Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Protect the children...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Sorry to hear about your brother. I don’t have any counter to your situation. Hopefully, your nephew can get access to the Covid test performed by the Hospital.
    Valued Member of 11+ years at the PEGym

    12/'09 (start) NBP EL - 4.5, EG - 4.4
    12/11 NBPEL - 5.1, MSEG - 5
    01/13 NBPEL - 5.35, MSEG - 5.1
    01/14 NBPEL - 5.35, MSEG - 5.25
    01/16 NBPEL - 5.4, MSEG - 5.5
    Fat Pad = 1+/-

    Real cars have two seats. Everything else is a bus.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by CUSP82 View Post

      You do have an insistence that this vaccine is a true vaccine. It is not. It is basically a treatment, a primer so to speak to get a body somewhat prepared in case it gets infected. It in no way stops the virus, it doesn't limit it's spread and doesn't prevent you from getting sick. The only thing it does is lessen symptoms and to those medically vulnerable it may, it may, give them a better shot at survival..
      I am aware that the Covid vaccine will reduce the severity of the disease; however, according to Johns Hopkins, “An effective vaccine will protect someone who receives it by lowering the chance of getting COVID-19 if the person encounters the coronavirus.”

      As far as I know JH is a fairly reliable source of medical information.
      Valued Member of 11+ years at the PEGym

      12/'09 (start) NBP EL - 4.5, EG - 4.4
      12/11 NBPEL - 5.1, MSEG - 5
      01/13 NBPEL - 5.35, MSEG - 5.1
      01/14 NBPEL - 5.35, MSEG - 5.25
      01/16 NBPEL - 5.4, MSEG - 5.5
      Fat Pad = 1+/-

      Real cars have two seats. Everything else is a bus.

      Comment


      • #18
        They became vaccines when the definition of vaccine changed from "produces immunity" to "produces an immune response"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by not2big View Post

          I am aware that the Covid vaccine will reduce the severity of the disease; however, according to Johns Hopkins, “An effective vaccine will protect someone who receives it by lowering the chance of getting COVID-19 if the person encounters the coronavirus.”

          As far as I know JH is a fairly reliable source of medical information.
          Lowering the chances of getting the bug if you run across an infected person; wanna tell me how much lower? Wasn't the mask and social distancing supposed to do that? So the vaccine really is no different that the rules of cleanliness we already know other than it may reduce the severity of the disease.It just really doesn't stop it. So let's keep getting jabbed with whatever thing they come up with until the find the right idea.
          The world's still a toy if you just stay a boy!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by CUSP82 View Post

            Lowering the chances of getting the bug if you run across an infected person; wanna tell me how much lower? Wasn't the mask and social distancing supposed to do that? So the vaccine really is no different that the rules of cleanliness we already know other than it may reduce the severity of the disease.It just really doesn't stop it. So let's keep getting jabbed with whatever thing they come up with until the find the right idea.
            According to King County WA Health Dept, unvaccinated people are :
            • 7 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than vaccinated people
            • 49 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people
            • 32 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than vaccinated people.
            Also, be aware that the new Omicron varient may be even more transmittable.
            Valued Member of 11+ years at the PEGym

            12/'09 (start) NBP EL - 4.5, EG - 4.4
            12/11 NBPEL - 5.1, MSEG - 5
            01/13 NBPEL - 5.35, MSEG - 5.1
            01/14 NBPEL - 5.35, MSEG - 5.25
            01/16 NBPEL - 5.4, MSEG - 5.5
            Fat Pad = 1+/-

            Real cars have two seats. Everything else is a bus.

            Comment


            • #21
              What's not clear about those numbers is what the differences in those groups were. Are the unvaccinated hospitalizations and deaths in the same health and demographic group as those who are vaccinated? Are the all already more at risk? I don't have the answers to dispute those King County numbers but am just pointing out that generalizing those statistics isn't necessarily saying much.

              I don't know any healthy people under the age of 70 who have died or even been hospitalized because of Covid. And now those people I know who have been infected have a better level of protection against it.

              According to the CDC...
              https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm
              Of some 139,655 hospitalized after vaccine availability:
              Testing was performed on 94,264
              1,020 hospitalizations among previously infected unvaccinated (1.1%)
              6,328 among fully vaccinated and previously uninfected patients (6.7%)
              SARS-CoV-2 infection found in 324 of fully vaccinated persons (.03%)
              and found in 89 of unvaccinated, previously infected persons (.009%)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Johnny D View Post
                What's not clear about those numbers is what the differences in those groups were. Are the unvaccinated hospitalizations and deaths in the same health and demographic group as those who are vaccinated? Are the all already more at risk? I don't have the answers to dispute those King County numbers but am just pointing out that generalizing those statistics isn't necessarily saying much.

                I don't know any healthy people under the age of 70 who have died or even been hospitalized because of Covid. And now those people I know who have been infected have a better level of protection against it.

                According to the CDC...
                https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm
                Of some 139,655 hospitalized after vaccine availability:
                Testing was performed on 94,264
                1,020 hospitalizations among previously infected unvaccinated (1.1%)
                6,328 among fully vaccinated and previously uninfected patients (6.7%)
                SARS-CoV-2 infection found in 324 of fully vaccinated persons (.03%)
                and found in 89 of unvaccinated, previously infected persons (.009%)
                In the discussion section of your above referenced report it states:

                In this multistate analysis of hospitalizations for COVID-19–like illness among adults aged ≥18 years during January–September 2021 whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were higher among unvaccinated and previously infected patients than among those who were fully vaccinated with 2 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine without previous documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary analyses that did not adjust for time since infection or vaccination or adjusted time since infection or vaccination differently as well as before and during Delta variant predominance produced similar results.

                Valued Member of 11+ years at the PEGym

                12/'09 (start) NBP EL - 4.5, EG - 4.4
                12/11 NBPEL - 5.1, MSEG - 5
                01/13 NBPEL - 5.35, MSEG - 5.1
                01/14 NBPEL - 5.35, MSEG - 5.25
                01/16 NBPEL - 5.4, MSEG - 5.5
                Fat Pad = 1+/-

                Real cars have two seats. Everything else is a bus.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by not2big View Post

                  In the discussion section of your above referenced report it states:

                  In this multistate analysis of hospitalizations for COVID-19–like illness among adults aged ≥18 years during January–September 2021 whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were higher among unvaccinated and previously infected patients than among those who were fully vaccinated with 2 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine without previous documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary analyses that did not adjust for time since infection or vaccination or adjusted time since infection or vaccination differently as well as before and during Delta variant predominance produced similar results.
                  Ya. That's the conclusion they drew from that data. So they completely dismiss the fact that .03% of vaccinated/prior-uninfected tested positive while only .009% of unvaccinated/prior-infected tested positive. Instead they found a way to make being vaccinated sound better than being prior-infected by saying that 324 of the 6,328 vaccinated/prior-uninfected tested positive while 89 of the 1,020 unvaccinated/prior-infected tested positive. It's a laughable conclusion.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Johnny D View Post

                    Ya. That's the conclusion they drew from that data. So they completely dismiss the fact that .03% of vaccinated/prior-uninfected tested positive while only .009% of unvaccinated/prior-infected tested positive. Instead they found a way to make being vaccinated sound better than being prior-infected by saying that 324 of the 6,328 vaccinated/prior-uninfected tested positive while 89 of the 1,020 unvaccinated/prior-infected tested positive. It's a laughable conclusion.
                    This is a bit irresponsible. "Instead they found a way" means they used math correctly and understood their own methodology.

                    These things are complicated, so let's go through it slowly, and maybe we can reach an understanding as well.

                    The study identified a cohort of 201,269 people who were hospitalized with a "Covid-19-like illness." Note, this number does NOT indicate all these people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of Covid-19). Then the study eliminates hospitalizations before vaccines were widely available, so we are left with 139,655 patients (again, not all of which had SARS-CoV-2 or Covid-19). They further eliminate those patients who did not receive molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2, and we're left with the 94,264 number.

                    Then, the study looks to see which of these patients had a previous test longer than 14 days ago, and met the criteria for either group (either previously vaccinated with no prior infection, or previously infected 90-179 days ago with no vaccination). That brings us down to a total of 7,348 hospitalizations that the study is actually measuring: 1,020 hospitalizations were among previously infected and unvaccinated persons, and 6,328 were among fully vaccinated and previously uninfected patients. But remember, we're still just talking about hospitalizations, not positive tests.

                    So, among the 1,020 previously infected and unvaccinated persons, 89 tested positive (8.7%); and among the 6,328 fully vaccinated persons, 324 tested positive (5.1%).

                    And there it is. The cohort of people previously infected and unvaccinated, who were hospitalized for a Covid-19-like illness, were more likely (8.7% to 5.1%) to actually test positive, than the cohort of people who had never been infected but were fully vaccinated.

                    Now, we can argue about how significant that difference is, but the conclusion is clearly based on the evidence. This is not a laughable conclusion. These studies are difficult to read and track, I get it. But if you don't really read through it several times and understand exactly what's going on, please refrain from acting as if you do. This is how misinformation gets spread.

                    You are correct to point out that we have no idea what co-morbidities are in play here, etc, and those are good questions to ask. However, you are incorrect to compare the positivity rates among our 6,328 patients to the entire 94,264, because 87,936 of those patients did not fit into either cohort of interest. This study was only comparing test results of 7,348 of the 94,264, so you have to eliminate ~92% of the 94,264 before you do your final percentage calculations. We are not told the vaccination status or the positivity rate of those 87,936, because they did not meet the criteria for either of the two comparison groups, so we can't assume your .03% and .009% means anything, when that's only talking about 8% of the total.

                    To be fair to the study, they do offer "at least seven limitations" in the discussion section, so they are transparent about things like miscategorizing folks and the like.
                    Last edited by madyogi; 2 days ago.
                    START : 2/6/2020
                    BPEL : 5.875" - BaseEG : 5.25" - MSEG : 5.0"
                    CURRENT : 11/18/2021
                    BPEL : 7.5" - BaseEG : 5.75" - MSEG : 5.75"

                    BPEL GOAL : 7.5+" - MSEG GOAL : 5.75+"

                    MadYogi's PE Log

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Like in many other scientific type articles, the conclusion in the CDC one is a little on the "wishy-washy" side. Given the percentages that madyogi summarized for us, and the list of 7 limitations among which number 5 pretty much states that the results cannot be generalized to the non-hospitalized population, I can only take that conclusion with a grain of salt. With SO MANY limitations (I believe a better study design could have controlled for some of these), it won't take much for some other team to potentially disprove this in 4, 5 months time... not to mention, the contradictory finding by that other Israeli study it references to. So no, I wouldn't say the conclusion is a resounding one, not by a long shot.

                      I would also like to see a study look into the secondary effects of the vaccines. Some people are probably already a year into their first jab. Hopefully, many institutes, not just the CDC but universities across the board as well, can look into a long-term study. Problem is, a control group of unvaccinated participants is needed... and with all the mandating and such, not sure it'll ever happen.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by madyogi View Post

                        This is a bit irresponsible. "Instead they found a way" means they used math correctly and understood their own methodology.

                        These things are complicated, so let's go through it slowly, and maybe we can reach an understanding as well.

                        The study identified a cohort of 201,269 people who were hospitalized with a "Covid-19-like illness." Note, this number does NOT indicate all these people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of Covid-19). Then the study eliminates hospitalizations before vaccines were widely available, so we are left with 139,655 patients (again, not all of which had SARS-CoV-2 or Covid-19). They further eliminate those patients who did not receive molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2, and we're left with the 94,264 number.

                        Then, the study looks to see which of these patients had a previous test longer than 14 days ago, and met the criteria for either group (either previously vaccinated with no prior infection, or previously infected 90-179 days ago with no vaccination). That brings us down to a total of 7,348 hospitalizations that the study is actually measuring: 1,020 hospitalizations were among previously infected and unvaccinated persons, and 6,328 were among fully vaccinated and previously uninfected patients. But remember, we're still just talking about hospitalizations, not positive tests.

                        So, among the 1,020 previously infected and unvaccinated persons, 89 tested positive (8.7%); and among the 6,328 fully vaccinated persons, 324 tested positive (5.1%).

                        And there it is. The cohort of people previously infected and unvaccinated, who were hospitalized for a Covid-19-like illness, were more likely (8.7% to 5.1%) to actually test positive, than the cohort of people who had never been infected but were fully vaccinated.

                        Now, we can argue about how significant that difference is, but the conclusion is clearly based on the evidence. This is not a laughable conclusion. These studies are difficult to read and track, I get it. But if you don't really read through it several times and understand exactly what's going on, please refrain from acting as if you do. This is how misinformation gets spread.

                        You are correct to point out that we have no idea what co-morbidities are in play here, etc, and those are good questions to ask. However, you are incorrect to compare the positivity rates among our 6,328 patients to the entire 94,264, because 87,936 of those patients did not fit into either cohort of interest. This study was only comparing test results of 7,348 of the 94,264, so you have to eliminate ~92% of the 94,264 before you do your final percentage calculations. We are not told the vaccination status or the positivity rate of those 87,936, because they did not meet the criteria for either of the two comparison groups, so we can't assume your .03% and .009% means anything, when that's only talking about 8% of the total.

                        To be fair to the study, they do offer "at least seven limitations" in the discussion section, so they are transparent about things like miscategorizing folks and the like.
                        I did read through it several times and I didn't find it difficult to read. I see exactly how they came to their conclusion - the same way that you did. What's obvious about the study is this: Of the 7,348 people hospitalized, 14% were unvaccinated/infected and 86% were vaccinated/uninfected. Also, 1.2% of them who tested positive were unvaccinated/infected while 4.4% were vaccinated/uninfected. From that data, there were 6X more vaccinated people hospitalized and 4X more vaccinated people who tested positive.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Do we realize that for a study to have any merit it takes time not only to do the studies but even more time to analyze the data and actually come to a scientific conclusion. It takes years so any study you want to quote right now will be meaningless 3 years from now.
                          The world's still a toy if you just stay a boy!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Johnny D View Post

                            I did read through it several times and I didn't find it difficult to read. I see exactly how they came to their conclusion - the same way that you did.
                            Good deal. Still not a laughable conclusion.

                            Originally posted by Johnny D View Post
                            What's obvious about the study is this: Of the 7,348 people hospitalized, 14% were unvaccinated/infected and 86% were vaccinated/uninfected. Also, 1.2% of them who tested positive were unvaccinated/infected while 4.4% were vaccinated/uninfected. From that data, there were 6X more vaccinated people hospitalized and 4X more vaccinated people who tested positive.
                            This is true, but what's also clear is that a greater percentage of those who were unvaccinated ended up testing positive than those who were vaccinated. The study leaves out all kinds of other things that matter, like what was the ultimate severity of illness for those involved, etc. It honestly doesn't show much. Only that among this cohort, they found more folks who met the criteria for the study that were vaccinated and previously uninfected than those that were unvaccinated and previously infected. It further shows that any given individual in the unvaccinated cohort was 70% more likely to test positive than any individual in the vaccinated cohort. Full stop. One can argue if the difference between 8.7% and 5.1% is really meaningful. One can argue if a positive test is really of interest at this point. One can argue the methodology is too flawed to ultimately mean anything. But the data clearly shows the unvaccinated/infected folks in this study were more likely to test positive than the vaccinated folks.

                            Originally posted by CUSP82 View Post
                            Do we realize that for a study to have any merit it takes time not only to do the studies but even more time to analyze the data and actually come to a scientific conclusion. It takes years so any study you want to quote right now will be meaningless 3 years from now.
                            This depends entirely on what the study is looking at. An epidemiologic study like this doesn't need more time. The data is there, and these folks were looking to answer a specific question. Namely, "Are unvaccinated people that contracted Covid-19 between 90-180 days ago more or less likely to test positive upon subsequent hospitalization than vaccinated people without previous infection?" The data is frozen in time, and it clearly says the former are more likely to test positive than the latter.

                            I'm personally not all that interested in positive cases. I'm more interested in outcomes, so this study really doesn't interest me that much (other than nerding out on methodology). Studies of outcomes do take quite a lot longer to have merit, and honestly science is designed to disprove itself as much as possible. That's how we get to answers that most closely match reality.
                            Last edited by madyogi; 2 days ago.
                            START : 2/6/2020
                            BPEL : 5.875" - BaseEG : 5.25" - MSEG : 5.0"
                            CURRENT : 11/18/2021
                            BPEL : 7.5" - BaseEG : 5.75" - MSEG : 5.75"

                            BPEL GOAL : 7.5+" - MSEG GOAL : 5.75+"

                            MadYogi's PE Log

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X