OT: COVID-19 general thread part II (and final part - see closing post)

[Call Me Al]

i very clearly stated that i was just posting a study that conformed to my belief. it's really easy!

 

[HBK27]

using google to tell you what you want isn't doing research so unless you have a background and experience that actually informs anything that you post, it is spreading misinformation and doubt about the vaccine for no reason

Making vague accusations and just dismissing anything I'm writing as "misinformation" and "casting doubt about the vaccine" doesn't do a damn thing either. I didn't go out searching for any information - but responded specifically to the information you provided...which I assumed you just Googled and posted because it told you want to you wanted, right?

If you can't actually argue any of the points I'm making and just want to throw around the term "misinformation" with nothing to back that up, maybe stay out of the conversation then.

 

[HBK27]

i very clearly stated that i was just posting a study that conformed to my belief. it's really easy!

Can't actually argue what I wrote, so you resort to this. Pathetic.

 

[JimEIV]

Not pertaining to this thread, but just all that has gone on in the world over the recent months... I am honestly not sure what troubles me more...The little wanna be totalitarians or the tin foil bugged eyed crazies.

All of this reminds me of the quote... Crisis doesn't create character. It reveals its.

 

[guitarguyvic]

What are you talking about? Seriously.

First, your last sentence is way over dramatic. Second what are the polling and vaccination rates telling you?

The highest states(at least one dose) are in the high 70% range the lowest in the 50% range...That 25% indicates to you a threshold that can't be reversed?

Firstly, 25% is a significant amount. You don't need to be a math wiz to understand that that translates to tens of millions of people. This is especially true when we are talking about attempting to achieve herd immunity/end a pandemic.
Secondly, no one stated that sheer numbers alone indicate a threshold that can't be reversed. Why are certain states and counties seeing a 25% difference in vaccination rates compared to others, that's the question.

Not rural, education, socio-economic factors, access to health care (ALL BTW can be address with education and information)....

Yes those all play a factor, no one claimed otherwise. However, what you have in parentheses is an interesting statement...it completely ignores the fact that education and information is purposely withheld from these populations by the leaders these people take guidance from...the same leaders who keep them ignorant and distrustful of the CDC, FDA, etc.

No, it is a threshold of trust and discourse that can't be fixed? Come on dude. That is ridiculous and some of the most shallow analysis possible.

I didn't say it can't be fixed. I said it can't be fixed through traditional methods of communication/reasoning.

Illinois - A very Blue State - home of Obama - 68.2% with at least one dose...Kentucky a very Red State - home of Mitch McConnell 60.4 with at least one dose ---- Where is the great divide you speak of? That 7.8% is the Bridge too Far? This is more of the alternate universe at work...

This is cherry picking in an attempt to obfuscate the reality. You obviously looked at the numbers...funny how you don't mention that 14 out of the 15 states whose full vaccination rate is <50% lean heavily towards one end of the political spectrum. Or how all 13 states with a full vaccination rate of >60% all lean the opposite way. That's a stark division.

There is also tons of polling that shows large divide's in people's opinions about the vaccine, masking, covid in general, etc. which follow along political divides. Voting patterns also reflect this significant divide.

Are there differences? Of course! There has been since the inception of the country but this over-dramatic notion of two separate America's is a narrative spun by grifters for the sole purpose of acquisition of power and none of it is real.

This is a naïve statement in and of itself. Narratives become reality when enough people believe them. Which is exactly the situation we are in.

 

[swiiscompos]

please stop posting unreviewed and unproven studies as evidence that you are making a reasonable point. you are spreading misinformation and trying to express doubt about a vaccine that has proven to be safe. the risks are minimal compared to contracting the virus, and you are completely ignoring that.

anyway while we’re just posting studies that support our views, here:

“The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

• More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
• Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
• Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination”

COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination

i expect that you won’t listen to this because it doesn’t fit what you want reality to be

From my limited research on the subject this is one of the topics on which there is no scientific consensus yet. I think it's pretty obvious that giving a vaccine does a few months after people got sick will make the immunity last longer, but whether vaccination alone is better than infection alone is not clear yet.

There is nothing bad with admitting that something is not known yet, decisions are rarely taken on certainties, but it's usually a form of risk assessment (probability of something being correct, consequences if a decision is taken but didn't need to, consequences if a decision hasn't been taken when it should have).

 

[HBK27]

 

[Billdo]

The very frustrating piece to this puzzle is that for every article written saying they're effective, safe, and better than natural immunity there is an article saying the contrary. After reading the Nebraskamed one I googled searched is natural immunity better and found a Yale article saying natural was better, significantly so. That's part of why this sucks is there is almost no definitive answer to any questions.

 

[JimEIV]

This is cherry picking in an attempt to obfuscate the reality. You obviously looked at the numbers...funny how you don't mention that 14 out of the 15 states whose full vaccination rate is <50% lean heavily towards one end of the political spectrum. Or how all 13 states with a full vaccination rate of >60% all lean the opposite way. That's a stark division.

I looked for a Red and Blue state that were relatively close in proximity/regionality --- Funny how the regions seem to play a role...Funny how rural vs urban in the SAME EXACT States seem to play a role....Funny how Age seems to play an even bigger role...You are slicing the numbers with a point of view already in mind.

If you look at the same numbers by age we can easily say the 18 to 39 age group is the problem...But that isn't politically beneficial to anyone.

< 18 19.7%
Ages 18 to 24 63.4%
Ages 25 to 39 66.6%

Ages 40 to 49 75.2%
Ages 50 to 64 82.6%
Ages 65 to 74 95.9%
75+ 90.4%

 

[guitarguyvic]

I looked for a Red and Blue state that were relatively close in proximity/regionality --- Funny how the regions seem to play a role...Funny how rural vs urban in the SAME EXACT States seem to play a role....Funny how Age seems to play an even bigger role...You are slicing the numbers with a point of view already in mind.

If you look at the same numbers by age we can easily say the 18 to 39 age group is the problem...But that isn't politically beneficial to anyone.

< 18 19.7%
Ages 18 to 24 63.4%
Ages 25 to 39 66.6%

Ages 40 to 49 75.2%
Ages 50 to 64 82.6%
Ages 65 to 74 95.9%
75+ 90.4%

I've already acknowledged there are lots of factors at play. That's why you try to dig into the reasons why.
Why are there vaccination rate differences among different age groups? Well, young people tend to be less concerned about their health.
Now...tell me...what are the rates for these same age groups when you start accounting for political leanings and who they trust as their source of information? That's a rhetorical question. The answer makes my point. You can look these things up, ya know.

 

[guitarguyvic]

The very frustrating piece to this puzzle is that for every article written saying they're effective, safe, and better than natural immunity there is an article saying the contrary. After reading the Nebraskamed one I googled searched is natural immunity better and found a Yale article saying natural was better, significantly so. That's part of why this sucks is there is almost no definitive answer to any questions.

The number of articles one way or the other shouldn't be relevant. The reporting is not necessarily proportional to the validity. You can find probably hundreds of articles highlighting breakthrough cases even though they account for an infinitesimal amount of total cases. You have to look at the source of the info and the big picture data.

And yes there are lots of questions still without definitive answers. Such is the case with a novel virus. If there's no definitive answer to the natural immunity question, then a reasonable risk assessment would be to get the vaccine (assuming no other health concerns) because the big picture data showing the vaccine is incredibly safe/low risk IS definitive.

 

[JimEIV]

I've already acknowledged there are lots of factors at play. That's why you try to dig into the reasons why.
Why are there vaccination rate differences among different age groups? Well, young people tend to be less concerned about their health.
Now...tell me...what are the rates for these same age groups when you start accounting for political leanings and who they trust as their source of information? That's a rhetorical question. The answer makes my point. You can look these things up, ya know.

The question you ask is self fulfilling of course...You are trying to prove a point instead of letting the numbers speak for themselves...This is the EXACT chicanery people do not trust.

From 40 years old onward you have an 85% vaccination rate...Under 40 it is 65% (not counting under 18 - counting under 18 it is less than 50%) How could the problem be any more clear? But you want to talk politics and nothing is going to deter you from that.

And when the problem is the largest segment of voting aged people we tread lightly

 

[Triumph]

The very frustrating piece to this puzzle is that for every article written saying they're effective, safe, and better than natural immunity there is an article saying the contrary. After reading the Nebraskamed one I googled searched is natural immunity better and found a Yale article saying natural was better, significantly so. That's part of why this sucks is there is almost no definitive answer to any questions.

Right and that's why instead of big-braining and inventing reasons for people to not get the vaccine, everyone who can safely get it should get it. We know the vaccine works. We know natural immunity usually works too. But neither of them work every time.

 

[MartyOwns]

If someone were to have natural immunity, and you admit that there are risks with any medical procedure, then you should be able to see the why not?

sure, i can see why not. but 1) that does not help stop the spread and 2) i would expect that person to use the same logic to not get surgery if needed, because there are (much higher) risks.

I was already very clear in my point, which is that we're seeing evidence that natural immunity may be (perhaps much) stronger than just the vaccine alone. I've already stated that there still need to be additional studies on this topic, but the study was not "delegitimized by its own admissions".

it wasn't? i already posted this, so I'll just copy and paste:

However, the researchers said the evidence suggested that natural immunity appeared to wane over time.

...since the delta variant was the most common cause of infection among participants in the study, the study results cannot be translated to other variants of the virus.

They also said the findings may have underestimated asymptomatic cases, and that the findings can only be limited to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

...many of the numbers used in the study were still "small." For example, she pointed out that the higher rate of hospitalization found within an analysis of 32,000 study participants was based on just eight hospitalizations within the vaccinated group and one hospitalization among the previously infected group.

...the authors' caution that the findings should be interpreted carefully because they likely underestimate the number of people with asymptomatic Covid-19.

Moreover, experts pointed out that no one in the study passed away, which they said clearly demonstrates that the vaccine offers strong protection against serious infection.

"Unvaccinated people who get infected are where we see the deaths occurring," Schooley said. "Putting yourself at risk of dying to have 'natural' immunity is not a great tradeoff."

there are serious issues with the study you posted, and the conclusions seem to directly contradict the point you're trying to make. believe me, i'm all for more studies, but they shouldn't be fraught with inconsistencies and they should be peer-reviewed.

And your frosted flakes analogy is piss poor. This was by far the largest study on this and you can't point to any studies on any significant scale that show otherwise.

right, and you can't point to any studies showing that frosted flakes don't provide immunity. the lack of evidence for one thing is not evidence for another.

Not sure how a sample of more than 700,000 people is considered a "small sample size".

those weren't my words, take it up with the physician and immunology researcher in the article you quoted.

I see that you've moved the goalposts from "no issues" to "not a risk on a wide scale".

i didn't say "no risks". i said for most people- namely, those without compromised organs or allergies etc- there are extremely minimal risks. less risky than going on a roller coaster or taking any number of prescription medications.

As to "why the hell not", well maybe because we shouldn't just be injecting people with something unless there is a proven tangible benefit to the person, which is not the case for two doses of vaccine for someone with natural immunity. Even if the risks are very rare, the precise amount of risk of a severe or even fatal side effect is not yet completely clear.

this would be the false info you're pushing. again, from your own article:

"Unvaccinated people who get infected are where we see the deaths occurring," Schooley said. "Putting yourself at risk of dying to have 'natural' immunity is not a great tradeoff."

Alessandro Sette, from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, added that the study findings "should not be interpreted as saying, 'if you have already been infected, don't get vaccinated.'"

"People who have been infected still get a benefit—for themselves and for society—by getting vaccinated, and one shot of a vaccine is sufficient to achieve that," Sette said.

 

[HBK27]

The very frustrating piece to this puzzle is that for every article written saying they're effective, safe, and better than natural immunity there is an article saying the contrary. After reading the Nebraskamed one I googled searched is natural immunity better and found a Yale article saying natural was better, significantly so. That's part of why this sucks is there is almost no definitive answer to any questions.

That's the problem - there is seemingly no definitive answer on this topic right now, despite many acting like this is the case.

I understand how the "easy" answer is to just force everyone to have to get both doses of the vaccine, but there's a very real chance that two doses of vaccine on top of natural immunity for many of these athletes doesn't really provide much of a benefit...not to mention 20-something elite athletes are already at low risk to begin with and even less so with natural immunity on top of that (even if the actual levels of protection are in question, there's no doubt there is some additional level of protection).

 

[My3Sons]

That's the problem - there is seemingly no definitive answer on this topic right now, despite many acting like this is the case.

I understand how the "easy" answer is to just force everyone to have to get both doses of the vaccine, but there's a very real chance that two doses of vaccine on top of natural immunity for many of these athletes doesn't really provide much of a benefit...not to mention 20-something elite athletes are already at low risk to begin with and even less so with natural immunity on top of that (even if the actual levels of protection are in question, there's no doubt there is some additional level of protection).

How much of the argument among the fans is about the health issues impacting young and fit pro athletes who may have some level of immunity having had the virus already versus the logistical hurdles that will impact the team's ability to field a lineup on the road?

 

[HBK27]

How much of the argument among the fans is about the health issues impacting young and fit pro athletes who may have some level of immunity having had the virus already versus the logistical hurdles that will impact the team's ability to field a lineup on the road?

Among fans, it's certainly the latter I would think.

The first part is more a matter of the rules around COVID that the NHL decided to implement.

 

[guitarguyvic]

The question you ask is self fulfilling of course...You are trying to prove a point instead of letting the numbers speak for themselves...This is the EXACT chicanery people do not trust.

From 40 years old onward you have an 85% vaccination rate...Under 40 it is 65% (not counting under 18 - counting under 18 it is less than 50%) How could the problem be any more clear? But you want to talk politics and nothing is going to deter you from that.

LOL I asked you what's the breakdown among these age groups. Among 40+ year olds, what is driving their decision? Under 40, what are the factors driving their decision?
You come back and just repeat the same numbers only looking at one specific factor (age) and you tell me the problem is "clear" and it has nothing to do with politics.
I never even claimed it had to do with politics strictly. I'm merely responding to your rather unrealistic notion that improved messaging from the CDC/FDA would have moved the needle on these numbers significantly. I responded that vaccine rates, polling, voting results, etc. all show strong correlations to things like where people get their "news" from, who they trust as leaders, etc. And within that there is in fact lots of political overlap, along with education, socioeconomic status, etc. They are all related...but the thing you're failing to see is that things like poor education, rural/urban divide, etc. is driven and maintained by the bad actors whom these same people already trust...the bad actors that have taken advantage to build distrust among those demos against other more reliable sources.

Improved messaging from the CDC/FDA is not going to suddenly change or fix the fact that tens of millions of Americans have already been indoctrinated to distrust everything and everyone that the bad actors tell them to.

EDIT: And I will acknowledge that there's been improvement in the polling and rates in recent weeks. For example, the number of people who say they will definitely not get the vaccine has gone from something like <30% over the summer down to 20% now. However, that same polling shows the impetus behind this improvement is the spread of delta and people's direct experience with getting COVID or knowing others who have. The vast majority of those who remain in the 20% fit into the same demos that show strong correlations to what I've referenced. There's no indication that any kind of messaging changes from the CDC or FDA is what has changed people's minds, or that it will in the future.

 

[JimEIV]

Oh look...

The millennial generation is typically defined as being born between 1981 and 1996, and its oldest members are turning 40 this year. The Harris Poll survey broke them up between younger millennials (25 to 32 years old) and older ones (33 to 40 years old).Jun 29, 2021
​

How interesting that that lines up exactly to this

< 18 19.7%
Ages 18 to 24 63.4%
Ages 25 to 39 66.6%

Ages 40 to 49 75.2%
Ages 50 to 64 82.6%
Ages 65 to 74 95.9%
75+ 90.4%

Aint nobody going to say Stupid Millennials....Much more politically expedient to say Stupid Rednecks.

Kind of see what's going on?

 

[guitarguyvic]

Oh look...

The millennial generation is typically defined as being born between 1981 and 1996, and its oldest members are turning 40 this year. The Harris Poll survey broke them up between younger millennials (25 to 32 years old) and older ones (33 to 40 years old).Jun 29, 2021
​

How interesting that that lines up exactly to this

< 18 19.7%
Ages 18 to 24 63.4%
Ages 25 to 39 66.6%

Ages 40 to 49 75.2%
Ages 50 to 64 82.6%
Ages 65 to 74 95.9%
75+ 90.4%

Aint nobody going to say Stupid Millennials....Much more politically expedient to say Stupid Rednecks.

Kind of see what's going on?

This is some incredible logic. If the only breakdown you are going to look at is age...then yeah it's going to look like age is the only factor at play!
Still waiting for you to get back to me about how these age groups breakdown when accounting for other factors. Tell me...within the age 18-24 group, what are the vaccination rates among different factors other than just their age?

I'm guessing you won't provide the answer if it indicates something you don't want to acknowledge.

 

[JimEIV]

This is some incredible logic. If the only breakdown you are going to look at is age...then yeah it's going to look like age is the only factor at play!
Still waiting for you to get back to me about how these age groups breakdown when accounting for other factors. Tell me...within the age 18-24 group, what are the vaccination rates among different factors other than just their age?

I'm guessing you won't provide the answer if it indicates something you don't want to acknowledge.

When you have nearly total and complete vaccination in the over 40 group there are no other factors at play....One is complete at 85% the other is not at 65%...It's simple. There are NO deviations in the over 40 group. This is as black and white as you can get without any bullshit narrative noise

Type this in Google "millennial generation as a voting block" and look what comes back. You'll understand immediately how and why the narratives are what they are.

EDIT:
A more logical question from my perspective would be "why aren't more millennials getting vaccinated?" - But that just doesn't fit anyone's narrative.

 

[SteveCangialosi123]

I’m not compelled by a multimillionaire baby that wants their every whim catered to. God forbid you ask them to do something for the collective good. Not even just society at large, but their own goddamn team.

 

[GameSeven]

My vaccine-hesitant (and politically-leaning opposed) sister texted me this morning that she and her husband both tested positive for COVID antibodies (and neither is actively sick at present).

I'd argue that that should be adequate social responsibility for ensuring that they're no more a danger than other vaccinated folks.

It's what I'd hope our unvaccinated player would have done.

 

[Azathoth]

I mean I get not being a fan of the government mandates etc but come on. This guy goes on to talk about how he believes in science and modern medicine and his mother is in the health care profession but all of a sudden comes down with a case of oppositional defiance disorder when the league comes in and tells everyone to get vaccinated? Why is it so hard for people to just ignore all the political bullshit and just get the damn vaccine because it at the end of the day, it works.

 

[JimEIV]

within the age 18-24 group, what are the vaccination rates among different factors other than just their age?

Do you not see the logical breakdown in your supposition?

40+ year old redneck conservatives seemingly don't have a problem with the vaccine based on the vaccination rates...But 18-24 ones...They do because they are conservative rednecks?

This 100% absolutely does not make sense

Aren't the 40+ their parents, grandparents? So the redneck conservative grandparents see the benefits of the vaccine but their children and grandchildren don't? Seems like a generational problem not a conservative redneck problem? No?