Covid-19 Discussion
Has the wisdom and courage to realize that the cure has now become worse than the disease. It's time to open up. Stop moving the ball.
Hospital systems have not been overwhelmed.
Ventilators are not in shortage.
Treatments are being developed.
There is no cure or vaccine. This is not going away for four years.
The devastation of the cure:
Suicide rates picking up.
Massive economic devastation which causes depression, anxiety, obesity, again increase in suicide rates and directly impacts poorer economic areas.
Alcohol sales up 51%.
Domestic Abuse on the uprise
Child abuse on the uprise.
Hospitals that do not have COVID related issues are forced to lay off doctors and nurses as there are not enough patients to economically support it, meaning they won't have the staff to deal with COVID outbreaks.
Michael Avenatti gets released from prison
We all did our part. We sheltered (here in Pennsylvania for 5 weeks already).
Open the office buildings. Open the hair saloons. Get rid of stupid mask laws.
Continue to monitor outbreaks and in areas hospital systems become threatened, reenact tougher guidelines.
LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!
And stop shaming people that want common sense solutions. Waiting for a vaccine is stupid and unpractical.
It sounds as if you are not aware that study designs other than RCTs use control groups too. Is this true?
You can avoid randomization and select the group in other ways, PRE TREATMENT, but after you do that you still keep the group untreated, and compare results.
I know of no study design that uses *self selecting control groups*.
Vaccine efficacy studies (outside phase 3 trials) for covid were all observational. But they can't control for what i listed (and other things).
You can avoid randomization and select the group in other ways, PRE TREATMENT, but after you do that you still keep the group untreated, and compare results.
I know of no study design that uses *self selecting control groups*.
Vaccine efficacy studies (outside phase 3 trials) for covid were all observational. But they can't control for what i listed (and other things).
Everyone who chooses to participate in an RCT is a self-selecting group so I don't see what point you're trying to make by calling the unvaccinated a self-selecting group. Within the 68 million of Americans who are unvaccinated there is plenty of variety for a researcher to pick whatever sub-group/cohort they feel is necessary to remove any confounders, including the reasons why they aren't vaccinated.
Why do you need a study that shows there was a toilet paper shortage correlated to the pandemic? It was widely observed and reported by everyone in this country while the pandemic was happening. Once the pandemic started to subside so did the shortages. There's your correlation.
If you're instead asking to show you a study that shows a causal correlation between the toilet paper shortage and those deaths, then that's the right question to ask. Before I answer it though, please first share a study
You need a study to correlate the toilet paper shortages with multiple peaks and fluctuations in ACM up to and including 2023 to be in anyway comparable to the study I presented. You know very well that is impossible, so you are indeed just trolling or jerking off as I described it. Kind of pathetic attempt really.
By the way you would also have to show some mechanism whereby lack of toilet paper kills people and examples of it happening. With the covid shots we know they can kill people because there are documented cases of it happening.
Also this correlation doesn't equal causation argument that get's trotted out all the time is just an excuse to ignore the obvious. Well, obvious to anyone with half a brain that is. When there are multiple examples of precise correlation in different countries and different population types then you have already established a causal relationship.
You need a study to correlate the toilet paper shortages with multiple peaks and fluctuations in ACM up to and including 2023 to be in anyway comparable to the study I presented. You know very well that is impossible, so you are indeed just trolling or jerking off as I described it. Kind of pathetic attempt really.
By the way you would also have to show some mechanism whereby lack of toilet paper kills people and examples of it happening. With the covid shots we know they can kill people becau
Did you know people are more likely to get vaccinated when cases start to rise? Cool, you found the causal relationship.
Ready to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated populations yet?
I thought the vaccine was supposed to stop people dying. Instead it seems to be having the opposite effect.
Did you know people are more likely to get vaccinated when cases start to rise? Cool, you found the causal relationship.
I already showed you way back in the thread an example of ACM rising shortly after vaccination roll outs where there was no covid in the community. So that blows another of your excuses out of the water.
I thought the vaccine was supposed to stop people dying. Instead it seems to be having the opposite effect.
No, the cases rising caused the people to start dying. And the ones that didn't start dying. You'd know that if you'd compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated outcomes. But you won't for some reason.
I already showed you way back in the thread an example of ACM rising shortly after vaccination roll outs where there was no covid in the community. So that blows another of your excuses out of the water.
And you might recall that in one of my replies to that post, I demonstrated you were full of s***. Go back and look.
But why would one example of it not correlating ruin it all, but countless examples of it not correlating don't cause your theory to get "blown out of the water?"
Are you ready to compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated outcomes yet?
Sure. Here's one to start with off the top of my head.
Sure. Here's one to start with off the top of my head.
Hooboy. This will be fun.
Can you show us the comparison in that article between unvaccinated and vaccinated outcomes? Like the actual data? I'd love to see you show us. It will be helpful if you can describe it in your own words for us, too.
Everyone who chooses to participate in an RCT is a self-selecting group so I don't see what point you're trying to make by calling the unvaccinated a self-selecting group. Within the 68 million of Americans who are unvaccinated there is plenty of variety for a researcher to pick whatever sub-group/cohort they feel is necessary to remove any confounders, including the reasons why they aren't vaccinated.
All participants are self selected but you then have the placebo/treatment divide without any individual choice, and you measure relative differences among those 2 groups, and that relative difference is the actual outcome of the test.
And you might recall that in one of my replies to that post, I demonstrated you were full of s***. Go back and look.
No you didn't, you tried to blame it on other factors like diseases caused by lockdowns or some other bull ****. Nonsense in other words. Never mind that the ACM didn't start rising till after the vaccines were rolled out.
No you didn't, you tried to blame it on other factors like diseases caused by lockdowns or some other bull ****. Nonsense in other words. Never mind that the ACM didn't start rising till after the vaccines were rolled out.
Oh I definitely did. I showed you with a graph how it was smack in the middle of one of their biggest peaks. You of course ignored it and ran away.
But please show us the critical data in the blog post you just linked to that shows that ACM was about 90% correlated with vaccination in a country with about a 90% vaccination rate. I will really enjoy it.
Or you know, directly compare the rates of death of vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts over more than a few months in a single country, and then show us how they are different than the rate you would expect (not literally exactly what you would expect, like the blog post you just linked to). Make sure to be baffled by the idea that after a bunch of unvaccinated people die, they can't die again. That way you can be just like your hero (yet another unqualified blog author).
Cohort studies or other observational studies can have self-selected control groups. There are limitations when the groups aren't randomized, but that doesn't mean there aren't control groups, which was your claim, or that we can't learn anything from them.
I feel for you gorgo but I appreciate the hard work u do !
Unfortunately those 2 have just no basic understanding how science works and how actually if they were right how such a big news in all the media’s around the world would announce it backed by dozen of peer reviewed papers .
Rejecting over hundred years of vaccine knowledge .
Let's get it started with actual comparisons done properly.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/...
Risk of Worsening Heart Failure and All-Cause Mortality Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Heart Failure: A Nationwide Real-World Safety Study
Caroline Sindet-Pedersen, Felix Michalik, Jarl Emanuel Strange, Daniel Mølager Christensen, Nina Nouhravesh, Thomas Alexander Gerds, Charlotte Andersson, Fredrik Folke, Tor Biering-Sørensen, Emil Fosbøl, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Gunnar H. Gislason, Lars Køber and Morten Schou
The total study population comprised 101 786 patients. The median age of the study population was 74 years (interquartile range, 66–81). The standardized risk of all-cause mortality within 90 days was 2.23% (95% CI, 2.10%–2.36%) in the vaccinated cohort and 2.56% (95% CI, 2.43%–2.70%) in the unvaccinated cohort (90-day risk difference, −0.33% [95% CI, −0.52% to −0.15%]). The standardized risk of worsening heart failure within 90 days was 1.10% (95% CI, −1.01% to 1.19%) in the 2021 (vaccinated) cohort and 1.08% (95% CI, 0.99%–1.17%) in the 2019 (unvaccinated) cohort (risk difference, 0.02% [95% CI, −0.11% to 0.15%]). No significant differences were found regarding venous thromboembolism or myocarditis.
Receiving an mRNA vaccine was not associated with an increased risk of worsening heart failure, myocarditis, venous thromboembolism, or all-cause mortality.
Sources of Funding
This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Læge Sofus Carl Emil Friis og Hustru Olga Doris Friis’ Legat. The sponsor had no influence on the study design, interpretation of results, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
When coupled with its strong effectiveness in preventing death by COVID-19, it's really a no-brainer.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/m...
Effectiveness of a Second COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose Against Infection, Hospitalization, or Death Among Nursing Home Residents — 19 States, March 29–July 25, 2022
In a large cohort of nursing home residents, receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 booster dose during circulation of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants was 74% effective at 60 days against severe COVID-19–related outcomes (including hospitalization or death) and 90% against death alone compared with receipt of a single booster dose.
There is no reason for further discussion. Have a good day.
All participants are self selected but you then have the placebo/treatment divide without any individual choice, and you measure relative differences among those 2 groups, and that relative difference is the actual outcome of the test.
Agreed. So why again is the unvaccinated population today not suitable as a control group?
I thought the vaccine was supposed to stop people dying. Instead it seems to be having the opposite effect.
90% of ICU patients and deaths from COVID during the Delta variant were unvaccinated, even though they represented a minority of the population. That seems like the opposite of your claimed opposite effect.
More, this time for just 65+ year old Australians (literally all of them).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwp...
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19 specific and all-cause mortality in older Australians: a population based study
From January–May 2022 (Omicron BA.1/2), 3250 COVID-19 deaths occurred; from June–November (Omicron BA.4/5) 3185 COVID-19 deaths occurred. During January–May, VE of a 3rd COVID-19 vaccine dose within 3 months was 93% (95% CI 93–94%) whilst VE of a 2nd dose >6 months since receipt was 34% (26–42%). During June–November, VE of a 4th COVID-19 vaccine dose within 3 months was 84% (82–86%) whilst VE of a 3rd dose >6 months since receipt was 56% (50–62%). VE estimates for aged care residents were similar, but absolute risk reductions were substantially greater. During June–November 2022, for all-cause mortality, VE of a 4th dose within 3 months was 58% (56–59%) whilst VE of a 3rd dose >6 months since receipt was 19% (16–22%).
So all-cause mortality is reduced in vaccinated Australians over 65 years of age by 58% (!) for those with up-to-date boosters. Weird. That seems to be at odds with all of the graphs made by bloggers doing their own version of home-brew data manipulation and graphing so that you can squint and make out how some lines vaguely line up and then just hint that it might be more than a correlation (omg omg !11).
This is just stupid at this point.
We can also throw this one in:
A safety study evaluating non-COVID-19 mortality risk following COVID-19 vaccination
Stanley Xu a, Runxin Huang a, Lina S. Sy a, Vennis Hong a, Sungching C. Glenn a, Denison S. Ryan a, Kerresa Morrissette a, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez b, Jason M. Glanz c, Nicola P. Klein d, Bruce Fireman d, David McClure e, Elizabeth G. Liles f, Eric S. Weintraub g, Hung-Fu Tseng a, Lei Qian a
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...
Results
For each vaccine type and across age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups, crude non-COVID-19 mortality rates among COVID-19 vaccinees were lower than those among comparators. After adjusting for confounders with the propensity score approach, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.49) after dose 1 and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.46–0.50) after dose 2 of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.39–0.44) after dose 1 and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.37–0.40) after dose 2 of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51–0.59) after receipt of Ad26.COV2.S.
Conclusion
While residual confounding bias remained after adjusting for several individual-level and community-level risk factors, no increased risk was found for non-COVID-19 mortality among recipients of three COVID-19 vaccines used in the US.
These must just be flukes coming from the tiny sample size of 6,974,817 unique individuals, though.
Actually, no. They are probably just bought and paid for by...
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
...oops. Yeah, it's a fluke then.
90% of ICU patients and deaths from COVID during the Delta variant were unvaccinated, even though they represented a minority of the population. That seems like the opposite of your claimed opposite effect.
I have no idea if that vaccination status data is correct and neither do you. There is anecdotal evidence that a lot of manipulation went on in regard to that particular data. As I showed in an earlier article I posted, people who died with unknown vaccination status were routinely designated as unvaccinated for example. And anyone inside that 14 day window after vaccination were also designated as unvaccinated.
I have no idea if that vaccination status data is correct and neither do you. There is anecdotal evidence that a lot of manipulation went on in regard to that particular data. As I showed in an earlier article I posted, people who died with unknown vaccination status were routinely designated as unvaccinated for example. And anyone inside that 14 day window after vaccination were also designated as unvaccinated.
Because there are records made when people get vaccinated. If there are no records, 99% of the time that's because they are unvaccinated.
And people who have been vaccinated less than 14 days have not had an opportunity to develop immunity from the vaccination, so they are effectively unvaccinated.
This isn't complicated.
Because there are records made when people get vaccinated. If there are no records, 99% of the time that's because they are unvaccinated.
And people who have been vaccinated less than 14 days have not had an opportunity to develop immunity from the vaccination, so they are effectively unvaccinated.
This isn't complicated.
Not always. Like a lot of people just got a card with a date of vaccination on it. Lose the card and guess what?
I thought you had finished shilling for the day gorgo. Doing overtime huh.
Thus the "99% of the time."
Well done.
For the record, most studies still separate the unknown vaccination status out and calculate the efficacy without those cases, too. Just as an example, I checked the Australian one. It excluded anyone with significant missing data (meaning unknown vaccination statuses were not included at all).
There's still no indication of increased risk.
