Covid vaccination status for CF members

[sagablu]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

138 million cases vs. 468 million vaccines up to now.
2.9 million deaths from or with C19, means 135 million recovered and are immune by nature.

Already 4 times more people are infected by vaccines than by covid.

And all those people" infected" by the vaccine are now walking around with minimal risk of getting sick and it seems zero risk of getting severe disease. Just found out my anti-vaxxer brother-in-law was just admitted to the hospital with covid. Late fifties, in great physical condition now he's sitting in a hospital with and oxygen mask. I certainly get your point that that's preferable to getting a vaccine. Oh, his wife and kids who all got vaccinated, none of them are sick. What a surprise!

[Mike OReilly]

Maybe poor Justin meant Germany . He does say some pretty silly things at times.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

And yet, the actual facts disagree with your expert. The data is at it's lowest level in a long time with no indication of an increase.

Well the point was that Trudeau didn't just pull that info out of thin air. I gave you one cite; I bet there's more. We could play battling experts I suppose. I hope that Brown and Trudeau are wrong about this. But in many places this has been surge then clampdown then relax then oops another surge... lather rinse repeat.

[GordMay]

The 25 members of the Vancover Canucks NHL hockey team, who had tested positive, included 21 players, three of them from Vancouver’s taxi squad. These are remarkably fit, healthy young professional athletes, who have taken more precautions than most of us, and are supported by their own private medical staff.
Take that as a warning – or not.
In Canada, COVID-19’s mortality rate is 2.3 per cent.
Roughly one in 50 people who contract the virus in this country die from it.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Misinformation?


Third COVID wave 'could cause 50,000 more deaths' in UK despite vaccine rollout, warns top scientist

Prof [Jeremy] Brown, an expert in respiratory infection at University College London Hospitals, said there could be tens of thousands more deaths.

I think you should change newsfeeds...

Justin Trudeau claims UK is facing ‘very serious’ third Covid wave amid Canada’s slow vaccine rollout

The article in The Independent quoting the MP Mr Bone went on to say..

“It would sound to me, like with the EU, there's a lot of fake news in what he is saying,”
“He should butt out of UK affairs and concentrate on running his own country, which he doesn't seem to be doing very well.”

Glass houses and all that..

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Justin Trudeau claims UK is facing ‘very serious’ third Covid wave amid Canada’s slow vaccine rollout

The article in The Independent quoting the MP Mr Bone went on to say..

I see - you're putting up an MP against my scientist. Not what I would have expected from you...

Glass houses and all that..

Oh, that ship has sailed... was called the Mayflower, no?

- correction - TWO scientists.

Speaking of butting out... Trudeau was only raising the point that the UK, who have extended great efforts to roll out vaccinations and currently do have a low infection rate - much better than Canada's at this moment - are themselves not completely out of the woods yet... it's a warning to Canadians to maintain vigilance, basically.

(goddam, is everybody 12 here, that this needed to be explained? )

But if some members of the UK parliament or press feel the need to single out this story... slow news day indeed.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Restating this claim does not make it true. If you are going to accuse professionals of misconduct you need actual, verifiable evidence.

Fauchi admitting he lied about masks.
Fauchi admitting he lied about the percent to reach herd immunity.

I do believe he holds medical credentials and helps set policy.

Nope, just having a sheepskin isn't good enough as was claimed earlier in the thread.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I see - you're putting up an MP against my scientist. Not what I would have expected from you...
Oh, that ship has sailed... was called the Mayflower, no?

- correction - TWO scientists.

Speaking of butting out... Trudeau was only raising the point that the UK, who have extended great efforts to roll out vaccinations and currently do have a low infection rate - much better than Canada's at this moment - are themselves not completely out of the woods yet... it's a warning to Canadians to maintain vigilance, basically.

(goddam, is everybody 12 here, that this needed to be explained? )

But if some members of the UK parliament or press feel the need to single out this story... slow news day indeed.

We all know how much you love your scientists.. if only I'd known it was a bidding war..

[Thumbs Up]

On questioning the origins of said virus.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/30/98259...ns-of-pandemic
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02473-4
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4119101

Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance Has Hidden Almost $40 Million In Pentagon Funding And Militarized Pandemic Sciencehttps://www.independentsciencenews.o...tagon-funding/

Why China and the WHO Will Never Find a Zoonotic Origin For the COVID-19 Pandemic Virushttps://www.independentsciencenews.o...pandemic-virus

The WHO Investigation Members Were “participants in disinformation”https://www.independentsciencenews.o...ally-thwarted/

The military links of the EcoHealth Alliance are not limited to money and mindset. One noteworthy ‘policy advisor’ to the EcoHealth Alliance is David Franz. Franz is former commander of Fort Detrick, which is the principal U.S. government biowarfare/biodefense facility.
David Franz was part of UNSCOM which inspected Iraq for alleged bioweaponshttps://www.counterpunch.org/2020/12...alth-alliance/

If said virus was engineered, what about the variants?

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Scrimshaw4

................As a Moderna test subject I've been vaccinated since Sept. 2020 and have had NO negative side affects!

Unblinding trial participants and inoculating the control groups goes against all known scientific research principles. A great way to obscure future long term reactions of these experimental, possibly gene altering therapies.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Fauchi admitting he lied about masks.
Fauchi admitting he lied about the percent to reach herd immunity.

I do believe he holds medical credentials and helps set policy.

Nope, just having a sheepskin isn't good enough as was claimed earlier in the thread.

Of course the reality is far more nuanced that this, but by your logic, one person lies and this automatically means ALL people of this group lie.

By this standard EVERYONE is a liar.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Unblinding trial participants and inoculating the control groups goes against all known scientific research principles. A great way to obscure future long term reactions of these experimental, possibly gene altering therapies.

Trials don't necessarily have to run for years. Post-trial, participants can be told (it would be unethical not to, in this case), and any post-trial developments can still provide valid data. It's not like a participant can think themselves into a blood clot.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Trials don't necessarily have to run for years. Post-trial, participants can be told (it would be unethical not to, in this case), and any post-trial developments can still provide valid data. It's not like a participant can think themselves into a blood clot.

Trials have a protocol. It involves not changing the rules as you go. The gold standard was randomized double blind placebo control. What is the new gold standard going to be? The placebo control groups are being given the agent being tested even though the trial is supposed to be ongoing. It's the same as tampering with evidence.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

From this same document under the definition of "Deaths due to Covid-19"

So yes, they are prioritizing Covid-19 as the cause. But you seem to be suggesting this is somehow medically or epidemiologically incorrect. Obviously the medical professionals DON'T think this is the case, so what evidence do you (or anyone) have that this is the wrong? I'll side with actual experts in most cases.

I didn't say that. I don't have any big quarrel with the figures. Unlike some people () I think they're done mostly in good faith and in most developed countries pretty competently.



And I think that a looser definition of a COVID death, than Primary Cause of Death, was chosen consciously and for good reasons -- to measure the dynamics of the pandemic, which is the primary purpose of this, you want a broad measure.


My point was different -- just that the numbers should be kept in proper context. They are NOT in any way comparable to deaths in battle (notwithstanding frequent, and I would say, illiterate comparisons) and should not really be used to gauge the magnitude of the crisis, at least now without a box of salt. For that purpose, I think excess mortality gives a more accurate impression. And neither this nor that is precise.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

. .. Well, I don't know what "most demographers" would say, but a search reveals some published work on the subject already.

Demographers put COVID-19 death toll into perspective

Demographic perspectives on the mortality of COVID-19 and other epidemics

And here's a fun one:
Socio-demographics predict behaviour during a pandemic

As I say, a study of excess deaths might be a way to understand the impacts of this pandemic. But using it to corroborate or challenge the death count would be challenging. It will be hard to separate out all the multiple impacts of the pandemic.

Well, you are not trying to separate out the multiple impacts -- that's the whole point. You are aggregating everything going on in the population, when you look at excess deaths. This metric tells you what kind of year it was, basically -- so considering we had this pandemic, what was the net-net for the year? Is the question being answered.


The demograpic papers are good -- I had read both of them. This perspective is really valuable:



"Their estimated drop in life expectancy is modest, in part, because 250,000 deaths is not a large increase on top of the 3 million non-COVID-19 deaths expected for 2020, and because older people, who typically have fewer remaining years of life than others do, represent the most COVID-19 fatalities, the study notes.
"Still, while COVID-19 mortality rates remain lower than those of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the coronavirus epidemic could be just as devastating as the longer-lasting HIV and opioid epidemics if mitigation efforts fail, the researchers said." https://www.pnas.org/content/117/36/22035 Talking about the downside scenario where we have a million total deaths, which now seems highly unlikely. That's really useful to know -- worse than the flu, not as bad as Spanish Flu, similar to opoid crisis or HIV.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I love your referenced Economist paper. Hours of fun! What a great comparison. But unless I missed it, I don't think it attempts to address the complexity challenge I mention. Excess (or reduced) deaths have multiple causes in this pandemic year. It certainly shows the gross impact, but as most demographers would agree , assigning cause is far more complex.

Indeed. I would go further and would say basically impossible -- we just can't nail it down that precisely.




As to economic impacts -- that is, the cost of human life -- both articles are applying these concepts incorrectly. The source for the value of a human life at $7 to $9 million comes from the OMB, see here: https://www.theglobalist.com/the-cos...ally-speaking/ But this metric is the crudest one, intended to apply to average human lives and for precautionary purposes, not to a cost-benefit analysis like this. For rational policymaking, the value should not be exaggerated (nor understated) -- it should reflect what society is generally willing to invest in saving lives. To apply to one problem a much higher value than what people actually spend in real life, will result in irrational and suboptimal policymaking. And to do this seriously you have to look at quality life-years, not just lives in gross.




All this perspective is crucially important, because we are balancing this harm against that one, and if we balance wrong, we will get a bad result in policymaking. Some people (especially wealthy retired white guys with no skin in the employment game (sorry, couldn't resist)) have a visceral reaction -- to hell with schoolchildren, to hell with people's jobs, just save every last life from COVID death you can without regard to cost. You can't make policy that way. The impacts on school children are very serious; the impacts on the working poor are very serious -- you can't just throw that out the window. You have to prevent COVID deaths as much you can, but short of that point where you are inflicting other kinds of harm which is not proportionate. That's the tricky balancing act of policy-making.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Some people (especially wealthy retired white guys with no skin in the employment game (sorry, couldn't resist)) have a visceral reaction -- to hell with schoolchildren, to hell with people's jobs, just save every last life from COVID death you can without regard to cost. You can't make policy that way. The impacts on school children are very serious; the impacts on the working poor are very serious -- you can't just throw that out the window. You have to prevent COVID deaths as much you can, but short of that point where you are inflicting other kinds of harm which is not proportionate. That's the tricky balancing act of policy-making.

You may think it's cute, but singling out ANY demographic group in a negative way with no evidence to support your assertion is childish and inappropriate. Wealthy, retired white guys have about the same perspective regarding shut downs as wealthy retired black guys or wealthy retired white women or wealthy retired black women, etc. Yes, I agree that different socioeconomic groups naturally have different perspectives and there's a lot more than just avoiding Covid infections that must be taken into account when contemplating shutting down an economy, but in the group you highlighted, it's the "wealthy, retired" part that makes the difference, NOT whether they are male or female or white or some other skin shade. I get that you're a mod and in tight with the other mods on this forum, but if someone other than you were making disparaging comments about for example rich Hispanic women when it was pretty obvious they had no more to do with what you were disparaging them for than any other rich person, that comment would be called sexist and racist and the poster would probably be kicked off the forum. So, you've proven you can get away with it and apparently think it's cute to do so, but I'm pretty unimpressed, both with you, and with the other mods for letting posts like that stand. There should be NO tolerance for denigrating anyone or any group based on race or gender, etc., period.