Coronavirus COVID-19

[Gil Dobie]

So you won't buy something because a large company makes money on it, queue the petroleum industry or brewery industry, and so on and so on. Just another excuse. Make you decision and save some bandwidth.

I think everybody has made a decision already. Now they are just trying to convert the other side to their particular brand of beliefs.

It is reminding me more and more of when the Jehovah Witnesses come around. Except in their case, they leave once they have heard that I am not interested.


In all transparency, I think both sides have valid points.

I agree, both sides have valid points, the regurgitation of said points is getting old.

[Ivytalk]

I think everybody has made a decision already. Now they are just trying to convert the other side to their particular brand of beliefs.

It is reminding me more and more of when the Jehovah Witnesses come around. Except in their case, they leave once they have heard that I am not interested.


In all transparency, I think both sides have valid points.

I agree, both sides have valid points, the regurgitation of said points is getting old.

Especially on here.

[SeattleGriz]

I agree, both sides have valid points, the regurgitation of said points is getting old.

Especially on here.

That's because we solved it weeks ago, just like all our discussions. Now if the rest of the world would just listen to us.

On a separate note, I have made up my mind, but my company is telling me and 125k employees they better have chosen right.

[Winterborn]

That's because we solved it weeks ago, just like all our discussions. Now if the rest of the world would just listen to us.

On a separate note, I have made up my mind, but my company is telling me and 125k employees they better have chosen right.

Was reading several articles today that the Chicago police union is pushing against Mayor Lightfoot's requirement to report their vaccination status and weekly testing (deadline is this Friday).

Curious on:

A) Who blinks first: the Union or Lightfoot?
B) If neither gives in and Lighfoot puts 50%+ of Chicago PD on unpaid leave, what happens to Chicago crime rate? (629 homicides so far this year compared to 402 of the same time frame in 2019)

[Ivytalk]

That's because we solved it weeks ago, just like all our discussions. Now if the rest of the world would just listen to us.

On a separate note, I have made up my mind, but my company is telling me and 125k employees they better have chosen right.

Was reading several articles today that the Chicago police union is pushing against Mayor Lightfoot's requirement to report their vaccination status and weekly testing (deadline is this Friday).

Curious on:

A) Who blinks first: the Union or Lightfoot?
B) If neither gives in and Lighfoot puts 50%+ of Chicago PD on unpaid leave, what happens to Chicago crime rate? (629 homicides so far this year compared to 402 of the same time frame in 2019)

As to B, it will probably look like the street riot scene from Police Academy x6.93.

[SeattleGriz]

That's because we solved it weeks ago, just like all our discussions. Now if the rest of the world would just listen to us.

On a separate note, I have made up my mind, but my company is telling me and 125k employees they better have chosen right.

Was reading several articles today that the Chicago police union is pushing against Mayor Lightfoot's requirement to report their vaccination status and weekly testing (deadline is this Friday).

Curious on:

A) Who blinks first: the Union or Lightfoot?
B) If neither gives in and Lighfoot puts 50%+ of Chicago PD on unpaid leave, what happens to Chicago crime rate? (629 homicides so far this year compared to 402 of the same time frame in 2019)

I've got until Nov 24th to decide if I want the J&J vaccine. We'll see what the two unions in our company have to say, although I'm not in either.

[JohnStOnge]

I think everybody has made a decision already. Now they are just trying to convert the other side to their particular brand of beliefs.

It is reminding me more and more of when the Jehovah Witnesses come around. Except in their case, they leave once they have heard that I am not interested.


In all transparency, I think both sides have valid points.

I agree, both sides have valid points, the regurgitation of said points is getting old.

If you are talking about the vaccine thing both sides do not have valid points. We have one side that is putting out a bunch of misinformation and the other side trying to tell people the truth.

[Gil Dobie]

I agree, both sides have valid points, the regurgitation of said points is getting old.

If you are talking about the vaccine thing both sides do not have valid points. We have one side that is putting out a bunch of misinformation and the other side trying to tell people the truth.

Actually both sides are putting out false information. The vaccine won't stop Covid, as the lefties are saying, but it makes things better. The lefties are not trying to tell people the truth, they are trying to force shit up people's Ass, and the other side is trying to force their shit up people's asses too.

[JohnStOnge]

Some maths for you guys.

According to the Pfizer study:
8 out of 18,198 vaxxed caught COVID = .044%
162 out of 18,325 Unvaxxed caught COVID = .88%

The relative risk reduction is therefore .044%/.88%, which equals 5%. Take that from 100 and that is how you get a 95% relative risk reduction (efficacy).

Now let's calculate absolute risk reduction. Take .88% - .04% and you get .84%

Meaning that those who were vaxxed had a 0.84% reduction in catching COVID versus the unvaccinated.

I don't think that's the correct way to do it. The risk among vaccinated was 0.000422878. The risk among those unvaccinated was 0.008840382. How much is risk reduced if it goes from 0.008840382 to 0.000422878? The answer is that it was reduced by (0.008840382 - 0.000422878)/0.008840382. That's the risk without vaccination minus the risk vaccinated divided by the risk without vaccination. That's 0.008417504/0.008840382 = 0.952165225 or about 95.2 percent. That's the extent to which the risk was apparently reduced in percentage terms.

[SeattleGriz]

Some maths for you guys.

According to the Pfizer study:
8 out of 18,198 vaxxed caught COVID = .044%
162 out of 18,325 Unvaxxed caught COVID = .88%

The relative risk reduction is therefore .044%/.88%, which equals 5%. Take that from 100 and that is how you get a 95% relative risk reduction (efficacy).

Now let's calculate absolute risk reduction. Take .88% - .04% and you get .84%

Meaning that those who were vaxxed had a 0.84% reduction in catching COVID versus the unvaccinated.

I don't think that's the correct way to do it. The risk among vaccinated was 0.000422878. The risk among those unvaccinated was 0.008840382. How much is risk reduced if it goes from 0.008840382 to 0.000422878? The answer is that it was reduced by (0.008840382 - 0.000422878)/0.008840382. That's the risk without vaccination minus the risk vaccinated divided by the risk without vaccination. That's 0.008417504/0.008840382 = 0.952165225 or about 95.2 percent. That's the extent to which the risk was apparently reduced in percentage terms.

Doh. Looks as if MY maths was off. I was doing it laying in bed with my youngest! Thx for the assist.

The point was more about how people say Absolute Risk Reduction is a better indicator. Like Winterborn said, marketing.

[SDHornet]

Yeah, klam has some good one liners in this thread.

Question for you both. After almost 2 years of being consistently wrong about all of this do you at some point turn on the politicians, grifters, and companies like Fox News who fed you the BS while getting vaxxed and/or requiring their employees to be vaxxed and socially distance?

Or do you just take your ball and go home?

What have I been wrong about? And come with quotes or don't come at all.

[SDHornet]

I don't have cable.

Somehow you have the same list that I see from people that watch CNN.

Link?

[SDHornet]

So you won't buy something because a large company makes money on it, queue the petroleum industry or brewery industry, and so on and so on. Just another excuse. Make you decision and save some bandwidth.

I think everybody has made a decision already. Now they are just trying to convert the other side to their particular brand of beliefs.

It is reminding me more and more of when the Jehovah Witnesses come around. Except in their case, they leave once they have heard that I am not interested.


In all transparency, I think both sides have valid points.

Spot on.

[SDHornet]

Hey gil, speaking of CNN, here is their doctor getting shit on by a comedian/MMA announcer.

[89Hen]

Had just seen that clip. Gupta had no answer other to say he agreed.

[JohnStOnge]

If you are talking about the vaccine thing both sides do not have valid points. We have one side that is putting out a bunch of misinformation and the other side trying to tell people the truth.

Actually both sides are putting out false information. The vaccine won't stop Covid, as the lefties are saying, but it makes things better. The lefties are not trying to tell people the truth, they are trying to force shit up people's Ass, and the other side is trying to force their shit up people's asses too.

I think you are incorrect. The vaccines reduce the risk of infection and transmission. Yes. In spite of people continuing to say they don't, they do. There is plenty of basis for thinking that we could indeed stop COVID-19 as a significant factor in our lives if we could achieve a high enough vaccination rate.

Now, we will get to a point where we will have had so many infections that the situation will wane. But we will have had a lot more suffering than we would have had if we hadn't had this vaccine misinformation nonsense.

No vaccine has ever completely eliminated risk of infection and transmission. The idea is to reduce it to an extent sufficient to impede circulation of the virus and end the epidemic. The COVID-19 vaccines appear to be effective enough to accomplish that. But we have a critical mass of people in this country who are believing misinformation so we can't achieve the necessary vaccination rate.

Bottom line: The people who were saying 6 months ago and are continuing to say that we would be a lot better off as a population if we could get everybody vaccinated were and are telling the truth. The people who are saying otherwise are either lying or they are misinformed. It is not a "both are wrong" situation.

[JohnStOnge]

Hey gil, speaking of CNN, here is their doctor getting shit on by a comedian/MMA announcer.

It is a de-wormer. And it is used as a horse de-wormer. If the point is that Rogan is an idiot for using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the point is accurate. If a MD issued a prescription to Rogan to treat COVID-19 with Ivermectin, that MD should have his or her license revoked. It's malpractice.

[JohnStOnge]

Here is an article prepared by MMAWeekly.com Staff on the Rogan thing:

https://www.yahoo.com/now/joe-rogan-con ... MTksOcoh94

Joe Rogan appears to have fully recovered from his recent bout with COVID-19 and is clearly upset with how the media reported his use of the controversial drug, Ivermectin. Just last week Rogan announced he had tested positive for COVID-19 and taken Ivermectin, a drug routinely used to deworm horses. It’s also frowned upon for human use according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In a statement by Merck, the manufacturer of Ivermectin, the company states, "No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease, and; A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies."

Ivermectin IS a horse de-wormer. And it does not work against COVID-19. The bottom line is that Rogan is a dumbass who is upset because someone correctly called him a dumbass.

[SDHornet]

Hey gil, speaking of CNN, here is their doctor getting shit on by a comedian/MMA announcer.

It is a de-wormer. And it is used as a horse de-wormer. If the point is that Rogan is an idiot for using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the point is accurate. If a MD issued a prescription to Rogan to treat COVID-19 with Ivermectin, that MD should have his or her license revoked. It's malpractice.

CNN framed Rogan taking Ivermectin as taking the horse dewormer and not a prescribed medication from human consumption (you know the thing that won a Nobel Prize in 2015)...which is what Rogan had before taking it. Only a disingenuous person or complete retard is ok with and buys the way CNN spun the "Rogan taking Ivermectin" narrative after he caught the China Virus. Not surprised you fall into the "complete retard" category.

[SDHornet]

Shit gonna get a lot more interesting in the coming weeks.

[SeattleGriz]

It is a de-wormer. And it is used as a horse de-wormer. If the point is that Rogan is an idiot for using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, the point is accurate. If a MD issued a prescription to Rogan to treat COVID-19 with Ivermectin, that MD should have his or her license revoked. It's malpractice.

CNN framed Rogan taking Ivermectin as taking the horse dewormer and not a prescribed medication from human consumption (you know the thing that won a Nobel Prize in 2015)...which is what Rogan had before taking it. Only a disingenuous person or complete retard is ok with and buys the way CNN spun the "Rogan taking Ivermectin" narrative after he caught the China Virus. Not surprised you fall into the "complete retard" category.

Years ago when I was working in the clinical lab industry, we had a phlebotomist at one of our draw stations ask a patient who was on Coumadin, if he knew what else it was used for? Rat poison. Needless to say, it freaked the old guy out and the phlebotomist got a talking to.

[Gil Dobie]

Actually both sides are putting out false information. The vaccine won't stop Covid, as the lefties are saying, but it makes things better. The lefties are not trying to tell people the truth, they are trying to force shit up people's Ass, and the other side is trying to force their shit up people's asses too.

I think you are incorrect. The vaccines reduce the risk of infection and transmission. Yes. In spite of people continuing to say they don't, they do. There is plenty of basis for thinking that we could indeed stop COVID-19 as a significant factor in our lives if we could achieve a high enough vaccination rate.

Now, we will get to a point where we will have had so many infections that the situation will wane. But we will have had a lot more suffering than we would have had if we hadn't had this vaccine misinformation nonsense.

No vaccine has ever completely eliminated risk of infection and transmission. The idea is to reduce it to an extent sufficient to impede circulation of the virus and end the epidemic. The COVID-19 vaccines appear to be effective enough to accomplish that. But we have a critical mass of people in this country who are believing misinformation so we can't achieve the necessary vaccination rate.

Bottom line: The people who were saying 6 months ago and are continuing to say that we would be a lot better off as a population if we could get everybody vaccinated were and are telling the truth. The people who are saying otherwise are either lying or they are misinformed. It is not a "both are wrong" situation.

First you tell me I'm wrong, next you tell me I'm right that no vaccine has ever completely eliminated risk of infection and transmission. The left is saying or was saying it did.

[Gil Dobie]

Hey gil, speaking of CNN, here is their doctor getting shit on by a comedian/MMA announcer.

So here is a link about CNN, but you don't watch CNN. It's a shitty, shitty cable channel, just like Fox news.

[Gil Dobie]

Somehow you have the same list that I see from people that watch CNN.

Link?

I'll take the word of the people that quote CNN, I'm not going dumpster diving.

[SeattleGriz]

Oof. New UK data is out and it's even worse on breakthrough cases.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... eek-41.pdf

While it is true the vaccine currently reduces hospitalizations and deaths, I have questions about slide 21. This slide shows the seroprevalence in blood donors. Put another way, it shows the type of antibodies a person has against COVID.

On this particular slide, you have a showing of how many people have S protein antibodies, which the vaccine gives you in spades, and then you have the Nucleocapsid antibodies. The nucleocapsid is an inner "shell" that encases the genetic information,. (Please Google for a better description).

My point, is that if you had a breakthrough case, you should see nucleocapsid antibodies developed...right? Didn't you defeat the whole thing?

If you caught COVID, you should show N antibodies. Then why has the slope barely moved on N antibodies (red plots), especially in light of all the breakthrough cases? Has the vaccine "trained" the body to only worry about the S protein?

That would mean incomplete protection. What happens if the S protein mutates enough the S antibodies don't work anymore? The nucleocapsid is a very conserved portion of the virus, meaning it doesn't mutate much.