Covid-19 Pandemic

[lucklucky]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

I wouldn't be surprised since so much of what Fauci has said has been twisted and manipulated by his detractors since this all started

Haha.

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Maybe if moderator deleted half your posts just at random you'd consider that fine? 

When was the last time Moderator deleted any of your posts here, or Sunday's?

[DB]

At some point, the bottom of the barrel intersects with the Mohorivicic discontinuity. It's all downhill from there until you find the other secret Nazi base.

 

[sunday]

1 minute ago, DB said:

At some point, the bottom of the barrel intersects with the Mohorivicic discontinuity. It's all downhill from there until you find the other secret Nazi base.

 

Considering the latest developments in Australia...

[sunday]

4 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

When was the last time Moderator deleted any of your posts here, or Sunday's?

Is that a threat? Did you buy the Grate Sight?

Edited October 18, 2021 by sunday

[Harold Jones]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

Colin Powell just died from panda flu, despite being vaccinated. Of course, he was 84yo.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/18/nation/former-secretary-state-colin-powell-dies/

The blood cancer didn't do his immune system any good either.

[sunday]

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/multiple-myeloma/

[Der Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

For the Stasi, Mini-Truth wannabes, get bent. If you're throwing out "Disinformation" Or "horse paste", this means you.

Thanks. I may take this diatribe seriously once your "side" or whatever you like to call it starts posting things that aren't easily discounted as bullshit in a few minutes of research, as @Adam_S did earlier.

[sunday]

5 hours ago, Adam_S said:

Out of interest, what is it that you think this shows?

That you do not know what the meaning of an infection rate for a population at risk is - it is the number of infected over the number of people in the population in question, i.e., the infection ratio among unvaccinated in an age group is the number of unvaccinated infected in that age group over the number of unvaccinated in that age group, not over the total population in that age group.

Of course, the epidemiologists of the British government did apply the correct definition of that metric, i.e. the one used in Statistics, not the one you invented out of thin air, so according to you, they are a bunch of untalented hacks that do not know how to do their work, e.g.:

Quote

Now, back to the graph above again. The rate is given as being per 100,000 people, so presumably that means that if you took a sufficiently randomised sample of 100,000 people from the UK, approximately 1,400 people would be vaccinated with 2 doses and would have covid and maybe 700 would be unvaccinated and have covid.

What the report fails to consider is that the number of people in this age group who are vaccinated with two doses is 3 times the size of the number of people who are unvaccinated. To compare the two, you would need to divide the number for the fully vaccinated group by 3 which would then give a number substantially smaller than the unvaccinated group (1400 / 3 gives around 467 cases for a sample group the same size as the unvaccinated group).

So there is no need to divide anything, and it looks like your refutation is, let's say, somewhat baseless, and, perhaps, a mite incorrect.

Still, that report shows effectiveness of the vaccine, but the curious aspect is the increased risk of infection, and that was the point that I found remarkable.

Another extraordinary thing is that several members of this Grate Sight, that should have some knowledge of Statistics, failed to write anything about this monumental mistake in interpretation of epidemiological reports.

Perhaps some confirmation bias?

Edited October 18, 2021 by sunday

[DB]

The chart looks to be fairly clear to me.

It shows that from a normalised population of 100,000 people, approximately 1400 people were both fully vaccinated and tested positive for COVID. Similarly, it shows that approximately 700 people out of the 100,000 normalised group were both unvaccinated and had COVID.

The chart shows nothing about the proportion of vaccinated to unvaccinated in the 100,000. Adam has added that data in from elsewhere, and hopefully has numbers from the same timescale (although the ratio of fully vaccinated people in the UK in that age group has been fairly static for weeks, so should be relatively insensitive to small deviations in sample dates.)

If the normalised source population is 100,000 people regardless of vaccination status, then Adam's reanalysis and conclusions are valid. If however the 100,000 refers to two separate normalised populations (vaccinated and unvaccinated), then the ratio of the two would not apply.

On the information presented in the posts, I can't say which is correct but the former approach (and thus the ratio scale factor application) makes more sense to me.

I have not read Sunday's link, however, for the same reason that I'm not replying until 17:25 UK time - I have sa job and the amount of time I can invest during working hours is limited by my level of interest, and my first look at Adam's analysis looked good enough to me.

[JWB]

Talk of the need for coronavirus booster shots has prompted many Americans to seek antibody tests.

In most cases, however, getting an antibody test to determine immunity is a fool’s errand, infectious-disease doctors agree. The tests for antibodies, also known as serology tests, do not provide the answers that most people are seeking.

Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration advise against using antibody tests to determine one’s level of immunity against covid-19. So does the Infectious Disease Society of America, which represents infectious-disease specialists.

[sunday]

7 minutes ago, DB said:

If the normalised source population is 100,000 people regardless of vaccination status, then Adam's reanalysis and conclusions are valid. If however the 100,000 refers to two separate normalised populations (vaccinated and unvaccinated), then the ratio of the two would not apply.

From the original report, pg. 3:

Quote

We present data on COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status.

Pg. 4:

Quote

Vaccine effectiveness is estimated by comparing rates of disease in vaccinated individuals to rates in unvaccinated individuals. Below we outline the latest real-world evidence on vaccine effectiveness from studies in UK populations. We focus on data related to the Delta variant which is currently dominant in the UK. The findings are also summarised in Table 1.

Unless things are done differently in Blightly, that points to two different populations groups, vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated individuals, within every group of people studied.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

When was the last time Moderator deleted any of your posts here, or Sunday's?

It's not about me or anything moderator has done at all. 

It's about providing you (and the others ) an example of how this censorious behavior has been going on and folks like you keep panning it as normal and reasonable or just blithely ignoring it. It's an effort for you to think about it from your own point of view if you were in their shoes. This appears to be a blind spot for several of you. 

So, if it was you having your content deleted because the conservatives didn't like it, you'd be fine with that? You'd accept that? You'd nod to the minders as being right and proper always? 
 

[rmgill]

19 minutes ago, JWB said:

Talk of the need for coronavirus booster shots has prompted many Americans to seek antibody tests.

In most cases, however, getting an antibody test to determine immunity is a fool’s errand, infectious-disease doctors agree. The tests for antibodies, also known as serology tests, do not provide the answers that most people are seeking.

That's strange as that's exactly what folks use to determine if vaccines are effective or not and if folks need boosters. I'm pretty sure that's what Dr Ahmed did in order to gauge COVID resistance post infection too. 

I'd like to see an explanation for why and not just the assertion. 

What's doubly troubling is that antibody response to infection OR vaccination is a scale and vaccination or past infection are merely binary values and don't accurately reflect actual resistance. 

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by rmgill

[Harold Jones]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/multiple-myeloma/

Repeated infections

People with multiple myeloma are particularly vulnerable to infection because the condition interferes with the immune system, the body's natural defence against infection and illness.

You may find you get frequent infections that last for a long time.

[sunday]

1 minute ago, Harold Jones said:

Repeated infections

People with multiple myeloma are particularly vulnerable to infection because the condition interferes with the immune system, the body's natural defence against infection and illness.

You may find you get frequent infections that last for a long time.

Exactly.

[lucklucky]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/10/18/inside-lab-company-infecting-humans-covid/

Quote

 

Inside the lab company infecting humans with Covid

Open Orphan is the only company in the world running human challenge studies with coronavirus

ByJulia Bradshaw18 October 2021 • 11:00am

 

Behind paywall.

One of my "brilliant" ideas was to have option to infect people with covid from those that could resisted it well.

[sunday]

Proof of VAERS Underreporting and Hidden Vaccine-Associated Hospitalizations

Quote

Anyone looking at the data critically should already have a good sense that VAERS is significantly underreported. Since any risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccines rests on the precise underreporting factor, determining that factor stands out as paramount among all public health concerns. So, it seems that the top public health officials of the U.S. have been hiding this critical information.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Leaving aside horsepaste, Nazi moonbases and sundry other craziness that has become the post truth FFZ, you might be interested to learn there is yet another coronary variant. Unless you believe big pharmacy in the UK cooked it up of course.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3152733/uk-covid-19-surge-sparks-call-probe-delta-plus-variant

Former US Food and Drug Administration commissioner Scott Gottlieb called for “urgent research” into a mutation of the Delta variant – known as “Delta Plus” – following a surge in Covid-19 cases in the UK. 

“We need urgent research to figure out if this delta plus is more transmissible, has partial immune evasion,” Gottlieb said in a tweet. 

“There’s no clear indication that it’s considerably more transmissible, but we should work to more quickly characterise these and other new variants. We have the tools.”

Gottlieb’s comments come as the UK reported the highest daily jump in new cases on Sunday since mid-July – around when Prime Boris Johnson authorised the removal of most Covid-related restrictions in what was dubbed “Freedom Day”.

 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, lucklucky said:

One of my "brilliant" ideas was to have option to infect people with covid from those that could resisted it well.

Absent a vaccine, it makes sense as this was the old method of inoculation when you were healthy and ready for it vs getting sick when you were not healthy. 

[nitflegal]

If I could wave my magic wand and make one thing regarding Covid happen, it would be that every expert, talking head, and politician have a weird form of Tourette's where every discussion or pronouncement involuntarily opened with "Covid is a new pandemic and we don't have a f*cking clue what is actually going on with it and won't for at least another 3-5 years.  Until then please accept that anything I say is at best a mildly informed guess and is at least partly wrong".  Had that been happening to date I suspect almost all of this bullshit would have never arrived.  Instead we get all sides going to the media to spout off a definitive stance about a virus we still don't understand, that has mechanisms of action we are still unsure of, presumably interacts with other physiologic conditions in ways that are currently unpredictable, and has vaccines that seem to work pretty well but are targeting a virus that we don't understand.  

How effective are the vaccines?  We don't actually know.  We know their mechanism of action, we do not understand the action of the virus so we don't know what the coverage is.  is it a respiratory virus?  Dunno.  Is it a vascular virus? Dunno.  Is it an endocrine disease?  Dunno.  Is it a combination of all of them?  Dunno.  

Our current discourse is akin to a bevy of experts discussing how to thwart the deaths of people apparently murdered in their sleep.  Were they killed by a human?  Dunno.  A predator?  Dunno.  Posion?  Dunno.  Yet everyone is morally certain they know exactly how to stop the murders when they don't even know what's causing them.  

On a personal note, this is why I have a lot of sympathy for the people bringing up freedom costs; we don't know if the proposed remedies will actually work.  Even without the malignant bastards in the media sphere manipulating the data to their own ends the data itself is all over the place and beyond inconclusive.  Do lockdowns work?  No freaking clue; in some places yes, in some places yes until no, in some places no.  Why?  Dunno.  What I do know is the more histrionic the media and politicians, the more lies to truth there have been.  The vaccine producers said what they thought the vaccines would do and they have been broadly accurate with a few missteps.  We are now seeing significant numbers of deaths from fully vaccinated people, which the companies warned us about.  However, is that how the politicians sold them (and hell, are currently selling them) to avoid being lynched from a lamppost for not solving the problem?  Not even close.  Let's use the famed horse-dewormer.  Three months ago, how many broadcast minutes were spent ridiculing it versus warning of breakthrough cases?  Now how many people died from horse-dewormer versus died after being fully vaccinated?  Which was a more important medical discussion?  IMHO, we are being distracted by these insta-arguments so that our elites can avoid of all us blinking a few times, stopping, and all looking at them and growling "Why have you been lying to us, setting us at each other's throats, and avoiding us calling you on your non-stop lies?".  And that's on both sides mind you, they just lie in different directions to appease their respective bases while focused on keeping us going after each other instead of them.  

[sunday]

Well, we may be screwed, but most of us are not living in Australia, at least...

[lucklucky]

Covid is a conspiracy to discredit Western Governments.  😝

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, nitflegal said:

If I could wave my magic wand and make one thing regarding Covid happen, it would be that every expert, talking head, and politician have a weird form of Tourette's where every discussion or pronouncement involuntarily opened with "Covid is a new pandemic and we don't have a f*cking clue what is actually going on with it and won't for at least another 3-5 years. 

I'm pretty sure several of us on the freedom and rationality side made points about the idea that it was just going to be something to deal with. It looks like that line of thinking is more prescient and rational. 
 

Specifically the 2nd paragraph of mine. 
 

Quote

It might present that COVID-19 is variable enough that regular annual vaccines might have to be worked out. Also, once it's worked through the population it may present as only as bad as the flu for most folks are already annually without the mass panic that we have. Look at how say chicken pox manifests in resistant populations that have had it at a young age vs populations that have never had it at all and are exposed as adults. Such infections are MUCH more severe in those adults never exposed.

 

 

[Adam_S]

5 hours ago, sunday said:

That you do not know what the meaning of an infection rate for a population at risk is - it is the number of infected over the number of people in the population in question, i.e., the infection ratio among unvaccinated in an age group is the number of unvaccinated infected in that age group over the number of unvaccinated in that age group, not over the total population in that age group.

Of course, the epidemiologists of the British government did apply the correct definition of that metric, i.e. the one used in Statistics, not the one you invented out of thin air, so according to you, they are a bunch of untalented hacks that do not know how to do their work, e.g.:

So there is no need to divide anything, and it looks like your refutation is, let's say, somewhat baseless, and, perhaps, a mite incorrect.

Still, that report shows effectiveness of the vaccine, but the curious aspect is the increased risk of infection, and that was the point that I found remarkable.

Another extraordinary thing is that several members of this Grate Sight, that should have some knowledge of Statistics, failed to write anything about this monumental mistake in interpretation of epidemiological reports.

Perhaps some confirmation bias?

Sorry Champ, that's not how that data set has been set up.

The title of the graph was 'Rates (per 100,000) by vaccination status from week 37 to week 40 2021". This means that they have taken the number of infections, divided it by, presumably, the number of people in the adult population of the UK and multiplied by 100,000. They have then further sorted it by grouping the data into age groups and vaccination status.

It even points this out in the original source document on page 12.

Quote

Interpretation of data
These data should be considered in the context of vaccination status of the population groups shown in the rest of this report. The vaccination status of cases, inpatients and deaths is not the most appropriate method to assess vaccine effectiveness and there is a high risk of misinterpretation. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is described earlier in this report.
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated

tl;dr, the black bar for the 40-49 age group should be about 3 times higher than the grey one because there are about 3 times as many people in that group. It's not, and the likely explanation for this is that the vaccine is reducing the rates of infection.

On the subject of confirmation bias, the article you linked to on the New World Order Report site has rather skipped over some other graphs from the UK Health Security Agency's report, although I will say I did enjoy their video piece "William Shatner Tells the World to Prepare for Mass Death".

Here they are:

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Adam_S