4 ms·

>if you take population size, age distribution, and obesity rates into account, I could see the adjusted numbers being close. Those are confounding factors, bu

>if you take population size, age distribution, and obesity rates into account, I could see the adjusted numbers being close. Those are confounding factors, but I think it's quite a stretch to believe they would provide a 5x adjustment (after accounting for 2x population), especially if you also adjust for the drastically improved quality of and access to healthcare, which would skew the adjustment in the other direction.

heyjamesknight 3y ago
Obesity rate is 4X what it was back then. So 2X for population, 4X for obesity, and then however you want to calculate the additional increase for an aging population. 10X ain't that crazy.
- xadhominemx 3y ago
  Why does it matter? When crafting the policy response, what matters is how many people will actually die, not some theoretical obesity-adjusted cfr
  - eggy 3y ago
    I would agree, but we're talking about 35 to 40% prevalence of obesity and all the attendant diseases caused by it in the US. If the next wave of the flu or pneumonia would kill those same people who were pushed over the edge by COVID, would you be for lock downs and business closings in these cases too? Because that's what happens whenever a person with that many comorbidities gets an infection like the flu or pneumonia and they are over 80, just like COVID. Diagnoses of obesity changed during this period too due to fat-shaming blow back. A lot of excuses are made for these actions saying any criticism is in hindsight, but there were scientists being censored and suppressed who were raising very good points with early data and reference to past social measures during pandemics too. The memory-holing of natural immunity in those who already had COVID, was almost criminal by the CDC and others. SARS-CoV-1 immunity studies were being conducted on survivors of it from 2003 for over 18 years and they still showed antibodies or immunity traits from natural infection. Even though, SARS-CoV-2 is pretty much believed to have been enhanced in the WIV at this point with an accidental lab leak causing it to spread worldwide, why wouldn't it have similar correlations with it's sibling virus re: natural immunity? Having contracted COVID in my mid-fifties and it being no more than the flu for me, I decided not to get vaccinated when it was becoming scary that I may lose my job for this stance and being stigmatized by all of my fellow workers. I did not argue against the vaccination in the vulnerable and those who didn't ever have COVID, but I had it, and I went with the overwhelming precedent of natural immunity as something that had always been recognized by the CDC and others (funny how the definition of natural immunity was edited over time on the CDC website to fit the narrative and push for vaccination). Glad I stuck to my guns and not to the mob's. One of the loudest voices at work rushed for all of his boosters and had COVID twice and was ill enough to take off work for a week for each incident not just because of quarantine rules, since he was working from home. Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. He is a runner, athlete, with no previous medical conditions. Statistically, he was not even in any significant risk category.
    - somewhat_drunk 3y ago
      >Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. >Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 Myocarditis is one of very few side effects from the vaccine, all of which are vanishingly rare. It's well understood that the vaccine was highly effective in reducing the severity and spread of COVID and is one of the safest vaccines ever produced. >How well it works: Moderna’s initial Phase 3 clinical data in December 2020 was similar to Pfizer-BioNTech’s—at that point, both vaccines showed about 95% efficacy for prevention of COVID-19. Later data on real-world effectiveness for adults showed that the protection from the mRNA two-dose primary series wanes over time, but booster doses bring the immune system back to robust levels. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-compariso... You didn't ignore the mob, you ignored the science. You listened to a mob of your choosing, and now you are misinformed and continuing to spread misinformation.
      - eggy 3y ago
        My main point was how they pushed the vax on people even when existing data showed young, healthy (which means no obese, diabetic, hypertense individuals), males were not at sufficient risk to mandate it in universities and push it on everyone regardless of the obvious data by age group, health, and susceptibility. That is not science. That is social policy and politics in the face of common sense. Please stop co-opting the word "science" in this manner. I have had all of my children vaccinated with the standard course of immunizations, but I am glad I held off on this new vaccine. My children had COVID, and they are healthy by definition. Tell me how acting on common sense, the history of natural immunity in science, and data that was readily available on who was susceptible to COVID very early on contrary to what "The Science" (aka Social Policy and Politics) was saying , is listening to a mob? Use the same date source you used to pull your VAERS numbers and see how obvious it was who was susceptible by a margin early on, and maybe you'll be able to understand how I arrived at my decision to not vaccinate my family who already had COVID. >...and is one of the safest vaccines ever produced. This December 14, 2023 will be three years from the first vaccine given. "one of the safest" is a blanket statement and "one" although a quantity is non-quantifiable in that sentence. The article you site is from data collected from December 2020 to August 2021 only 8 months from first vaccine. Pfizer vaccinated their control group from the initial vaccines, so that long-term study was squashed by Pfizer. And the adverse effects data are still being collected and examined in light of reporting criteria and classification. Yet, the blanket policy to vax everyone without prioritizing by harm-benefit analysis and ignoring the science was not just negligent but intentional to push a social policy over the data. Three years is not long-term in the vaccine world. Tell me, if a long-term effect comes up like higher incidences of leukemia or other diseases or undesirable side effects 5 to 7 years from now, will you look back and feel good about the non-scientific pushing of a vaccine on those who were well outside of any reasonable benefit-to-risk ratio? I am glad my young children didn't get the vax. None in my family have had another COVID symptomatic infection or tested positive since we had it the one time. Meanwhile, "healthy" coworkers with 2 or more boosters have had multiple infections with loss of work even when working from home because they were that sick. So do you agree with vaccines and boosters for the non-susceptible demographic who have already had COVID? I'd be curious on your viewpoint on this. EDIT: Your name explains it all ;)

heyjamesknight 3y ago

Obesity rate is 4X what it was back then. So 2X for population, 4X for obesity, and then however you want to calculate the additional increase for an aging population. 10X ain't that crazy.

xadhominemx 3y ago
Why does it matter? When crafting the policy response, what matters is how many people will actually die, not some theoretical obesity-adjusted cfr
- eggy 3y ago
  I would agree, but we're talking about 35 to 40% prevalence of obesity and all the attendant diseases caused by it in the US. If the next wave of the flu or pneumonia would kill those same people who were pushed over the edge by COVID, would you be for lock downs and business closings in these cases too? Because that's what happens whenever a person with that many comorbidities gets an infection like the flu or pneumonia and they are over 80, just like COVID. Diagnoses of obesity changed during this period too due to fat-shaming blow back. A lot of excuses are made for these actions saying any criticism is in hindsight, but there were scientists being censored and suppressed who were raising very good points with early data and reference to past social measures during pandemics too. The memory-holing of natural immunity in those who already had COVID, was almost criminal by the CDC and others. SARS-CoV-1 immunity studies were being conducted on survivors of it from 2003 for over 18 years and they still showed antibodies or immunity traits from natural infection. Even though, SARS-CoV-2 is pretty much believed to have been enhanced in the WIV at this point with an accidental lab leak causing it to spread worldwide, why wouldn't it have similar correlations with it's sibling virus re: natural immunity? Having contracted COVID in my mid-fifties and it being no more than the flu for me, I decided not to get vaccinated when it was becoming scary that I may lose my job for this stance and being stigmatized by all of my fellow workers. I did not argue against the vaccination in the vulnerable and those who didn't ever have COVID, but I had it, and I went with the overwhelming precedent of natural immunity as something that had always been recognized by the CDC and others (funny how the definition of natural immunity was edited over time on the CDC website to fit the narrative and push for vaccination). Glad I stuck to my guns and not to the mob's. One of the loudest voices at work rushed for all of his boosters and had COVID twice and was ill enough to take off work for a week for each incident not just because of quarantine rules, since he was working from home. Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. He is a runner, athlete, with no previous medical conditions. Statistically, he was not even in any significant risk category.
  - somewhat_drunk 3y ago
    >Sadly, my nephew in his early twenties at the time received the vax and was rushed to the emergency room by ambulance with myocarditis, and to this day has follow-up appointments to track his cardiac health. >Among 192 405 448 persons receiving a total of 354 100 845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines during the study period, there were 1991 reports of myocarditis to VAERS and 1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 Myocarditis is one of very few side effects from the vaccine, all of which are vanishingly rare. It's well understood that the vaccine was highly effective in reducing the severity and spread of COVID and is one of the safest vaccines ever produced. >How well it works: Moderna’s initial Phase 3 clinical data in December 2020 was similar to Pfizer-BioNTech’s—at that point, both vaccines showed about 95% efficacy for prevention of COVID-19. Later data on real-world effectiveness for adults showed that the protection from the mRNA two-dose primary series wanes over time, but booster doses bring the immune system back to robust levels. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-compariso... You didn't ignore the mob, you ignored the science. You listened to a mob of your choosing, and now you are misinformed and continuing to spread misinformation.
    - eggy 3y ago
      My main point was how they pushed the vax on people even when existing data showed young, healthy (which means no obese, diabetic, hypertense individuals), males were not at sufficient risk to mandate it in universities and push it on everyone regardless of the obvious data by age group, health, and susceptibility. That is not science. That is social policy and politics in the face of common sense. Please stop co-opting the word "science" in this manner. I have had all of my children vaccinated with the standard course of immunizations, but I am glad I held off on this new vaccine. My children had COVID, and they are healthy by definition. Tell me how acting on common sense, the history of natural immunity in science, and data that was readily available on who was susceptible to COVID very early on contrary to what "The Science" (aka Social Policy and Politics) was saying , is listening to a mob? Use the same date source you used to pull your VAERS numbers and see how obvious it was who was susceptible by a margin early on, and maybe you'll be able to understand how I arrived at my decision to not vaccinate my family who already had COVID. >...and is one of the safest vaccines ever produced. This December 14, 2023 will be three years from the first vaccine given. "one of the safest" is a blanket statement and "one" although a quantity is non-quantifiable in that sentence. The article you site is from data collected from December 2020 to August 2021 only 8 months from first vaccine. Pfizer vaccinated their control group from the initial vaccines, so that long-term study was squashed by Pfizer. And the adverse effects data are still being collected and examined in light of reporting criteria and classification. Yet, the blanket policy to vax everyone without prioritizing by harm-benefit analysis and ignoring the science was not just negligent but intentional to push a social policy over the data. Three years is not long-term in the vaccine world. Tell me, if a long-term effect comes up like higher incidences of leukemia or other diseases or undesirable side effects 5 to 7 years from now, will you look back and feel good about the non-scientific pushing of a vaccine on those who were well outside of any reasonable benefit-to-risk ratio? I am glad my young children didn't get the vax. None in my family have had another COVID symptomatic infection or tested positive since we had it the one time. Meanwhile, "healthy" coworkers with 2 or more boosters have had multiple infections with loss of work even when working from home because they were that sick. So do you agree with vaccines and boosters for the non-susceptible demographic who have already had COVID? I'd be curious on your viewpoint on this. EDIT: Your name explains it all ;)