Covid and vaccines and whatnot

Hot Tuna

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
332
Thanked
296
Location
142 Paul van Dyk Avenue
So what we all should have done is sat around for another x number of years with nobody vaccinated, the strongest strains of the virus still circulating and people dropping like flies, until all the nutters on the Internet are satisfied with the vaccine trial results (which will never happen) . Great logic 👍

I said it before and I'll say it again, what an absolute shock that the person circling the drain of alt-right conspiracy theories is also an anti-vaxxer.

The vast majority of the world population is against you. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. We are trying to get on with our lives and get back to normal and you are holding us back.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Gagi
B

Br8k L3gnd

Guest
So what we all should have done is sat around for another x number of years with nobody vaccinated, the strongest strains of the virus still circulating and people dropping like flies, until all the nutters on the Internet are satisfied with the vaccine trial results (which will never happen) . Great logic 👍

I said it before and I'll say it again, what an absolute shock that the person circling the drain of alt-right conspiracy theories is also an anti-vaxxer.

The vast majority of the world population is against you. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. We are trying to get on with our lives and get back to normal and you are holding us back.
Took 12 years for a flu vaccine. We waited then. Same with polio. Your statement is factually incorrect. Get on with your life, people like me wont force you to do anything. I ask the same.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

jetflag

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
1,397
Thanked
1,074
Took 12 years for a flu vaccine. We waited then. Same with polio. Your statement is factually incorrect. Get on with your life, people like me wont force you to do anything. I ask the same.
Asking an SJW to grant you the same human right you would grant him..

Good luck
 

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,952
Thanked
1,033
but let's be honest, antivaxx or not, taking the alternatives (Ivermectin, feminizing HRT) is batshit insane
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

jetflag

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
1,397
Thanked
1,074
but let's be honest, antivaxx or not, taking the alternatives (Ivermectin, feminizing HRT) is batshit insane
yup. and i'm not even antivaxx. Like i said. I'm fine with it being on the market and you taking, however many shots they offer you.

I just don't think it fullfills its promise but seen as there's billions invested and political heads will roll in case of said failure (which might very well happen) this falls firmly into the catagory "too big to fail"

i've been jabbed once and still got the rona, my parents three times and got the rona. 🤷‍♂️ and the stats seem to even it out so.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96
B

Br8k L3gnd

Guest
but let's be honest, antivaxx or not, taking the alternatives (Ivermectin, feminizing HRT) is batshit insane
I read this and now I don't know.
 
B

Br8k L3gnd

Guest
yup. and i'm not even antivaxx. Like i said. I'm fine with it being on the market and you taking, however many shots they offer you.

I just don't think it fullfills its promise but seen as there's billions invested and political heads will roll in case of said failure (which might very well happen) this falls firmly into the catagory "too big to fail"

i've been jabbed once and still got the rona, my parents three times and got the rona. 🤷‍♂️ and the stats seem to even it out so.
Right, I have not vaxxed or masked and not been sick once. I also have never taken a flu vax and never had the flu. Ive been growing my own food for 15 years and in that time I havent even had a cold.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,952
Thanked
1,033
I read this and now I don't know.

The authors' conclusion says it all:

Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Br8k L3gnd
B

Br8k L3gnd

Guest
Moreover, I feel pretty much how jet does, if you want to take the vaxx, I have no issue whatsoever. I think if its your best option, then by all means, do what is best for you. Same with masks. I dont wear them, but anyone is more then welcome too. I do no like the division is caused though. We already have enough of that with dance genres :)
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag and dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,952
Thanked
1,033
Right, but the study itself showed interesting results. I am not advocating for taking it, but I think looking for other options can be good.
For sure, it's a question worth investigating.

Just dug up this other article from June 2021 which concluded in the following:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Removing my own personal bias, this article suggests that Ivermectin is better than naysayers think. But, this study relies on data from Elgazzar, et al., which was retracted by the editorial. So the June 2021 article needs to be updated, and their calculations need to be performed again without the data from Elgazzar.
 
B

Br8k L3gnd

Guest
For sure, it's a question worth investigating.

Just dug up this other article from June 2021 which concluded in the following:



Removing my own personal bias, this article suggests that Ivermectin is better than naysayers think. But, this study relies on data from Elgazzar, et al., which was retracted by the editorial. So the June 2021 article needs to be updated, and their calculations need to be performed again without the data from Elgazzar.
That is interesting. Good find man
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag and dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,952
Thanked
1,033
That is interesting. Good find man
Yeah, in hindsight it's interesting to look at. The problem is that it and most other studies that analyzed Ivermectin as treatment for COVID relied heavily on that withdrawn Elgazzar study. That study had a lot of data and didn't even go through proper peer-review; it was just a pre-print that went viral online.
Elgazzar's paper being withdrawn then led to a domino effect, where analyses based on it started being withdrawn. Here is a quick article about what I'm talking about - good 2-minutes read.
 

jetflag

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
1,397
Thanked
1,074
image-86.png


From bonny scotland, whos what.. 85/ 90% jabbed? that itty bitty uptick^ thats the "pandemic of the unvaxxed" dont you know?

At least according to this Alex jones esq source 😅

Super duper product. Well worth spending billions on that could have been spend on ITU beds and wages..

 
Last edited:

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,952
Thanked
1,033
image-86.png


From bonny scotland, whos what.. 85/ 90% jabbed? that itty bitty uptick^ thats the "pandemic of the unvaxxed" dont you know?

At least according to this Alex jones esq source 😅

Super duper product. Well worth spending billions on that could have been spend on ITU beds and wages..


Pages 36 and 42 of the study are jarring to look at, but what happens if you normalize by their respective unvaccinated, 1 dose, 2 dose, and booster/3rd dose populations?
This is one of those cases when you can lie with statistics, even if the data is coming from an honest source. It doesn't matter much if 80%-something of hospitalizations and deaths are coming from vaccinated people when 85-90% of the population has been jabbed. Of course most of your cases in hospitalizations and deaths will be from people that received a vaccination.
I'd be more interested in knowing, okay, how many hospitalizations and deaths are from unvaxx, and how many unvaxx people are there in total. My guess is that the % of people hospitalized/dying unvaxx relative to the total unvaxx population will be much, much higher than that for vaccinated people.
 

jetflag

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
1,397
Thanked
1,074
Pages 36 and 42 of the study are jarring to look at, but what happens if you normalize by their respective unvaccinated, 1 dose, 2 dose, and booster/3rd dose populations?
This is one of those cases when you can lie with statistics, even if the data is coming from an honest source.
how? where's the lie? point it out to me.

if the claim was "this is a pandemic of the unvaxxed" as opposed to "a pandemic of the unvaxxed, single jabbed and 3times jabbed elderly people" you can't claim that tháts a lie based on lacking levels of sophistication without also dismissing the first claim as a lie/dishonest no? Not saying you personally did by the way, but thats the narrative being pushed.


It doesn't matter much if 80%-something of hospitalizations and deaths are coming from vaccinated people when 85-90% of the population has been jabbed. Of course most of your cases in hospitalizations and deaths will be from people that received a vaccination.
So with 90% of your populus vaxxed, 80% are still ending up in the hospitals/dying? Most cases perhaps, but surely not pretty much the exact same massive number? (you'd think 60 or 55%, rest of the ITU rooms the 15% unvaxxed.)

Then its not a very effective vaccine in the grand sceme of things is it? or am I missing something here? Genuine question, honestly not throwing a shade at you but this makes 0 sense.


I'd be more interested in knowing, okay, how many hospitalizations and deaths are from unvaxx, and how many unvaxx people are there in total. My guess is that the % of people hospitalized/dying unvaxx relative to the total unvaxx population will be much, much higher than that for vaccinated people.
well there's that small little uptick I mentioned. But it dwarfs in the overall scope of things.
according to said report. (allegedly, again, please show me where I/ they're going wrong here)

some 20% of the populus are unvaxx, some 80% are vaxed, which afiak is a status you only obtain when you're double jabbed.
some 25% of the unvax populus end up in the hospital beds, as opposed to the 75% jabbed.
some 20% of the unvaxxed die, and some 80% of the jabbed die.

^
k again, where is the lie, precisely? because what I derrive from that is that the vaccines aren't very effective in curbing this pandemic, especially if you compare them with 2020 numbers when we had equally strict measures and 0 vacccines.

and if its a matter of sloppyness or misrepresentation, ok, why would an institute that is hell-bend on getting as many people vaccinated as possible put out a report like that? Thats not cutting yourself in the fingers, thats chopping of your own hand. Either the stats are genuine in which case the "this is a pandemic of the unvaxxed" narrative doesn't hold up. or they're false in which case why would they put it out if it only backfires at them?
 
Last edited:

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,952
Thanked
1,033
Fine, let's do some math. You're an architect, so I will assume that you have a basic understanding of statistics and are comfortable with percent calculations. The data in table 12 (pg. 36) and table 13 (pg. 42) are normalized per 100,000. For simplicity, let's assume a 80% vaccination rate.

Acute hospital admissions
545 unvaxx'd were admitted to the hospital. 1648 vaccinated were admitted. (Add up the 4 weeks for unvaxx, and sum up the 4 weeks for vacc, whether that is 1 dose, 2 doses, or 3 doses).

The acute hospital admission rate relative to their respective populations is:
Unvaxx: 545 / 20,000 ~ 2.73%
Vaxx: 1648 / 80,000 ~ 2.06%

Comparing the rates of unvaxx vs. vaxx:

(% unvaxx - % vaxx) / % vaxx = 32.3%. According to the data, If you're unvaccinated, you're 32.3% more likely to experience an acute hospital admission compared to a vaccinated person.

Let's do the same calculation for deaths.

Deaths
Total number of unvaxx deaths: 46
Total number of vaxx deaths: 194

Death rates:
Unvaxx: 46 / 20,000 ~ 0.23%
Vaxx: 194 / 80,000 ~ 0.243%

This is very interesting, as the death rates of unvaxx and vaxx are almost equal. According to the report's data, and calculating (% vaxx - % unvaxx) / % vaxx, you are 5.15% more likely to die if you're vaxx'd compared to vaxx'd.

Considerations
I do not have the statistical knowledge to understand what "age standardised per 100,000 with 95% confidence intervals" cells mean, and why those values matter.
More responses to your comment will follow.

EDIT: another thing. These calculations assumed an 80% vaccination rate. Lower vaccination rates help the unvaxx population. If we had an 85% vaccination rate, the values change in favor of vaxx. In fact, the death rate comparison would go from 5.15% vaxx more likely to die, to unvaxx being 25.26% more likely to die.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

Hot Tuna

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2020
Messages
332
Thanked
296
Location
142 Paul van Dyk Avenue
Lying around = recommended by one of your culture war heroes.

Ask yourselves why a resident of The Netherlands is interested in the Covid statics of Scotland. Or the mythical left wing takeover of USA university campuses. It is because a few select statistics can be accidentally or deliberately misinterpreted to support a particular agenda.


Sociologists say that in addition to an influential culture of alternative medicine, the vaccine resistance is fueled by a strong tradition of decentralized government that tends to feed distrust of rules imposed from the capital — and by a far-right ecosystem that knows how to exploit both.

Opposition to vaccines, said Pia Lamberty of CeMAS, a Berlin-based research organization focused on disinformation and conspiracy theories, is in some ways the long tail of the populist nationalist movements that shook up European politics for a decade.

“Radical anti-vaxxers are not a huge group, but it’s big enough to cause a problem in the pandemic,” Ms. Lamberty said. “It shows the success of the far-right cheerleading on this issue and the failure of mainstream politicians to take it seriously enough.”

As a result, in parts of Europe, “whether you’re vaccinated or not has become almost a political identifier like in the United States,” she added.

You are being played.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96