Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


dogfish78

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

Well, I was coerced into receiving the JJ vaccine on Thursday around 2pm. I woke up 10 hours later and felt like absolute garbage, as bad as when I had covid two months ago - Fever, worst muscle soreness I've ever experienced (truthfully), headache, and joint pain. Lasted until a few hours ago. 

Can't wait to see what long term side effects will be revealed in the coming years... At least I'll have about a year head's up on most of the willing test volunteers. 

Of note, there were people in there who were a week from even being eligible for a booster asking if they could get it early. Astounding. 

Two same. I felt worse from the JJ vaccine (worst chills and shaking I have experienced with any illness) than from having COVID a few months before. Hard pass on booster.

Edited by Muscle2002
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Where do you guys keep coming up with this idea that the vaccines don't reduce the spread of covid? 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/vaccinated-people-can-transmit-the-coronavirus-but-its-still-more-likely-if-youre-unvaccinated

Sure, they're not 100%... but you're less likely to get infected if you have the vaccine. And you can only spread it if you are infected. 

Per studies already cited in this thread, the effectiveness of stopping the spread tapers off after about 4 months, depending on the variant it goes as low as completely ineffective, or somewhere around 10% more effective.

 

If that's your standard for a mandate, then I think you're just the type of guy who loves being told what to do.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

That link says households with vaccinated people spread C19 at 25%, and unvaccinated households at 38%.  That’s only a 13% difference.  Add to that observation there was no discussion of how severe symptoms were (if any at all), and it’s quite clear this is not a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”  Frankly it’s not a pandemic at all, COVID is over as a threat.  Now we’re talking about mandatory boosters?  This is insane.  

image.gif.9f02b42819c26e58a744ce8703e49a1b.gif
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Can't wait to see what long term side effects will be revealed in the coming years... 

That’ll be fun rolling around the back of your (and many other’s) head for the foreseeable future. 

I truly hope it turns out to be a non-event. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

That link says households with vaccinated people spread C19 at 25%, and unvaccinated households at 38%.  That’s only a 13% difference.  Add to that observation there was no discussion of how severe symptoms were (if any at all), and it’s quite clear this is not a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”  Frankly it’s not a pandemic at all, COVID is over as a threat.  Now we’re talking about mandatory boosters?  This is insane.  

To be clear, a 38% vs 25% is more like 50% more likely to be infected.

Just like if it was 10% vs 1% it wouldn’t be 9% - it’d be 1000%.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That link says households with vaccinated people spread C19 at 25%, and unvaccinated households at 38%.  That’s only a 13% difference.  Add to that observation there was no discussion of how severe symptoms were (if any at all), and it’s quite clear this is not a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”  Frankly it’s not a pandemic at all, COVID is over as a threat.  Now we’re talking about mandatory boosters?  This is insane.  

25 vs 38 is a difference of more than 50%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:


25 vs 38 is a difference of more than 50%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct, butt the actual delta matters. For example, a lot of medical studies talk about risk of rare diseases tripling, but it's from .06% to .19%

 

Going from 38% to 25% is not going to have an effect on the outcome of a highly infectious disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Going from 38% to 25% is not going to have an effect on the outcome of a highly infectious disease.

You might want to gain a cursory understanding of exponential/logistic growth dynamics before you accidentally say something as absurd as this again.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mark1 said:

You might want to gain a cursory understanding of exponential/logistic growth dynamics before you accidentally say something as absurd as this again.

I don't have to, we have a pandemic that tested the theory for us. We also have countries and states with vastly different vaccination rates and preventing policies and guess what, the spread doesn't correlate. Univariate analysis works in a petri dish, not a society.

Two weeks to stop the spread. Masks. Six feet spacing. Pre-travel testing. Vaccines. And according to the figurehead of the American effort, the plan until only recently was to "beat" COVID. Not slow it down, beat it. Do I need to Google the many times he claimed we needed to get to effectively zero cases before we can be humans again?

 

I'll take my cursory understanding of human nature over your cursory understanding of growth dynamics any day. And what was even better, the self righteous pricks (like some in this very thread) who screamed the loudest about the callous disregard for human life and the raw selfishness of those who just wanted to accept COVID, maintain individual freedom, and move on with life, those "leaders" were caught in hair salons, destination weddings, expensive restaurants, public parks, Thanksgiving dinners, and ask manner of other normal human activities at the exact time they were being us for wanting the same.

 

Math is great, but when 2+2=5 maybe you should take another look at the assumptions. 

Edited by Lord Ratner
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Negatory said:

To be clear, a 38% vs 25% is more like 50% more likely to be infected.

Just like if it was 10% vs 1% it wouldn’t be 9% - it’d be 1000%.

8 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Correct, butt the actual delta matters. For example, a lot of medical studies talk about risk of rare diseases tripling, but it's from .06% to .19%

Going from 38% to 25% is not going to have an effect on the outcome of a highly infectious disease.

5 hours ago, Mark1 said:

You might want to gain a cursory understanding of exponential/logistic growth dynamics before you accidentally say something as absurd as this again.

Comparing percentages is fraught, but from the study - the actual study, not the article written about it - they indicate that the 25% number had a confidence interval of 18-33 (15% spread) while the 38% number had a confidence interval of 24-53 (29% spread) - double the uncertainty, with substantial overlap. Hence, there is decent uncertainty regarding what the actual probability of spread is given someone's vaccination status. In any case, it makes more sense to look at the numbers themselves, rather than attempting to ratio apples to oranges.

To me, this study doesn't indicate very much because there is no indication as to what the relative likelihoods are between people being asymptomatic with the vaccine vs. without it. What's one of the best ways to avoid getting sick? Avoiding someone who you know is sick. If the vaccine makes it much more likely that asymptomatic spread takes place, then the 25% number could be much worse than the 38%. It's like being spiked vs not being spiked. It's helpful to know you're being shot at.

Also, see the replication crisis, an ongoing issue within the broader scientific/research realm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis. Biologists are at the higher end of those scientists who are unable to reproduce each others' research.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, FLEA said:

I don't think thats quite on point. It's standard in research to recommend future research based off analysis of your study plus literature gaps. Author is literally stating "long term outcomes" warrants future nomination for research. Those nominations are important because they can be used to solicit funding etc.... 

"Six studies conducted on myocarditis recommend further analysis on the long term outcomes of myocarditis patients who recovered from COVID-19."

 

My point is clearly, why is the government making something mandatory when it’s long term effects are clearly unknown.....all while stating that “there is no evidence that shows there is long term damage”

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Look at me on my high horse!

And herein lies a major problem in our society today. We live in a complex environment in which none of us can be experts (or even conversant) in all fields. We ALL rely upon other people who have expertise in subjects we do not. Yet when presented with evidence of the limits of our own intellect, a good chunk of us will go offensive and bemoan the “elites” for telling us what we should or shouldn’t do and insist we possess all the knowledge anyone could ever need. We are turning into a nation of 13 year-olds. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mark1 said:

You might want to gain a cursory understanding of exponential/logistic growth dynamics before you accidentally say something as absurd as this again.

Careful trying to use math as your high horse, because there is actually validity in what Ratner is saying from a mathematical perspective. Marginal changes in R0 for an extremely infectious disease do not significantly affect the ultimate end state. This is because a population is limited, so exponential growth is ultimately only possible at the beginning. And logistic limiting effects are basically unimportant until a huge amount of society has been infected. This is due to the fact that, even with masking and vaccines for the entire population, the vaccine would spread with an R0 well greater than 1. That’s what actually matters. None of this feel good, I have less likelihood to give COVID to my kids when they are at home, bs. The truth is, they’ll just get it in the future.

In reality, with an R0 estimated around 5, with vaccines that are 50% effective (many studies dispute this and estimate it closer to 10-30%), you’d still need masks and social distancing to be close to 60-70% effective. Good thing the CDC, in internal modeling, estimates masking effectiveness around 20-30%. For a good summary, just read the delta predictions on the last source below. Bottom line is that it is nigh impossible to stop this with the vaccines we have.

Sources:

R0 of Delta: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34369565/

Vaccines are not that effective after a short period of time: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

Masking efficacy is estimated at 20-30%: (page 20)7335c3ab-06ee-4121-aaff-a11904e68462.#pa


In reality, all that these mandates do (for a shot that is not as effective as we wish it was) are draw out the inevitable - most of the population will get infected at some point. If hospitals are fine - and they ARE right now, from a national perspective - what’s the benefit to society of the blue curve vs the red one? Yeah, people are going to die. But there actually isn’t much you can do about it, and most of it really is their own choice as to whether they want to be vaccinated or not.

AD6EF165-655E-4703-AFCB-95BDACC74A24.thumb.png.a9eec2aed1750705755aecd8b32f2798.png
 

We should do what we can to “flatten the curve” to a level that is sustainable from a healthcare perspective. The vaccine has been extremely effective in reducing hospitalizations and death for society to a sustainable level. Curve: flattened. If we’re sustainable now, then we have won. Mandates aren’t going to help society any more, and instead will only serve as a tool to continue politicization of the masses. The only thing that would actually work is having people stay home and actually limit contact - a la China - but we’ve seen the disastrous effects of that policy on both the economy and society. Juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

Edited by Negatory
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't have to, we have a pandemic that tested the theory for us. We also have countries and states with vastly different vaccination rates and preventing policies and guess what, the spread doesn't correlate. Univariate analysis works in a petri dish, not a society.

Two weeks to stop the spread. Masks. Six feet spacing. Pre-travel testing. Vaccines. And according to the figurehead of the American effort, the plan until only recently was to "beat" COVID. Not slow it down, beat it. Do I need to Google the many times he claimed we needed to get to effectively zero cases before we can be humans again?

 

I'll take my cursory understanding of human nature over your cursory understanding of growth dynamics any day. And what was even better, the self righteous pricks (like some in this very thread) who screamed the loudest about the callous disregard for human life and the raw selfishness of those who just wanted to accept COVID, maintain individual freedom, and move on with life, those "leaders" were caught in hair salons, destination weddings, expensive restaurants, public parks, Thanksgiving dinners, and ask manner of other normal human activities at the exact time they were being us for wanting the same.

 

Math is great, but when 2+2=5 maybe you should take another look at the assumptions. 

That's great my man.  Seems like you attibuted the entire universe to my very simple statement.  I said nothing about COVID.  I made zero assumptions as they were all made inside the declarative statement of yours that I responded to.  I offered no agreement or disagrement to the assumptions and said only that the statement as made, is objectively false.  A very small change (on a percentage basis) in the exponent of a population growth model, has massive implications on the ultimate rate of spread...the end.

27 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Careful trying to use math as your high horse, because there is actually validity in what Ratner is saying from a mathematical perspective. Marginal changes in R0 for an extremely infectious disease do not significantly affect the ultimate end state. This is because a population is limited, so exponential growth is ultimately only possible at the beginning. And logistic limiting effects are basically unimportant until a huge amount of society has been infected. This is due to the fact that, even with masking and vaccines for the entire population, the vaccine would spread with an R0 well greater than 1. That’s what actually matters. None of this feel good, I have less likelihood to give COVID to my kids when they are at home, bs. The truth is, they’ll just get it in the future.

In reality, with an R0 estimated around 5, with vaccines that are 50% effective (many studies dispute this and estimate it closer to 10-30%), you’d still need masks and social distancing to be close to 60-70% effective. Good thing the CDC, in internal modeling, estimates masking effectiveness around 20-30%. For a good summary, just read the delta predictions on the last source below. Bottom line is that it is nigh impossible to stop this with the vaccines we have.

Sources:

R0 of Delta: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34369565/

Vaccines are not that effective after a short period of time: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

Masking efficacy is estimated at 20-30%: (page 20)7335c3ab-06ee-4121-aaff-a11904e68462.#pa


In reality, all that these mandates do (for a shot that is not as effective as we wish it was) are draw out the inevitable - most of the population will get infected at some point. If hospitals are fine - and they ARE right now, from a national perspective - what’s the benefit to society of the blue curve vs the red one? Yeah, people are going to die. But there actually isn’t much you can do about it, and most of it really is their own choice as to whether they want to be vaccinated or not.

We should do what we can to “flatten the curve” to a level that is sustainable from a healthcare perspective. The vaccine has been extremely effective in reducing hospitalizations and death for society to a sustainable level. Curve: flattened. If we’re sustainable now, then we have won. Mandates aren’t going to help society any more, and instead will only serve as a tool to continue politicization of the masses. The only thing that would actually work is having people stay home and actually limit contact - a la China - but we’ve seen the disastrous effects of that policy on both the economy and society. Juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

A sensible post.  Congratulations.  That's a rare breed in this thread.  I agree on all (and it's not in conflict with my previous post).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mark1 said:

That's great my man.  Seems like you attibuted the entire universe to my very simple statement.  I said nothing about COVID.  I made zero assumptions as they were all made inside the declarative statement of yours that I responded to.  I offered no agreement or disagrement to the assumptions and said only that the statement as made, is objectively false.  A very small change (on a percentage basis) in the exponent of a population growth model, has massive implications on the ultimate rate of spread...the end.

A sensible post.  Congratulations.  That's a rare breed in this thread.  I agree on all (and it's not in conflict with my previous post).

My mistake, I thought we were in a thread talking about COVID mandates. If I knew we were going to quibble over context-free interpretations of my post, I would have made it simpler to follow for you.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2021 at 3:07 PM, pawnman said:

Opted for the shot after all... welcome to the team. 

I hope you one day have to face a choice between ensuring your family is taken care of or jeopardizing them for something you feel is right.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

I hope you one day have to face a choice between ensuring your family is taken care of or jeopardizing them for something you feel is right.

 

I find those who have difficulty understanding the convictions of others rarely have particularly meaningful convictions of their own. So he probably won't. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

I hope you one day have to face a choice between ensuring your family is taken care of or jeopardizing them for something you feel is right.

 

What I hear is that you traded your convictions for a paycheck. 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

What I hear is that you traded your convictions for a paycheck. 

Hear and read what you want. Don't think this decision doesn't weigh heavily on my mind. I'm not the only one in this position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • M2 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...