Coronavirus COVID-19

[Gil Dobie]

Did you go in the post office or a rental car business? More stuff posted in Florida, Daytona, Mt Dora, Ormand Beach, Titusville and Orlando than Minnesota. People appear more careful than Minnesota too. I was there 11/13-11/20.

A post office is federal property. EVERY post office in the country has that requirement, as does any fed property.
Car rentals in an airport the same nationwide fed mask requirement at every airport.

No where I went in northeast FL- mostly St John Co (St Augustine) (Trump win by 26%) and Nassau County (Trump won by 46%).do I recall seeing a ‘masks required’, and everywhere I went I saw the majority of people not wearing them.

Then why doesn't the post office in Minnesota require mask? No mask required sign at the Minnesota shuttles either at the airport. Only mask recommendations in Minnesota. Thanks for pushing the liberal agenda.

[SeattleGriz]

At the bottom is a link to the study (842k matched cohort pairs) and the picture can be found on slide 33. Notice the bolded part below in the quote box, "from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected". To me, it even looks to show negative effectiveness around day 240, or am I not supposed to make that assumption from the graph? That sure looks like it's telling a person that after you get no benefit, it actually dips into catching COVID at a higher rate than the unvaccinated.

Ok. I hope this is what you were talking about with respect to your question. I took a look at the pre-print. As far as I can tell that is model output with the solid line being the point estimate at any given point in time and the grey are being the 95% confidence interval. I did not read the whole thing but did "Finds" and such to try to see what they are saying. It does not look to me like they are claiming that the effectiveness ever goes "negative."

They would not do that because what they appear to be looking at, which is good, is the 95% confidence interval and the upper limit of 95% confidence never drops below zero.

Notice that they say no effectiveness could be detected by about day 211. That appears to be because that is where the lower limit of 95% confidence appears to drop below zero. If you go to Table 2 of the pre print you will see that the point estimate for effectiveness at ">201 days" is actually 23%. But the 95% confidence interval "Adjusted for age and baseline date" is 0 - 41%. I think that's why they say effectiveness can't be detected at that point. The lower limit of 95% confidence is 0.

I suspect that if were were able to talk to the investigators they would say that the idea of "negative effectiveness" is nonsensical. But no way to know for sure. But I am pretty sure they would say that their model does not SHOW "negative effectiveness" in any case because the upper limit of 95% confidence never gets to 0.

I don't care what "they" claim, according to you, what does their data say? Negative effectiveness?

[BDKJMU]

A post office is federal property. EVERY post office in the country has that requirement, as does any fed property.
Car rentals in an airport the same nationwide fed mask requirement at every airport.

No where I went in northeast FL- mostly St John Co (St Augustine) (Trump win by 26%) and Nassau County (Trump won by 46%).do I recall seeing a ‘masks required’, and everywhere I went I saw the majority of people not wearing them.

Then why doesn't the post office in Minnesota require mask? No mask required sign at the Minnesota shuttles either at the airport. Only mask recommendations in Minnesota. Thanks for pushing the liberal agenda.

Spent a week in northeast FL 5x since Sept 2020. They‘ve never had widespread mask mandates since then, even at the peak.

[Gil Dobie]

Then why doesn't the post office in Minnesota require mask? No mask required sign at the Minnesota shuttles either at the airport. Only mask recommendations in Minnesota. Thanks for pushing the liberal agenda.

Spent a week in northeast FL 5x since Sept 2020. They‘ve never had widespread mask mandates since then, even at the peak.

Never said they had widespread mask mandates asshole. Said they are being more careful than your CNN brothers are saying.

[BDKJMU]

Spent a week in northeast FL 5x since Sept 2020. They‘ve never had widespread mask mandates since then, even at the peak.

Never said they had widespread mask mandates asshole. Said they are being more careful than your CNN brothers are saying.

Well, they’re not being more careful than any blue states, asshole.

[BDKJMU]

Today in Nantucket:

[Gil Dobie]

Never said they had widespread mask mandates asshole. Said they are being more careful than your CNN brothers are saying.

Well, they’re not being more careful than any blue states, asshole.

The people and businesses are more careful than Minnesota, and I gave you examples you could not refute. When were you on Minnesota to compare? You and your bed wetting liberal friends are wrong.

[kalm]

Well, they’re not being more careful than any blue states, asshole.

The people and businesses are more careful than Minnesota, and I gave you examples you could not refute. When were you on Minnesota to compare? You and your bed wetting liberal friends are wrong.

[AZGrizFan]

Ok. I hope this is what you were talking about with respect to your question. I took a look at the pre-print. As far as I can tell that is model output with the solid line being the point estimate at any given point in time and the grey are being the 95% confidence interval. I did not read the whole thing but did "Finds" and such to try to see what they are saying. It does not look to me like they are claiming that the effectiveness ever goes "negative."

They would not do that because what they appear to be looking at, which is good, is the 95% confidence interval and the upper limit of 95% confidence never drops below zero.

Notice that they say no effectiveness could be detected by about day 211. That appears to be because that is where the lower limit of 95% confidence appears to drop below zero. If you go to Table 2 of the pre print you will see that the point estimate for effectiveness at ">201 days" is actually 23%. But the 95% confidence interval "Adjusted for age and baseline date" is 0 - 41%. I think that's why they say effectiveness can't be detected at that point. The lower limit of 95% confidence is 0.

I suspect that if were were able to talk to the investigators they would say that the idea of "negative effectiveness" is nonsensical. But no way to know for sure. But I am pretty sure they would say that their model does not SHOW "negative effectiveness" in any case because the upper limit of 95% confidence never gets to 0.

Is it? Please explain the science behind why it’s “nonsensical”. Asking for a friend.

[Pwns]

SIAP.

[SeattleGriz]

SIAP.

I love how Cuomo says he doesn't trust the federal government and more specifically the FDA or the CDC. Wonder if the state of NY still performed their study, especially as the FDA is saying it will take 50 years to release all the documents that Pfizer submitted to them for approval.

[SDHornet]

it's pretty obvious that there are problems with comparing the rate in a large, densely populated city with the rate in an entire State. New York City has a 27,000 persons per square mile population density. The State of Florida has a 397 persons per square mile population density.

What would you expect if you compare a jurisdiction where population density is 27,000 per square mile and the weather is colder at this point so that people are more likely to be inside to a jurisdiction where population density is 397 per square mile and the weather is warmer if nobody in either jurisdiction had been vaccinated? Hint: If you have any sense, you would expect the FAR more densely populated jurisdiction to have a MUCH higher case rate.

Yet the rates are very close. Almost equal. If you think about it while considering that you are comparing 27,000 people per square mile to 397 per square mile and the differences in climate, the numbers actually support the vaccine mandate.

I can't believe anybody even made a comparison like that. It's ridiculous.

FL also has an older demographic, but you do you homie.

[SDHornet]

Is there any subject that you are not a self-proclaimed expert on?

Sure. But I am an expert on data analysis, study design, etc. I actually teach courses on those things. Probably shouldn't say it because I don't like to get into what I do on line. But it is what it is. The data CLEARLY show that the vaccines are safe and very effective. The idea that it's been shown that we can't vaccinate our way out of this when we only have a 60% vaccination rate is absurd. So on and so forth.

It has really gotten to the point of being ridiculous. At this point the evidence suggesting that there's a good chance that we COULD vaccinate our way out of this IF we could just get everybody who does not have a specific contraindication vaccinated is overwhelming. But we continue to have people doing crap like SG is doing.

Bullshit.

[kalm]

it's pretty obvious that there are problems with comparing the rate in a large, densely populated city with the rate in an entire State. New York City has a 27,000 persons per square mile population density. The State of Florida has a 397 persons per square mile population density.

What would you expect if you compare a jurisdiction where population density is 27,000 per square mile and the weather is colder at this point so that people are more likely to be inside to a jurisdiction where population density is 397 per square mile and the weather is warmer if nobody in either jurisdiction had been vaccinated? Hint: If you have any sense, you would expect the FAR more densely populated jurisdiction to have a MUCH higher case rate.

Yet the rates are very close. Almost equal. If you think about it while considering that you are comparing 27,000 people per square mile to 397 per square mile and the differences in climate, the numbers actually support the vaccine mandate.

I can't believe anybody even made a comparison like that. It's ridiculous.

FL also has an older demographic, but you do you homie.

Wouldn’t the older demographic be more risk averse?

[SDHornet]

FL also has an older demographic, but you do you homie.

Wouldn’t the older demographic be more risk averse?

And more susceptible to death. Virus gonna virus.

[BDKJMU]

Well, they’re not being more careful than any blue states, asshole.

The people and businesses are more careful than Minnesota, and I gave you examples you could not refute. When were you on Minnesota to compare? You and your bed wetting liberal friends are wrong.

I’ve spent plenty of time in other blue states in the last year (and the last couple months) (VA, MD, DE, NJ, CT, MA, PA), and the they are all more careful than FL. So you’re saying MN is different than all the other blue states.

[SDHornet]

[kalm]

Wouldn’t the older demographic be more risk averse?

And more susceptible to death. Virus gonna virus.

Sure…but the comparison we’re discussing is cases.

[SDHornet]

And more susceptible to death. Virus gonna virus.

Sure…but the comparison we’re discussing is cases.

We were?

[Gil Dobie]

The people and businesses are more careful than Minnesota, and I gave you examples you could not refute. When were you on Minnesota to compare? You and your bed wetting liberal friends are wrong.

I’ve spent plenty of time in other blue states in the last year (and the last couple months) (VA, MD, DE, NJ, CT, MA, PA), and the they are all more careful than FL. So you’re saying MN is different than all the other blue states.

I don't know, but people in Florida appear more careful than ones in Minnesota. I saw mask requirements in Florida, that don't exist in Minnesota.

[kalm]

Sure…but the comparison we’re discussing is cases.

We were?

Well it was your meme so…

[SDHornet]

We were?

Well it was your meme so…

Cases aren't mentioned in the meme

[kalm]

Well it was your meme so…

Cases aren't mentioned in the meme

[BDKJMU]

Just wait a couple weeks, or maybe just a week. The Fauci-ites and the mask Covidians are going to start saying we need to cancel family Christmas gatherings, or restrict them only to members who have not only been vaxxed but boostered. Same goes for the big New Year’s eve parties..

[SDHornet]

Cases aren't mentioned in the meme

That's not a meme, that's a tweet, boomer.