Coronavirus COVID-19

[kalm]

I went ahead and looked at New York vs. Florida for the period following when vaccines were estimated to have started having an effect.

If you look at the whole pandemic through 11/6/2022, Florida's death rate was 3838 per million population while New York's was 3781. So Florida's death rate was 1.5% higher than New Yorks.

But, if you look at the death rate for the period when vaccines were estimated to be having an effect (2/19/2021 - 11/6/2022), DeSantis Land's death rate was 80% higher than New York's was. 2388 vs. 1323.

Whoa!

Thanks for doing the leg work on this, JSO.

[UNI88]

I went ahead and looked at New York vs. Florida for the period following when vaccines were estimated to have started having an effect.

If you look at the whole pandemic through 11/6/2022, Florida's death rate was 3838 per million population while New York's was 3781. So Florida's death rate was 1.5% higher than New Yorks.

But, if you look at the death rate for the period when vaccines were estimated to be having an effect (2/19/2021 - 11/6/2022), DeSantis Land's death rate was 80% higher than New York's was. 2388 vs. 1323.

Whoa!

Thanks for doing the leg work on this, JSO.

Is there a revelation here that I'm missing?

Yes, Florida's death rate was higher post-vaccine to almost the same degree that New York's death rate was higher pre-vaccine. Is it possible that New York's most vulnerable being warehoused, exposed and dying early in the pandemic meant that they weren't around to die even with the vaccines? Is it possible that Florida's larger population of elderly (21.1% over 65 compared to New York's 17.5%) might have contributed to Florida's death rate?

JSO likes to interpret and present data that supports the conclusion he supports. What's that called? Confirmation bias. The only thing that JSO's diatribes convince me of is that he's biased.

[kalm]

Whoa!

Thanks for doing the leg work on this, JSO.

Is there a revelation here that I'm missing?

Yes, Florida's death rate was higher post-vaccine to almost the same degree that New York's death rate was higher pre-vaccine. Is it possible that New York's most vulnerable being warehoused, exposed and dying early in the pandemic meant that they weren't around to die even with the vaccines? Is it possible that Florida's larger population of elderly (21.1% over 65 compared to New York's 17.5%) might have contributed to Florida's death rate?

JSO likes to interpret and present data that supports the conclusion he supports. What's that called? Confirmation bias. The only thing that JSO's diatribes convince me of is that he's biased.

Tge difference is surprising. As you suggest many factors but it’s good to have further evidence that the vaccines are effective. This may be important going forward.

[UNI88]

Is there a revelation here that I'm missing?

Yes, Florida's death rate was higher post-vaccine to almost the same degree that New York's death rate was higher pre-vaccine. Is it possible that New York's most vulnerable being warehoused, exposed and dying early in the pandemic meant that they weren't around to die even with the vaccines? Is it possible that Florida's larger population of elderly (21.1% over 65 compared to New York's 17.5%) might have contributed to Florida's death rate?

JSO likes to interpret and present data that supports the conclusion he supports. What's that called? Confirmation bias. The only thing that JSO's diatribes convince me of is that he's biased.

Tge difference is surprising. As you suggest many factors but it’s good to have further evidence that the vaccines are effective. This may be important going forward.

Are the vaccines effective? The higher deaths in Florida compared to New York after the vaccines were introduced can be at least partially explained by the points I listed above. I'm sure SG could provide more, he's been proven right on this thread a lot more than JSO.

Are the vaccines as effective today as they seemed to be in the beginning (i.e. are the effective against the variants)? Can they keep up or is natural immunity from having COVID better?

The government lied to us about the possibility of COVID coming from a lab, why should I believe them about the vaccines?

[kalm]

Tge difference is surprising. As you suggest many factors but it’s good to have further evidence that the vaccines are effective. This may be important going forward.

Are the vaccines effective? The higher deaths in Florida compared to New York after the vaccines were introduced can be at least partially explained by the points I listed above. I'm sure SG could provide more, he's been proven right on this thread a lot more than JSO.

Are the vaccines as effective today as they seemed to be in the beginning (i.e. are the effective against the variants)? Can they keep up or is natural immunity from having COVID better?

The government lied to us about the possibility of COVID coming from a lab, why should I believe them about the vaccines?

There’s nothing wrong with healthy skepticism…especially in government.

I spat out my coffee with your SG - JSO comparison.

[UNI88]

Are the vaccines effective? The higher deaths in Florida compared to New York after the vaccines were introduced can be at least partially explained by the points I listed above. I'm sure SG could provide more, he's been proven right on this thread a lot more than JSO.

Are the vaccines as effective today as they seemed to be in the beginning (i.e. are the effective against the variants)? Can they keep up or is natural immunity from having COVID better?

The government lied to us about the possibility of COVID coming from a lab, why should I believe them about the vaccines?

There’s nothing wrong with healthy skepticism…especially in government.

I spat out my coffee with your SG - JSO comparison.

Your biased opinion doesn't move the needle. I will revise my opinion that SG has been right more than JSO on this thread if Ganny and Ibanez tell me that I'm wrong and JSO has been right more than SG.

[GannonFan]

There’s nothing wrong with healthy skepticism…especially in government.

I spat out my coffee with your SG - JSO comparison.

Your biased opinion doesn't move the needle. I will revise my opinion that SG has been right more than JSO on this thread if Ganny and Ibanez tell me that I'm wrong and JSO has been right more than SG.

This isn't the Ukraine thread where SG is pulling a significant salary to carry the Russian water. I still wouldn't put a lot of faith in SG in other stuff considering his ability to sell his soul like he did with the Ukraine invasion. But JSO is completely unreliable when it comes to anything Trump-related, and all of his COVID views and opinions are taken with Trump in mind. So yeah, JSO's not been hitting at a high average in this thread.

[SeattleGriz]

I went ahead and looked at New York vs. Florida for the period following when vaccines were estimated to have started having an effect.

If you look at the whole pandemic through 11/6/2022, Florida's death rate was 3838 per million population while New York's was 3781. So Florida's death rate was 1.5% higher than New Yorks.

But, if you look at the death rate for the period when vaccines were estimated to be having an effect (2/19/2021 - 11/6/2022), DeSantis Land's death rate was 80% higher than New York's was. 2388 vs. 1323.

Can you break that down by age ranges?

[SeattleGriz]

Your biased opinion doesn't move the needle. I will revise my opinion that SG has been right more than JSO on this thread if Ganny and Ibanez tell me that I'm wrong and JSO has been right more than SG.

This isn't the Ukraine thread where SG is pulling a significant salary to carry the Russian water. I still wouldn't put a lot of faith in SG in other stuff considering his ability to sell his soul like he did with the Ukraine invasion. But JSO is completely unreliable when it comes to anything Trump-related, and all of his COVID views and opinions are taken with Trump in mind. So yeah, JSO's not been hitting at a high average in this thread.

If you read early in the Ukraine thread, I said I was going to take what was fed to us by the MSM and reduce it by 90% after what I saw with COVID. Essentially they took 100 years of pandemic history, all the surveillance of Colds, flus and influenza monitoring and turned it 90 degrees and said that if you believed our past experiences, you were a COVID denier.

It was the bastardization of a field in which I am very familiar. I got my BS in Microbiology, worked in an RNA lab during college, performed PCR testing as a bench tech and worked 8 years in the clinical laboratory business.

All I have done with COVID is inform everyone of what mainstream thoughts used to be before they believed lockdowns and vaccinating a respiratory virus that did not produce sterilizing immunity was the way to go.

You go back through this thread, I nailed every aspect but one. I thought the vaccines were going to make it longer before breakthroughs.

StOnge and I really are talking apples and oranges. I was simply informing on the progression of COVID and tried to explain concepts. Honestly, no original thoughts on my part. StOnge is still focused on trying to get everyone vaccinated and keeps getting busted using incomplete data sets and defining terms like vaccinated in a manner that has never been used before and of course pads his stats.

My beef has nothing to do with the vaccine, as it's an inanimate object. What I took great offense to was the lies, censoring and vilification of professors and epidemiologists from MIT, Stanford, Oxford, etc, and now we see they were right all along.

[SeattleGriz]

Tge difference is surprising. As you suggest many factors but it’s good to have further evidence that the vaccines are effective. This may be important going forward.

Are the vaccines effective? The higher deaths in Florida compared to New York after the vaccines were introduced can be at least partially explained by the points I listed above. I'm sure SG could provide more, he's been proven right on this thread a lot more than JSO.

Are the vaccines as effective today as they seemed to be in the beginning (i.e. are the effective against the variants)? Can they keep up or is natural immunity from having COVID better?

The government lied to us about the possibility of COVID coming from a lab, why should I believe them about the vaccines?

Yes, natural immunity from catching COVID is far superior to the immunity vaccines provide, BUT are you in such bad shape, you won't survive? That's the catch. I was never even close to being in an at risk group and still haven't caught COVID as far as I know. If I have, there's your answer to whether I needed the vaccine.

The big issue is that the CDC refuses to admit a large percentage of Americans, up to 80% in some models, had some level of pre-existing immunity due to history of similar viruses, and were never in danger of dying or being hospitalized.

I've never said not to get the vaccine, simply that it should be a person's choice, especially as the risk vs reward changes drastically if you aren't in the group of people who fear the yearly cold and flu season. COVID simply dipped further into that pool.

[BDKJMU]

Are the vaccines effective? The higher deaths in Florida compared to New York after the vaccines were introduced can be at least partially explained by the points I listed above. I'm sure SG could provide more, he's been proven right on this thread a lot more than JSO.

Are the vaccines as effective today as they seemed to be in the beginning (i.e. are the effective against the variants)? Can they keep up or is natural immunity from having COVID better?

The government lied to us about the possibility of COVID coming from a lab, why should I believe them about the vaccines?

Yes, natural immunity from catching COVID is far superior to the immunity vaccines provide, BUT are you in such bad shape, you won't survive? That's the catch. I was never even close to being in an at risk group and still haven't caught COVID as far as I know. If I have, there's your answer to whether I needed the vaccine.

The big issue is that the CDC refuses to admit a large percentage of Americans, up to 80% in some models, had some level of pre-existing immunity due to history of similar viruses, and were never in danger of dying or being hospitalized.

I've never said not to get the vaccine, simply that it should be a person's choice, especially as the risk vs reward changes drastically if you aren't in the group of people who fear the yearly cold and flu season. COVID simply dipped further into that pool.

Is it even accurate to call something a vaccine where people can get 4-5 shots in 1.5 years and still get and spread the virus?

[SeattleGriz]

Yes, natural immunity from catching COVID is far superior to the immunity vaccines provide, BUT are you in such bad shape, you won't survive? That's the catch. I was never even close to being in an at risk group and still haven't caught COVID as far as I know. If I have, there's your answer to whether I needed the vaccine.

The big issue is that the CDC refuses to admit a large percentage of Americans, up to 80% in some models, had some level of pre-existing immunity due to history of similar viruses, and were never in danger of dying or being hospitalized.

I've never said not to get the vaccine, simply that it should be a person's choice, especially as the risk vs reward changes drastically if you aren't in the group of people who fear the yearly cold and flu season. COVID simply dipped further into that pool.

Is it even accurate to call something a vaccine where people can get 4-5 shots in 1.5 years and still get and spread the virus?

Why do you think the CDC changed the definition of a vaccine? Because the mRNA shots were not considered vaccines under the definition they had used for many years before. It's also why you hear the flu shot referred to as a shot instead of vaccine.

[BDKJMU]

Okey dokey

It’s been fun watching you lose your wits over the last few years and now you’ve abandoned any logical curiosity

You lean away from the lab leak theory purely because Donald Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you read the letter?

Otherwise: I do not lean away from the lab leak theory because of Trump. I lean way from the lab leak theory because as far as I can tell the consensus among virologists is to lean away from the lab leak theory. From what I can tell the idea is that it cannot be ruled out but it is not considered to be likely. See https://www.science.org/content/article ... d-lab-leak for an example of discussion of the matter.

But what we are talking about is that letter. I mean, read the letter. Do you think it lends credence to the lab leak theory?

No, you leaned away from the lab leak theory because of Trump..

[GannonFan]

Did you read the letter?

Otherwise: I do not lean away from the lab leak theory because of Trump. I lean way from the lab leak theory because as far as I can tell the consensus among virologists is to lean away from the lab leak theory. From what I can tell the idea is that it cannot be ruled out but it is not considered to be likely. See https://www.science.org/content/article ... d-lab-leak for an example of discussion of the matter.

But what we are talking about is that letter. I mean, read the letter. Do you think it lends credence to the lab leak theory?

No, you leaned away from the lab leak theory because of Trump..

Everything JSO does is the mirror opposite of Trump - it's just what he does. Even if Trump, on the rare occasion, is right.

[JohnStOnge]

No, you leaned away from the lab leak theory because of Trump..

Everything JSO does is the mirror opposite of Trump - it's just what he does. Even if Trump, on the rare occasion, is right.

This is not because of Trump. Next post will be on this subject. It's because it is pretty clear to me that the consensus among those in the scientific community with expertise related to this matter is, as far as I can tell, that it was not a lab leak.

[JohnStOnge]

Recently there have been stories about some intelligence agencies saying they think it more likely than not that the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) started with a lab leak. Tonight I'm seeing the FBI director saying that.

I think it is important to note that the scientific community does not think that. Yesterday I heard this interview with infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm: https://www.npr.org/.../how-an-infectio ... ase-expert...

Here is a key Osterholm quote:

Well, again, it's all about what are the data. And the intelligence community has yet to provide any clear or compelling information which supports that, yes, it was a lab leak. Again, the scientific community has largely come up saying that if you look at what happened in the markets of Wuhan, it's more likely that it started there. Again, I'm agnostic. I will take whatever data is there. But I think for the intelligence community just to come forward and say, based on our new assessment, we believe this or that - I want to see the data. And they have not provided any new information which supports that there is reason to believe that it leaked from the lab.

Here is an analysis from last summer: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

A quote:

The precise events surrounding virus spillover will always be clouded, but all of the circumstantial evidence so far points to more than one zoonotic event occurring in Huanan market in Wuhan, China, likely during November–December 2019. —CA.'

Here is a Johns Hopkins article on that study: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/origins-of-sars-cov-2

A quote:

A recent report in Science confirmed that a natural spillover emergence from a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I have been looking and I have seen nothing to indicate that the overwhelming majority opinion among the scientific community has changed from being reflected by that statement.

I think our intelligence agencies are great. But when it comes to this question, I personally am more inclined to go with what the scientific community associated with virology and epidemiology thinks. And, as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority opinion in that community is that it was not a lab leak.

[JohnStOnge]

I went ahead and looked at New York vs. Florida for the period following when vaccines were estimated to have started having an effect.

If you look at the whole pandemic through 11/6/2022, Florida's death rate was 3838 per million population while New York's was 3781. So Florida's death rate was 1.5% higher than New Yorks.

But, if you look at the death rate for the period when vaccines were estimated to be having an effect (2/19/2021 - 11/6/2022), DeSantis Land's death rate was 80% higher than New York's was. 2388 vs. 1323.

Can you break that down by age ranges?

No. I used Worldometers data. But what are you thinking about that would change the impression? If Florida's death rate was 80 percent higher than New York's was during the period during which we'd expect to see vaccine effects through 11/6/2022, what would you expect to see in an age breakdown that would make Florida look better? We're talking about 80 percent.

What I CAN tell you is that I did a model process that started off considering percent population 65 and older for that period and that variable dropped out. That suggests that Florida having 21.3 percent of its population 65 and older vs. New York having 17.4 percent in that age group does not help Florida's case.

[CID1990]

Recently there have been stories about some intelligence agencies saying they think it more likely than not that the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) started with a lab leak. Tonight I'm seeing the FBI director saying that.

I think it is important to note that the scientific community does not think that. Yesterday I heard this interview with infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm: https://www.npr.org/.../how-an-infectio ... ase-expert...

Here is a key Osterholm quote:

Well, again, it's all about what are the data. And the intelligence community has yet to provide any clear or compelling information which supports that, yes, it was a lab leak. Again, the scientific community has largely come up saying that if you look at what happened in the markets of Wuhan, it's more likely that it started there. Again, I'm agnostic. I will take whatever data is there. But I think for the intelligence community just to come forward and say, based on our new assessment, we believe this or that - I want to see the data. And they have not provided any new information which supports that there is reason to believe that it leaked from the lab.

Here is an analysis from last summer: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

A quote:

The precise events surrounding virus spillover will always be clouded, but all of the circumstantial evidence so far points to more than one zoonotic event occurring in Huanan market in Wuhan, China, likely during November–December 2019. —CA.'

Here is a Johns Hopkins article on that study: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/origins-of-sars-cov-2

A quote:

A recent report in Science confirmed that a natural spillover emergence from a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I have been looking and I have seen nothing to indicate that the overwhelming majority opinion among the scientific community has changed from being reflected by that statement.

I think our intelligence agencies are great. But when it comes to this question, I personally am more inclined to go with what the scientific community associated with virology and epidemiology thinks. And, as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority opinion in that community is that it was not a lab leak.

I’m just bookmarking for the grave I plan to dance on later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Recently there have been stories about some intelligence agencies saying they think it more likely than not that the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) started with a lab leak. Tonight I'm seeing the FBI director saying that.

I think it is important to note that the scientific community does not think that. Yesterday I heard this interview with infectious disease expert Michael Osterholm: https://www.npr.org/.../how-an-infectio ... ase-expert...

Here is a key Osterholm quote:



Here is an analysis from last summer: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

A quote:



Here is a Johns Hopkins article on that study: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/origins-of-sars-cov-2

A quote:



I have been looking and I have seen nothing to indicate that the overwhelming majority opinion among the scientific community has changed from being reflected by that statement.

I think our intelligence agencies are great. But when it comes to this question, I personally am more inclined to go with what the scientific community associated with virology and epidemiology thinks. And, as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority opinion in that community is that it was not a lab leak.

I’m just bookmarking for the grave I plan to dance on later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. This could be JSO's jump-the-shark moment, except the vast majority of his posts since Trump won back in 2016 could also be counted as jump-the-shark posts. If you added them all up that number would probably exceed the number of times in syndication that Fonzi actually did jump the shark that prompted that phrase.

[SeattleGriz]

Everything JSO does is the mirror opposite of Trump - it's just what he does. Even if Trump, on the rare occasion, is right.

This is not because of Trump. Next post will be on this subject. It's because it is pretty clear to me that the consensus among those in the scientific community with expertise related to this matter is, as far as I can tell, that it was not a lab leak.

Until the "scientific community" gets funding either removed or provided.

[SeattleGriz]

Can you break that down by age ranges?

No. I used Worldometers data. But what are you thinking about that would change the impression? If Florida's death rate was 80 percent higher than New York's was during the period during which we'd expect to see vaccine effects through 11/6/2022, what would you expect to see in an age breakdown that would make Florida look better? We're talking about 80 percent.

What I CAN tell you is that I did a model process that started off considering percent population 65 and older for that period and that variable dropped out. That suggests that Florida having 21.3 percent of its population 65 and older vs. New York having 17.4 percent in that age group does not help Florida's case.

So you've included two indoor seasons with Florida and one indoor season for New York.

Also, you're telling me you DO NOT know the actual age breakdown, but you created a model in which you populated with your own assumptions?

All that you can say from your data is simply during that time period, Florida had more deaths, but you cannot provide context (age, comorbidities, seasonality) as to why.

[SDHornet]

Watching the narratives debunking all the "conspiracy theories" from a few years ago collapse recently has been very enjoyable.

The vindication from withstanding all the propaganda spewed by the global pressure campaign and making the pull to not put that garbage "vaccine" in me or my kids' body is amazing. The peace of mind knowing I never have to worry about any side effects from that experimental gene therapy drug showing up in me or my kid is inexplicable.

In a perfect world, the narrative would move on to the retribution of those who forced this onto the masses, unfortunately I think most of all of the folks involved in this will get off free and clear.

[BDKJMU]

Watching the narratives debunking all the "conspiracy theories" from a few years ago collapse recently has been very enjoyable.

The vindication from withstanding all the propaganda spewed by the global pressure campaign and making the pull to not put that garbage "vaccine" in me or my kids' body is amazing. The peace of mind knowing I never have to worry about any side effects from that experimental gene therapy drug showing up in me or my kid is inexplicable.

In a perfect world, the narrative would move on to the retribution of those who forced this onto the masses, unfortunately I think most of all of the folks involved in this will get off free and clear.

Exactly. What are the chances that a novel corona virus with some connection to bats, pops up for the 1st time on the entire planet, within a couple of miles of a bio safety level 4 or whatever lab in China, that is studying novel corona viruses in bats, and doing gain of function research. And yet we were the conspiracy theorists back in early 2020-2021..

[SeattleGriz]

Watching the narratives debunking all the "conspiracy theories" from a few years ago collapse recently has been very enjoyable.

The vindication from withstanding all the propaganda spewed by the global pressure campaign and making the pull to not put that garbage "vaccine" in me or my kids' body is amazing. The peace of mind knowing I never have to worry about any side effects from that experimental gene therapy drug showing up in me or my kid is inexplicable.

In a perfect world, the narrative would move on to the retribution of those who forced this onto the masses, unfortunately I think most of all of the folks involved in this will get off free and clear.

Exactly. What are the chances that a novel corona virus with some connection to bats, pops up for the 1st time on the entire planet, within a couple of miles of a bio safety level 4 or whatever lab in China, that is studying novel corona viruses in bats, and doing gain of function research. And yet we were the conspiracy theorists back in early 2020-2021..

I don't think the lab was performing the work in a BSL4 lab. It was either a 3 or 2, which makes a lab leak even more probable.

Not to mention there were only three locations in the World performing this work as well.

What I can't believe is how the US is going to point the finger, when Fauci was supporting this research financially.

[BDKJMU]