Jump to content

CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk


Mrs Whiggins

Recommended Posts

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

That's not what you've been saying at all.  You have been using a single study with an incredibly small # of relevant patients to conclude some vastly superior immunity for those who have had Covid relative to those who haven't but who have been vaccinated.  You still haven't acknowledged the fact that in Israel the % vaccinated is extremely high, so a large % of Covid patients are . . . wait for it . . . vaccinated.

Not a small number of patients. Just turns out the number of patients in the vaxxed group or previous infected group both did well and few cases were reported in either group but natural immunity group performed better. To say this wasn't a large enough study is not the case.

 

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 8 in the vaccine arm and 1 in the natural immunity arm.

Model 2 compared 46,035 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups, and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=108, 0.23%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic. There were very few hospitalizations in either group with only 21 in the vaccine arm and 4 in the natural immunity arm.

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I hear that that lovely decision was also used to set up good precrdent too... What were those laws again? 

I don't follow - I didn't know that the 5th CT court relied on the Jacobson decision to justify SB8 - can you elaborate with some sources please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Bullshit. Post a link to your evidence.

LOL. OK. I expect crickets as you thought I was making this up. So arrogant.

Article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8529429/Could-immunity-17-YEARS-Singaporean-researchers-SARS-patients-crucial-T-cells.html

Study:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z_reference.pdf

 

Investigations showed all patients 'still possess long-lasting memory T cells' reactive to the virus.

The findings 'support the notion that Covid-19 patients will develop long-term T cell immunity,' the researchers wrote

Edited by PassiveAggressiveCoach
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not sure why they would need weekly antibody tests.  Seems like a single test demonstrating past infection and immune response should suffice.  

Maybe not weekly, but there should be some testing interval to mimic the presumably-required boosters for those who vax.  Obviously there should be no assumption that either form of acquired immunity lasts forever, or even a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe not weekly, but there should be some testing interval to mimic the presumably-required boosters for those who vax.  Obviously there should be no assumption that either form of acquired immunity lasts forever, or even a year.

Antibodies aren't necessarily a good marker for long lasting immunity.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

you sure do like dailymail as a primary source lol - but I thought after all the shit you gave me you'd never cite a study that only has a sample size of 36 people

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

you sure do like dailymail as a primary source lol - but I thought after all the shit you gave me you'd never cite a study that only has a sample size of 36 people

I quoted the actual study. Did you miss that? I was asked for the data and I posted it. I am not claiming it is exactly what will happen with SARS COVID-2 but it is likely a good indicator. BTW did I say never cite a small study? I just would be less likely to do it when it is against a massively larger study.

Edited by PassiveAggressiveCoach
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1) Do you think the government should step in against an employer who demands vaccination records as part of employment decisions?

2) Do you think employers should be able to demand antibody tests as a part of employment decisions?

I think employers should be able to do what they want more or less and if vaccine is mandated then that's fine. Now if a vaccine mandate is forced upon private business by the govt then I have an issue with that.

Edited by PassiveAggressiveCoach
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

Model 1 compared 16,215 people in both the vaccinated and natural immunity groups and found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group (n=19, 0.12%).

Hold the fucking phone here... 238/16215 = 1.47% and 19/16215 = 0.12%.  

Is this actually using the entire population (vaxxed plus acquired immunity) as the denominator to determine the likelihood of getting a breakthrough infection, without taking into account that the # of vaxxed patients was far higher than the # of acquired immunity patients?

Unless I'm reading that wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Hold the fucking phone here... 238/16215 = 1.47% and 19/16215 = 0.12%.  

Is this actually using the entire population (vaxxed plus acquired immunity) as the denominator to determine the likelihood of getting a breakthrough infection, without taking into account that the # of vaxxed patients was far higher than the # of acquired immunity patients?

Unless I'm reading that wrong, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  

The calculated odds ratios using a series of multivariable logistic regression models.  Here is the actual study pre-print:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

I think employers should be able to do what they want more or less and if vaccine is mandated then that's fine. Now if that mandate is forced upon private business by the govt then I have an issue with that.

So the whole "BUT THEIR LIVELIHOOD!" thing was kind of BS huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe not weekly, but there should be some testing interval to mimic the presumably-required boosters for those who vax.  Obviously there should be no assumption that either form of acquired immunity lasts forever, or even a year.

But boosters are not required, and not even recommended except for certain circumstances.  If we are going to require weekly tracking of antibody levels for previously infected, we should be doing the same for vaccinated.  But none of that even makes sense because we don't know what the right threshold for protection are to interpret the data (tree-fiddy).

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So the whole "BUT THEIR LIVELIHOOD!" thing was kind of BS huh?

how is that? most of these businesses would not be risking all this unless the pressure from the govt and the upcoming mandate. Most businesses still aren't requiring it and will not until forced by the govt. They know the headache and shitstorm it is going to cause with chunks of their employees.

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

99% of the people dying from covid are unvaccinated. That's enough for me.

That really should be the hammer to any discussion right there. Maybe add in that 90%+ or those hospitalized with COVID are unvaxxed.

Game ... blouses.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

how is that? most of these businesses would not be risking all this unless the pressure from the govt and the upcoming mandate. Most businesses still aren't requiring it and will not until forced by the govt. They know the headache and shitstorm it is going to cause with chunks of their employees.

Plenty of businesses mandate vaccines even without the threat of gov't intervention. You're OK with that, even thought it destroys people's livelihoods which earlier you were claiming was a problem. Just pointing out disingenuousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Plenty of businesses mandate vaccines even without the threat of gov't intervention. You're OK with that, even thought it destroys people's livelihoods which earlier you were claiming was a problem. Just pointing out disingenuousness.

not true because that is the business doing it and not being forced by the govt to do it although a lot of it is because of the upcoming mandate.  I believe in the right of a private business owner being able to set his/her own rules of employment free from govt telling them they have to make their employees get vaccinated or tested weekly or large fines. The law of unintended consequences will go into effect here. When the supply chain gets even more fucked up from this mandate I have a good feeling this will either not be enforced or will not be mandatory. Maybe I will be wrong and Biden will stick to his guns and just say fuck it I'm driving this economy off the cliff.

Edited by PassiveAggressiveCoach
  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The dogmatic position taking around vaccine strategy in the setting of incomplete and ambiguous data has been quite something over the past year. 

It's been draconian and not subject to adjustment to changing facts on the ground. It's because it has turned 100% political in nature. That's the reason. Medical policy dictated by politics and not science. No room for nuance or change.

  • Fuck You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

But boosters are not required, and not even recommended except for certain circumstances.  If we are going to require weekly tracking of antibody levels for previously infected, we should be doing the same for vaccinated.  But none of that even makes sense because we don't know what the right threshold for protection are to interpret the data (tree-fiddy).

We already know that there is some fade in immune response at 120 days, manufacturer-dependent.  I don't think it's realistic to imagine an employer-mandated vaccine without imagining followup boosters (or newly developed vaccines).

EDIT:  I would add that I think "regular" testing might be a better solution, regardless of vax status.  Setting the standard is, as you imply, tricky, but I would hope the science would start to point us in the right direction.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The dogmatic position taking around vaccine strategy in the setting of incomplete and ambiguous data has been quite something over the past year. 

NaTuRaL iMuNnItY iS sUpErI0r! is a feint and a dodge. No one making that argument is going to scrupulously test their levels and go get the vax if/when they fall below what the vaccine offers. They’ll just roll along to the next thing. 
 

That’s why it’s not worth arguing, it’s not an argument made in good faith. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Do you have a both sides cape you wear, or is it just more of a mask?

Tbf he has criticized both sides today - he disliked how for-profit medical coverage doesn't actually prioritize good health outcomes. Which is like a meta-bothsides move.

He's learning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

NaTuRaL iMuNnItY iS sUpErI0r! is a feint and a dodge. No one making that argument is going to scrupulously test their levels and go get the vax if/when they fall below what the vaccine offers. They’ll just roll along to the next thing. 
 

That’s why it’s not worth arguing, it’s not an argument made in good faith. 

because that argument also should accompany the vaccinated having to get the same regular tests unless boosters also become mandate for all.

Edited by PassiveAggressiveCoach
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The dogmatic position taking around vaccine strategy in the setting of incomplete and ambiguous data has been quite something over the past year. 

Do you mean like your rants about getting single shots in different arms instead of multiple shots in the same arms?  ("Different" = different human.)

Not that I thought you had no shot (ahem) at a good point, it was a reasonable hypothesis at the time, but the data were pretty murky, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

because that argument also should accompany the vaccinated having to get the same regular tests.

Except that we know that vaccinations consistently induce an immune response, whereas we cannot rely on prior infection inducing a comparable response. On around a one out of three basis. 

So apples and oranges. 

Unfortunately, you do have to read past the headline to understand  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

NaTuRaL iMuNnItY iS sUpErI0r! is a feint and a dodge. No one making that argument is going to scrupulously test their levels and go get the vax if/when they fall below what the vaccine offers. They’ll just roll along to the next thing. 
 

That’s why it’s not worth arguing, it’s not an argument made in good faith. 

Has @PassiveAggressiveCoach ever told us when he supposedly had COVID? Does he have his antibody levels tested regularly? I've said this many times, I had COVID in March 2020 and by December, there were no detectable antibodies remaining in my system. Do we carry forward any sort of residual immunity? I don't think the science is there but people have been infected twice. It does happen. I don't disagree that natural immunity is probably better than a vaccine. The question is how long are you protected from not getting it again?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Except that we know that vaccinations consistently induce an immune response, whereas we cannot rely on prior infection inducing a comparable response. On around a one out of three basis. 

So apples and oranges. 

Unfortunately, you do have to read past the headline to understand  

the outcome data in the large Israeli study would indicate otherwise.

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Has @PassiveAggressiveCoach ever told us when he supposedly had COVID? Does he have his antibody levels tested regularly? I've said this many times, I had COVID in March 2020 and by December, there were no detectable antibodies remaining in my system. Do we carry forward any sort of residual immunity? I don't think the science is there but people have been infected twice. It does happen. I don't disagree that natural immunity is probably better than a vaccine. The question is how long are you protected from not getting it again?

I have had it. Lost smell and taste for 2 mos and was sick for a week last Nov. I do not get tested for antibodies regularly. I had it done a few mos ago during my check up when i asked my doctor. BTW, antibodies are justy one part of the immune response and probably not even the best indicator. T cells play a major roll. To your last point a breakthough infection can occur in the previously infected as it can with the vaccinated. Although a lower likelihood than just having the vax.

Edited by PassiveAggressiveCoach
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

the outcome data in the large Israeli study would indicate otherwise.

it really doesn't. Having antibodies doesn't make you immune from reinfection - it just means that you are extremely likely to fight it off effectively and with no long-term effects. The Israeli data comes to no conclusions on the quantity or even presence of antibodies. And as the study itself and annie have pointed out - there's quite a lot of bias in the reporting as well that generated the data

So no, the israeli data does not indicate otherwise. But if you'd care to argue the opposite you're welcome to actually back the argument with more than rhetoric.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

It's been draconian and not subject to adjustment to changing facts on the ground. It's because it has turned 100% political in nature. That's the reason. Medical policy dictated by politics and not science. No room for nuance or change.

Thanks for this booster shot of disingenuousness. I bet it feels clever. 

The side hating truth and science claims to rely on truth and science. 

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bad_teammate said:

"This is all politics!" I scream at my nurse as my lungs fill with fluid, god damn liberal effusion

I'd get the vax if not infected before especially if in a high risk group. Why risk it? Well, unless your teenage boy and I think the risk of the vax in that population is worse than odds of bad covid outcomes.

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...