6 ms·

You’re really uninformed about vaccines. Saying because vaccinated people can spread it despite being over 10x less likely to, is black and white fallacy FUD. I

You’re really uninformed about vaccines. Saying because vaccinated people can spread it despite being over 10x less likely to, is black and white fallacy FUD. I can see you are very hyperbolic your statement: “Yes it kills people and can spread easily, so what” Is very callous. I think you could take your own advice about SF vs rural towns and maybe consider applying it to other countries.

angelzen 5y ago
There is a growing body of research indicating that VE declines over time. After 6 months the vaccines reduce the risk of getting covid by 2x, VEaI = 50%. Not sure where you picked the 10x number. (OA) US, veterans, 3 months VEaI = 78%, 6 months VEaI = 50%, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 US, 5 months VEaI = 47%, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... UK, 3 months VEaI = 75%. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7 Qatar, 3 months VEaI = 70%, 6 months VEaI = 12.8%, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 (preprint) Sweden, <50yo, 2-4 months VEaI = 83%, 4-6 months VEaI = 50%, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
- aplummer 5y ago
  We are talking about different things. 1. The probability of a BI is not the same as the relative probability of a vaccinated person infecting another person. I also refer to “vaccinated people“ to mean “a population of vaccinated people”, which is where the big gains are. 2. The day before they get their booster shot (6 months) is not the same as the probability overall, counting the best and moderate days of immunity too
  - angelzen 5y ago
    1. Where do you pick your transmission data from? Are there credible studies? VE is the closest proxy for infecting other persons. Beyond that it is difficult to guess transmissibility, in particular because asymptomatic infections and differences in behavior. 2. I expect a vaccine to significantly (VE >90%) reduce infection probability for at least 10 years. These vaccines ain't that. While I'm vaccinated, I have not signed up for an endless stream of "boosters" every 6 months or so. Probably I'll be declared "unvaccinated" with a straight face and excluded from society in the not-so-far future.
    - Cogito 5y ago
      > 2. I expect a vaccine to significantly (VE >90%) reduce infection probability for at least 10 years. These vaccines ain't that. Why do you expect this, and do you think it's a reasonable expectation? Do you shrug off flu vaccines because they're only effective for a year or so? (I understand the difference between reduction in efficacy over time against a single strain vs against new variations) > While I'm vaccinated, I have not signed up for an endless stream of "boosters" every 6 months or so. Probably I'll be declared "unvaccinated" with a straight face and excluded from society in the not-so-far future. I don't understand this point of view at all. Do you only take the first pill in a course of antibiotics? Why wouldn't you follow the vaccine schedule that offers the best overall protection, and best reduction in total risk, that we're aware of and is available to you?
      - angelzen 5y ago
        "Do you shrug off flu vaccines because they're only effective for a year" Yes, indeed, I don't go out of my way to get a flu vaccine. Flu vaccine effectiveness is underwhelming, 30-40% on average, see https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates....
        Cogito 5y ago
        Suppose someone wants to minimise the total risk of injury and death to themselves and their community. Is your position the rational position for them to take? What is the motivation for your position?
native_samples 5y ago
"vaccinated people can spread it despite being over 10x less likely to" UK data shows vaccinated people are drastically more likely to get it and spread it than the unvaccinated. In other countries VE drops to zero after only about 6-8 months, but the UK programme was ahead of other countries. Raw VE in the UK has kept going down after reaching zero and is currently deeply negative, with it being worse than negative 100% in some age groups. In other words, vaccinated people - for whatever reason - are far more of a problem from an infection control perspective than the unvaccinated. The public health authorities don't have a good explanation for this and have been reduced to blaming a vague, highly speculative and sometimes unnamed set of confounders, for which they insist everyone make massive adjustments despite not being able to provide any evidence that these confounders are important or even exist at all. And in fact one study in California that did do a lot of these adjustments found they made very little impact (a few percent at most). That's an issue because public health's "adjustments" are now reaching absurd levels, e.g. taking AZ from 4% effectiveness to 73% VE! It's very unlikely that Austrians are biologically totally different to British people, so we can say with 100% certainty that this latest quasi-Nazi move is going unlikely to have any effect on their case numbers, although we can also say that having taken the leap into such darkness the authorities there will never admit to any type of failure, thus the unvaccinated will continue to be blamed even as the data falls apart around them.
- yehosef 5y ago
  I'd like to reference your sources - could you provide them?
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Sure, always. Article graphing the UK data showing negative efficacy against disease in the raw data, and discussing the semi-public fighting that's broken out between arms of the civil service over how to disguise or de-emphasise the results: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-watch https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-... Norway finds no effectiveness against death (but oddly, some against ICU admittance) https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/14/norway-study-finds-zero-vaccine-effectiveness-against-death-for-covid-hospital-patients/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/14/norway-study-finds-zero-... Essay discussing how although raw UK data shows negative efficacy, it gets adjusted using a test negative case control design to show high efficacy. This contradicts data not only from Norway but also Sweden and Qatar, so is there a flaw in their approach: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/12/why-are-the-ukhsas-estimates-of-vaccine-effectiveness-consistently-far-higher-than-other-studies/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/12/why-are-the-ukhsas-estim... Another essay showing that the TNCC design requires absence of "viral interference" which may not be the case here: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/13/the-flaw-at-the-heart-of-the-ukhsas-vaccine-effectiveness-study/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/13/the-flaw-at-the-heart-of... Daily Sceptic has been doing a lot of reporting and analysis on the UK data (it's a UK site), usually with very high quality of analysis. A lot of it comes from PhDs and data scientists of various kinds.

angelzen 5y ago

There is a growing body of research indicating that VE declines over time. After 6 months the vaccines reduce the risk of getting covid by 2x, VEaI = 50%. Not sure where you picked the 10x number. (OA) US, veterans, 3 months VEaI = 78%, 6 months VEaI = 50%, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 US, 5 months VEaI = 47%, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... UK, 3 months VEaI = 75%. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01548-7 Qatar, 3 months VEaI = 70%, 6 months VEaI = 12.8%, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114 (preprint) Sweden, <50yo, 2-4 months VEaI = 83%, 4-6 months VEaI = 50%, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410

aplummer 5y ago
We are talking about different things. 1. The probability of a BI is not the same as the relative probability of a vaccinated person infecting another person. I also refer to “vaccinated people“ to mean “a population of vaccinated people”, which is where the big gains are. 2. The day before they get their booster shot (6 months) is not the same as the probability overall, counting the best and moderate days of immunity too
- angelzen 5y ago
  1. Where do you pick your transmission data from? Are there credible studies? VE is the closest proxy for infecting other persons. Beyond that it is difficult to guess transmissibility, in particular because asymptomatic infections and differences in behavior. 2. I expect a vaccine to significantly (VE >90%) reduce infection probability for at least 10 years. These vaccines ain't that. While I'm vaccinated, I have not signed up for an endless stream of "boosters" every 6 months or so. Probably I'll be declared "unvaccinated" with a straight face and excluded from society in the not-so-far future.
  - Cogito 5y ago
    > 2. I expect a vaccine to significantly (VE >90%) reduce infection probability for at least 10 years. These vaccines ain't that. Why do you expect this, and do you think it's a reasonable expectation? Do you shrug off flu vaccines because they're only effective for a year or so? (I understand the difference between reduction in efficacy over time against a single strain vs against new variations) > While I'm vaccinated, I have not signed up for an endless stream of "boosters" every 6 months or so. Probably I'll be declared "unvaccinated" with a straight face and excluded from society in the not-so-far future. I don't understand this point of view at all. Do you only take the first pill in a course of antibiotics? Why wouldn't you follow the vaccine schedule that offers the best overall protection, and best reduction in total risk, that we're aware of and is available to you?
    - angelzen 5y ago
      "Do you shrug off flu vaccines because they're only effective for a year" Yes, indeed, I don't go out of my way to get a flu vaccine. Flu vaccine effectiveness is underwhelming, 30-40% on average, see https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates....
      - Cogito 5y ago
        Suppose someone wants to minimise the total risk of injury and death to themselves and their community. Is your position the rational position for them to take? What is the motivation for your position?

native_samples 5y ago

"vaccinated people can spread it despite being over 10x less likely to" UK data shows vaccinated people are drastically more likely to get it and spread it than the unvaccinated. In other countries VE drops to zero after only about 6-8 months, but the UK programme was ahead of other countries. Raw VE in the UK has kept going down after reaching zero and is currently deeply negative, with it being worse than negative 100% in some age groups. In other words, vaccinated people - for whatever reason - are far more of a problem from an infection control perspective than the unvaccinated. The public health authorities don't have a good explanation for this and have been reduced to blaming a vague, highly speculative and sometimes unnamed set of confounders, for which they insist everyone make massive adjustments despite not being able to provide any evidence that these confounders are important or even exist at all. And in fact one study in California that did do a lot of these adjustments found they made very little impact (a few percent at most). That's an issue because public health's "adjustments" are now reaching absurd levels, e.g. taking AZ from 4% effectiveness to 73% VE! It's very unlikely that Austrians are biologically totally different to British people, so we can say with 100% certainty that this latest quasi-Nazi move is going unlikely to have any effect on their case numbers, although we can also say that having taken the leap into such darkness the authorities there will never admit to any type of failure, thus the unvaccinated will continue to be blamed even as the data falls apart around them.

yehosef 5y ago
I'd like to reference your sources - could you provide them?
- native_samples 5y ago
  Sure, always. Article graphing the UK data showing negative efficacy against disease in the raw data, and discussing the semi-public fighting that's broken out between arms of the civil service over how to disguise or de-emphasise the results: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-watch https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-... Norway finds no effectiveness against death (but oddly, some against ICU admittance) https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/14/norway-study-finds-zero-vaccine-effectiveness-against-death-for-covid-hospital-patients/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/14/norway-study-finds-zero-... Essay discussing how although raw UK data shows negative efficacy, it gets adjusted using a test negative case control design to show high efficacy. This contradicts data not only from Norway but also Sweden and Qatar, so is there a flaw in their approach: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/12/why-are-the-ukhsas-estimates-of-vaccine-effectiveness-consistently-far-higher-than-other-studies/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/12/why-are-the-ukhsas-estim... Another essay showing that the TNCC design requires absence of "viral interference" which may not be the case here: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/13/the-flaw-at-the-heart-of-the-ukhsas-vaccine-effectiveness-study/ https://dailysceptic.org/2021/11/13/the-flaw-at-the-heart-of... Daily Sceptic has been doing a lot of reporting and analysis on the UK data (it's a UK site), usually with very high quality of analysis. A lot of it comes from PhDs and data scientists of various kinds.