CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 18)
Discussion
Rollin said:
https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#postvax-st...
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 5.2 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 23, 2022 to May 29, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
You've either found the only state or country to see good results from the (MK1) vaccine in the Omicron age, or they've horrendously cooked the figures.'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 5.2 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 23, 2022 to May 29, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
All those thrice vaccinated octogenarians are 8x less likely to die than the unvaccinated, which is largely (but not entirely) just kids at this stage
And given the unvaccinated are more likely to have a prior infection behind them....are you saying it's only the antibodies from the vaccine that stave off death, and not antibodies from a prior infection??
johnboy1975 said:
Rollin said:
https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#postvax-st...
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 5.2 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 23, 2022 to May 29, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
You've either found the only state or country to see good results from the (MK1) vaccine in the Omicron age, or they've horrendously cooked the figures.'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 5.2 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 23, 2022 to May 29, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
All those thrice vaccinated octogenarians are 8x less likely to die than the unvaccinated, which is largely (but not entirely) just kids at this stage
And given the unvaccinated are more likely to have a prior infection behind them....are you saying it's only the antibodies from the vaccine that stave off death, and not antibodies from a prior infection??
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/covid19_vaccine_safety.ht...
Rollin said:
It's playing with numbers. How else do you explain the boosted constantly having more infections per 100k than 2 jabs only? (Since April)
The data at this stage is pretty much junk. However, the booster does do something (the question is - how much, and for how long? So I can celebrate with you the 50% effacy of a recent booster. Yay!
Steve James (guy who argued with Sajid on camera about NHS mandates) said you'd have to vaccinate every month if you wanted any hope of keeping the vaccinated covid free (ish). I doubt he conducted a study, but this one proves him not far wrong.
At some point, the unvaccinated who survive will post better numbers on all 3 metrics (cases, hospitalisations, deaths). I'm gobsmacked that it hasn't happened already in the above study. So to your comment of "it must all be lies"..... I wonder if they've somehow excluded prior infections? Or something along those lines. There are studies showing antibody protection twenty years later from SARS-CoV-1 (note: not immunity). Strange indeed if SARS-CoV-2 doesn't follow suit
For clarity, I support vaccinating the vunerable / elderly. It (appears) to reduce deaths and hospitalisations. Which is A Good Thing
WindyCommon said:
garyhun said:
Than who? I’m 59 and sailed through it a few months back without being vaccinated (well, one AZ dose back in the early days).
As has been stated many times on here, the virus is no longer particularly virulent unless you’re very old or vulnerable.
It never was…As has been stated many times on here, the virus is no longer particularly virulent unless you’re very old or vulnerable.
It’s very clear that vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death by 80-90%.
That mattered for elderly and infirm people who had about a 1 in 3 chance of dying from it in the first wave. It didn’t matter much for healthy people under 40 who had next to zero chance of dying from it.
Elysium said:
WindyCommon said:
garyhun said:
Than who? I’m 59 and sailed through it a few months back without being vaccinated (well, one AZ dose back in the early days).
As has been stated many times on here, the virus is no longer particularly virulent unless you’re very old or vulnerable.
It never was…As has been stated many times on here, the virus is no longer particularly virulent unless you’re very old or vulnerable.
It’s very clear that vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death by 80-90%.
That mattered for elderly and infirm people who had about a 1 in 3 chance of dying from it in the first wave. It didn’t matter much for healthy people under 40 who had next to zero chance of dying from it.
Elysium said:
Correct.
It’s very clear that vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death by 80-90%.
That mattered for elderly and infirm people who had about a 1 in 3 chance of dying from it in the first wave. It didn’t matter much for healthy people under 40 who had next to zero chance of dying from it.
It was around 1 in 18 chance for 90+ year olds, nowhere near 1 in 3It’s very clear that vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death by 80-90%.
That mattered for elderly and infirm people who had about a 1 in 3 chance of dying from it in the first wave. It didn’t matter much for healthy people under 40 who had next to zero chance of dying from it.
Rollin said:
https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/#postvax-st...
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 5.2 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 23, 2022 to May 29, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
A six day period? There's cherry picking and... What were the reports to VAERS in that time? For balance. 'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 5.2 times more likely to get COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 30, 2022 to June 5, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
'From May 23, 2022 to May 29, 2022, unvaccinated people were 8.3 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than people who received their booster dose.'
Boringvolvodriver said:
You mean the AZ one which several countries stopped using
It was posted in this thread months ago that the version 2 of the AZ Vaccine has fixed the problems with the original vaccine. I posted the whitepaper on the research that was done to isolate the problem fix it.garyhun said:
Elysium said:
WindyCommon said:
garyhun said:
Than who? I’m 59 and sailed through it a few months back without being vaccinated (well, one AZ dose back in the early days).
As has been stated many times on here, the virus is no longer particularly virulent unless you’re very old or vulnerable.
It never was…As has been stated many times on here, the virus is no longer particularly virulent unless you’re very old or vulnerable.
It’s very clear that vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death by 80-90%.
That mattered for elderly and infirm people who had about a 1 in 3 chance of dying from it in the first wave. It didn’t matter much for healthy people under 40 who had next to zero chance of dying from it.
In the first wave there was a clear risk to the those groups. Vaccines and omicron have reduced that, which is why the overall fatality rate is now comparable to seasonal flu.
Vaccination of healthy younger people makes negligable difference to the overal figures.
Carl_Manchester said:
It was posted in this thread months ago that the version 2 of the AZ Vaccine has fixed the problems with the original vaccine. I posted the whitepaper on the research that was done to isolate the problem fix it.
I missed that, and Google isn't helping. Can you link it again please?jameswills said:
Elysium said:
Correct.
It’s very clear that vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death by 80-90%.
That mattered for elderly and infirm people who had about a 1 in 3 chance of dying from it in the first wave. It didn’t matter much for healthy people under 40 who had next to zero chance of dying from it.
It was around 1 in 18 chance for 90+ year olds, nowhere near 1 in 3It’s very clear that vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death by 80-90%.
That mattered for elderly and infirm people who had about a 1 in 3 chance of dying from it in the first wave. It didn’t matter much for healthy people under 40 who had next to zero chance of dying from it.
This is for England and Wales from around 14 months ago, before vaccine benefits began to show. At that point we had recorded around 230k cases in those aged 80+ with 83k deaths. So a Case Fatality Rate of around 36%:
These numbers will have been exaggerated by the very low levels of case detection in the first wave, when we were only testing sick people presenting to hospital. However, they are the numbers we have.
Post vaccination this fell by 80-90%. So the CFR for a vaccinated person in that age group would be more like 3.6%. Still many hundred times higher than the CFR for a healthy unvaccinated 20 year old.
Elysium said:
garyhun said:
Elysium said:
WindyCommon said:
garyhun said:
Than who? I’m 59 and sailed through it a few months back without being vaccinated (well, one AZ dose back in the early days).
As has been stated many times on here, the virus is no longer particularly virulent unless you’re very old or vulnerable.
It never was…As has been stated many times on here, the virus is no longer particularly virulent unless you’re very old or vulnerable.
It’s very clear that vaccines reduced the risk of hospitalisation and death by 80-90%.
That mattered for elderly and infirm people who had about a 1 in 3 chance of dying from it in the first wave. It didn’t matter much for healthy people under 40 who had next to zero chance of dying from it.
In the first wave there was a clear risk to the those groups. Vaccines and omicron have reduced that, which is why the overall fatality rate is now comparable to seasonal flu.
Vaccination of healthy younger people makes negligable difference to the overal figures.
Brave Fart said:
johnboy1975 said:
Terms of reference for the covid enquired announced
https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/uk-covid-19-inqu...
Well at first glance that seems like a comprehensive list, although I will look at it in more detail tomorrow.https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/uk-covid-19-inqu...
I'm hopeful that the inquiry will prove useful, although I doubt it will single out anyone for severe criticism, and I imagine it'll drag on for ages.
Also how did Imperial and Neil Ferguson get the data "modelling" job after so much epic failures with previous outbreaks.
cliffe_mafia said:
I'd like to see an explanation of how we ignored what we knew previously about existing coronaviruses (totally ignoring natural immunity, general health, obesity, etc) and ripped up the existing pandemic preparedness manual.
Also how did Imperial and Neil Ferguson get the data "modelling" job after so much epic failures with previous outbreaks.
They are giving predictions that justify the policies the government want to implement.Also how did Imperial and Neil Ferguson get the data "modelling" job after so much epic failures with previous outbreaks.
See also climate change models.
Carl_Manchester said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
You mean the AZ one which several countries stopped using
It was posted in this thread months ago that the version 2 of the AZ Vaccine has fixed the problems with the original vaccine. I posted the whitepaper on the research that was done to isolate the problem fix it.
Elysium said:
1 in 3 refers to Case Fatality Rates. Which is the chance of a person dying if they are recorded as an infected 'case'.
This is for England and Wales from around 14 months ago, before vaccine benefits began to show. At that point we had recorded around 230k cases in those aged 80+ with 83k deaths. So a Case Fatality Rate of around 36%:
These numbers will have been exaggerated by the very low levels of case detection in the first wave, when we were only testing sick people presenting to hospital. However, they are the numbers we have.
Post vaccination this fell by 80-90%. So the CFR for a vaccinated person in that age group would be more like 3.6%. Still many hundred times higher than the CFR for a healthy unvaccinated 20 year old.
Ok thanks, understood. These people were still dying though, the vaccines did not improve overall mortality, excess deaths were still as high in 2021 and are on course to be as high again in 2022, but for the younger cohort. As per the graph above, people are just simply dying, the vaccines don’t seem to have done anything at all at best. This is for England and Wales from around 14 months ago, before vaccine benefits began to show. At that point we had recorded around 230k cases in those aged 80+ with 83k deaths. So a Case Fatality Rate of around 36%:
These numbers will have been exaggerated by the very low levels of case detection in the first wave, when we were only testing sick people presenting to hospital. However, they are the numbers we have.
Post vaccination this fell by 80-90%. So the CFR for a vaccinated person in that age group would be more like 3.6%. Still many hundred times higher than the CFR for a healthy unvaccinated 20 year old.
cliffe_mafia said:
Brave Fart said:
johnboy1975 said:
Terms of reference for the covid enquired announced
https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/uk-covid-19-inqu...
Well at first glance that seems like a comprehensive list, although I will look at it in more detail tomorrow.https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/uk-covid-19-inqu...
I'm hopeful that the inquiry will prove useful, although I doubt it will single out anyone for severe criticism, and I imagine it'll drag on for ages.
Also how did Imperial and Neil Ferguson get the data "modelling" job after so much epic failures with previous outbreaks.
At the end of the day, the enquiry is pretty much already decided on the main things they want to find and it's just a whole lot of window dressing as to how they want to get by. It will of course inevitably find some rather egregious failures or such and provide some scapegoats to get run over but fundamentally the issue that no enquiry is going to (or probably even can) address is that it's a societal issue that we, even now, aren't clear about exactly how much we are prepared to sacrifice the normal functioning of society in return for the protection of a certain group of the population because that's the question no one is going to be prepared to address given the guaranteed accusations that will start flying around.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff