My Corona

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is proof positive that alternate realities exist, that logic is now negotiable, that "research" means looking for data to assist confirmation bias and that the calcium of the skull can, & will, over time, turn to brick and mortar is you only listen to the echoes inside your own head.
 
Help me out here interpreting this from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

Does the study say there is no correlation between high vaccination rates and a decrease in covid cases? In fact, populations with a higher percentage of vaccination rates are actually experiencing higher covid cases? For example..

" In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.........The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated."

"The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants."

"In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus."

What does it mean? I'm not being anti-vax, just asking a question and trying to follow the (confusing) science.
 
^If they could just get rid of the control group(the unvaxed) and get everyone vaxed pesky science that suggests populations with a higher vax rate experience higher covid rates would be less problematic to having everyone fall in line with we're all in this together. Yeah?
 
Mick Doobie said:
Also, it is criminal to start mandating little children must get vaxed.

Gleeful ghouls. The world has gone mad.
Click to expand...

Vaccines have been mandated for little children in the USA for over 150 years now.

Vaccine mandates have prevented millions of deaths and life-ruining illnesses.

The COVID vaccines saved an estimated 140,000 American lives in the first five Months alone:

www.psychiatrictimes.com

How Many Lives Have Been Saved by COVID-19 Vaccinations?

COVID-19 vaccination efforts are making a big difference, with thousands of lives saved.
www.psychiatrictimes.com www.psychiatrictimes.com
 
ibleedburgundy said:
Vaccines have been mandated for little children in the USA for over 150 years now.

Vaccine mandates have prevented millions of deaths and life-ruining illnesses.

The COVID vaccines saved an estimated 140,000 American lives in the first five Months alone:

www.psychiatrictimes.com

How Many Lives Have Been Saved by COVID-19 Vaccinations?

COVID-19 vaccination efforts are making a big difference, with thousands of lives saved.
www.psychiatrictimes.com www.psychiatrictimes.com
Click to expand...

I read the article, thanks for posting. Did you read the entire article? That number is problematic, as it doesn't include what one might characterize as control group(s). Of the vaccines mandated for little children, I would posit the development utilized control groups, for multiple purposes. I would guess the development of all of those vaccines utilized control groups. I'm not going to look it up, you may if you wish, and post your findings.

But let's assume that 140,000 lives saved as fact, for the sake of argument....which i'm not arguing, merely discussing. From what I understand, until very recently, or perhaps not quite yet, the vaccine hasn't been approved for children. I think the last I heard the government was giving it a move forward with vaccinating children even though it had yet to be approved by the science. But if it had been, how many lives in addition to the 140,000 would have been saved? Children, I mean. Covid 19 poses a very, very low risk to children. I can't recall where, or the exact details, but i've read papers that summarize risks. It said something like, totally paraphrasing, a healthy fully vaccinated 70 year old is at far, far greater risk of serious illness or death from covid than a 7 year old child. Risk to a 7 year old is negligible. Couple that with increased risk of inflammation of the heart, it's nuts to suggest full vaccination of children, even young adults.

Did you read the link I posted? I find it curious i've heard nobody anywhere referencing the paper. I stumbled across it. Unless I am reading/interpreting it wrong, it clearly comes to the finding that populations with high vaccination rates are experiencing higher covid rates. Higher meaning higher than in what one might call a control group, populations with low vaccination rates. A very curious thing, don't you think? If it were not for the control group(s), in the example given Vietnam and S. Africa, we wouldn't know that. Every population would have a high vax rate and experience similar covid rates. Controls groups are good, useful. It almost seems when it comes to covid the powers that be don't want a control group. Everybody's got to get the vaccine. Years down the road when populations start to experience an uptick in heart problems, the government can blame it on poor diet and slap one of them mandates on dietary restrictions.

Anyway, seriously curious, what do you think about that paper?
 
Mick Doobie said:
Did you read the link I posted? I find it curious i've heard nobody anywhere referencing the paper. I stumbled across it.
Click to expand...

You got it from anti-vaxxers and you're trying to pass it off as if you just so happened to be reading a government website.

These same exact 3 quotes are splashed across all sorts of pro-Trump anti-vax websites.
 
ibleedburgundy said:
You got it from anti-vaxxers and you're trying to pass it off as if you just so happened to be reading a government website.

These same exact 3 quotes are splashed across all sorts of pro-Trump anti-vax websites.
Click to expand...

Totally false. I was clicking totally unrelated Youtube content, probably some Beato stuff, among other things. There was a video of a guy going over the paper, pretty much reading from it on his own monitor. I clicked out of curiosity. I then searched for the document on google. I don't even know what a "pro-Trump anti-vax website" is, but I certainly haven't seen the paper there, or anywhere. Apparently you read more of those type websites than I, which is sad. The guy on Youtube was the first and last I have seen it mentioned. Most of the time he was either reading the document word for word off of a monitor or looking directly into the camera with a wtf look on his face. But, really, why am I defending anything, what does it matter? I'm asking your opinion on it because I am genuinely curious what others might think, and you have fuck all other than the above in response. My fault for attempting to have a civil and rational discussion with you.

You're right, though, why do you even participate if that is all you have to offer? Maybe you should have just parroted some Washington Post content, at least that would have been....something.
 
ibleedburgundy said:
You are ashamed of where you are getting your information from, and still hiding your actual source. That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

As I have already stated, the source of the information is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8481107/

Heading, COVID-19 Information

Titled:

Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States​


Among the findings, "At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people."

I realize it doesn't fit you favored narrative, but do you care to comment? I understand your reluctance and eagerness to employ a diversionary tactic.

The paper summarizes: In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.

So, you know, don't be a dick.
 
Last edited:
ibleedburgundy said:
The COVID vaccines saved an estimated 140,000 American lives in the first five Months alone:

www.psychiatrictimes.com

How Many Lives Have Been Saved by COVID-19 Vaccinations?

COVID-19 vaccination efforts are making a big difference, with thousands of lives saved.
www.psychiatrictimes.com www.psychiatrictimes.com
Click to expand...

Did you read your own link beyond the first line? You didn't did you? After stating as fact 140,000 lives saved, "according to the NIH", buried in the middle things get a bit problematic. In coming up with that 140,000 number they neglected to factor in some pesky details. Details that debunk what they initially stated as fact. It is unknowable what they state as fact, so the point is mute, which is what they and you should have done. It's false information. They knew that, and so should've you. If you did read the entire article, assuming you understood what you read, you knowingly posted false information to bolster your argument. If you didn't read beyond the first line, calm down.
 
Well same old same old right?

How many lives have been saved by the vaccine? A hell of a lot more than lives lost by not getting it. These vaccines seem to be working well doing what they were not designed to do....Making the world bat shit crazy...Damn pesky Bats screw up everything. Truthfully though God only knows how many hairs are on your head and how many lives the vaccines saved. That said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand they definitely reduce the severity of the symptoms of Covid AND very much reduce the likelihood of being hospitalized...The number is currently close to 99% of those hospitalized being anti-vaxers... That said, and that is a very important fact, the truth is if you are unvaccinated and get Covid it has to be less than a 1% chance you will be hospitalized......but if you do happen to have to be hospitalized, 99 out of the hundred of ya's taking up bed space were anti vaxers.

I am not supposed to be here posting...I have a kitchen remodel to be working on but I thought I'd drop in and couldn't resist expounding upon my ignorance for a moment.. Be well my recording brutha's n sista's.
 
Mick Doobie said:
Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.
Click to expand...
^^This^^ I work retail, and am very aware that almost 100% of the people I come in contact or observe daily have NO idea. Almost no one wears masks correctly. Almost no one washes their hands correctly. Almost no one maintains safe distancing.

The vast majority of people walk in without a mask and when offered one either decline, or throw it on the floor.
I have NEVER observed (not even one person) anyone who washed their hands correctly. Most don't even take 20 seconds to soap, wash (backwards there, btw, but that is how 99% I've observed do this) and dry with the air dryers (proven to leave 70+ percent more bacteria on your hands than paper towels, AND add fecal material to your hands--okay, it was Myth Busters, but it was done using scientific methodology). If people were to wet their hands, then soap up and allow the soap its proper 20 second time frame (this has been the standard for hand washing for as long as I've worked in food...), rinse well and dry with paper towels, there'd be a lot less disease period...(personal opinion, but probably backed by some scientific garbledygook somewhere).
Go to ANY busy store (big box, grocery, etc.) and count the number of times people come within six feet of you.
Then count how many are wearing their masks under there noses, or simply don't wear one.
Don't go hang out in the bathroom and watch people wash their hands...it's frustrating and people will think you're weird. I only mention the washing thing as I'm in the (correctly washing my hands) about 10-15 times a day and can see (or at least hear) others.

Point is: Getting caught up on whether or not the vaccine is or isn't effective, whether manufacturers should be accountable, or whether or not you have the right to reject (for you and/or your children) any and all medical treatments is kind of moot if people aren't following the basic guidelines. I'm not saying anyone HAS to wear a mask. They probably should if they're able. I'm not saying anyone HAS to wash their hands correctly, but we'd all probably be better off if everyone did. I'm not saying anyone HAS to stay 6' away from me, but maybe THEY would be better off if I'm sick...I'm not saying anyone should have to get the shot. Especially while it's still being tested on all the fearful. But when it is effective and accountable, I'll be in line.
 
Omicron is an anagram for Moronic...and just in time to divert attention from the Maxwell trials.
EDIT: Don't know how I missed this, but also a variant that puts youth at risk just in time to bolster the newly approved shots for 5– to 11-year-olds...
 
Last edited:
Omicrom ? what happened to Lambda? Why are they still going on about vaccinations?

They got a pill that is just as effective. They got a nasal spray that gives a bigger window. Why is the shot even an issue?

You get sick, you take the medicine.

Or is omicrom vax resistant? Like they reported lambda to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top