time frame.

The CDC urged even those who were previously infected to get their shots. [...] Overall, [CDC Director Rochelle Walensky] said at a press briefing earlier this week that the hospitalization rate among unvaccinated people is 12 times higher than for vaccinated people. The vaccination rate for those 12 and older has now reached 78 percent with at least one shot, but Walensky noted that still leaves more than 60 million eligible Americans unvaccinated.

CDC went from 5X greater to protection to releasing this later the same day :lol

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html#anchor_1635540569644

[Cuck Ross]

Great.
This DOES NOT AGREE with other studies.
Especially considering it comes from one small population very likely to have similar immune systems than compared to the US.
This is continually left out of the conversation.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w

(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w):nope

[SnakeBoy]

I guess the necessity of acknowledging COVID is real and still a threat is too much for some.

Who are you talking about?

[ElNono]

You didn't read the methodology and posted a junk study based on the headline. Somewhat embarrassing for you but understandable after such a disgusting move by the CDC to publish.

I shared a story from a trusted source. I made no commentary about it.

Has the study been retracted yet? You shared two tweets from rando on the internet.

[pgardn]

"and as shown in the other article does not fit what others have found" The only other study I've seen that agreed with the recent CDC study was the article out of Kentucky released by.....the CDC. :lol And it was properly shit on and torn apart for cherry picking data as well.

Do you even understand what is being discussed here? Natural immunity vs vaccine induced immunity? I doesn't look like you do.

You have no fkn clue what the actual difference is and why the vaccine likely works much better.
Do you want it explained again? You are putting your money on a study from crowded population in major cities with mostly the same genetic makeup (yes this could indeed be a problem in that people have different immune systems and it CAN BE GENETIC) that is the most current and extending it to the world. And you worry about cherry picking? And the rest of the world does not show the same thing. And there is a good reason why. (which I already briefly explained) This headline popped up in the last week or so... there will be no more studies from any other part of the world.

[pgardn]

The most current small study makes checkmate.

(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w):nope

[Cuck Ross]

I shared a story from a trusted source. I made no commentary about it.

Has the study been retracted yet? You shared two tweets from rando on the internet.

Those two randos actually looked into the methodology before copy/pasting it just because it was a "trusted source". Did you ever plan on looking into the methodology or is "trusted source" good enough for you these days?

[Cuck Ross]

You have no fkn clue what the actual difference is and why the vaccine likely works much better.
Do you want it explained again? You are putting your money on a study from crowded population in major cities with mostly the same genetic makeup (yes this could indeed be a problem in that people have different immune systems and it CAN BE GENETIC) that is the most current and extending it to the world. And you worry about cherry picking? And the rest of the world does not show the same thing. And there is a good reason why. (which I already briefly explained) This headline popped up in the last week or so... there will be no more studies from any other part of the world.

If the vaccine likely works much better against reinfection/hospitalization there would be plenty of studies to back this up. You have so far provided ZERO.

[Cuck Ross]

The most current small study makes checkmate. :nope

Explain your editing of my post. What's your issue with the small CDC studies.

[Blake]

If the vaccine likely works much better against reinfection/hospitalization there would be plenty of studies to back this up. You have so far provided ZERO.

You really can't find anything on the world wide web for this?

[Cuck Ross]

You really can't find anything on the world wide web for this?

I already posted two from the CDC. Both were highly flawed studies.

[Cuck Ross]

You really can't find anything on the world wide web for this?

You going to post any or did you just stop in to post this and add zero to the conversation?

[ChumpDumper]

Those two randos actually looked into the methodology before copy/pasting it just because it was a "trusted source". Did you ever plan on looking into the methodology or is "trusted source" good enough for you these days?

Your trusted source was QAnon, TSA.

[SnakeBoy]

1455951341642129414

[ChumpDumper]

:lol vaxxed antivaxx Trumptards still shrieking

[hater]

:lol vaxxed antivaxx Trumptards still shrieking

Lol Faucitard triggered after every breakthrough infection :lol

[spurraider21]

1455951341642129414
man wearing seat belt in car with fully operable airbags still suffers injury

[hater]

man wearing seat belt in car with fully operable airbags still suffers injury

Man confuses 1% death risk by Covid with > 85% death risk from a serious car crash

[spurraider21]

Man confuses 1% death risk by Covid with > 85% death risk from a serious car crash
we have somewhere between 35-40k deaths from car crashes each year

how many from covid?

[hater]

we have somewhere between 35-40k deaths from car crashes each year

how many from covid?

Man forgets 99.9% of cars have airbags :lol

[Blake]

You going to post any or did you just stop in to post this and add zero to the conversation?

I stopped in to lol. Pretty much nothing you say here is convincing me that vaccines aren't working and clearly vice versa.

[RandomGuy]

If the vaccine likely works much better against reinfection/hospitalization there would be plenty of studies to back this up. You have so far provided ZERO.



There is, of course, a scientific debate going on right now about post-infection immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity in terms of strength and duration of immunity, but that’s not what the invocation of “natural immunity” by COVID-19 contrarians and antivaxxers is about. What they are about is to deny the efficacy of vaccines and assert the supposed superiority of “natural” post-infection immunity, frequently in the context of minimizing or denying the likelihood of severe disease and death due to the coronavirus. The answers are coming in, seemingly slowly, but remember that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, only first reared its ugly head in China less than two years ago. That’s not a very long time at all to answer these questions. So it is not surprising that, thus far, the scientific literature is not entirely settled, which leads to people who want to believe that “natural immunity” is superior to be able to cherry pick articles to support their viewpoint.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/natural-immunity-covid-19/

It isn't about the science at this point, it is about the politics.

You are exactly wrong here. ""there would be a lot" of studies misses that studies take a while to fund, perform and write up, even if the connection was strong.

We don't really know with any high degree of certainty yet, to be sure, but just because no one has provided you with any doesn't mean they don't exist. It didn't take me long to find.

The problem with post-infection immunity versus vaccines is that infections with live virus can have widely varying initial viral loads which can strongly effect the course of the illness.



In any event, as summarized here (https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination)(although I really do wish that the doctors who had written this had used the term “post-infection immunity” rather than “natural immunity”), there are a number of issues with post-infection immunity that make vaccination, even after recovery from COVID-19, desirable, including that:

More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article)
“Natural immunity” fades faster than vaccine immunity, particularly after mild infection
(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6947a2.htm)“Natural immunity alone” is only half as effective as natural immunity plus vaccination (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w)

As for that Israeli study, which has been widely cited for its conclusion that those vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine were 13-fold more likely to suffer COVID-19 infection from the Delta variant than those who have recovered from the disease, it has…problems. First, it’s on a preprint server and hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet, which should tell you that you should take it with even more of a grain of salt than you take any study. Second, one thing I noticed right off the bat is how its tables and charts only report odds ratios (that “13-fold” number). You have to dig into the text to see that the absolute numbers of infections were quite low (for example, only 19 reinfections in one group) and actually do the math yourself to figure out that the breakthrough infection rates after vaccination were low. For instance, in model #1, the breakthrough infection rate was 238/16,215, or 1.5%; in model #2, it was 640/46,035, or 1.4%. I found that omission very curious, as well as the framing that didn’t mention that this study actually showed that the Pfizer vaccine was quite effective. It also showed that those who had recovered from COVID-19 and were later vaccinated were much less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19. In addition, as described in this presentation, this study appears to have suffered from significant selection bias based on how different the populations being studied were. It also suffered from survivorship bias.

[spurraider21]

Man forgets 99.9% of cars have airbags :lol
if only 99.9% of people were vaccinated

[Cuck Ross]

I stopped in to lol. Pretty much nothing you say here is convincing me that vaccines aren't working and clearly vice versa.

Never said the vaccines aren't working lol. Maybe do a little more than just stopping in next time so you don't look foolish with your next throwaway comment.

[RandomGuy]

Man confuses 1% death risk by Covid with > 85% death risk from a serious car crash

man that was so stupid it hurt my brain to read, but you accidentally glommed on to something important.

Unvaccinated means having about a hundred times higher chance of dying from an infection.
Unseatbelted means having about twice as much risk of dying or being seriously injured.
Unseatbelted means having thirty times as much risk of being ejected from a vehicle in a crash

Vaccinations are vastly better at managing the attendant risk than seatbelts.

[ChumpDumper]

Lol Faucitard triggered after every breakthrough infection :lolYou're the ones posting about every one of them.

That's being triggered.

lol dumb hater

[Cuck Ross]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/natural-immunity-covid-19/

It isn't about the science at this point, it is about the politics.

You are exactly wrong here. The studies take a while to fund, perform and write up.

We don't really know with any high degree of certainty yet. You are also wrong to imply that we have no studies just because someone else didn't do your work for you.

The problem with post-infection immunity versus vaccines is that infections with live virus can have widely varying initial viral loads which can strongly effect the course of the illness.

You admit we don't really know with any high of certainty yet. I agree with that. My issue was with the CDC releasing a junk study last Friday saying vaccine immunity offered 5X more protection than post infection immunity. It was completely irresponsible of the CDC to put their name on such a study.

[Blake]

Never said the vaccines aren't working lol. Maybe do a little more than just stopping in next time so you don't look foolish with your next throwaway comment.

Lol "look foolish"

[Cuck Ross]

Lol "look foolish"

When you stop in to "lol" at something that isn't happening then yeah, you look foolish.

[SnakeBoy]

man wearing seat belt in car with fully operable airbags still suffers injury

Not possible. If you wear a seatbelt you won't have an accident.

[hater]

if only 99.9% of people were vaccinated

Man compares vaccines to airbags. Then man forgets and compares unvaccinated death rate to deathrate of car accidents on cars with airbags.

Man is all over the place.

[hater]

https://twitter.com/bmj_latest/status/1455531359536128014?s=19

[hater]

https://twitter.com/Bobby_Network/status/1455637388953366540?s=19

[Blake]

When you stop in to "lol" at something that isn't happening then yeah, you look foolish.

Sure thing, pizza gate

[Cuck Ross]

Sure thing, pizza gate
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn188/DJR210/Blakecucked_zpssu9p3yjw.png

[RandomGuy]

You admit we don't really know with any high of certainty yet. I agree with that. My issue was with the CDC releasing a junk study last Friday saying vaccine immunity offered 5X more protection than post infection immunity. It was completely irresponsible of the CDC to put their name on such a study.

What made it a "junk study"?

If almost a third of infections result in no antibodies, that would seem to support that assertion. That is what vaccines are designed to do.

[RandomGuy]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn188/DJR210/Blakecucked_zpssu9p3yjw.png

JR

Interesting. I have zero doubt you fapped to this.

[Blake]

https://y.yarn.co/d4eab769-cfc3-4e2f-9925-1413a8c04593_text.gif

[ChumpDumper]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn188/DJR210/Blakecucked_zpssu9p3yjw.png

Now post your picture of Q chillin' outside Air Force One.

[Cuck Ross]

What made it a "junk study"?

If almost a third of infections result in no antibodies, that would seem to support that assertion. That is what vaccines are designed to do.
The CDC study did not create a cohort of people to follow over time. Instead, they identified people hospitalized with Covid-like symptoms, and then they evaluated how many of them tested positive versus negative for Covid. Among the vaccinated, 5% tested positive, while it was 9% among the Covid recovered. What does this mean?
Though the authors do not mention it, they adopt a de facto case-control design. While not as strong as a cohort study, this is a well-established epidemiological design. The first study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2038856/pdf/brmedj03566-0003.pdf) to show that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer used a case-control design. They compared hospitalized patients with lung cancer and found more smokers in that group compared to non-cancer patients, who served as controls. Note that if they had restricted the control group to people with (say) heart attacks, they would have answered a different question: whether smoking is a larger risk factor for lung cancer than it is for heart attacks. Since smoking is a risk factor for both diseases, such a risk estimate would differ from the one they found.
In the CDC study on Covid immunity, the cases are those patients hospitalized for Covid disease, having both Covid-like symptoms and a positive test. That is appropriate. The controls should cons ute a representative sample from the population from which the Covid patients came. Unfortunately, that is not the case since Covid-negative people with Covid-like symptoms, such as pneumonia, tend to be older and frailer with comorbidities. They are also more likely to be vaccinated.
Suppose we wanted to know whether the vaccine rollout successfully reached not only the old but also frail people with comorbidities. In that case, we could conduct an age-adjusted cohort study to determine if the vaccinated were more likely to be hospitalized for non-Covid respiratory problems such as pneumonia. That would be an interesting study to do.
The problem is that the CDC study answers neither the direct question of whether vaccination or Covid recovery is better at decreasing the risk of subsequent Covid disease, nor whether the vaccine rollout successfully reached the frail. Instead, it asks which of these two has the greater effect size. It answers whether vaccination or Covid recovery is more related to Covid hospitalization or if it is more related to other respiratory type hospitalizations.
Let’s look at the numbers. Of the 413 cases (i.e., Covid positive patients), 324 were vaccinated, while 89 were Covid recovered. That does not mean that the vaccinated are at higher risk since there may be more of them. To put these numbers in context, we need to know how many in the background population were vaccinated versus Covid recovered. The study does not provide or utilize those numbers, although they are available from at least some of the data partners, including HealthPartners and Kaiser Permanente. Instead, they use Covid-negative patients with Covid like symptoms as their control group, of which there were 6004 vaccinated, and 931 Covid recovered. With these numbers in hand, we can calculate an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.77 (not reported in the paper). After covariate adjustments, the odds ratio becomes 5.49 (95% CI: 2.75-10.99).
Ignoring covariates for the moment, we will look at the unadjusted numbers in more detail for illustrative purposes. The paper does not report how many vaccinated and Covid recovered people there are in the population at risk for hospitalization with Covid-like symptoms. If there were 931,000 Covid recovered and 6,004,000 vaccinated (87%), then the proportions are the same as among the controls, and the results are valid. If, instead, there were (say) 931,000 Covid recovered and 3,003,000 vaccinated (76%), then the odds ratio would be 0.89 instead of 1.77. There is no way to know the truth without those baseline population numbers unless one is willing to assume that those hospitalized for Covid-like symptoms without having Covid are representative of the background population, which they are unlikely to be.
With a background population to define a cohort, one must still adjust for age and other covariates as in the Israeli study. Some may argue that the Covid negative hospitalized patients with Covid-like symptoms are a suitable control group because they provide a more representative sample of the population at risk of Covid hospitalization. That may be partially true compared to an unadjusted analysis, but the argument is incorrect as it does not address the key issue of the relevant medical question being asked. There is both a relationship between being vaccinated/recovered and Covid hospitalization and a relationship between being vaccinated/recovered and non-Covid hospitalization. Rather than evaluate the first one, which is of intense interest for health policy, the CDC study evaluates the contrast between the two, which is not particularly interesting.
The CDC study adjusts for covariates such as age, but the procedure does not resolve this fundamental statistical issue and may even exacerbate it. Frail people are more likely to be vaccinated, while active people are more likely to have been Covid recovered, and neither of those are properly adjusted for. With the contrast analysis, there is also more confounding that must be adjusted for: both the confounding related to the exposures and Covid hospitalizations and the confounding related to the exposures and non-Covid hospitalizations. This increases the potential for biased results.
While not the main problem, there is one other curious fact about the paper. Covariate adjustments will typically change the point estimates somewhat, but it is unusual to see a change as large as the one from 1.77 to 5.49 that was observed in the CDC study. How can this be explained? It must be because some covariates are very different between the cases and controls. There are at least two of them. While 78% of the vaccinated are older than 65, 55% of the Covid recovered are younger than 65. Even more concerning is the fact that 96% of the vaccinated were hospitalized during the summer months of June to August, while 69% of the Covid recovered were hospitalized in the winter and spring months from January to May. Such unbalanced covariates are usually best adjusted for using matching as in the Israeli study.
Epidemiologists typically rely on case-control studies when data are unavailable for a whole cohort. For example, in nutritional epidemiology, researchers often compare the eating habits of patients with a disease of interest versus a sample of representative healthy controls. Following the eating habits of a cohort over long periods is too unwieldy and costly, so a questionnaire-based case control study is more efficient. For this immunity study, there is no rationale for a case-control study since cohort data are available from multiple CDC data partners. It is surprising that CDC chose this case-control design rather than the less biased cohort design selected by the Israeli authors. Such an analysis would answer the question of interest and may have given a different result more in line with the Israeli study.

[Blake]

Lol afraid to post the link

[Cuck Ross]

Lol afraid to post the link
I already posted the entire article and link in this very thread.

It’s so obvious when you’re butthurt :lol

[Blake]

I already posted the entire article and link in this very thread.

It’s so obvious when you’re butthurt :lol

Lol in this very 600 page thread

Sure it's me that's butthurt.

[boutons_deux]

...

[ElNono]

Those two randos actually looked into the methodology before copy/pasting it just because it was a "trusted source". Did you ever plan on looking into the methodology or is "trusted source" good enough for you these days?

I'll take the CDC for the health information every day over twitter randos... you do do.

At the very least I would expect the study to be retracted. Has it been retracted yet?

[ElNono]

Man compares vaccines to airbags. Then man forgets and compares unvaccinated death rate to deathrate of car accidents on cars with airbags.

Man is all over the place.

Man forgets that car crashes are not a airborne transmissible disease.

The vaccine and airbags comparison is also spot on, they're both measures that substantially reduce death.

[ElNono]

Now post your picture of Q chillin' outside Air Force One.

:lol

[Cuck Ross]

Lol in this very 600 page thread

Sure it's me that's butthurt.

Yes in this very 600 page thread. 1 day ago. 2 pages back.

You really need to stop your just dropping in routine, it never works out well for you.

[Cuck Ross]

I'll take the CDC for the health information every day over twitter randos... you do do.

At the very least I would expect the study to be retracted. Has it been retracted yet?

You’d know a thing or two about posting studies that get retracted :lol

The study you posted came out Friday, I wouldn’t expect a retraction that soon. Although later the same day CDC released another study saying both were basically equal. Not sure how they square that.

Any counter to the flawed methodology that was pointed out in the study you posted?

[spurraider21]

Those two randos actually looked into the methodology before copy/pasting it just because it was a "trusted source". Did you ever plan on looking into the methodology or is "trusted source" good enough for you these days?
i dont know how qualified any of us are to pick apart methodologies on these kinds of studies

but if you insist that we look up twitter randos to give reviews on studies before we share them to the forum, feel free to express that request

[spurraider21]

You’d know a thing or two about posting studies that get retracted :lol

The study you posted came out Friday, I wouldn’t expect a retraction that soon. Although later the same day CDC released another study saying both were basically equal. Not sure how they square that.

Any counter to the flawed methodology that was pointed out in the study you posted?
you are referring to a study that said HCQ was not effective at combatting covid. which was retracted. if we are all laypersons sharing studies that are being published, why would you hold a poster responsible for sharing a study that turns out to be flawed and ultimately retracted? do you conduct your own version of a peer review on everything you end up sharing here?

also, since then, havent there been other studies that reached the same conclusion re HCQ?

[ElNono]

You’d know a thing or two about posting studies that get retracted :lol

Sure, and unlike you, I've actually owned it that one time.


The study you posted came out Friday, I wouldn’t expect a retraction that soon. Although later the same day CDC released another study saying both were basically equal. Not sure how they square that.

Do let us know. I simply shared the study because it was indeed a topic of conversation here, haven't even looked at it myself. There's nothing for me to defend there either.


Any counter to the flawed methodology that was pointed out in the study you posted?

I stopped wasting my time with purported "expert opinions" from randos on the internet a long time ago. This case isn't any different.

If the study is indeed flawed, it'll be retracted in due time and that is that.

[ElNono]

you are referring to a study that said HCQ was not effective at combatting covid. which was retracted. if we are all laypersons sharing studies that are being published, why would you hold a poster responsible for sharing a study that turns out to be flawed and ultimately retracted? do you conduct your own version of a peer review on everything you end up sharing here?

also, since then, havent there been other studies that reached the same conclusion re HCQ?

I don't even remember what was the study for. But it doesn't matter. I said I was apologize to Darrin if it was retracted and I did. Not sure what's the shame in that, tbh

[spurraider21]

I don't even remember what was the study for. But it doesn't matter. I said I was apologize to Darrin if it was retracted and I did. Not sure what's the shame in that, tbh
i think its pretty dumb to demand apologies from posters who shared published studies that end up later being retracted. none of us here are experts who are qualified to conduct our own reviews of these papers to figure out for ourselves that the paper is ripe for retraction

if somebody shared a study that already has been retracted, and is pushing it as current/valid, that's a different issue. or if they're pushing some random twitter rando's opinion that isn't founded in an actua lpeer reviewed study, that's different.

[Blake]

Yes in this very 600 page thread. 1 day ago. 2 pages back.

You really need to stop your just dropping in routine, it never works out well for you.

Lol I'm not digging thru this thread to find your shit. It's you that's here trying to convince people you're right and you're doing a horrible job at it.

[Cuck Ross]

i dont know how qualified any of us are to pick apart methodologies on these kinds of studies

but if you insist that we look up twitter randos to give reviews on studies before we share them to the forum, feel free to express that request
“Twitter rando” lol

Martin Kulldorff is an internationally well-known biostatistician and epidemiologist. During his career, he has developed new statistical and epidemiological methods for disease surveillance, including the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and the post-market drug and vaccine safety monitoring. His methods are widely used by public health agencies around the world, as are his free disease surveillance software: SaTScan, TreeScan and RSequential. He has served on scientific advisory committees to the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control.



Dr. Makary is a surgical oncologist and chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center. He is a clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub and serves as Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs in the U.S. by creating measures of appropriateness in health care.
Dr. Makary’s research focuses on the creation and evaluation of new health care innovations. He is the creator of the Surgery Checklist, publishing (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16776390) its first description and later served on the W.H.O. Safe Surgery Saves Lives committee. He led the W.H.O. workgroup to create global measures of surgical quality. Dr. Makary has published over 200 scientific articles, including the first description of “frailty (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20510798)” impacting surgical outcomes, the original studies on safety culture (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=patient+safety+in+surgery+makary)measurement in hospitals, and an evaluation (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/17/509506836/drugs-for-rare-diseases-have-become-uncommonly-rich-monopolies) of the Orphan Drug Act.

[Cuck Ross]

Sure, and unlike you, I've actually owned it that one time.



Do let us know. I simply shared the study because it was indeed a topic of conversation here, haven't even looked at it myself. There's nothing for me to defend there either.



I stopped wasting my time with purported "expert opinions" from randos on the internet a long time ago. This case isn't any different.

If the study is indeed flawed, it'll be retracted in due time and that is that.
When a study is easily discredited by Twitter randos you should immediately question it. The fact you’re sticking by it because of “trusted sources” is strange, especially considering CDC released another study later that day contradicting it.

[Cuck Ross]

Lol I'm not digging thru this thread to find your shit. It's you that's here trying to convince people you're right and you're doing a horrible job at it.
You dropped in and clearly showed you didn’t even know what I was discussing. Stick to the sidelines.

[Cuck Ross]

I don't even remember what was the study for. But it doesn't matter. I said I was apologize to Darrin if it was retracted and I did. Not sure what's the shame in that, tbh
No shame at all, it’s honorable.

[ElNono]

“Twitter rando” lol

[COLOR=#3D1600]Martin Kulldorff is an internationally well-known biostatistician and epidemiologist. During his career, he has developed new statistical and epidemiological methods for disease surveillance, including the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and the post-market drug and vaccine safety monitoring. His methods are widely used by public health agencies around the world, as are his free disease surveillance software: SaTScan, TreeScan and RSequential. He has served on scientific advisory committees to the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control.

He's also this guy:

Kulldorff is one of the three authors, along with Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya, of the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated letting COVID-19 spread in lower-risk groups to promote herd immunity while advocating "focused protection" of older, high-risk groups. The World Health Organization (WHO) and many other academic and public-health bodies said the declaration's strategy lacked a sound scientific basis, and warned that it could cause many unnecessary deaths and could result in recurrent epidemics.

So yeah, they're basically rando opinions on twitter. If they're academic, more reason to go via the proper channels to challenge the study.

[ElNono]

When a study is easily discredited by Twitter randos you should immediately question it. The fact you’re sticking by it because of “trusted sources” is strange, especially considering CDC released another study later that day contradicting it.

How can I 'stick by it' if I never endorsed it to begin with? If it's "easily discredited" it will be, but it won't be by Twitter.

The fact that I won't take rando opinions about it doesn't mean I tacitly endorse it. It means I'll let the typical, credible channels science has has to adjudicate these matters run through before jumping to conclusions.

As far as trusted sources, the CDC is as good as it gets when it comes to health information. I don't know what other study you're talking about but hopefully it's sourced from somebody that's not another twitter rando.

[spurraider21]

“Twitter rando” lol

Martin Kulldorff is an internationally well-known biostatistician and epidemiologist. During his career, he has developed new statistical and epidemiological methods for disease surveillance, including the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and the post-market drug and vaccine safety monitoring. His methods are widely used by public health agencies around the world, as are his free disease surveillance software: SaTScan, TreeScan and RSequential. He has served on scientific advisory committees to the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control.



Dr. Makary is a surgical oncologist and chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center. He is a clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub and serves as Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs in the U.S. by creating measures of appropriateness in health care.
Dr. Makary’s research focuses on the creation and evaluation of new health care innovations. He is the creator of the Surgery Checklist, publishing (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16776390) its first description and later served on the W.H.O. Safe Surgery Saves Lives committee. He led the W.H.O. workgroup to create global measures of surgical quality. Dr. Makary has published over 200 scientific articles, including the first description of “frailty (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20510798)” impacting surgical outcomes, the original studies on safety culture (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=patient+safety+in+surgery+makary)measurement in hospitals, and an evaluation (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/17/509506836/drugs-for-rare-diseases-have-become-uncommonly-rich-monopolies) of the Orphan Drug Act.
doest make them less of twitter randos

anybody can voice their opinions, even if they are qualified professionals. we always like to see things published/peer reviewed. some guy saying "i think this study is bad and here's why" is just giving their opinion. they might be correct on the merits, but its not like any of us have a way of truly vetting it. if there are indeed serious issues with the paper, we typically would see retractions or revisions

[hater]

Man forgets that car crashes are not a airborne transmissible disease.

The vaccine and airbags comparison is also spot on, they're both measures that substantially reduce death.

Salvadorian man destroys his own point that comparing airbags to vaccines is spot on by stating car crashes are not airborne diseases

[ElNono]

Salvadorian man destroys his own point that comparing airbags to vaccines is spot on by stating car crashes are not airborne diseases

why? coz bolivarian man says so?

[hater]

why? coz bolivarian man says so?

No. Salvadorian man wrote both contradicting statements on same post.

[ElNono]

No. Salvadorian man wrote both contradicting statements on same post.

There's no contradiction, car crashes are substantially less widespread than covid infections. Bolivarian man just dodging.

[hater]

There's no contradiction, car crashes are substantially less widespread than covid infections. Bolivarian man just dodging.

Salvadorian man forgets he posted this:
car crashes are not a airborne transmissible disease

Man destroyed his own point that it was a spot on comparison

[Blake]

You dropped in and clearly showed you didn’t even know what I was discussing. Stick to the sidelines.

Lol ok, I'll stay on the sideline just lolin at you getting shit on with these crazy Q posts

[boutons_deux]

where has herd immunity "worked". UK and Sweden both abandoned it

USA 2000+ covid deaths/million

effective "herd immunity" Confederate states?

TX 2500
FL 2800
AL 3400
LA 3100


https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

These FUCKING herd immunity academics are inhumane assholes who aren't volunteering THEIR and their families/friends' lives. For them, Other Peoples' Lives will be sacrificed.

============

some countries have very high, 6000!, covid deaths/million and still don't have herd immuity

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

[hater]

Lol sweden did not abandon herd immunity. They have some of the lightest regulations and lockdowns in the world.

[hater]

Dark winter ahead in Europe

https://twitter.com/ZyiteGadgets/status/1456247070436704262?s=19


Wilm we see another wave here in US? Last week seems trending up

[hater]

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1454503198895575042?s=19

[Cuck Ross]

How can I 'stick by it' if I never endorsed it to begin with? If it's "easily discredited" it will be, but it won't be by Twitter.

The fact that I won't take rando opinions about it doesn't mean I tacitly endorse it. It means I'll let the typical, credible channels science has has to adjudicate these matters run through before jumping to conclusions.

As far as trusted sources, the CDC is as good as it gets when it comes to health information. I don't know what other study you're talking about but hopefully it's sourced from somebody that's not another twitter rando.

The CDC contradicted the 5X more protection CDC study you posted later that day.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html#anchor_1635539757101

[Thread]

Shut that shit down.

MF Biden has killed over a 100k Americans since opening us up 4 July 2021.

[pgardn]

If the vaccine likely works much better against reinfection/hospitalization there would be plenty of studies to back this up. You have so far provided ZERO.

There are not PLENTY of studies either way dumbshit. This is still ONGOING.

If you think one small study from Israel proves that getting infected is the way to go over the vaccine you are on crack.
There are huge of numbers from hospitals that cant be relied on because people have a tendency NOT to tell the truth about lack of vaccination.
And they show the opposite of what you have been claiming. Even with people lying saying they have been vaccinated and have no record. This cant go on record because it cant verified. This is part of why it is very difficult. So you rely on one small study from one tiny crowded country that did keep track.

And THIS IS ULTIMATELY what you are after. Vaccines and the sham. Dont pretend to be high and mighty with your posts and some sort of unbiased judge of anything.
You have made a name for yourself TSA. Which is why you probably go with Cuck now.

And you do not know have any idea why we should theoretically be very skeptical of this study.
Because you have no idea how natural immunity v. vaccination work on the level of the immune system.
And you know you dont or you would have already responded to my reasoning as to why the vaccine went after just ONE antigen. Why did we choose this way?
If you are claiming this has been cleared up you are dead wrong. And you are.

[Cuck Ross]

There are not PLENTY of studies either way dumbshit. This is still ONGOING.

If you think one small study from Israel proves that getting infected is the way to go over the vaccine you are on crack.
There are huge of numbers from hospitals that cant be relied on because people have a tendency NOT to tell the truth about lack of vaccination.
And they show the opposite of what you have been claiming. Even with people lying saying they have been vaccinated and have no record. This cant go on record because it cant verified. This is part of why it is very difficult. So you rely on one small study from one tiny crowded country that did keep track.

And THIS IS ULTIMATELY what you are after. Vaccines and the sham. Dont pretend to be high and mighty with your posts and some sort of unbiased judge of anything.
You have made a name for yourself TSA. Which is why you probably go with Cuck now.

And you do not know have any idea why we should theoretically be very skeptical of this study.
Because you have no idea how natural immunity v. vaccination work on the level of the immune system.
And you know you dont or you would have already responded to my reasoning as to why the vaccine went after just ONE antigen. Why did we choose this way?
If you are claiming this has been cleared up you are dead wrong. And you are.

Never once claimed that getting infected is the way to go over the vaccine. You get all worked up arguing over shit you make up in your head :lol

[pgardn]

Never once claimed that getting infected is the way to go over the vaccine. You get all worked up arguing over shit you make up in your head :lol

Of course you dont claim it.
You are pizza guy, you have been wounded.
But its clear what you WANT.

[Cuck Ross]

Of course you dont claim it.
You are pizza guy, you have been wounded.
But its clear what you WANT.I never claimed it and the Israel study never claimed it. I'm vaccinated you stupid fuck. You make shit up and then argue against it.

I WANT the CDC to be honest with their studies because they are seen as a trusted source.

Last Friday they released a study saying vaccine immunity gave 5X more protection than previously infected immunity. Later that same day they released a study saying vaccine immunity and previously infected immunity provided the same protection.
How is the public supposed to react to the conflicting information being put out by the CDC?

[boutons_deux]

what is Cuck sucker's objective? anti-vax? anti-mask? pro-herd-immunity? anti-science? anti-govt?

[ChumpDumper]

https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1454503198895575042?s=19
:lol Why is no one congratulating us for reaching the low point of our waves before they go back up again?

:lol "success"