RFK - Make America Healthy? again?
I believe this guy is going to need his own thread.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PM...(originally published as a pre-print in 2021)Au J. Higher vaccination rates predict reduction in SARS-CoV-2 transmission across the United States. Infection. 2022 Oct;50(5):1255-1266. doi: 10.1007/s15010-022-01802-1. Epub 2022 Mar 22. PMID: 35314944; PMCID: PMC8938221.Later confirmationhttps://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/3/10/103Oordt
Thanks. Those appear to be retrospective observational studies, which are typically only useful for hypothesis generation for more rigorous studies like RCTs rather than being conclusive in themselves.
Thanks. Those appear to be retrospective observational studies, which are typically only useful for hypothesis generation for more rigorous studies like RCTs rather than being conclusive in themselves.
As I said, the data made it pretty clear. I didn't mention an RCT, I said the real world data. There really isn't a way to do a proper RCT on this, ethically, during a pandemic.
Between the trial results and this, there really is zero doubt.
lol Gorgie - Forced at gun point, no. But there are other methods of force. Like, "do this or you're fired". By your narrow definition, no one has ever been force to do anything. There's always a choice.
lol Doodie, do this or you're fired is literally a choice. By your broad definition, I was forced to wear pants yesterday. These accommodations happen every day in the name of employment. No one ever says they were forced to wear pants, but they were in the exact same sense. Do you know why no one ever says that?
When you water the definition down that much, who really cares? There's a reason they are saying "forced" and then defending it. They are trying to insinuate the evil Biden administration and evil scientists have nefarious goals. When it comes down to it, and this is the point I walked BJ right into when he panicked and ran away, IT WAS REALLY THE EMPLOYERS WHO DID THAT, NOT THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE SCIENTISTS.
And the employers have every right to require that.
Sorry for shouting, but when even BJ gets it and you still don't, that's not great. I had to get a little more primitive for you.
lol Doodie, do this or you're fired is literally a choice. By your broad definition, I was forced to wear pants yesterday. These accommodations happen every day in the name of employment. No one ever says they were forced to wear pants, but they were in the exact same sense. Do you know why no one ever says that? When you water the definition down that much, who really cares? T
If a job imposes a uniform, people say routinely they are forced to wear a uniform on the job yes. That's what the usage of the word is in english.
There's a reason they are saying forced by the state for vaccine, and the reason is the power of the state was used to back those mandates, which is a choice they disagreed with and felt violated by.
No it wasn't only the employers who did that at all no. And not all employers have "every right" to require that, same as they can't easily require you to take a vitamin supplement or not to eat meat if you work for them, can they?
As I said, the data made it pretty clear. I didn't mention an RCT, I said the real world data. There really isn't a way to do a proper RCT on this, ethically, during a pandemic.
Between the trial results and this, there really is zero doubt.
Why isn't t here a way to do an RCT for transmission? And what does ethics have to do with it?
Observational studies aren't nowhere near conclusive.
Why isn't t here a way to do an RCT for transmission? And what does ethics have to do with it?
Observational studies aren't nowhere near conclusive.
The requirements are too large and restrictive. Isolation of too many people for too long of a time is required. You'd also basically have to intentionally expose unvaccinated people to the virus, which is unethical. (the only way to control for whether they were exposed to a vaccinated or unvaccinated person).
And I didn't say observational studies are anywhere near conclusive.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is there a point? Can you get to it? Like, I don't think we disagree at all, so why the grilling?
lol Doodie, do this or you're fired is literally a choice. By your broad definition, I was forced to wear pants yesterday. These accommodations happen every day in the name of employment. No one ever says they were forced to wear pants, but they were in the exact same sense. Do you know why no one ever says that? When you water the definition down that much, who really cares? T
I do not have an issue with employers requiring vaccines, but it should be vested in necessity, actual risk to public health and preferably sensible legislation.
Examples could be nurses, soldiers, caretakers, teachers etc. Exactly what vaccines could be mandated would also vary, depending on the risk factors of the disease in question.
The best way to get good vaccination coverage and increase public trust in health authorities is competence, information and voluntary choice. When we use force, there should be very solid reasoning behind said force or we erode public trust.
I do not have an issue with employers requiring vaccines, but it should be vested in necessity, actual risk to public health and preferably sensible legislation. Examples could be nurses, soldiers, caretakers, teachers etc. Exactly what vaccines could be mandated would also vary, depending on the risk factors of the disease in question. The best way to get good vaccination co
100% agree with this.
The requirements are too large and restrictive. Isolation of too many people for too long of a time is required. You'd also basically have to intentionally expose unvaccinated people to the virus, which is unethical. (the only way to control for whether they were exposed to a vaccinated or unvaccinated person). And I didn't say observational studies are anywhere near conclusive
Why would an RCT for transmission have more ethical requirements than an RCT for symptomatic infection? You just test the participants frequently enough to catch every infection, or develop/use a serum test that can distinguish acquired natural immunity vs acquired vaccinated immunity.
You said the observational studies leave no doubt. How can they leave no doubt if they're not conclusive?
Why would an RCT for transmission have more ethical requirements than an RCT for symptomatic infection? You just test the participants frequently enough to catch every infection, or develop/use a serum test that can distinguish acquired natural immunity vs acquired vaccinated immunity.
You literally quoted my answer to this question.
You said the observational studies leave no doubt. How can they leave no doubt if they're not conclusive?
Could you please quote where I said that?
I will consider answering one more of these, but no more until you tell me what you are getting at. While I appreciate the interest, you are starting to look a little bit dishonest in your responses. For instance, you just ignored my answer in the first half and misquoted me in the second half. Not fond of that trend.
lol Doodie, do this or you're fired is literally a choice. By your broad definition, I was forced to wear pants yesterday. These accommodations happen every day in the name of employment. No one ever says they were forced to wear pants, but they were in the exact same sense. Do you know why no one ever says that? When you water the definition down that much, who really cares? T
I'm not sure what you think I don't get. Of course the government didn't "force" anyone to get the vaccine. And of course employers are free to set standards of what is acceptable at work. For instance, for much of my professional career I was "forced" to wear a suit to work. Did I have a choice? Yes. I could have chosen to be unemployed.
While you are correct on many things (notable exception - your 2024 election prediction) in many ways you are just the flip side of The Colonel - putting your stake in the ground and defending your position relentlessly no matter how absurd it is when applied to the real world. Tell me this - what would happen if you started showing up to work wearing only your BVDs? If the answer is anything other than "nothing", yes, you are forced to wear pants to work. That's how the world works.
I'm not sure what you think I don't get. Of course the government didn't "force" anyone to get the vaccine. And of course employers are free to set standards of what is acceptable at work. For instance, for much of my professional career I was "forced" to wear a suit to work. Did I have a choice? Yes. I could have chosen to be unemployed.
Oh, Doodie, good, sounds like you get everything you need to get. Thanks.
As for the rest of your post, sounds like you need to re-read my response. You seemed to just pretend I didn't say anything at all in it. Thanks, but I'm already getting enough of that from several others, I don't need another one of you ignoring my answers and repeating your claims as if I didn't respond to them.
forced to wear pants for work is a much different statement than forced to wear pants. When you learn this crucial difference, we can continue. I even explained it in as clear of terms as I could. I even explained why they are intentionally omitting the second part of the phrase. In short, the distinction matters.
But let's just ignore that! Good plan! Probably doesn't matter! What's the big deal?
You literally quoted my answer to this question. Could you please quote where I said that? I will consider answering one more of these, but no more until you tell me what you are getting at. While I appreciate the interest, you are starting to look a little bit dishonest in your responses. For instance, you just ignored my answer in the first half and misquoted me in the second
Yesterday I said the phase 3 mRNA trials didn't list transmission prevention as an endpoint, to which you responded that reducing infections always reduces the spread of the virus, to which I responded again that the vaccines wren't proven to reduce infections, to which you responded that follow-up studies did prove that, and provided a link to those studies today, which I responded that observational studies aren't conclusive in demonstrating a reduction in transmission, to which you responded the studies left no doubt, to which I responded that the studies aren't conclusive so they can't remove doubt, to which you responded that you never claimed the studies were conclusive, to which I asked then how can they leave no doubt if they're not conclusive, to which you responded that I'm being dishonest in my responses.
As I said, the data made it pretty clear. I didn't mention an RCT, I said the real world data. There really isn't a way to do a proper RCT on this, ethically, during a pandemic.
So there is a way to do proper RCT and they chose not to
Correct. And I've already shown you how. Additionally, you misquoted me in your summary multiple times. You also failed to quote where I said what you said. You are clearly not interested in being honest in this discussion. I'm done responding to you on this subject. You don't seem to have any real desire other than to either score an internet point or keep from losing one. I don't care which.
Yes, they could have chosen to act unethically, sure. Is there a point to this?
Why isn't t here a way to do an RCT for transmission? And what does ethics have to do with it?
Observational studies aren't nowhere near conclusive.
For it to be a proper RCT, people cannot choose which arm they are part of.
It's unethical to force people not to vaccinate with a good vaccine.
Even if people drop voluntarily, you are falsifying the results because dropping out can correlate with other behavioural attitudes that you don't want to filter out of the control group
Correct. And I've already shown you how. Additionally, you misquoted me in your summary multiple times. You also failed to quote where I said what you said. You are clearly not interested in being honest in this discussion. I'm done responding to you on this subject. You don't seem to have any real desire other than to either score an internet point or keep from losing one. I d
You're claiming I'm misquoting you in my summary yet don't provide an actual example of me doing so.
Yesterday I said the phase 3 mRNA trials didn't list transmission prevention as an endpoint, to which you responded that reducing infections always reduces the spread of the virus, to which I responded again that the vaccines wren't proven to reduce infections, to which you responded that follow-up studies did prove that, and provided a link to those studies today, which I resp
Here you go, I bolded your misquotes. Feel free to go back and compare those summaries to what I actually said. I can tell you now I didn't say "prove" (in fact, I went to great lengths to ensure that you couldn't possibly misinterpret me as say...), and I didn't say "the studies" by themselves were what left no doubt.
Here you go, I bolded your misquotes. Feel free to go back and compare those summaries to what I actually said. I can tell you now I didn't say "prove" (in fact, I went to great lengths to ensure that you couldn't possibly misinterpret me as say...), and I didn't say "the studies" by themselves were what left no doubt.
I wrote:
"Thanks. Those appear to be retrospective observational studies, which are typically only useful for hypothesis generation for more rigorous studies like RCTs rather than being conclusive in themselves."
You replied;
"As I said, the data made it pretty clear. I didn't mention an RCT, I said the real world data. There really isn't a way to do a proper RCT on this, ethically, during a pandemic.
Between the trial results and this, there really is zero doubt."
What "real world data" for the "this" are you referring to that was collected and analyzed outside of a study?
And why do the observational studies contribute to the absence of doubt if they're not conclusive? (ie, referring to your "between the trial results and this...")
I wrote:"Thanks. Those appear to be retrospective observational studies, which are typically only useful for hypothesis generation for more rigorous studies like RCTs rather than being conclusive in themselves."You replied;
As I said, I'm done responding to you on this subject. I also stated my reasons why. You have refused to correct your misquotes, reinforcing my point. You have refused to tell me what the point of this grilling is, further reinforcing my point. You are adding even more dishonesty in this one by saying "what real word data outside of the study" when the entire point of giving you the study was that the study contained the real world data and analysis. Like, what are you even doing at this point?
And why do the observational studies contribute to the absence of doubt if they're not conclusive? (ie, referring to your "between the trial results and this...")
And UGH. Talk about dishonest. Just wow.
What an absolute waste of time. You're on your own from here, like I said.
