Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
In our Quebec province, 20,000 health workers have not been vaccinated. The government is prepared to suspend without pay, as of October 15th, those that don't comply with the obligation to be vaccinated and replace them, and has also asked some retired staff to temporarily come back to help during the interim shortage of nurses.

Now it's a pandemic of the non vaccinated people worldwide. All health workers have to be vaccinated.
 
Auditor55

Auditor55

Audioholic General
The US also has more than three time the population and travel from one place in the country to another is far easier- as a percentage, COVID has killed roughly 1/3 of the number who died from the Spanish Flu, although the spread at that time would have been partially from people returning to their homes after WWI and it would have been easily spread during the war- regardless, it has generally been far easier to travel now, than in 1918-1920.

It's not 'just like the flu', but I'm not very confident that the vaccines are as effective as they say, although they do seem to limit the severity of the infection in those who have been vaccinated (which is the whole point, right?). However, seeing that people who contracted the virus & recovered, received the shot(s) afterward and were exposed to the Delta variant are having worse complications than those who weren't infected before receiving the shot(s). A friend (he's 66 years old) got the J&J shot and was infected- he said it took a long time to be 'back to normal', although he has suffered from Asthma for most of his life. I knew several people who were said to have died from COVID and most had some kind of serious medical condition before or were older than 65.

Nice job by the Mayor of San Fran, who is reported to have said “Make sure you are vaccinated because of the requirements, but don’t feel as though you have to be micromanaged about mask-wearing,” the mayor told reporters. “Like, we don’t need the fun police to come in and try and micromanage and tell us what we should or shouldn’t be doing.” in the link below-

The mayor of SF is a leftist hypocrite. The fun police, what nerve.
 
Auditor55

Auditor55

Audioholic General
Kind of proves the point that "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" is an asinine saying. It should read "what doesn't kill you, weakens you enough so something else can".

"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19."
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General

"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19."
How well did dead people fare with regards to reinfection in this study? I'm guessing zero percent were reinfected?
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord

"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19."
Did you read the whole article? The authors readily admit to the weaknesses of their study. See the parts I bolded.
The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

The differences are huge,” says Thålin, although she cautions that the numbers for infections and other events analyzed for the comparisons were “small.” For instance, the higher hospitalization rate in the 32,000-person analysis was based on just eight hospitalizations in a vaccinated group and one in a previously infected group. And the 13-fold increased risk of infection in the same analysis was based on just 238 infections in the vaccinated population, less than 1.5% of the more than 16,000 people, versus 19 reinfections among a similar number of people who once had SARS-CoV-2.
Did you understand the differences between 'retrospective analysis' vs. 'prospective study'? The major difference is confidence in the conclusions. A retrospective analysis of historical data can, at best, suggest something is true. It tells us nothing about what happened to people, who were part of the database, but did not report subsequent illness. In contrast, a prospective study follows up everyone enrolled in the clinical trial, whether they got sick again or not. Conclusions to a prospective study can be much stronger than any retrospective analysis.
As for the Israel medical records study, Topol and others point out several limitations, such as the inherent weakness of a retrospective analysis compared with a prospective study that regularly tests all participants as it tracks new infections, symptomatic infections, hospitalizations, and deaths going forward in time. “It will be important to see these findings replicated or refuted,” says Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University.

She adds: “The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune.
If you're not used to the limitations of large clinical studies, I get it. No one is born understanding this stuff. But you should understand that statistical analysis and proper clinical trial design are critical to making useful conclusions. This very large study was only an analysis of historical data. It was not a clinical trial in any sense of the words.
 
Last edited:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
...

From Swedish government it is said that there is currently no lawful way to require them to take vaccines or sanctioning them. That might change, though.
Probably not soon enough.
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Field Marshall

"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19."
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
From the article:

>>>Taylor had the fundamental insight that pandemics are first and foremost experienced socially, more so than they are medically. He wrote the book to try to ready folks for this, for when the next pandemic happened. That turned out to be only about a month after his book was published. . . . Are we really this predictable? It seems it was baked into our natures, our essential variety, that we would get owned by any pandemic that came along. And probably will again.<<<

It's interesting that the author successfully predicted so much of what has happened.
 
Verdinut

Verdinut

Audioholic Ninja
From the article:

>>>Taylor had the fundamental insight that pandemics are first and foremost experienced socially, more so than they are medically. He wrote the book to try to ready folks for this, for when the next pandemic happened. That turned out to be only about a month after his book was published. . . . Are we really this predictable? It seems it was baked into our natures, our essential variety, that we would get owned by any pandemic that came along. And probably will again.<<<

It's interesting that the author successfully predicted so much of what has happened.
There are people who see the future and the past as well. IMO, the most famous American psychic was Edgar Cayce.

Think about several police departments in the US which hire psychics to find missing persons, and when you have a real psychic, not a quack, it definitely helps in finding them.
 
Auditor55

Auditor55

Audioholic General
Did you read the whole article? The authors readily admit to the weaknesses of their study. See the parts I bolded.


Did you understand the differences between 'retrospective analysis' vs. 'prospective study'? The major difference is confidence in the conclusions. A retrospective analysis of historical data can, at best, suggest something is true. It tells us nothing about what happened to people, who were part of the database, but did not report subsequent illness. In contrast, a prospective study follows up everyone enrolled in the clinical trial, whether they got sick again or not. Conclusions to a prospective study can be much stronger than any retrospective analysis.


If you're not used to the limitations of large clinical studies, I get it. No one is born understanding this stuff. But you should understand that statistical analysis and proper clinical trial design are critical to making useful conclusions. This very large study was only an analysis of historical data. It was not a clinical trial in any sense of the words.
This is one of the facts that was found: "The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19."

It is what it is.
 
Auditor55

Auditor55

Audioholic General

"The variant was
27 times more likely to break through Pfizer protection from January-February and cause symptoms than it was to penetrate natural immunity from the same period"
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
This is one of the facts that was found: "The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19."

It is what it is.
Do you also believe that this is a fact?

>>>The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.<<<

Numerous studies have shown that among those who were never infected, those who were vaccinated are much less likely to develop symptoms, become hospitalized, or die from COVID.

Even if the study you cited is valid, those who are not vaccinated and deciding whether or not to get vaccinated fall into 2 groups: 1) those who were infected in the past; and 2) those who were never infected. Both groups are more protected if they are vaccinated.

Rational people will choose to get vaccinated regardless of whether or not they were previously infected.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic General
Perhaps this explains the differences in effectiveness between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines:

>>>There are a few subtle differences between the two. First, the formulation: The fat bubbles that carry the mRNA are a bit different in their chemical structure. The dose of RNA encapsulated in those fat bubbles is different too: Moderna has a much higher dose (100 micrograms) compared with Pfizer (30 micrograms). . . .

Last month, the Mayo Clinic released a preprint of a very large study of 645,109 patients who were followed after vaccination (January–July 2021). The scientists wanted to describe breakthrough rates among those vaccinated with Moderna and with Pfizer, compared with COVID-19 rates among unvaccinated people. How were the vaccines holding up?

They found that both vaccines continued to work great against hospitalization, ICU admission, and death (there were no deaths in the study). This was the case in January 2021 and this was the case in July 2021. It didn’t change.

Effectiveness against any infection (so, mild to moderate disease), though, was lower for both vaccines in July (76 percent effectiveness) compared with January (86 percent effectiveness). Interestingly, Pfizer’s effectiveness decreased faster over time (i.e., more breakthrough cases) compared with patients vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine (i.e., fewer breakthrough cases). Nonetheless, both vaccines were much better at preventing infections compared with no vaccine (unvaccinated patients).<<<

 
NINaudio

NINaudio

Audioholic Samurai

"The variant was 27 times more likely to break through Pfizer protection from January-February and cause symptoms than it was to penetrate natural immunity from the same period"
So what are you trying to say here? That natural immunity is better?

If you look at the numbers, 1.4% of people vaccinated had breakthrough cases. So, the vaccine was still 98.6% effective at preventing people from getting Covid. So what if people previously infected only had a 0.24% chance of reinfection? Over 3% of the world's population has gotten covid so far. Over 10% of the US population has gotten it. So should the other 90% of the US population not protect themselves and just hope that they get a mild case of it so they have natural immunity?

I really don't understand your angle.
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Ninja
So what are you trying to say here? That natural immunity is better?

If you look at the numbers, 1.4% of people vaccinated had breakthrough cases. So, the vaccine was still 98.6% effective at preventing people from getting Covid. So what if people previously infected only had a 0.24% chance of reinfection? Over 3% of the world's population has gotten covid so far. Over 10% of the US population has gotten it. So should the other 90% of the US population not protect themselves and just hope that they get a mild case of it so they have natural immunity?

I really don't understand your angle.
I'm confused by his logic as well. Vaccines for Covid don't perfectly stop infection they stop serious complications from the infection from occurring. Even if you let the population try to hit natural immunity you would have too many complications that would hit your medical infrastructure all at once. We're lucky we even had vaccines out. This is the fastest it's been done ever. Quiet a scientific accomplishment. Without them when Delta took off it would have been way worse off a second wave

I know that Covid is not the most horrible virus out there but people get confused by the math. Even if only .003% get seriously ill I'm just picking a random number here you have to calculate that across let's say here in the U.S. 350 million I know I'm not perfectly right but it's around that

That's a lot of seriously sick people putting pressure on your medical systems all at once

A lot of seriously sick people
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic General

"The variant was 27 times more likely to break through Pfizer protection from January-February and cause symptoms than it was to penetrate natural immunity from the same period"
"The study, published online but not yet peer reviewed, is the largest of its kind."

"But experts are stressing that the results shouldn’t be interpreted as discouragement from vaccinating. Immunologist Prof. Cyrille Cohen of Bar Ilan University, who was not involved in the study, told The Times of Israel: “Certain people who are not inclined to get vaccinated might be mistaken and think that this means you’d better get sick a priori and not get a vaccine. Such a thinking is medically wrong, and the results of the study do not mean that people should expose themselves on purpose and get sick.

'As with other disease, it is much safer to get the vaccine and prevent COVID-19, a disease that puts one at risk of hospitalization, death and 'long-running after-effects.”"
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top