Vaccine or not?

#12,501
#12,501
I don't know what these folks have to gain by going public with information that's so easily proven to be false. Why do these people put themselves through such an indignity?
 
#12,505
#12,505
It's almost comical that the Airlines are trying to blame these cancellations on the weather

The cancellation of more than 1500 American Airlines flights over the weekend has been attributed by the company to weather and staffing issues, but one organization says the real reason is flight crews and pilots are “experiencing major stress.”
But US Freedom Flyers, a nonprofit group that advocates for transportation industry workers and people who do not want vaccine mandates, says “not so fast”.
Kate O’Brien, director of media relations for the group, said the canceled flights are only going to get worse because pilots and crew members are calling in sick because of the stress they are feeling over the vaccine mandates.
US Freedom Flyers does not condone or endorse work actions of any kind, but it appears as though flight crews have reached their breaking point,” O’Brien told the Epoch Times.
Flight crews are acknowledging that because their unions and companies have broken their social contract, they are in a place where it is not safe for them to fly.”

Pilot and Crew Stress Over Vaccine Mandates Real Reason for Flight Cancelations, Group Says Pilot and Crew Stress Over Vaccine Mandates Real Reason for Flight Cancelations, Group Says
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#12,506
#12,506
n_huffhines said:
COVID-19 vaccine gives 5 times the protection of 'natural immunity,' data show
Click to expand...
I know there's been a lot of responses here, but did you read it? Or just the headline? It's scary that this stuff gets published. The data is ok, the recommendation published with it is not.

Here's what they did. X people were hospitalized with covid like symptoms who weren't vaccinated but had prior infection, P tested positive for covid. Y people were hospitalized with covid like symptoms who were vaccinated without prior infection, Q tested positive. P/X is five times greater than Q/Y, therefore get vaccinated. Does that make sense?

That assumes that the two groups are equally likely to be hospitalized from non-covid like symptoms. And that seems like a big assumption. Don't know which way....but it's not a controlled population or even remotely understood population. This is very similar to the masks studies.
1. Present Data
2. Analyze Data
3. Conclude something not remotely supported by data.
4. Get published and showered with praise by CDC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IBlvNTmWrk and VolinWayne
#12,507
#12,507
Weezy said:
I know there's been a lot of responses here, but did you read it? Or just the headline? It's scary that this stuff gets published. The data is ok, the recommendation published with it is not.

Here's what they did. X people were hospitalized with covid like symptoms who weren't vaccinated but had prior infection, P tested positive for covid. Y people were hospitalized with covid like symptoms who were vaccinated without prior infection, Q tested positive. P/X is five times greater than Q/Y, therefore get vaccinated. Does that make sense?

That assumes that the two groups are equally likely to be hospitalized from non-covid like symptoms. And that seems like a big assumption. Don't know which way....but it's not a controlled population or even remotely understood population. This is very similar to the masks studies.
1. Present Data
2. Analyze Data
3. Conclude something not remotely supported by data.
4. Get published and showered with praise by CDC.
Click to expand...
Same deal as the study the CDC published that had the conclusion/recommendation that getting the COVID vaccine reduces all causes of death in young adults (including accidents).
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#12,508
#12,508
Weezy said:
I know there's been a lot of responses here, but did you read it? Or just the headline? It's scary that this stuff gets published. The data is ok, the recommendation published with it is not.

Here's what they did. X people were hospitalized with covid like symptoms who weren't vaccinated but had prior infection, P tested positive for covid. Y people were hospitalized with covid like symptoms who were vaccinated without prior infection, Q tested positive. P/X is five times greater than Q/Y, therefore get vaccinated. Does that make sense?

That assumes that the two groups are equally likely to be hospitalized from non-covid like symptoms. And that seems like a big assumption. Don't know which way....but it's not a controlled population or even remotely understood population. This is very similar to the masks studies.
1. Present Data
2. Analyze Data
3. Conclude something not remotely supported by data.
4. Get published and showered with praise by CDC.
Click to expand...

They have a sampling problem, but do you think that the unvaccinated are 5.5x more likely to go to the hospital for non-covid like symptoms? 3x?

The publishers of the study are not saying "we conclude that it is 5.5x more likely..." they are saying "with this data we collected, we found this group was 5.5x more likely, ipso facto, we think the vaccine has merit."

I agree that the headline of the article is very misleading, but the study still has value, which is why I shared it.
 
#12,511
#12,511
n_huffhines said:
They have a sampling problem, but do you think that the unvaccinated are 5.5x more likely to go to the hospital for non-covid like symptoms? 3x?

The publishers of the study are not saying "we conclude that it is 5.5x more likely..." they are saying "with this data we collected, we found this group was 5.5x more likely, ipso facto, we think the vaccine has merit."

I agree that the headline of the article is very misleading, but the study still has value, which is why I shared it.
Click to expand...
That's quite literally not what the article nor the study say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and SpaceCoastVol
#12,512
#12,512
n_huffhines said:
They have a sampling problem, but do you think that the unvaccinated are 5.5x more likely to go to the hospital for non-covid like symptoms? 3x?

The publishers of the study are not saying "we conclude that it is 5.5x more likely..." they are saying "with this data we collected, we found this group was 5.5x more likely, ipso facto, we think the vaccine has merit."

I agree that the headline of the article is very misleading, but the study still has value, which is why I shared it.
Click to expand...
Well the 5x is an adjusted odds multiplier. I read it quickly but I don't see why you just wouldn't use the relative percentages, which was more like 2x.

What they should have concluded is that if you were hospitalized with covid like symptoms, it is twice as likely that it's covid-19 if you are unvaccinated with prior infection than vaccinated without prior infection. But that's useless data.

What they should have done is to utilize a controlled population set and judge how likely you are to be hospitalized with covid. You need to know the total number of people, not just those hospitalized.

I do think elderly folks who are vaccinated are likely to end up in the hospital with other causes for pneumonia. They might have corrected for that, but correction would be ripe for bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc
#12,514
#12,514
utvolpj said:
Not too long ago someone posted in this forum that luciferase was named and patented by Bill Gates. It was a serious post and never retracted
Click to expand...
It’s not listed on the vaccines patents. It is widely used as a marker in PCR technology for its substrate bio marker ability.
 
#12,515
#12,515
Did I miss brain washing 101 in high school, or did making up crap about science just become normal after I graduated?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo
#12,517
#12,517
mad4vols said:
Covidiot says: If you get the vaccine, I’ll file for divorce.

Click to expand...

Which one is the covid idiot? The one that didn’t file for divorce because he was all talk or the one that got giddy over getting 300 likes and actually filed for divorce? Someone seems to like the attention. I wonder how quickly she would have filed for divorce if he had dementia or Parkinson’s or something else that changed him from “ the man I married”. Disgusting media taking advantage of people to make you and others feel superior. You and them should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Orange#1, VolinWayne, ButchPlz and 1 other person
#12,519
#12,519
825VOL said:
Which one is the covid idiot? The one that didn’t file for divorce because he was all talk or the one that got giddy over getting 300 likes and actually filed for divorce? Someone seems to like the attention. I wonder how quickly she would have filed for divorce if he had dementia or Parkinson’s or something else that changed him from “ the man I married”. Disgusting media taking advantage of people to make you and others feel superior. You and them should be ashamed of yourselves.
Click to expand...

Mad4vols is a branch covidian who worships at the alter of Fauci.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Orange#1, Rickyvol77, DynaLo and 2 others
#12,520
#12,520
Weezy said:
I know there's been a lot of responses here, but did you read it? Or just the headline? It's scary that this stuff gets published. The data is ok, the recommendation published with it is not.

Here's what they did. X people were hospitalized with covid like symptoms who weren't vaccinated but had prior infection, P tested positive for covid. Y people were hospitalized with covid like symptoms who were vaccinated without prior infection, Q tested positive. P/X is five times greater than Q/Y, therefore get vaccinated. Does that make sense?

That assumes that the two groups are equally likely to be hospitalized from non-covid like symptoms. And that seems like a big assumption. Don't know which way....but it's not a controlled population or even remotely understood population. This is very similar to the masks studies.
1. Present Data
2. Analyze Data
3. Conclude something not remotely supported by data.
4. Get published and showered with praise by CDC.
Click to expand...
Thanks for hashing all that out. When I quickly read through it, I dismissed the study due to an apparent weird sampling bias and contradictory findings to basically all other information I've seen and a good knowledge of immunity. It just makes no sense.

Honestly, I've been so busy with other work and family stuff that I've kind of tuned out the COVID stuff lately. Barring some major mutation and escape of immunity, it's basically done, around here. Maybe I'm a little burned out, at this point, but there are so many more pressing issues, and none of the sickest kids I've seen in the past 9 months have CV19.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#12,522
#12,522
n_huffhines said:
They have a sampling problem, but do you think that the unvaccinated are 5.5x more likely to go to the hospital for non-covid like symptoms? 3x?

The publishers of the study are not saying "we conclude that it is 5.5x more likely..." they are saying "with this data we collected, we found this group was 5.5x more likely, ipso facto, we think the vaccine has merit."

I agree that the headline of the article is very misleading, but the study still has value, which is why I shared it.
Click to expand...
Follow up....look how these studies get used to support crap arguments.
Aaron Rodgers lied about his vaccination status and the Packers are paying the price

The truth is the Aaron did have immunity if he had prior infection. But this garbage study is used to argue otherwise.
 
#12,523
#12,523
#12,525
#12,525
kiddiedoc said:
Thanks for hashing all that out. When I quickly read through it, I dismissed the study due to an apparent weird sampling bias and contradictory findings to basically all other information I've seen and a good knowledge of immunity. It just makes no sense.

Honestly, I've been so busy with other work and family stuff that I've kind of tuned out the COVID stuff lately. Barring some major mutation and escape of immunity, it's basically done, around here. Maybe I'm a little burned out, at this point, but there are so many more pressing issues, and none of the sickest kids I've seen in the past 9 months have CV19.
Click to expand...
So I saw a similar headline elsewhere and the Rodgers article so I wanted to know if I was alone in looking at the study and concluding it was very flawed. Turns out commenters on Reddit, agreed, and I did not expect that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/qijvsb/vaccination_protects_against_covid19_more/

The article put in some good caveats, but then ended with the conclusion to get vaccinated. They knew this was snake oil intended to get headlines the CDC wants. It is not peer reviewed.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top