Vaccine or not?

#3,126
#3,126
Rasputin_Vol said:
Obviously, I wouldn't expect 100 effectiveness nothing is perfect. But there are far too many of these instances now, even you have to admit, that can make anyone say that the vaccine is effective at anything significant.
Click to expand...

I would admit nothing of the sort, because the numbers say otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#3,127
#3,127
RockyTop85 said:
It is simply not true that the vaccine is not effective at anything. Why are you so dedicated to this bad faith argument?

Look at the numbers in the UK for July compared to January. That is evidence of a vaccine that is effective at reducing hospitalizations and death among infected people.
Click to expand...
Look back at what I said. I was very clear to say "effective at anything significant". The reason why I have to say that is because I had someone yesterday post stats about the unvaccinated being 24 more times likely to die than the unvaccinated. Yet, when you go back and look at the numbers, we are talking about 1 out of 100,000 deaths for the vaccinated and 24 deaths out of 100,000 for the unvaccinated. The two numbers are statistically insignificant. .001% death rate vs .024% is not enough of a difference to make most reasonable person change their decisions about vaxxing.
 
#3,128
#3,128
Rasputin_Vol said:
But that disproves what you said about the vaccine not being sold as a way to prevent getting COVID. I'm certain that Biden wasn't the only one preaching this at the time, either. These guys all stay on message and on a script.
Click to expand...

What Biden said is no more true that then idiots that claim the vaccine isn't effective at all.

Read the test results from the manufacturers themselves. They make no claim of 100% efficacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#3,129
#3,129
Rasputin_Vol said:
Look back at what I said. I was very clear to say "effective at anything significant". The reason why I have to say that is because I had someone yesterday post stats about the unvaccinated being 24 more times likely to die than the unvaccinated. Yet, when you go back and look at the numbers, we are talking about 1 out of 100,000 deaths for the vaccinated and 24 deaths out of 100,000 for the unvaccinated. The two numbers are statistically insignificant. .001% death rate vs .024% is not enough of a difference to make most reasonable person change their decisions about vaxxing.
Click to expand...
It is simply not true that the vaccine is not effective at anything significant. Why are you so dedicated to this bad faith argument?

Look at the numbers in the UK for July compared to January. That is evidence of a vaccine that is effective at reducing hospitalizations and death among infected people. Arguably it’s evidence of a vaccine that’s effective at reducing rates of infection, but I don’t know enough about delta variant to say that definitively. All of that is significant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,130
#3,130
whodeycin85 said:
Lets scale it down...so lets say prevax 10 in 100 got infected...your focus was on those 10 people....so then the vax comes. And lets say 50 outta those 100 get the vax...now 10 people have become infected and 8 of those were fully vaxed....you now wanna focus on 8 outta 50 instead of 10 outta 100 like you did originally and ignore the 2 outta 50 that were unvaxed....your changing your focus....your focus should be on the 10 infected as it was before
Click to expand...
No, I’m not changing any focus.

A. This is not an accurate reflection of what was happening pre-vaccine.
B. This is not an accurate reflection of my focus, pre-vaccine.
C. This is m of an accurate reflection of my focus, now.

You imputed meaning to a meaningless statistic. I corrected you. You eventually deflected to something else that seems too nebulous and hypothetical to change my personal calculus. That’s it.

My focus now is whether my risk and my family’s risk of negative outcomes from this disease is at a level that I’m comfortable with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#3,131
#3,131
RockyTop85 said:
No, I’m not changing any focus.

A. This is not an accurate reflection of what was happening pre-vaccine.
B. This is not an accurate reflection of my focus, pre-vaccine.
C. This is m of an accurate reflection of my focus, now.

You imputed meaning to a meaningless statistic. I corrected you. You eventually deflected to something else that seems too nebulous and hypothetical to change my personal calculus. That’s it.

My focus now is whether my risk and my family’s risk of negative outcomes from this disease is at a level that I’m comfortable with.
Click to expand...
Ok answer me this.....what amount of the vaxed have been reinfected??? Im looking for an actual total number...??
 
#3,132
#3,132
whodeycin85 said:
Ok answer me this.....what amount of the vaxed have been reinfected??? Im looking for an actual total number...??
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Given the results of the original Pfizer study, the initial indication from the UK, and some anecdotal evidence, I’m not too concerned about becoming infected at this time and haven’t tried to find rates of infection among people who have been vaccinated.
 
#3,133
#3,133
Rasputin_Vol said:
Look back at what I said. I was very clear to say "effective at anything significant". The reason why I have to say that is because I had someone yesterday post stats about the unvaccinated being 24 more times likely to die than the unvaccinated. Yet, when you go back and look at the numbers, we are talking about 1 out of 100,000 deaths for the vaccinated and 24 deaths out of 100,000 for the unvaccinated. The two numbers are statistically insignificant. .001% death rate vs .024% is not enough of a difference to make most reasonable person change their decisions about vaxxing.
Click to expand...
Pretty significant for 23 people.
 
#3,134
#3,134
RockyTop85 said:
I have no idea. Given the results of the original Pfizer study, the initial indication from the UK, and some anecdotal evidence, I’m not too concerned about becoming infected at this time and haven’t tried to find rates of infection among people who have been vaccinated.
Click to expand...
So then you can agree without that info re-infection rate could be 100% (unlikely yes but possible)..now couple that with the rising number of vaxed being hospitalized...does that concern you
 
#3,139
#3,139
whodeycin85 said:
So then you can agree without that info re-infection rate could be 100% (unlikely yes but possible)..now couple that with the rising number of vaxed being hospitalized...does that concern you
Click to expand...

What are you referring to as reinfection rate? Getting covid again, getting covid after being vaccinated, or either? Eventually it will hit 100% as the number of vaccinated + previously infected people nears 100%.

Yesterday, I looked at some information from the UK. It showed that they have 75% of the cases that they had in January and 12.5% of the hospitalizations. The population there is 88% vaccinated and a study recently estimated that 53% of their hospitalizations were resulting from that remaining 12% of people.

I can’t quantify what that means because there are too many unknown variables like how cautious people are being after being vaccinated and how contagious variants of the virus are. However, considering that we’re dealing with what is said to be a more contagious virus and because I expect precautions have relaxed, it’s clearly evidence that the vaccine has a very significant effect on a person’s likelihood of experiencing what I consider to be negative effects (death or hospitalization) due to covid 19.

That may change as different strains develop or the efficacy of the vaccine wanes, and when that happens I may consider a need for a third injection or some other precaution, but right now, everything I’ve seen supports the conclusion that I’ve done enough to return to normal life.
 
#3,140
#3,140
Rasputin_Vol said:
Look back at what I said. I was very clear to say "effective at anything significant". The reason why I have to say that is because I had someone yesterday post stats about the unvaccinated being 24 more times likely to die than the unvaccinated. Yet, when you go back and look at the numbers, we are talking about 1 out of 100,000 deaths for the vaccinated and 24 deaths out of 100,000 for the unvaccinated. The two numbers are statistically insignificant. .001% death rate vs .024% is not enough of a difference to make most reasonable person change their decisions about vaxxing.
Click to expand...
Also, how are you getting these numbers?

625,000 deaths in 35 million cases in the US is not 24/100,000, it’s more like 1,700/100,000. If you go by the US population it is 18/100,000.

So was the person saying that you’re 24 times less likely to die as a vaccinated person who contracted the virus or 24 times less likely to die as an American with the vaccine?

Show your math, please.
 
#3,141
#3,141
RockyTop85 said:
Also, how are you getting these numbers?

625,000 deaths in 35 million cases in the US is not 24/100,000, it’s more like 1,700/100,000. If you go by the US population it is 18/100,000.

So was the person saying that you’re 24 times less likely to die as a vaccinated person who contracted the virus or 24 times less likely to die as an American with the vaccine?

Show your math, please.
Click to expand...
Covid status of VN
Covid status of VN
Covid status of VN
Covid status of VN
 
#3,142
#3,142
Rasputin_Vol said:
Here is the issue. This vaccine was originally sold to people as a way to prevent from getting COVID. Those are the facts. Now, there is now a spin going around that the vaccine was NEVER sold as a way to prevent it, but we all know that is false. So the fact that we have as many breakthrough cases as we do is a matter of concern. The goalposts have been moved and it muddies the message.
Click to expand...
Not talking about you specifically but if anyone thought that the vaccine would prevent infection then they’re a moron. I had to explain this to my wife when she insisted that she did it to protect her family and friends. I said it doesn’t keep you Covid free, it keeps you Covid symptom limited.
 
#3,143
#3,143
AthensVol2007 said:
Not talking about you specifically but if anyone thought that the vaccine would prevent infection then they’re a moron. I had to explain this to my wife when she insisted that she did it to protect her family and friends. I said it doesn’t keep you Covid free, it keeps you Covid symptom limited.
Click to expand...
So you married a moron? I wouldn't tell her that.
 
#3,144
#3,144
AthensVol2007 said:
Not talking about you specifically but if anyone thought that the vaccine would prevent infection then they’re a moron. I had to explain this to my wife when she insisted that she did it to protect her family and friends. I said it doesn’t keep you Covid free, it keeps you Covid symptom limited.
Click to expand...
Then it doesn’t need to be called a vaccine. It’s a shot. Call it a Covid shot.
 
#3,145
#3,145
AthensVol2007 said:
Not talking about you specifically but if anyone thought that the vaccine would prevent infection then they’re a moron. I had to explain this to my wife when she insisted that she did it to protect her family and friends. I said it doesn’t keep you Covid free, it keeps you Covid symptom limited.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you that the scientific evidence with the early vaccine research certainly suggested that it would prevent infection, and that is exactly how it was sold.

I'm almost certain that the problem now is that the variant(s) are at least partially escaping the protection of the mRNA vaccines due to the mutations in the target spike protein. This has always been a possibility, we just didn't know what to expect with this new type of vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,146
#3,146
RockyTop85 said:
I think he’s saying, hypothetically, in a world where nobody has the vaccine, only 100 people get sick vs only 10 in a world with the vaccine.

I’m not sure where the idea that it only infects 10% of unvaccinated people comes from.
Click to expand...
From the fact that what we know today is “only” 35M infected out of 330M people and of that 35M there are vaxed people included. Now we know the number is much higher given antibody tests, undocumented cases, asymptomatic cases etc. Take the CDC’s conservative estimate that it’s 6x higher; that puts it at 210M cases out of 330M and 613k deaths. That’s a cumulative CFR of 0.3% which is heavily skewed by the 65+ demographic and more specifically the 75+ demographic. We’ve lost our collective minds over a virus with a 99.XXX% survival rate that disproportionately kills individuals who would’ve likely died within a year anyway (Neil Ferguson’s assumption not mine).
 
  • Like
Reactions: sportsnut624 and kiddiedoc
#3,148
#3,148
U
RockyTop85 said:
What are you referring to as reinfection rate? Getting covid again, getting covid after being vaccinated, or either? Eventually it will hit 100% as the number of vaccinated + previously infected people nears 100%.

Yesterday, I looked at some information from the UK. It showed that they have 75% of the cases that they had in January and 12.5% of the hospitalizations. The population there is 88% vaccinated and a study recently estimated that 53% of their hospitalizations were resulting from that remaining 12% of people.

I can’t quantify what that means because there are too many unknown variables like how cautious people are being after being vaccinated and how contagious variants of the virus are. However, considering that we’re dealing with what is said to be a more contagious virus and because I expect precautions have relaxed, it’s clearly evidence that the vaccine has a very significant effect on a person’s likelihood of experiencing what I consider to be negative effects (death or hospitalization) due to covid 19.

That may change as different strains develop or the efficacy of the vaccine wanes, and when that happens I may consider a need for a third injection or some other precaution, but right now, everything I’ve seen supports the conclusion that I’ve done enough to return to normal life.
Click to expand...
Your missing the point...if vaxed people are getting infected at a higher rate then when covid started then is thr vax truly effective...so if 1 in 10 we infected before...then all 10 get vaxed and we are still at a 1 and 10 infection rate...did the vax work?
 
#3,149
#3,149
AthensVol2007 said:
From the fact that what we know today is “only” 35M infected out of 330M people and of that 35M there are vaxed people included. Now we know the number is much higher given antibody tests, undocumented cases, asymptomatic cases etc. Take the CDC’s conservative estimate that it’s 6x higher; that puts it at 210M cases out of 330M and 613k deaths. That’s a cumulative CFR of 0.3% which is heavily skewed by the 65+ demographic and more specifically the 75+ demographic. We’ve lost our collective minds over a virus with a 99.XXX% survival rate that disproportionately kills individuals who would’ve likely died within a year anyway (Neil Ferguson’s assumption not mine).
Click to expand...
People read the CDC moveing and bend statics so much..they see. To forget them selfs....and all these studies are control environments...so the numbers are skewed...theres a reason we are getting only partial info
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top