Post by MiNe109On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 10:54:54 AM UTC-7, MINe109
Post by MiNe109Post by ScottWThat's been the problem fighting covid from the beginning.
Estimates (right or wrong...mostly wrong) happen and the
"experts" react accordingly and accomplished nothing but
economic mayhem.
Really? Early response worked in such disparate places as New
Zealand, South Korea and Vietnam proving that scientific
models can work.
Such complete BS.
No. Facts.
Who needs 'em when you dig your own hole every time. "Delta was bad
for Vietnam"
How is that digging a hole? Vietnam had COVID well-handled until the
delta variant showed up. You're also repeating the "no testing" fallacy.
Vietnam used contact tracing. More here:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/06/29/an-ideal-public-health-model-vietnams-state-led-preventative-low-cost-response-to-covid-19/
Post by MiNe109Every nation has it's own situation. Korea burned by SARS so they
had an aggressive response. But look at 'em now....2000
cases/day. Vietnam had no data collection, no testing...so who
the hell knows?
Delta was bad for Vietnam, but if there was no data how do you know
there was an increase?
Discounting Korea because they knew what to do seems like it goes
against your argument that the experts had it wrong.
They did as well as could be done in an open society. 300,000 cases
and climbing.
No way a cumulative counting won't be climbing. How does 300,000 compare
to the US 42m?
Post by MiNe109And they're alarmed at 2,000 deaths. We're on the way to a
million.
Yeah...they don't have your obesity problem.
Now you're making stuff up. Also, the obesity thing is exaggerated, as
shown in another thread.
Post by MiNe109New Zealand, like Australia had limited early exposure and as an
island was able to effectively defer infection with travel bans
and quarantines etc. Australia couldn't maintain and I doubt New
Zealand will either.
New Zealand is going all in on vaccination and still has effective
test and tracing. Why wouldn't it work?
Perhaps there it will...not a very densely populated island nation.
They'll have to deal with the conditions as they find them.
Post by MiNe109Australia's below forty deaths per million, so "couldn't maintain"
should be seen in relative terms.
They were lucky that covid didn't strike them when treatments were
non-existant. Everyone is enjoying a much lower case fatality rate
now. Countries that were hit early were hit hardest. That's the
simple truth.
Australia has just over one thousand dead and it's easier to treat
someone who hasn't caught COVID.
Post by MiNe109Post by MiNe109While the US could be doing better, we're in recovery with the
unexpected bonus that pandemic response has had a positive
effect on poverty levels according to the Census.
Free money never lasts.
Gets spent, supports the economy.
Temporarily.
That's nice. Do you think there will be a recession because fed benefits
have ended?
Post by MiNe109Post by MiNe109Post by ScottWPost by MiNe109Post by ScottWPost by MiNe109over 10 times more likely to be hospitalized
This is true....but it also lends to the premise that
vaxxed but not hospitalized cases are escaping. I
wouldn't be surprise if the actual case rate is nearly
identical but the less severe vaxxed cases have a much
higher rate of escape from detection.
Not surprised but also not supported by evidence.
What part of "escape from detection" is confusing you now?
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
You are so stuck in your box. Do juries only free people when
they have proof of innocence?
They don't convict because they "wouldn't be surprised" if there
was evidence they haven't seen because of "escape from detection."
Do you think failure to find a viable animal host is "lack of
evidence"?
A virus similar to SARS CoV 2 has been found in Laotian
bats. However, this is a different subject than you having a feeling
about undetected case levels.
Post by MiNe109Post by MiNe109Post by ScottWPost by MiNe109Post by ScottWPost by MiNe109and 11 times more
Post by MiNe109likely to die, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
End quote.
how typical it said nothing about those with natural
immunity
Exactly. Their break through case rate is even lower.
Not according to the Kentucky study; "In this case-control
study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times
the odds of reinfection compared with being fully
vaccinated."
Yeah...I looked up that report and their leap of conclusion
is a little stretched. Case group...all had covid and got it
again. 246 cases.
That's how they were selected.
Post by ScottWOnly 20.3% were fully vaxxed. So...sadly...that means 20.3%
of people who had covid and got vaxxed can still catch covid
again. 50 people. 199 got it again without the vaccine WTF?
That's not what the vax trials said. Were they all J&J?
They can only report what they observed. They were selected for
confirmed reinfection, then broken down by vaccination status.
Post by ScottWIn the control group (492)...all had covid and none caught it
again yet. 34.3% (168) of them were fully vaxxed. So that
means 66% (324) of people who had covid don't need a vaxx to
not get it again.
The control group was chosen because they weren't reinfected
so I don't see how that makes your point.
Apply that logic to the case group..
They looked at a group of the reinfected and measured their
vaccination status.
1/5 of the them were vaxxed and got it again anyway.
Of the reinfected, 4/5 weren't completely vaxxed. Works both ways.
These vaccination numbers within the groups seem pretty random and
aren't a clear definitive factor in outcome.
Less vaccination: more reinfection. Not random. Outcome not measured.
Post by MiNe109Post by MiNe109To say they didn't need need vaccination would require
comparing the control group to another control group.
Post by ScottWFeel free to explain how this mess of data lets them conclude
that you're 2.34 times more likely to be reinfected if you
had covid and don't get vaxxed.
The 2.34 is "Estimated based on conditional logistic
regression."
Again, I await your detailed explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_logistic_regression
Yeah...I don't understand it either. Seems to be completely driven
by the size of the groups which was just based on convenience. Not
any validity of the sample representing the general populace. You
can do the fancy math and get a number. Do it again with another
convenient control and case group...and you'll get a different
answer.
There's a confidence level in the study, so that's not true. 95% so only
one chance in twenty you'll get a different answer.
Post by MiNe109I don't have the statistics training to understand or explain it
but the section about conditional likelihood seems relevant.
I'm going with the epidemiologist who says we're all going to get
covid multiple times if we live long enough. Eventually it won't be
any more severe than a common cold because we were all exposed as
kids when the reaction was mild and developed some resistance (I
think we need quit calling it immunity as that doesn't seem to be
possible).
There's no guarantee SARS CoV 2 will calm down any time soon. It's great
you have resistance to the common cold but that resistance is only good
for the strain you caught as a kid:
https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/news/why-dont-we-ever-develop-immunity-against-the-common-cold-294551
Post by MiNe109Post by MiNe109Post by ScottWPost by MiNe109Post by ScottWNotice the media won't cover the Biden admin putting
political pressure on FDA for boosters but the torched
Trump for suspected pressure that was never shown to be
real to approve the vaccine.
"While my pushing the money drenched but heavily
NUMEROUS great new vaccines, it is still a big, old, slow
Stop playing games and start saving lives!!!"
Is that not pressure?
Yup, but the circumstances were very different. They had the
data. Trials were done. FDA didn't meet for weeks to
decide. They needed a kick in the ass.
Thank you for acknowledging that Trump in fact pressured the FDA.
He did so when they had the data.
Was the FDA dawdling and wasting lives to perhaps do a little election meddling?
No.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/19/fda-trump-pressure-coronavirus-vaccine-460402
Looks like the FDA got burned when they approve hcq
Who got burned?
The FDA.
The data on hydroxy remains mixed.
Ineffective mixed with useless.
It was safe...no was hurt for trying it even if it wasn't effective
for all. There really wasn't anything else at the time. You all just
freaked out because Trump thought it worth trying.
Excepting those who poisoned themselves with it.
Post by MiNe109and public confidence was falling, implying there was danger a
substantial number would refuse the vaccine. Imagine that.
Imagine not getting the vaccine for months as they dawdle to "raise
confidence". Imagine that....
Pfizer, the only approved vaccine, had production delays and missed the
November deadline. The FDA wasn't responsible.
Post by MiNe109Post by MiNe109You'll find Biden's FDA also has possession of facts and has
shown themselves capable of not being rushed into a decision
whether or not the rest of the world wants faster action.
How many FDA Advisory Board members quit over Trumps kick in the ass?
Kinda specific.
Of course it's specific. Specifics are good....not this broad
brush of BS you paint with.
No, it's just you playing "guess what I know."
Post by MiNe109Leaves out HHS Secretary Alex Azar and also BARDA Director Rick
Bright, whose early warnings about COVID were ignored.
How many quit over Biden's meddling?
and they actually said they didn't approve the booster for low
risk groups for a lack of data.
Seems like a good reason. Shows they don't act under political pressure.
So Biden pushed them to approve something for which they had
insufficient data and they didn't approve it in spite of Biden's
pressure. Trump pushed them to approve something for which they did
have data and they did actually approve it.
And Pfizer couldn't deliver it. No political delay.
Now you say that the FDA is to be commended for doing the right
thing. Which president was pushing them to do the right thing?
The Pfizer vaccine got an emergency authorization when it was available
in December. Didn't matter if it were approved before it was available.
Boosters will eventually be called for for everyone, but now are limited
to special groups.
Do you need conditional logic regression to figure it out?
What alternate universe is your control?