Vaccine or not?

#8,327
#8,327
RockyTop85 said:
Ok. So you don’t understand what moving the goalposts means. That’s ok.

Is there any reason we should all just accept your conclusions about what people want rather than having an honest discussion about what the benefits and risks of the vaccine are and letting individuals make up their own minds?
Click to expand...
Presenting only a half-truth like "you are twice as likely to get COVID again if you don't get vaccinated" is, in itself, not having an "honest discussion." The risk of reinfection in multiple studies is FAR LESS THAN 1%. In addition, as pointed out in the paper I linked earlier, even those few positives are usually asymptomatic, and there was no statistical significance found in symptomatic cases.

Technically, you are twice as likely to win the Powerball if you buy two tickets. 1000% more likely if you buy 10 sets of numbers. Are you going to win the Powerball? Nope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and newyorkvol
#8,331
#8,331
RockyTop85 said:
Yes, it actually does. Let me help:

They acknowledge that they don’t know the actual number of breakthrough infections because of limited availability of information. They rely on the number of people specifically reported to two databases to confirm vaccination and infection and then case-matched based on age and other factors to make a superior apples to apples comparison.

It would be misleading and borderline dishonest of them to represent that the cases they identified were a total breakthrough infection rate by roping in the state’s total number of cases.
Click to expand...

In this particular study, the OR is 2.34 more likely for unvaccinated but prior infected to have a reinfection. However, there is no data presented to see if this number is actually statistically significant.

In addition, the data was collected in May and June. During that time the CDC was recommending AGAINST vaccinated individuals from testing, whether exposed, symptomatic or asymptomatic. That is a huge weakness to this study.

They should try and replicate this study with numbers large enough to prove statistical significance and after the CDC once again recommending testing for anyone exposed or symptomatic.
 
#8,334
#8,334
kiddiedoc said:
Presenting only a half-truth like "you are twice as likely to get COVID again if you don't get vaccinated" is, in itself, not having an "honest discussion." The risk of reinfection in multiple studies is FAR LESS THAN 1%. In addition, as pointed out in the paper I linked earlier, even those few positives are usually asymptomatic, and there was no statistical significance found in symptomatic cases.

Technically, you are twice as likely to win the Powerball if you buy two tickets. 1000% more likely if you buy 10 sets of numbers. Are you going to win the Powerball? Nope.
Click to expand...

The study was linked on this site and sets forth its purpose, methodology, and limitations. That’s an honest discussion.

Discussing those limitations and how they undermine the evidentiary value would have been an honest discussion.

Faulting the people who conducted the study for failing to establish a number that they never set out to establish because they were admittedly unable to do so given the limitated availability of information; citing to their admission of those limitations; and then trying to use their numbers in a way that is misleading to support your own conclusion is not an honest discussion.

Imagine thinking you can pull that and still pivot straight to playing gatekeeper for what’s an honest discussion.
 
#8,335
#8,335
RockyTop85 said:
The study was linked on this site and sets forth its purpose, methodology, and limitations. That’s an honest discussion.

Discussing those limitations and how they undermine the evidentiary value would have been an honest discussion.

Faulting the people who conducted the study for failing to establish a number that they never set out to establish because they were admittedly unable to do so given the limitated availability of information; citing to their admission of those limitations; and then trying to use their numbers in a way that is misleading to support your own conclusion is not an honest discussion.

Imagine thinking you can pull that and still pivot straight to playing gatekeeper for what’s an honest discussion.
Click to expand...

I agree they mentioned the weaknesses in their study. My bigger issue is that, as faulty as the study is, the CDC is using it to support vaccination post infection.

Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination
 
#8,336
#8,336
newyorkvol said:
In this particular study, the OR is 2.34 more likely for unvaccinated but prior infected to have a reinfection. However, there is no data presented to see if this number is actually statistically significant.

In addition, the data was collected in May and June. During that time the CDC was recommending AGAINST vaccinated individuals from testing, whether exposed, symptomatic or asymptomatic. That is a huge weakness to this study.

They should try and replicate this study with numbers large enough to prove statistical significance and after the CDC once again recommending testing for anyone exposed or symptomatic.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but the problem was the availability of information, not some misleading attempt to hide the ball.

If the availability of the needed information hasn’t changed, then I don’t see what a re-do of the study is really going to accomplish in terms of presenting a more compelling study.
 
#8,337
#8,337
Front-line fatigue: ICU nurses taking brutal blows to their mental health

Robin Grigg's patient, struggling to breathe, looked at her and asked what was wrong with him. She showed him his positive COVID-19 test results, knowing it was not the first time he had seen them.

"No," he said. "COVID's not real. I don't have COVID."

He wouldn't budge.

Imagine not being able to breathe and still not believing it's real
 
#8,340
#8,340
RockyTop85 said:
I agree with this, but the problem was the availability of information, not some misleading attempt to hide the ball.

If the availability of the needed information hasn’t changed, then I don’t see what a re-do of the study is really going to accomplish in terms of presenting a more compelling study.
Click to expand...

So the CDC is making recommendations based on limited availability of information? And it’s not uncommon in medical literature to try and show an effect of treatment by stating just an OR without proving its statistical significance. And that is, by definition, misleading.

And, they can totally do the same study under the same design, but have the collection date start at the beginning of August when the CDC started testing everyone again. Plus, there have been more cases on both sides of the ledger, thereby increasing the chance they would show a statistically important difference.
 
#8,341
#8,341
Velo Vol said:
Get the disease and then you won't have to worry about getting the disease.

Brilliant!
Click to expand...

My god you dims will twist anything. More like IF YOUV’E ALREADY HAD the virus natural immunity is better than a vaccine you don’t need. But on a realistic note, you dims cry about everyone getting vaccinated when all you need to worry about is YOU. Get your vaccine, wear your mask everywhere, or go into confinement. If the vaccine works get yours and stfu.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and SpaceCoastVol
#8,344
#8,344
OHvol40 said:
Oh don’t get me wrong, I have mountains of respect for the conditions confronted by covid unit RNs the past couple years. My wife was an assistant manager of one of the designated covid pos units at a big level I. She was in the numbers every day (even though her contract explicitly stated that she wasn’t to have any pt assignments). Her experience was unreal at times.

The facility I have been at through most of this had us doing all of the tubes. I was in the ICU a lot, and as you stated our electives shut down for quite a while, so we got all kinds of different things delegated to us.

Nothing but respect. The ratios and workload have been unreal.
Click to expand...
Kudos to you and your wife. We use anesthesia all the time to tube our pts. It’s always stat. The level 1 I was at had 1:1 ratios so we caught some what of a break, that is no longer the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
#8,345
#8,345
newyorkvol said:
I agree they mentioned the weaknesses in their study. My bigger issue is that, as faulty as the study is, the CDC is using it to support vaccination post infection.

Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination
Click to expand...

Here’s my only real response to that:

Your primary care provider should be your intermediary between you and the CDC. It’s sad, but that’s the way it should be, IMO.

If this decision is a hangup for anybody, then it is not capable of a blanket recommendation one way or the other, which is why the CDC would be better off serving as an aggregator for studies like these, rather than making recommendations based off of them.

I’m not saying it’s conclusive or that it’s perfect, but it is evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newyorkvol
#8,347
#8,347
newyorkvol said:
So the CDC is making recommendations based on limited availability of information? And it’s not uncommon in medical literature to try and show an effect of treatment by stating just an OR without proving its statistical significance. And that is, by definition, misleading.

And, they can totally do the same study under the same design, but have the collection date start at the beginning of August when the CDC started testing everyone again. Plus, there have been more cases on both sides of the ledger, thereby increasing the chance they would show a statistically important difference.
Click to expand...
I don’t think redoing the work starting from August addresses all of the issues with availability of information.

The study said something about federal testing sites weren’t sharing information with the databases and it seemed as if they couldn’t get enough identifying information from federally operated testing sites to make a comparison.

It would be subject to similar limitations in terms of determining whether the benefit is significant or not.

There may be other states where you could do this with more effectiveness.
 
#8,348
#8,348
overseasorange2 said:
Yes I think I am going to try to get bit by a cobra, so I will start building a natural antivenom. :cool:
Click to expand...
This is the type of liberal hysteria that causes many conservatives to roll their eyes and not take any Democrats seriously. Covid-19 infection versus a Cobra bite - yeah. The two are completely comparable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top