April 20, 20214 yr Just now, Joe Shades 73 said: Yes i am sure many of the vaccinated have come in contact with the virus, I never said they didn't nor did I say the vaccine was in ineffective, so I am not the one with the agenda. I stated a fact that saying 6000 out of 84 million is misleading, you may not like that fact because of your agendabut it is a fact Bulls**t. Quote The problem with the vaccines are they may not be very effective.
April 20, 20214 yr Yes MAY not be VERY is not saying they are not, it is unknown at this point how effective
April 20, 20214 yr 9 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: What do you not understand? if you do not come in contact with the virus you can not get it, I guess you can't understand that. It is not out of 84 million, if you are vaccinated and do not come in contact with the virus it is impossible to know how effective it is for you And your position assumes that every person will eventually come into contact with the virus. Newsflash -- most people won't. Therefore, looking at it over the 84 million is fine. You can argue that once masking/social distancing goes away, the percentage of people coming into contact with infected people will go up...except, many more people will be vaccinated and there will be fewer sick people. Shockingly, you are dishonestly twisting the data to fit your Debbie Downer troll personality. Just now, Joe Shades 73 said: Yes MAY not be VERY is not saying they are not, it is unknown at this point how effective This is just ridiculous. Give it up.
April 20, 20214 yr 8 minutes ago, vikas83 said: And your position assumes that every person will eventually come into contact with the virus. Newsflash -- most people won't. Therefore, looking at it over the 84 million is fine. You can argue that once masking/social distancing goes away, the percentage of people coming into contact with infected people will go up...except, many more people will be vaccinated and there will be fewer sick people. Shockingly, you are dishonestly twisting the data to fit your Debbie Downer troll personality. This is just ridiculous. Give it up. No it does not. Also that 6000 is low which even the CDC admits and these people can spread it to others who refuse the vaccine which will be in the millions, there are good reasons to be negative.
April 20, 20214 yr 48 minutes ago, Gannan said: Seems to a correlation between blood type and severity of covid symptoms. My wife works with covid patients and has noted this. I've read a bit about. One of my best friends actually got covid at the same time she got the vaccine. She was covid positive when she got her first dose and just didn't know it. Covid for her was like the flu and she felt better in about a week. She's always been a heavy smoker, so I was really worried about her. She's fine now. A colleague of mine who I am friends with, is a younger guy, non smoker, not overweight, no pre-existing conditions. Covid is kicking his arse. He was in the hospital but now home and on oxygen. I see him on zoom meetings and he does not look good. Grey and gaunt. Sometimes has to type in zoom meetings instead of talking. On oxygen constantly. They already told him, he going to be a "long haul" covid patient. He's had it a month now. Damn that sucks. I hope he gets better. Suprisingly working for a grocery chain we haven't had to many severe cases like that. I've had co-workers who have lost family members but, no one actually working in the stores got anything to serious
April 20, 20214 yr 32 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: Yes but a very small % of those 84 million have come in contact with the virus so we don't know how effective it is yet JFC. Dude, this is insane. Your standard for knowing real-world efficacy with absolute certainty is beyond ridiculous. It's never been anything other than an inference based on double blinded trial data which is the best data we have. Nothing short of challenge trials will get us any closer, and major ethical issues aside, even then you'd likely still complain about the accuracy of the inference. We can speculate on the potential for exposure just like we always have, which is based on the trials conducted to date. None of the trials were set up in such a way as to quantify exposure risk to the level you're demanding because that's not how vaccine development works. It would introduce additional variables when the aim of the trial is to reduce all variables between control and treatment groups. In the real world, it's just as simple, all unvaccinated people are analogous to the control from phase III trials, and all vaccinated people are analogous to the treatment arm. The 95% efficacy number is for symptomatic disease, and "near" 100% number is for severe disease. Both numbers are still valid based on everything we know.
April 20, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: JFC. Dude, this is insane. Your standard for knowing real-world efficacy with absolute certainty is beyond ridiculous. It's never been anything other than an inference based on double blinded trial data which is the best data we have. Nothing short of challenge trials will get us any closer, and major ethical issues aside, even then you'd likely still complain about the accuracy of the inference. We can speculate on the potential for exposure just like we always have, which is based on the trials conducted to date. None of the trials were set up in such a way as to quantify exposure risk to the level you're demanding because that's not how vaccine development works. It would introduce additional variables when the aim of the try is to reduce all variables between control and treatment groups. In the real world, it's just as simple, all unvaccinated people are analogous to the control from phase III trials, and all vaccinated people are analogous to the treatment arm. The 95% efficacy number is for symptomatic disease, and "near" 100% number is for severe disease. Both numbers are still valid based on everything we know. C'mon dude. We don't know if its effective unless we take all 84 million people and put them in a room with infected people. And have them lick every person. Then see how many get sick. That clearly reflects the real world...
April 20, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: JFC. Dude, this is insane. Your standard for knowing real-world efficacy with absolute certainty is beyond ridiculous. It's never been anything other than an inference based on double blinded trial data which is the best data we have. Nothing short of challenge trials will get us any closer, and major ethical issues aside, even then you'd likely still complain about the accuracy of the inference. We can speculate on the potential for exposure just like we always have, which is based on the trials conducted to date. None of the trials were set up in such a way as to quantify exposure risk to the level you're demanding because that's not how vaccine development works. It would introduce additional variables when the aim of the trial is to reduce all variables between control and treatment groups. In the real world, it's just as simple, all unvaccinated people are analogous to the control from phase III trials, and all vaccinated people are analogous to the treatment arm. The 95% efficacy number is for symptomatic disease, and "near" 100% number is for severe disease. Both numbers are still valid based on everything we know. I understand what you are saying, my point is that saying 6000 out of 84 million is misleading that is all
April 20, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, vikas83 said: C'mon dude. We don't know if its effective unless we take all 84 million people and put them in a room with infected people. And have them lick every person. Then see how many get sick. That clearly reflects the real world... Excellent point
April 20, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: I understand what you are saying, my point is that saying 6000 out of 84 million is misleading that is all Maybe without any context whatsoever, but it's not really misleading given the proper context and if you understand how the efficacy numbers were derived. If you see 95% efficacy against symptomatic disease and you interpret that as "I'll be 100% protected against covid if I get the vaccine." then the only thing misleading is your own thought process.
April 20, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: Maybe without any context whatsoever, but it's not really misleading given the proper context and if you understand how the efficacy numbers were derived. If you see 95% efficacy against symptomatic disease and you interpret that as "I'll be 100% protected against covid if I get the vaccine." then the only thing misleading is your own thought process. Ok how many people reading these articles understand that? There is no context given
April 20, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: I understand what you are saying, my point is that saying 6000 out of 84 million is misleading that is all NO. IT. ISN'T. Your standard of looking at the number infected (numerator) over the number of vaccinated people exposed to the virus (denominator) is completely insane because most people won't be exposed to the virus at all. You'd have some kind of argument if you said that we need to see what happens when mitigation efforts are further relaxed, but then there will be more vaccinated people and fewer infected people. That's the point -- effectiveness is measured this way because it reflects effectiveness in the real world where you have to (a) being exposed and (b) get sick. OK, now back to being upset at myself for feeding the troll.
April 20, 20214 yr Just now, Joe Shades 73 said: Ok how many people reading these articles understand that? There is no context given Other people? Dude, you clearly don't understand it when you say ish like "the vaccines may not be very effective".
April 20, 20214 yr Managed to bump my first dose up to May 5th since the hospital by my house opened a bunch of slots. Tacos, tequila and Microsoft!
April 20, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Other people? Dude, you clearly don't understand it when you say ish like "the vaccines may not be very effective". Well if I don't understand what about the millions that are not lucky enough to get the context? they just think they are at no risk when that is not true
April 20, 20214 yr Yeah I am being negative for no reason https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/04/19/herd-immunity-us-likely-impossible-but-vaccines-can-control-covid/7139419002/
April 20, 20214 yr 13 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: Well if I don't understand what about the millions that are not lucky enough to get the context? they just think there re at no risk whene that is not true Once again, if someone hears 95% efficacy and thinks it means there's literally no risk, then they're stupid. The thing is, nobody is here saying this, but you are here and you keep implying the vaccines "aren't that effective". So naturally the focus is gonna be on educating you rather than them. So again I'll reiterate, the real world data we have so far is very close to the trial data released in November. There were 8 confirmed cases in pfizer's phase III treatment group and 168 confirmed cases in the control group. Like I said, the goal was to control for and/or limit all other factors so that we can simply compare 8 to 168. Just over 20k participants in each group, so confidence was also fairly solid. The number isn't a bullseye, but it's been pretty F'ing close.
April 20, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Once again, if someone hears 95% efficacy and thinks it means there's literally no risk, then they're stupid. The thing is, nobody is here saying this, but you are here and you keep implying the vaccines "aren't that effective". So naturally the focus is gonna be on educating you rather than them. So again I'll reiterate, the real world data we have so far is very close to the trial data released in November. There were 8 confirmed cases in pfizer's phase III treatment group and 168 confirmed cases in the control group. Like I said, the goal was to control for and/or limit all other factors so that we can simply divide 8 by 168. Just over 20k participants in each group, so confidence was also fairly solid. The number isn't a bullseye, but it's been pretty F'ing close. There is a world beyond this forum who read these articles without context
April 20, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: There is a world beyond this forum who read these articles without context Cool, take it up with them.
April 20, 20214 yr 9 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: Yeah I am being negative for no reason https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/04/19/herd-immunity-us-likely-impossible-but-vaccines-can-control-covid/7139419002/ The article makes a pretty big assumption that the resistance provided by the vaccine won't last long term. It may very well not but we have no real way of knowing that currently given how new everything is. Now its assumption about there being lots of idiots out there who refuse to get vaccinated and variants with increased transmissibility increasing the threshold needed to gain herd immunity, yeah that I buy. But the duration of immunity stuff seems a smidge premature still.
April 20, 20214 yr 8 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: Yeah I am being negative for no reason https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/04/19/herd-immunity-us-likely-impossible-but-vaccines-can-control-covid/7139419002/ Joe Sunshine: "The articles can't be trusted because they don't provide enough context!" Also Joe Sunshine: "Hey everyone look at these articles that say we're all gonna die!"
April 20, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Joe Sunshine: "The articles can't be trusted because they don't provide enough context!" Also Joe Sunshine: "Hey everyone look at these articles that say we're all gonna die!" There was context in the article I posted, saying 6000 out of 84 million vaccinated have gotten covid is zero context
April 20, 20214 yr 31 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said: There was context in the article I posted, saying 6000 out of 84 million vaccinated have gotten covid is zero context Now make this post again and write it as a percentage.
April 20, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Now make this post again and write it as a percentage. I am done on this point
April 20, 20214 yr Just now, Joe Shades 73 said: I am done on this point I might be late to this latest beatdown, but I figured I'd get in a shot while I could
Create an account or sign in to comment