Pooter
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Pooter
-
-
54 minutes ago, torqued said:
You should define "safe" and "effective".
Safe - Are you saying there are no adverse reactions or deaths? The statistics clearly show that there have been. Are you saying there are some, but not enough? What is the threshold? If they are safe, why can't anyone sue the manufacturer, even if batch is somehow contaminated?
Effective - Do breakthrough infections exist? Why? Why do we have boosters? Do you support mandatory boosters? How many? All of them? How would you like to see that tracked? When you have the 4th booster and someone else only has 3, are you going to attack them?
Safe - I'll refer you to the CDC, the clinical trials, and the experts in the field of immunology for that definition as they are the ones who come up with the criteria, not me. For it to be considered safe, my understanding is that adverse reactions have to be below a certain statistically significant threshold and below a certain severity threshold, both of which I also did not come up with. Much in the same way, walking out your front door is widely considered safe despite the fact that a chance does exist of you being hit in the face by a meteor. That is because it is not a statistically significant chance.
If you have statistical evidence (from a reliable source.. that you interpreted correctly) pointing in a different direction I would love to see it. Until then I will defer to the people who's entire life's work is to make these determinations.
Effective - the vaccine reduces your risk of contracting covid and drastically reduces your risk of hospitalization, and death.
On booster shots: why is there a new flu shot every year? Because immunity wears off and new variants emerge. As for how many boosters to get and when they will be approved for the general public, I will once again defer to experts. Much like they defer to me on matters pertaining to flying airplanes.
-
4
-
-
Yeah it's not a good look for milley for sure. Add this to the laundry list of reasons this guy needs to go.
Having said that, I'm glad someone was thinking about how to mitigate the damage a desperate and defeated trump could have attempted to do in his final days. Glad it never came to this but the fact that the CJCS was so worried he thought this was a conversation that needed to happen should tell you all you need to know about trump's mental stability after the election loss.
-
1
-
6
-
-
Edited by Pooter
22 hours ago, dogfish78 said:Just like the Sailors and asbestos right? GTFO out of here.
It's our birthright to have children and to think about our posterity, and it IS a valid concern to question how this drug affects the reproductive system. Some of us actually care for human life.
@torquedKEK you are forcing @Pooter to move the goalposts at the speed of light! 🤣
What goalposts exactly? Throughout all of these discussions I have maintained the same exact points.
1. the vaccine is safe and effective and no one so far has provided convincing evidence to the contrary. To include your and @torqued's statistically illiterate flailing.
2. While I think it's a very bad plan to pass on the vaccine, getting the shot should be entirely your choice unless you voluntarily surrendered some of your medical autonomy by joining the military.
My suggestion, stick to what you're good at and keep posting your tangential Alex Jones-esque rants with a healthy side of racial slurs.
-
1
-
-
Edited by Pooter
12 hours ago, torqued said:My argument has always been that the vaccine is not completely safe and that vaccine is not completely effective.
Evidence continues to leak through the massive propaganda wall that this vaccine is neither.
I LOL'd because it was obvious you don't understand the table. The denominator is already in the table. FIRST COLUMN. WTF? I continue to LOL because I can't believe I have to point this out
All Old People (>50) Delta COVID Deaths (Denominator) - 1644
Vaccinated (Numerator) - 1054
Unvaccinated (Numerator) - 437
You are trying to bury the evidence in "denominators of all old people deaths for all reasons" when the fact of the matter is the deaths in that table are being attributed to COVID. Yes, old people die of a lot of things. But these are all the deaths in the UK being attributed to COVID by a positive specimen test and after receiving a vaccine. If the people in your denominators were dying from other old people reasons, they wouldn't be recorded in the table. Why would any of them be recorded as dying of COVID if they are vaccinated, and at higher rates (in the same row) than unvaccinated? It is because the vaccine doesn't work as advertised?
Yes, I am arguing there is evidence to suggest the vaccine does not reduce the rates of hospitalization and death to the extent that it should be mandatory for everyone. Breakthrough infections. A outdated vaccine that was manufactured for the original genomic sequence and one that will continue to mutate even if 100% of the population receives this vaccine.
Somehow I get the impression no one in your SQ cares about your personal assessment of their character.
Wrong again. You aren't controlling for the total number of people in the vaccinated and unvaccinated sub groups. Your continuing arrogance in the face of being so objectively wrong is getting pretty obnoxious.
When you calculate a death rate you divide deaths in a particular sub group by total number of people in that sub group. You do not divide a death number by another death number. That results in a unit-less proportion that has no context. We will now spell this out so there's no more confusion.
When you want to find the total covid death rate you do this:
Number of covid deaths / number of people
So if you want the elderly vaccinated covid death rate you do this:
number of vaxxed old people deaths / number of vaxxed old people
And if you want unvaxxed old people death rate you do this:
number of unvaxxed old people deaths / number of unvaxxed old people
Hopefully by now you have caught on that there are two different denominators and one is much larger than the other. And that is why the death rate can be much lower for vaxxed old people despite their numerator being larger.
The only thing your mis-analysis allows you to say is that approximately two thirds of the UK elderly covid deaths are among vaccinated and one third are the unvaccinated. But without the correct denominators that number does not tell you anything useful about death rates and relative risk level between the two groups.
Quick thought experiment. If everyone had the shot, vaccinated people would account for 100% of the deaths! My goodness! The vaccine must be pointless! It's almost like having the correct denominator actually matters.-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, bfargin said:
Funny, I found the same to be true in the opposite direction.
Quote with appropriate edits...
"The staunch vax mandate dudes I know are invariably the squadron shitbags, who spend way too much time publicly arguing politics on Facebook, and who will not be missed by anyone.. least of all the commanders who are relishing this excuse to get a complete liability out of their organization."
I actually haven't encountered a single one of those people. Most of the rest of us aren't "staunch mandate" we just have a modicum of awareness about what we signed up for and aren't going to torpedo our job and reputation because we got a little too riled up over some podcasts.
-
Edited by Pooter
Hope everyone who choose to die on this vaccination hill gets some immense satisfaction out of sticking it to big blue. Because that's likely all you're getting.
The staunch anti vax dudes I know of are invariably the squadron shitbags, who spend way too much time publicly arguing politics on Facebook, and who will not be missed by anyone.. least of all the commanders who are relishing this excuse to get a complete liability out of their organization.
The number of people who discovered their extremely sincerely held religious beliefs on stem cells just this past week is particularly rich. You'd think a supposedly principled person would think twice about faking a religious belief to justify their stubbornness, but I'm sure the crippling case of Dunning-Kruger prevents that level of introspection.
-
4
-
-
Edited by Pooter
1 hour ago, torqued said:LOL. Now do this one:
and this one:
Perhaps try making an argument rather than just blasting out more links and expecting people to go on a scavenger hunt to figure out what your point is.
Are you actually arguing the vaccine does not reduce the rates of hospitalization and death?And if you want anyone to take you seriously, can't just LOL away the fact that you were citing absolute death numbers without considering the denominators those numbers come from.
-
Edited by Pooter
1 hour ago, torqued said:Why is the UK officially reporting higher death tolls among the vaccinated?
Jesus dude take a second to look at statistics for more than just a surface level talking point.
Covid deaths are extremely closely linked to old age. The elderly are overwhelmingly vaccinated. Like upwards of 90% in the UK. So yes, more vaccinated old people have died in the last six months. Could that be because the denominator is far larger?? Weird.. so a small proportion of a giant denominator can sometimes be larger than a medium proportion of a small denominator. Math is so weird isn't it?!
This is a perfect example of how a garbage interpretation of data can lead to a totally incorrect conclusion. You have to look at the death rate. 1000 deaths in 90% of a demographic is a much much better rate than 500 deaths in 10% of that demographic.-
1
-
-
@BashiChuniAs usual, multiple things can be true at once.
I don't think you can take a single factor analysis and treat it as gospel simply because someone superimposed two graphs. Saying Israel->mask mandates->huge spike anyway, vs Sweden->no masks->no spike... therefore masks are useless neglects to mention the litany of other variables at play here.
Demographics, climate, population, population density, when and where a variant hits first, covid approach from the beginning all play a role. Israel and sweden are so different I don't think you can draw a good conclusion from a single factor analysis.
Having said that, I don't think mask mandates make much of a difference as polling data shows people tend to mask up voluntarily when their perceived risk increases.
-
2
-
-
Edited by Pooter
8 hours ago, torqued said:Complete bullshit. You don't have first hand knowledge of this. You are merely repeating what people with an obvious agenda want you to repeat. Where did you get the information that says if you suggest there are potential long term side effects, that you are scientifically and historically illiterate? You believe it. What's your basis?
As @ClearedHotand @FLEA have said, this is an mRNA vaccine. No other vaccine you have ever taken was an mRNA vaccine. Why are you using data from those to make uniformed generalizations about this one? They work on the body differently. They are two distinct categories of substances.
But what is a vaccine?
The CDC, and now dictionaries, are changing the definition of what the word "vaccine" has been for decades, to further confuse and obfuscate what this one is a supposed to do, because it doesn't do what vaccines traditionally have. They're actually changing what words mean to further this BS you've bought into.
Today: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
Aug 26, 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
The mRNA technology was invented by Dr. Robert Malone. Is he scientifically illiterate? If you're trying to be intellectually honest and want to genuinely know the truth, please listen to this podcast with Dr. Malone, evolutionary biologist Dr. Brett Weinstein and Steve Kirsch. I can't embed it here because it was censored from Youtube for challenging the narrative. It's an hour long. The original Dark Horse Podcast is 3.5 hours if you really want to educate yourself. I did it over the course of a few days driving. If you're really short on time, start at 35:30.
This substance is ending up in high concentrations in tissues (such as ovaries) and other parts of the body where it is not supposed to be, so yes, there is a potential for long term complications. If you want to argue that fact, just please educate yourself first, and don't accuse people of being illiterate because they have listened to, and found credence in, both sides of the debate instead of just yours.
Apologies for contradicting the podcast gospel. Believe it or not, I'm actually tracking as well. I too have a phone with a spotify subscription and listened when these two went on rogan last week.
My point was never that there are no side effects, or no long term side effects of the covid vaccine. There are. They are already documented and the data set on them grows every day. But they are also exceedingly rare. And most importantly, they are much, much rarer than the documented side effects of the actual disease.
My point (really the CDCs point) is that long term effects typically don't manifest out of nowhere if they hadn't already manifested in the short term. This holds true across a wide variety of medications and vaccines over decades and decades of study. I did not invent this idea.
Now you are right, the covid shot is an mRNA vaccine and is the first of its type. So maybe that means it's such cutting-edge voodoo witchcraft that it goes against all prevailing medical wisdom and us lemmings are all going to develop ass cancer out of nowhere in 20 years.
Or.. probably not.
In the meantime, my risk analysis tells me that I need to be concerned about things that actually exist in the here and now, rather than future hypotheticals.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The cool part about predicting long term vaccine side effects is this: for some people those effects will manifest in the short term, so we can use that to determine if and what the long term effects will be.
There are no vaccines that exist for which there are long term effects that randomly pop up after a few years, which didn't originally manifest in the short term in some recipients.
In summary, if you are worried about some 10 year-later infertility side effect from the covid shot, you are worrying about nothing. With billions of doses already administered, statistically significant infertility would have already manifested in some people if it was ever going to be a long term problem. The same applies for any other side effect.
The idea that previously undocumented side effects are likely to show up decades down the road is both scientifically and historically illiterate.
-
2
-
-
One of the most important tenets of liberal thought is:
you should be able to do what you want unless it impacts someone else
A lot of anti vax people think their choice to not get the shot is solely a personal one with little to no ramifications on others. After all, if you're vaccinated why would you worry about getting covid from an unvaxxed person.
Except there's a catch.
Healthcare is a finite resource and non vaccinated people are taking up almost all of the bandwidth. Across all age groups, the unvaccinated are far more likely to contract severe illness and require hospitalization. When your trash decision puts you in the hospital and you take an ICU bed from someone needing urgent care for something that wasn't preventable, your decision just hurt someone else. I'll say the same for obese people and smokers. Your trash lifestyle and decision making has upped your risk factors and you are negatively impacting others.
-
4
-
-
-
12 minutes ago, Alpharatz said:
Now is too late to argue about numbers and masks and vaccines etc...might as well let it run it's course and see what happens..I was talking with a medical type today ( on the phone)who is a hard core vaccine denier..religious I think..that's fine....I will never work near him and would suggest that he be fired. His techs are terrified. If the bug manages to mutate past the present vaccine..then......a learning experience I guess.
A riddle....On a light note I had occasion today on a looong drive to drive past the environs of P.P. and N.P. and M.H. pleasant memories of past adventures...
It's absolutely not too late to talk about this stuff. We had covid essentially beat back in May to the point the CDC lifted masking guidance. Now hospitals are a dumpster fire again. Things change, new variants emerge, and public health guidance/medical best practices should change accordingly. What was a good idea in May might not be a good idea now. If you think we can just let the delta variant run its course and that'll be the last we have to deal with covid, I would love some of what you're smoking.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, lloyd christmas said:
The administration informed us today that hundreds of US citizens were left behind. US citizens… The last US military personnel left today and the war has been declared over after 20 years. Yet, nothing today from the President. Nothing. It’s truly astounding.
Well if you ask the White House all those Americans still there just must not have "wanted to leave." They're just having a nice summer sabbatical hiding in the closet to avoid the stonings and beheadings.
-
4
-
-
7 minutes ago, Negatory said:
You’ve been unable to actually engage the core of the issue: when resources get to a point of NOT ALLOWING EVERYONE TO BE CARED FOR, you can’t just provide help “where help is needed” like you said. Be pragmatic and actually address a world where there are limited resources.
Or live in la la land where hospitals being filled up by unvaccinated folks - who chose to not do anything to prevent that outcome - has totally no negative effect on other people or society.
I can answer this for you based on how ICU doctors in the country behave on every Friday night shift.. you triage patients based on severity and allocate resources to the ones in the most critical condition. If two patients are in the same exact condition, and you can only take care of one, it probably comes down to chance or whoever got there first.
Any medical care policy regarding covid vax status or comorbidities or how you got into that situation would inevitably be met with massive legal challenges as it would be a huge violation of the Hippocratic oath.
-
44 minutes ago, FlyingWolf said:
Yes, though that is not how it was originally sold, nor is it how it works with all vaccines/viruses.
and it begs the question... Which presents more evolutionary pressure to a virus: partially inhospitable immune systems or unprepared ones? I don't know, it probably depends on particular variables, and there is some evidence partially effective vaccines may encourage mutations.
There is a line of argument out there that the unvaccinated are causing the mutations, but the opposite may be more true here. It will probably be a while yet before we know.
Two questions:
-How do you think the vaccine was sold? By whom? Because some of us have understood for quite a while this is much more similar to a yearly flu vaccine situation than a polio vaccine one-and-done situation.
-How would a vaccinated person's immune system encourage mutations any more than the immune system of a person with natural immunity from having had the virus, and then re-encountering it?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ecugringo said:
No the argument is mute. A dilemma for a MD to choose between a vaxed or un-vaxed patient? If that is a true scenario the vax has failed.
We are being told that 99% of all patients are un-vaxed. Israel is hte most vaxed population on earth but pushing a booster now?
The US is about 50-60% vaxed now not factoring in hte under age 12 group. So a huge chunk of hte population has the needle. Therefore the pool of ppl to be infected should be pretty small at this point. Considering 60% would show no symptoms, 28% would be mild and 12% would need hospitalization.
This is why some ppl are questioning the shot in the first place.
Moot, as in "having little or no practical relevance."
We know that the vaccine dramatically reduces the chance of hospitalization. Therefore a more vaccinated population will have fewer hospitalizations per capita, resulting in a less strained health care system.
If the hospitals are only half full, turns out you don't have to worry about who to give the last ventilator to.
Instead, we live in the stupidest possible timeline where these hypotheticals can and have actually happened. We have the privilege of living in a timeline where people are more interested in fish tank cleaner and horse de-wormer they heard about on a podcast than a vaccine endorsed by virtually every epidemiologist in the western world.
**caveat** love JRE. Just not a great place for reliable medical guidance.
-
2
-
-
If only there was a safe, effective, and fully approved vaccination that radically reduces your chances of hospitalization from covid, rendering these hypotheticals completely moot.
Wouldn't that be nice
-
2
-
-
-
7 minutes ago, pawnman said:
Do I need to post the CDC's Kentucky study again?
If you're unvaccinated, and you had Covid once already, you're still more than twice as likely to get Covid again as someone who got Covid and then got vaccinated.
I think when unvaxxed people start re-catching it, that will massively change the way people think about covid. Right now there's a chicken pox-esque "had it once so I'm good" mentality which is completely incorrect.
Similarly I think we are about to see an uptick in breakthrough cases among the vaccinated as we near the 6 month point from the first shots and that immunity tapers off over time.
-
1 hour ago, Scooter14 said:
I agree and this is where I have the issue as well.
Simply stated…What does the vaccine do? The vaccine makes your body produce antibodies that will help you fight the virus if you are exposed.
What happens when you get COVID and recover? The virus makes your body produce antibodies that will help you fight the virus if you are exposed.
If you have never had Covid, I would encourage you to consider getting vaccinated for all the reasons Pawnman stated.
If you have had Covid I believe there should be some sort of antibody test you can take to opt out if you desire.
It’s a simple concept, I don’t know why it’s not a provision. My buddy at an airline recently flew with a guy who will likely lose his job because he will not get vaccinated.
However, this individual has already had Covid. If his antibody levels (or whatever they measure) are the same or better as someone who’s had the vaccine…then they are going to lose a pilot for no reason other than an arbitrary mandate that lacks any common sense or critical thought.
That’s all, i have to go back to tending livestock in my backyard farm. Stupid FDA…I don't think it's quite that simple though. Having covid definitely gives you some immunity in the short term just like the vaccine. But this pandemic has been going for a year and a half and there are people who caught covid early whose T cell immunity is definitely tapering off.
Having covid is once is not a lifetime golden ticket to never having to worry about this again. And neither is the vaccine. That isn't how any of this works. Immunity tapers off over time and new variants emerge which is why you can catch seasonal flu every year if you aren't careful.
The other problem is that people grossly over self-report having covid. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who say something like "yeah I had the sniffles last March and my bunghole felt weird, I probably had it already". Relying on self reported covid is not a good way for a company to run their employee health program.
So at a basic level, yes you are right. Getting covid and getting the vaccine accomplish the same thing as far as immunity. But for both, we don't know exactly how long that immunity lasts or how durable it is for future variants and relying on someone to self report their immunity is about as unreliable as it gets. Companies are always going to air on the side of caution and when you have a safe, fully approved vaccine, I don't think requiring that is some dystopian overreach. Do airlines require other vaccines? Yearly flu shots?
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Darth said:
'I don't trust the CDC': Trump rally attendee on why she is unvaccinated (cnn.com)
Always do your own research.....
Nothing like a person with 2 visible comorbidities (obese and elderly) telling us she isn't getting the shot so she won't become magnetized 🤦🏻♂️
I do hate these "people on the street" videos though. The daily show also loves to do them and it's such a cheap, intellectually dishonest way of lumping all your opponents' arguments into the stupidest bin possible.
There are intelligent people who have doubts about the vaccine. They aren't all raving trumper hillbillys on your grandma's Facebook page as this video would have you believe. I still think their risk analysis is way off the mark, but the media needs to figure out that personally attacking vaccine hesitant people is not the way you create converts.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, dogfish78 said:
Uhhh that's wrong though. Here's their government letter from today. All they did was extend the EUA of Pfizer's injection and gave an EUA to Pfizer's Comirnaty. See top of page 12 in the document. & see this on page 2:
"On August 23, 2021, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public health or safety under section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the August 12, 2021 letter of authorization in its entirety with revisions incorporated to clarify that the EUA will remain in place for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for the previously-authorized indication and uses, and to authorize use of COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) under this EUA for certain uses that are not included in the approved BLA."
https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download This is the letter of authorization from today.
Page 12 I referenced above:
-
"This product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 12 years of age and older; and
-
The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of the medical product under Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act unless the declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner"
Unless I'm reading all of this wrong, it looks like they're using using the word approved incorrectly as it normally would be used since it's actually only been "authorized" under an EUA. What do you see @Pooter? Am I missing something?
I welcome anyone else to chime in too.
Yes you are reading it entirely wrong. It is now fully approved for people 16 and older, and still under emergency use authorization for ages 12-15. There are multiple other cases for which the emergency use authorization still applies like administering a third dose for immunocompromised people. The emergency use auth doesn't magically disappear entirely because there are still untested age and vulnerability demographics.
But I'm sure you understand the FDA legalese better than.. the FDA, whose front page of their website literally says it was fully approved, today. They also go on to say:
The FDA’s approval of this vaccine is a milestone as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product"
But of course we already know that this isn't good enough for you. Because nothing will ever be. Yesterday it was "I'm waiting on full FDA approval" and tomorrow it'll be "Well the FDA is probably funded by george soros so who can trust them."
-
1
-
Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss
in General Discussion
Point to ponder: why would vaccine-created immunity force viral mutations any more than natural immunity gained by having a variant of the virus. Immunity pushes mutations, period. Does the virus know or care where you got that immunity from?
Here's another possible explanation:
“Early in the pandemic, only a limited number of labs were sequencing virus from infections, but since late 2020, surveillance programs have been ramping up,” Professor Jennifer Grier, Clinical Assistant Professor in Immunology at the University of South Carolina, told Reuters via email.
“Effectively, we are hearing so much more about viral variants in 2021 because, globally, we now have the systems in place to consistently detect and track mutations,” Grier added.