New study of jabbed in the journal "Circulation"

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is a perfect example of the paranoid disinformation that is spreading worse than the virus. Cherry-pick a few bad apples, and then leap to the conclusion that everyone is corrupt.

As I keep saying, get out of your info silo and look at the real world. It's not nearly as scary as you believe.

So you don't provide any information to dispute the claim about Howard Zucker's malfeasance but leap to a conclusion that the poster is paranoid and spreading disinformation? I don't see anything in Tetepare's post saying "everyone is corrupt" but your post suggests that's what he was saying.

Your posts are full of ad hominems. You accused me of doing statistical backflips and cherry picking when I posted information (which hasn't been countered) that agreed with a poster's claim about the mortality rates for those infected with Covid-19. In fact, you were conflating a the statistic that was claimed (apples) with a completely different statistic (oranges). This was one of the rare instances in this thread (only instance?) where you posted a supporting link. While the link's information was valid, your interpretation of it was wrong.

In another instance, your claims of natural immunity were rebutted by a posted who presented a clinical study. You replied with nothing to counter the claims but instead simply called the poster arrogant.

There are other examples of your ad hominems, ArmyDaveNY's posts are a good example. His posts were civil and you responded by calling him a liar.

Name calling, which you do regularly, and censorship, which you appear open to as evidenced by your post #24, have no place in a civil debate. These things lead to interactions that are neither a debate, nor civil.

[fivecapes]

Originally Posted by Nord Sal

...when I posted information (which hasn't been countered)

You mean on your insistence on using IFR, for a specific age group (45-54) based on over 1 year old estimates when it wasn't even referred to in the first place?

see posts #56 and #58.


I look forward to your cites regarding the use of IFR as a credible measure, the latest estimates, and specifically why only the 45-54 age group should be used.

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by sy_gilana

. . .



I come here to learn about boat stuff.

Please take this thread to another place.

Cruiser's Forum is a great place to learn about boat stuff.


However, you're in the wrong place to avoid discussions about and relating to Covid-19 since this thread's category, Covid-19 Containment Area, was specifically created for these very types of discussions.


See the second post in this thread to see how ignore this entire category if you rather not see these sorts of posts or simply just don't view the threads.

[Mike OReilly]

Again, all I and others of the rational clan are doing is listening to the actual experts. The rest of you are arrogantly claiming you hold expertise and knowledge above these actual experts.

I have no interest playing the debunking game. This is the standard tactic of the purveyors of misinformation. When Health Canada and the CDC change their minds about the virus, or the vaccines, then so will I. Until then, cherry-picking one study to prove a point does not. That's not how science works. One study, followed by many others which all point in the same direction, definitely will. Right now there are many studies which show the opposite (look them up, since you're all so good at researching).

As for ad-hominems attacks, I tend to respond at the level offered. When someone starts tossing around the term "idiot", then I will use it as well. Pointing out someone is doing statistical backflips and cherry-picking data is not an ad-hominem attack. It is an observable fact.

This discussion is no different that the many climate change chats we have here. We have some of us quoting established experts, and then we have others who claim superior knowledge or research skills, saying THEY know better. This is fundamentally an anti-science perspective, and it is more rampant here on CF than anywhere else I venture. I really would love to know why.

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by fivecapes

You mean on your insistence on using IFR, for a specific age group (45-54) based on over 1 year old estimates when it wasn't even referred to in the first place?

see posts #56 and #58.


I look forward to your cites regarding the use of IFR as a credible measure, the latest estimates, and specifically why only the 45-54 age group should be used.

First of all, I appreciate your questions presented without ad hominems and in a civil manner. Your previous responses were also civil. Thanks for that.

Yes. Read my words. I stated that the original poster's claim of 99.3% was more correct using the words 'on the order of', than was Mike's lower number which reflected only observed cases, not total infections, as claimed by the poster.

With respect to the data being a year old, new IFRs don't seem to be readily available. If you can point me to them please do so. I've looked and I've asked based on your previous posts where you question the validity of data now almost a year old.

You seem to imply that, because the data are nearly a year old, they aren't representative. I would agree that new data would certainly be preferable. Given the absence of more current IFRs, what should we expect them to be considering new information and the effects we've undertaken to combat the disease? I suggest we consider the following facts.

• The IFRs from 2020 were developed before the advent of the vaccines, so they're only truly representative for the non-vaccinated population.
• Vaccinated individuals can and do become infected with Covid-19.
• The vaccines reduce the severity of a Covid-19 infection.

Given those three facts, the infection fatality rates for Covid-19 should be lower than the 2020 rates since some proportion of population infected with Covid-19 now includes the vaccinated individuals and vaccines reduce the severity of the infection.

Regarding the credibility of the IFR metric, I'll quote the words of the World Health Organization who explicitly state:

"The true severity of a disease can be described by the Infection Fatality Ratio: (equation for IFR follows). "

Constrast that statement with their statement (same link) regarding the CFR metric:

"Case fatality ratio (CFR) is the proportion of individuals diagnosed with a disease who die from that disease and is therefore a measure of severity among detected cases: (equation for CFR follows)."

[Nord Sal]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Again, all I and others of the rational clan are doing is listening to the actual experts. The rest of you are arrogantly claiming you hold expertise and knowledge above these actual experts.

This is simply another ad hominem presented in an indirect manner. By claiming you are in the "rational clan", you clearly imply anyone not agreeing with you is not in that clan and therefore, not rational. You then claim others are arrogant and claiming to have knowledge beyond the experts. This is nonsense!

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I have no interest playing the debunking game. This is the standard tactic of the purveyors of misinformation. When Health Canada and the CDC change their minds about the virus, or the vaccines, then so will I. Until then, cherry-picking one study to prove a point does not. That's not how science works. One study, followed by many others which all point in the same direction, definitely will. Right now there are many studies which show the opposite (look them up, since you're all so good at researching).

Debunking claims is central to the scientific method Mike. If you have ever published a scientific paper or report, you would need to defend your work against those who scrutinize and criticize it. Your example of following experts, while simultaneously disregarding other credentialed experts like Nobel-prize winning scientists, is more akin to authoritarian submission and tribalism. The scientific method relies on a thorough and honest debate conducted with an open mind.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As for ad-hominems attacks, I tend to respond at the level offered. When someone starts tossing around the term "idiot", then I will use it as well. Pointing out someone is doing statistical backflips and cherry-picking data is not an ad-hominem attack. It is an observable fact.

Please see your introductory paragraph above where you essentially state that anyone disagreeing with you isn't rational. This is no way to start a response or a debate, especially when applied with the broad brush fashion to virtually anyone who disagrees with you or questions your claims. If you'd care to see someone question and disagree with others without resorting to ad hominems, see the posts in this thread by fivecapes who can clearly disagree without being disagreeable.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This discussion is no different that the many climate change chats we have here. We have some of us quoting established experts, and then we have others who claim superior knowledge or research skills, saying THEY know better. This is fundamentally an anti-science perspective, and it is more rampant here on CF than anywhere else I venture. I really would love to know why.

Mike, as pointed out above, no one that I can see is claiming superior knowledge, research skills or saying that THEY know better than all the experts like you're claiming. Perhaps I missed those claims so please show me where anyone has done that.

Here's news for you: experts very often disagree and criticism and disagreement following the scientific method are how we advance mankind's knowledge. Even after acceptance, accepted scientific knowledge is always subject to questioning and revision. Your ad hominems and clannish behavior is fundamentally a tribalistic and authoritarian-submissive perspective. That's anti science.

[senormechanico]

Checkmate!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Nord Sal

This is simply another ad hominem presented in an indirect manner. By claiming you are in the "rational clan", you clearly imply anyone not agreeing with you is not in that clan and therefore, not rational. You then claim others are arrogant and claiming to have knowledge beyond the experts. This is nonsense!

And I guess you didn't bother to watch that Steven Pinker discussion video I posted a while back. Perhaps you should do so now, so you can understand the concept of rational thinking.

Originally Posted by Nord Sal

Mike, as pointed out above, no one that I can see is claiming superior knowledge, research skills or saying that THEY know better than all the experts like you're claiming. Perhaps I missed those claims so please show me where anyone has done that.

You, and others, are claiming that the actual, recognized experts in the fields of virology and public health are somehow wrong about the virus, the vaccines, and our general response. This is claiming superior knowledge over the actual experts. All I, and a few others here keep doing, is pointing to the actual experts.

Originally Posted by Nord Sal

Here's news for you: experts very often disagree and criticism and disagreement following the scientific method are how we advance mankind's knowledge. Even after acceptance, accepted scientific knowledge is always subject to questioning and revision. Your ad hominems and clannish behavior is fundamentally a tribalistic and authoritarian-submissive perspective. That's anti science.

Yes, but you aren't a virologist or public health expert, are you? You aren't engaging with the material in a scientific sense, you are cherry-picking data and studies to support your preconceived biases. As for ad hominem insults, your posts are ripe with them, with exhibit A being right above. So stop projecting, and start acting like the civilized interlocutor you keep claiming to be.

[S/V Illusion]

Someone should send these children to their room

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Someone should send these children to their room

No need... you're right, and I voluntarily stop. This discussion with has made me a lesser person. I apologize to the innocent bystanders.

[DomShangPen]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

No need... you're right, and I voluntarily stop. This discussion with has made me a lesser person. I apologize to the innocent bystanders.

An open mind is always more productive. Bravo.

[SV_FlyingTigress]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Dave, natural immunity is NOT "many, many times more effective than the shot." There are numerous studies to show that, at best, it is as effective. But most credible research is indicating the vaccines produce a better immune response.

Of course the shot prevents acquisition of the disease. That's why the vast majority of current infections are in the unvaccinated.

No vaccine in history has ever produced 100% protection against the disease. All vaccines "stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases." That's how a vaccine works. Just because other things do this as well does not mean the Covid-19 vaccines aren't vaccines.

As for mortality rates, the USA's is actually 1.6%, or 236/100,000 according to John's Hopkins. Typical mortality rates for influenza range in the low/mid 20s/100,000 or .2%, so it is more than a magnitude difference.

It's been a lie of the anti crowd since the get-go that Covid-19 is not dangerous, or the risk is low, or it's just like the flu. All these things are lies being spread by the misinformed.

Of course the vaccine helps prevent spread. It helps prevent acquisition of the disease, and it significantly reduces the severity of the disease. Since Covid-19 it is spread through symptomatic activity (coughing, sneezing, snoting, etc.) this helps prevent the spread.

I'm happy to have a civil discussion on any subject. But I'm tired of all these lies being spread. And make no mistake, these are consequential lies. It's not like believing in a flat earth, a god. This lie is costing people their lives. So yeah... I'm annoyed.

Hi Mike, by way of my attempt at civil discussion: I was discussing this with two physicians on the phone this very morning (my wife and daughter). My best friend is an immunology physician, and all (and others I have met) agree that generally speaking from a virology standpoint and supported by the data they are seeing via studies and examining study methodology all clinically suggest that it should surprise exactly nobody that natural immunity via covid recovery is 1) stronger 2) offers better wide-spectrum variant protection and 3) likely has longer lasting immunity that the mRNA vaccines that were developed for Covid. This, you probably know, concurs with the hidden tape statement from two of the vaccine developer scientists from Pfizer (direct quotes and video @https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/10/04/pfizer_scientists_to_project_veritas_your_antibodi es_are_probably_better_than_the_vaccination.html ) . For context wife and friend practice clinically, daughter is a foot/ankle surgeon, so not as much infectious disease management but manages it as a care factor than specialty. That said, they are seeing the general data and clinical trends *so far* suggest the following.

1. natural immunity is generally superior which "should surprise exactly nobody in the immunology/virology profession familiar with viruses and corona viruses in particular."
2. The vaccines, targeting original coronavirus spike proteins should be expected, and in fact seem to be less effective than natural immunity on handling covid variants like delta>omicron etc .... one point noted was the even patients with SARS history seemed to have robust immune system resistance to Covid 19, so this should surprise nobody in the virology/immunology fields.
3. On the good news front: The case count is going up in a lot of places, but (as a proportion) *generally* mortality is going down significantly and this seems to be more attributable to better clinical treatment regimens like monoclonal antibodies for high-risk Covid patients, so mortality is trending to start falling more in line with a really bad flu.
4. The variants (including the S. African Omicron variant) seem to be, as expected, more contagious/virulent but less deadly so are increasing becoming a natural immunity spreading mechanism. The reason for this is a virus's RNA "dirty" error prone copying mechanism and genetic statistics. Any random mutation is statistically almost certain to compromise functionality and leave the resultant product ("virus") nonfunctional. It is an exquisitely rare event that (from a virology perspective) that "functionality" (i.e. viral effect of interest, namely: mortality or virulence) would increase. It is exquisitely, exquisitely rare.. like bordering on "almost never" that you would get random mutations that simultaneously increase both. While it is technically possible... so is a planet killing asteroid... lots of things are technically possible, but not interesting/manageable from a risk standpoint. Mutations that increase lethality, are almost inevitablity self truncating since they would tend, in worst case, to kill the host (cell or being) while only maintaining or (if mutations were involved in that sequence) more likely breaking or decreased their transmissibility functionality.

I think name calling people "anti-vaccine" is most often a low-resolution mental cop-out to what is often just be a more balance and more holistically considered objection to things like top-down one size fits none policy and or suggesting that that policy may not actually achieve net-positive benefits etc.. Based on what I have been able to learn, policy that doesn't even attempt to seriously factor in the MAIN defense humanity has (namely natural immunity) as a core component public health management is not a serious or good-faith attempt. Just a few thoughts. I am immunized and post-covid, but see credible points being offered and people just called names because their points/rational are inconvenient to the name-callers argument line. I get this works two ways. I guess if it was name calling it should be filed in the "whatever" file #86 but a *huge* number of people are loosing their jobs/livelihoods over this.... including a huge number of physicians and nurses.. that our health care systems absolutely cannot afford to lose. And by that I mean, it will partly or largely collapse institutions and end of killing a lot of people among other effects. I do think the "get vaccinated" or off with your head crowd is playing with fire here...

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

No need... you're right, and I voluntarily stop. This discussion with has made me a lesser person. I apologize to the innocent bystanders.

Mike, I have enjoyed your anecdotes, insights, and travel experiences. I must say I do not enjoy denigration of people with statements like "a lesser person."

When I was young and arrogant I believed many were lesser persons. As I gained insight and experience, I realized that I had been blessed with what I have. Others may not have the depth or breadth of knowledge, problem solving skills, etc as I fortunately have- but that doesn't make them lesser- it makes me fortunate. It is thus my job to guide them, not denigrate them.

I hope you'll step back and review if your actions of late reflect the inner person.

[Mike OReilly]

Stephen, I apologize if I came across too harsh in this response to Dave, which is what seems to have set off the ugliness of which I am largely to blame. My poor justification is that I interpreted this post, and numerous others that followed, as parroting the same old anti-science messaging that has become the hallmark of the current anti-covid-vaccine phenomena.

The claim that natural immunity imbues superior protection remains an open scientific question. The false narrative that is circulating in the anti-community is that it is, "many, many times more effective than the shot." The evidence does not support this so far.

As is typical for the bleeding edge of knowledge, studies are emerging showing differing results on this question (ex: 1, 2). This is how science works, and it is simply false to claim certainty at this point. And that is the simple point I've been trying to make all along; that we need to listen to actual experts who are researching and examining the question, and not simply jump on the latest study finding which supports our own biases (and yes, we are all biased).

I've taken some time to review the current literature on the subject. I admit it has been some months since I've done so. Here is the conclusion from latest survey study (a study that attempts to amalgamate the findings of all similar studies) on the question of natural vs vaccine immunity for Covid-19. The bolding is mine, to highlight the key findings:

https://www.cureus.com/articles/7207...om-natural-imm

Conclusions

Overall, our comprehensive systematic review identified nine clinical studies of various designs, of which seven could be included in a pooled analysis. From a review of these studies, we conclude that there is currently no statistical advantage to vaccination in the COVID-naive compared to natural immunity in the COVID-recovered. Vaccination in the COVID-recovered may provide some incremental protective benefit, but the total size of this benefit is marginal. Explicitly, COVID-naïve individuals should not seek infection to bypass vaccination, as the risks of infection far exceed the low risks associated with vaccination. However, until further data is available, unvaccinated COVID-recovered individuals should be considered to have at least equal protection to their vaccinated COVID-naïve counterparts. The COVID-recovered represent a unique population segment with distinct risk/benefit considerations and a narrower therapeutic window than their COVID-naïve counterparts. National policy should reflect the need for clinical equipoise and restraint in vaccinating these individuals by mandate.

This research will continue to evolve, and scientific conclusions will change with it. I simply (and perhaps too strongly) object to all the non-experts claiming certainty, and passing on false or misleading information. Because in the case of Covid-19, it matters what we say. This is not some silly claim about the Earth being flat, or Neptune ruling the seas. False information matters here.

But I fully admit, I have been rude and uncivil, even to some here I had previously called Internet friends. For this I am deeply ashamed. I will try and do better.

[Rotan]

Once upon a time, there was new wonderdrug. It was approveed for use in 56 countries. It was given to pregnant mothers. Almost immediately, babies began appearing with deformed limbs. The anecdotal evidence (from delivery room nurses) was that it was due to the this drug. The Drug manf dismissed this using its statistics and the drug continued to be prescribed for three more years before finally being taken off the market.

40 years later, the exact mechanism of chemical action of the drug is thought to be one of 15 or 16 plausible mechanisms. 60 years later two main theories have emerged. The exact mechanism remains unknown.

The moral of the story:
Ever drug is giant pharmaceutical question mark. No one understands the pharmacology, and probably never will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalid...ty_and_culture

When buying a boat, do you ask for insurance statistics to tell you if its a good boat, or do you crawl all over it and want to know how everything works?