Anti Vaxxer Honor Roll

[TexasTiger 12,920]

On 10/15/2021 at 9:17 AM, I_M4_AU said:

He didn’t become political until recently. 

This is more perfect than you will ever understand. 🤣 

[TitanTiger 20,486]

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Alabama's rate has no bearing on Vermont's. I agree that Vermont has a much older population, I suppose it is a shame that they thought they were being protected 11x more by the vaccine. 

It has a bearing when you're making comparisons like you did - for instance calling into question whether it's accurate to say you're far less likely to die from COVID if you're vaccinated.

For instance, in September Vermont had 33 total deaths from COVID.  Alabama had around 1600 COVID deaths in September.  But wait - Alabama is a lot larger in population than Vermont you say?  And you'd be right.  Alabama has around 4.9 million to Vermont's 624,000 population.  That's about 7.9 times the population.  So if the death rates were comparable you'd expect to see around 260 deaths in Alabama (33 x 7.9).  But they aren't comparable and that's even with Vermont having a higher percentage of older people in their population, which are by far the biggest group that die from COVID.  

Alabama had around 1600 deaths in September.  Wonder why that might be since Alabama has a younger population?  What oh what could it possibly be?  Perhaps it could be that while Vermont has 67% of it's people fully vaccinated and 88% with at least one dose, Alabama is still lagging around 40% fully vaccinated and only around 53% with at least one dose.  Almost a 30 point disparity in vaccination rates.

You really need to stop talking about this because you sound ridiculous.

 

Quote

Only time will tell, but I am willing to wager that in the end we will find out that the vaccines aren't near as effective as they try to spin the numbers to be.

In fact it is not looking good already. And why is it the health department is started to not fully breakdown the numbers?!?

I will give you a hint....................it is because they don't want this getting out!!!

I am sure we should just ignore this right?!?

57% of October Covid deaths “full vaccinated,” unvaxxed % unknown – Vermont Daily Chronicle

I'm surprised you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It has a bearing when you're making comparisons like you did - for instance calling into question whether it's accurate to say you're far less likely to die from COVID if you're vaccinated.

For instance, in September Vermont had 33 total deaths from COVID.  Alabama had around 1600 COVID deaths in September.  But wait - Alabama is a lot larger in population than Vermont you say?  And you'd be right.  Alabama has around 4.9 million to Vermont's 624,000 population.  That's about 7.9 times the population.  So if the death rates were comparable you'd expect to see around 260 deaths in Alabama (33 x 7.9).  But they aren't comparable and that's even with Vermont having a higher percentage of older people in their population, which are by far the biggest group that die from COVID.  

Alabama had around 1600 deaths in September.  Wonder why that might be since Alabama has a younger population?  What oh what could it possibly be?  Perhaps it could be that while Vermont has 67% of it's people fully vaccinated and 88% with at least one dose, Alabama is still lagging around 40% fully vaccinated and only around 53% with at least one dose.  Almost a 30 point disparity in vaccination rates.

You really need to stop talking about this because you sound ridiculous.

 

I'm surprised you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

For starters, if you want people to try to take you seriously it helps not to sling insults.  But, I have noticed you do that a lot when you get confronted. You just keep trying to regurgitate the talking points you have been told.

Secondly, you neglect the starting point of each state and the death rate for each state's population. This virus has been around for what about 18 months give or take a couple? If these vaccines were as effective as you (and other's claim 11x less likely of dying) claim at preventing death you would expect a significant drop in the death rates. Right? In addition we should see a substantial disparity between Vermont and Alabama when it comes to the reduction in deaths, right? 

I have done some research and have found that Vermont for the first 9 months roughly of this pandemic they had a death rate of about 27 per 100K of population, and Alabama had a death rate of about 156 per 100K of population. Since the introduction of the vaccines (I am assuming 1/31/2021) up to today's date Vermont has a death rate of 26 per 100K population and Alabama a rate of about 151 per 100K.  That is, wait for it........roughly a 4% reduction in deaths per 100K and 3.4% reduction for Alabama. 

Use the excuse of Vermont having an older population if that makes you feel better. Except for the fact that percentage wise, both states are close. 20% of VT is older than 65 and 17.3% for AL.  

If the vaccines were as great as you say at preventing deaths we would see dramatically different reductions before and after the vaccines came out and a substantial difference between VT and AL reductions. We don't. I have made this comparison for other states as well and the story is still pretty much the same.

We don't even know what the % of the 1600 deaths in Alabama are comprised of....vaxxed or un-vaxxed. I haven't been able to easily find those estimates. 

Also, go look at a comparison of deaths from the vaccine compared to other vaccines on the VAERS official website. Even if you take a fraction of what is listed it still blows away the other popular vaccines. 

I am pulling all these numbers from sources like the CDC and usafacts to make sure they match. Try to spin it all you want, but the data does not lie.

 

I suggest you try to work on chewing gum and walking first before you try the insult route.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Another tidbit about the effectiveness of the vaccines….go look at the CDC data from April to now and you will see that if you are vaccinated and catch Covid you have roughly a 1.2% chance of dying. Un-vaccinated people have about a 1.7% chance of dying. Not that impressive since the name of the game is to prevent death right? 
 

That’s why people would rather take their chances of not getting vaccinated. If the difference was greater then people might get it. That doesn’t even account for the almost 4,000 deaths listed on VAERS that happened within 2 weeks of getting the vaccine.

 

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

8 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

 Not that impressive since the name of the game is to prevent death right? 
 

I wouldn't say it's the only name of the game.  Preventing illness so serious that one has to be hospitalized is also a major component.

[TitanTiger 20,486]

14 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

For starters, if you want people to try to take you seriously it helps not to sling insults.  But, I have noticed you do that a lot when you get confronted. You just keep trying to regurgitate the talking points you have been told.

Secondly, you neglect the starting point of each state and the death rate for each state's population. This virus has been around for what about 18 months give or take a couple? If these vaccines were as effective as you (and other's claim 11x less likely of dying) claim at preventing death you would expect a significant drop in the death rates. Right? In addition we should see a substantial disparity between Vermont and Alabama when it comes to the reduction in deaths, right? 

I have done some research and have found that Vermont for the first 9 months roughly of this pandemic they had a death rate of about 27 per 100K of population, and Alabama had a death rate of about 156 per 100K of population. Since the introduction of the vaccines (I am assuming 1/31/2021) up to today's date Vermont has a death rate of 26 per 100K population and Alabama a rate of about 151 per 100K.  That is, wait for it........roughly a 4% reduction in deaths per 100K and 3.4% reduction for Alabama. 

Use the excuse of Vermont having an older population if that makes you feel better. Except for the fact that percentage wise, both states are close. 20% of VT is older than 65 and 17.3% for AL.  

If the vaccines were as great as you say at preventing deaths we would see dramatically different reductions before and after the vaccines came out and a substantial difference between VT and AL reductions. We don't. I have made this comparison for other states as well and the story is still pretty much the same.

We don't even know what the % of the 1600 deaths in Alabama are comprised of....vaxxed or un-vaxxed. I haven't been able to easily find those estimates. 

Also, go look at a comparison of deaths from the vaccine compared to other vaccines on the VAERS official website. Even if you take a fraction of what is listed it still blows away the other popular vaccines. 

I am pulling all these numbers from sources like the CDC and usafacts to make sure they match. Try to spin it all you want, but the data does not lie.

 

I suggest you try to work on chewing gum and walking first before you try the insult route.

 

I haven't forgotten about this.  Just had a busy afternoon/evening and am going through some numbers.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

21 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I wouldn't say it's the only name of the game.  Preventing illness so serious that one has to be hospitalized is also a major component.

I agree, but for some it went from preventing infection, to preventing death. 

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

9 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Another tidbit about the effectiveness of the vaccines….go look at the CDC data from April to now and you will see that if you are vaccinated and catch Covid you have roughly a 1.2% chance of dying. Un-vaccinated people have about a 1.7% chance of dying. Not that impressive since the name of the game is to prevent death right? 
 

That’s why people would rather take their chances of not getting vaccinated. If the difference was greater then people might get it. That doesn’t even account for the almost 4,000 deaths listed on VAERS that happened within 2 weeks of getting the vaccine.

 

 

But that unvaxed % rises exponentially in severe cases or with certain people. See pony’s response on “name of game”.

https://oanow.com/news/local/percentage-of-ventilated-covid-19-patients-who-are-not-fully-vaccinated-climbs-to-nearly-90/article_4b55ca82-1a69-11ec-be70-aff13802a73f.html

 

As of Sept. 16, according to a report from East Alabama Health, four patients in the 40-49 age group have died of COVID-10 since the beginning of August, and none of them were fully vaccinated. During that same time, 12 people under the age of 60 have died of COVID-19, and none of them were fully vaccinated.

By comparison, 41 patients ages 60 and up have died of COVID-19 in that same period, and 11 of them, or about 27%, were fully vaccinated.

“We have seen some deaths among vaccinated individuals, but much less than the vaccinated population,” said Dr. Michael Roberts, EAMC’s chief of staff and ICU medical director. “… Many of them were of advanced age and had multiple comorbidities which were likely contributors that lessened their odds against this very virulent Delta variant.”

Roberts continued to encourage unvaccinated individuals in the community to get the shot.

“Please simply look at the number of deaths from COVID-19 and see how poor the odds are for patients who are unvaccinated,” he said. “Seemingly healthy people who are unvaccinated can be negatively affected—you see it in the news all the time.

“I’ve learned that COVID doesn’t care how old a person is, what political affiliation they have, or where they got their information. COVID simply looks for its next victim and people who are unvaccinated are much easier targets than those who are vaccinated.”

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

13 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

But that unvaxed % rises exponentially in severe cases or with certain people. See pony’s response on “name of game”.

https://oanow.com/news/local/percentage-of-ventilated-covid-19-patients-who-are-not-fully-vaccinated-climbs-to-nearly-90/article_4b55ca82-1a69-11ec-be70-aff13802a73f.html

 

As of Sept. 16, according to a report from East Alabama Health, four patients in the 40-49 age group have died of COVID-10 since the beginning of August, and none of them were fully vaccinated. During that same time, 12 people under the age of 60 have died of COVID-19, and none of them were fully vaccinated.

By comparison, 41 patients ages 60 and up have died of COVID-19 in that same period, and 11 of them, or about 27%, were fully vaccinated.

“We have seen some deaths among vaccinated individuals, but much less than the vaccinated population,” said Dr. Michael Roberts, EAMC’s chief of staff and ICU medical director. “… Many of them were of advanced age and had multiple comorbidities which were likely contributors that lessened their odds against this very virulent Delta variant.”

Roberts continued to encourage unvaccinated individuals in the community to get the shot.

“Please simply look at the number of deaths from COVID-19 and see how poor the odds are for patients who are unvaccinated,” he said. “Seemingly healthy people who are unvaccinated can be negatively affected—you see it in the news all the time.

“I’ve learned that COVID doesn’t care how old a person is, what political affiliation they have, or where they got their information. COVID simply looks for its next victim and people who are unvaccinated are much easier targets than those who are vaccinated.”

 

 

All the data shows that you lessen your chances of catching Covid if you are vaccinated. But if you actually get it, the % of death is very similar to un vaccinated. This is from CDC data downloaded from their website. I will post it here in a minute.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

50 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

But that unvaxed % rises exponentially in severe cases or with certain people. See pony’s response on “name of game”.

https://oanow.com/news/local/percentage-of-ventilated-covid-19-patients-who-are-not-fully-vaccinated-climbs-to-nearly-90/article_4b55ca82-1a69-11ec-be70-aff13802a73f.html

 

As of Sept. 16, according to a report from East Alabama Health, four patients in the 40-49 age group have died of COVID-10 since the beginning of August, and none of them were fully vaccinated. During that same time, 12 people under the age of 60 have died of COVID-19, and none of them were fully vaccinated.

By comparison, 41 patients ages 60 and up have died of COVID-19 in that same period, and 11 of them, or about 27%, were fully vaccinated.

“We have seen some deaths among vaccinated individuals, but much less than the vaccinated population,” said Dr. Michael Roberts, EAMC’s chief of staff and ICU medical director. “… Many of them were of advanced age and had multiple comorbidities which were likely contributors that lessened their odds against this very virulent Delta variant.”

Roberts continued to encourage unvaccinated individuals in the community to get the shot.

“Please simply look at the number of deaths from COVID-19 and see how poor the odds are for patients who are unvaccinated,” he said. “Seemingly healthy people who are unvaccinated can be negatively affected—you see it in the news all the time.

“I’ve learned that COVID doesn’t care how old a person is, what political affiliation they have, or where they got their information. COVID simply looks for its next victim and people who are unvaccinated are much easier targets than those who are vaccinated.”

 

 

Also, this points back to what I have said as well as others....that the vaccine should be targeted to the people that need it most. Not forced on everyone. 

This is for all ages and straight from the CDC site.....

[TitanTiger 20,486]

17 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

For starters, if you want people to try to take you seriously it helps not to sling insults.  But, I have noticed you do that a lot when you get confronted. You just keep trying to regurgitate the talking points you have been told.

Secondly, you neglect the starting point of each state and the death rate for each state's population. This virus has been around for what about 18 months give or take a couple? If these vaccines were as effective as you (and other's claim 11x less likely of dying) claim at preventing death you would expect a significant drop in the death rates. Right? In addition we should see a substantial disparity between Vermont and Alabama when it comes to the reduction in deaths, right? 

I have done some research and have found that Vermont for the first 9 months roughly of this pandemic they had a death rate of about 27 per 100K of population, and Alabama had a death rate of about 156 per 100K of population. Since the introduction of the vaccines (I am assuming 1/31/2021) up to today's date Vermont has a death rate of 26 per 100K population and Alabama a rate of about 151 per 100K.  That is, wait for it........roughly a 4% reduction in deaths per 100K and 3.4% reduction for Alabama. 

Use the excuse of Vermont having an older population if that makes you feel better. Except for the fact that percentage wise, both states are close. 20% of VT is older than 65 and 17.3% for AL.  

If the vaccines were as great as you say at preventing deaths we would see dramatically different reductions before and after the vaccines came out and a substantial difference between VT and AL reductions. We don't. I have made this comparison for other states as well and the story is still pretty much the same.

We don't even know what the % of the 1600 deaths in Alabama are comprised of....vaxxed or un-vaxxed. I haven't been able to easily find those estimates. 

Also, go look at a comparison of deaths from the vaccine compared to other vaccines on the VAERS official website. Even if you take a fraction of what is listed it still blows away the other popular vaccines. 

I am pulling all these numbers from sources like the CDC and usafacts to make sure they match. Try to spin it all you want, but the data does not lie.

 

I suggest you try to work on chewing gum and walking first before you try the insult route.

 

17 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Another tidbit about the effectiveness of the vaccines….go look at the CDC data from April to now and you will see that if you are vaccinated and catch Covid you have roughly a 1.2% chance of dying. Un-vaccinated people have about a 1.7% chance of dying. Not that impressive since the name of the game is to prevent death right? 
 

That’s why people would rather take their chances of not getting vaccinated. If the difference was greater then people might get it. That doesn’t even account for the almost 4,000 deaths listed on VAERS that happened within 2 weeks of getting the vaccine.

First, I'll get one thing out of the way right up front.  You were right about the relative difference in the age of Alabama's and Vermont's population.  Vermont is slightly older but not enough to make a drastic difference in the numbers.

And I'll also concede it's not a straight line to compare two states, especially with vastly different population sizes and areas of the country.  

That said, the rest of your post(s) on this subject are a master class in either misunderstanding data and lacking the requisite tools to properly interpret it, or rank dishonesty in parsing the data.  You say your numbers are from the CDC and other official sources and while that may be true, the interpretations you make from it are coming from somewhere else.  I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's just an inability to understand the data you find or just you regurgitating what disingenuous actors have told you the data means.  Either way - whether from ignorance or cynicism - your conclusions are a total and complete mess.

Let's start with your last post comparing death rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  Your numbers are garbage.  There is no comparison between rates of infection, rates of serious illness, rates of hospitalization and rates of death between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  By every measure, the vaccinated far multiple times better than the unvaccinated.  Produce the source for your numbers (not just the CDC data but the one offering that interpretation of the data) and I'll guarantee they are parsing the numbers wrong/selectively.  Because here is what the CDC actually says:

 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

The first shows death rates, the second shows COVID case rates and the last shows hospitalization rates.

Read it well.  And it's not just taken from one state or another.  This is data gathered from 16 states, from all parts of the country.  You're 6 times more likely to test positive and 11.3 times more likely to die if you're unvaccinated.

To date we've fully vaccinated roughly 187 million people in the US and there have been just under 7200 deaths from COVID who were fully vaccinated.  Since Jan 31, the US has had roughly 275,000 deaths from COVID (353,000 COVID deaths in 2021 thus far minus 77,400 COVID deaths in January 2021).  So roughly 38 times as many unvaccinated people have died from COVID in this country vs vaccinated people since the vaccines started going out.  That's a staggering difference.  Even if you cut the number in half to give time for the vaccines to become more widespread in various parts of the country, you'd still be looking at a rate 19x higher.

As far as infection rates, you might argue that we don't know how many vaccinated people actually have gotten COVID because we're not regularly testing vaccinated people.  Well I've got news for you:  outside of a few situations where regular testing is required of people, the unvaccinated population isn't being regularly tested either.  People get tested when they know they've been exposed to someone with COVID or when they experience symptoms.  That's true of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.  To the degree that a smaller percentage of vaccinated people are being tested compared to unvaccinated, it has a lot to do with the fact that far fewer vaccinated people experience symptoms.  Even if you hypothesize that they are getting infected more than we know, the reality is that even if that's true, they aren't getting sick enough to go get tested.  

Time and again you make bad comparisons, misread data, confuse anecdotes with data and this time is no different.  The data may not lie, but the people you're getting your interpretation from do.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

First, I'll get one thing out of the way right up front.  You were right about the relative difference in the age of Alabama's and Vermont's population.  Vermont is slightly older but not enough to make a drastic difference in the numbers.

And I'll also concede it's not a straight line to compare two states, especially with vastly different population sizes and areas of the country.  

That said, the rest of your post(s) on this subject are a master class in either misunderstanding data and lacking the requisite tools to properly interpret it, or rank dishonesty in parsing the data.  You say your numbers are from the CDC and other official sources and while that may be true, the interpretations you make from it are coming from somewhere else.  I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's just an inability to understand the data you find or just you regurgitating what disingenuous actors have told you the data means.  Either way - whether from ignorance or cynicism - your conclusions are a total and complete mess.

Let's start with your last post comparing death rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  Your numbers are garbage.  There is no comparison between rates of infection, rates of serious illness, rates of hospitalization and rates of death between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.  By every measure, the vaccinated far multiple times better than the unvaccinated.  Produce the source for your numbers (not just the CDC data but the one offering that interpretation of the data) and I'll guarantee they are parsing the numbers wrong/selectively.  Because here is what the CDC actually says:

 

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status

The first shows death rates, the second shows COVID case rates and the last shows hospitalization rates.

Read it well.  And it's not just taken from one state or another.  This is data gathered from 16 states, from all parts of the country.  You're 6 times more likely to test positive and 11.3 times more likely to die if you're unvaccinated.

To date we've fully vaccinated roughly 187 million people in the US and there have been just under 7200 deaths from COVID who were fully vaccinated.  Since Jan 31, the US has had roughly 275,000 deaths from COVID (353,000 COVID deaths in 2021 thus far minus 77,400 COVID deaths in January 2021).  So roughly 38 times as many unvaccinated people have died from COVID in this country vs vaccinated people since the vaccines started going out.  That's a staggering difference.  Even if you cut the number in half to give time for the vaccines to become more widespread in various parts of the country, you'd still be looking at a rate 19x higher.

As far as infection rates, you might argue that we don't know how many vaccinated people actually have gotten COVID because we're not regularly testing vaccinated people.  Well I've got news for you:  outside of a few situations where regular testing is required of people, the unvaccinated population isn't being regularly tested either.  People get tested when they know they've been exposed to someone with COVID or when they experience symptoms.  That's true of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.  To the degree that a smaller percentage of vaccinated people are being tested compared to unvaccinated, it has a lot to do with the fact that far fewer vaccinated people experience symptoms.  Even if you hypothesize that they are getting infected more than we know, the reality is that even if that's true, they aren't getting sick enough to go get tested.  

Time and again you make bad comparisons, misread data, confuse anecdotes with data and this time is no different.  The data may not lie, but the people you're getting your interpretation from do.

Actually, you don't know how to interpret data. Or more precisely you just take what the CDC says without looking into how the are presenting the numbers. That 11x number is solely based on vaccinated deaths versus un vaccinated deaths. It DOES NOT take into account the % of people dying once they have come down with Covid. 

My numbers are not garbage and if you call my numbers garbage you are calling those CDC numbers garbage in those graphs. Because my numbers are the exact numbers they used....because I downloaded the CSV file. 

I have already said un vaccinated people are more likely to catch covid. But once you have it, the rates are very close as to survivability. Which all leads back to there should have been targeted vaccines and not vaccines for all. Take a lot for yourself....

 

[TitanTiger 20,486]

18 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Actually, you don't know how to interpret data. Or more precisely you just take what the CDC says without looking into how the are presenting the numbers. That 11x number is solely based on vaccinated deaths versus un vaccinated deaths. It DOES NOT take into account the % of people dying once they have come down with Covid. 

My numbers are not garbage and if you call my numbers garbage you are calling those CDC numbers garbage in those graphs. Because my numbers are the exact numbers they used....because I downloaded the CSV file. 

I have already said un vaccinated people are more likely to catch covid. But once you have it, the rates are very close as to survivability. Which all leads back to there should have been targeted vaccines and not vaccines for all. Take a lot for yourself....

 

I know how to parse the data.  It's you that seems to be struggling with it.

I don't know whether you came up with this conclusion on your own or got it from somewhere else, but you're making a bad comparison because you aren't factoring in how less likely you are to even get COVID in the first place.

It's like this:  Let's say we take two groups of 10000 people, put them in an area and go hunt and fire bullets at each of them.  One group has a shield that can stop bullets but has some holes in it or is of limited size (it doesn't protect your head to toe).  The other is completely unprotected and has to just rely on getting down, running around to make them harder to get good aim on, get to area out of range for the shooter, etc.  At the end of the shooting we find that far more people who were unprotected were hit and far more were killed than the group that had a shield, because the shield blocked a really high percentage of the bullets and the shielded group was good about protecting their most vital areas around the head and chest with it.  

The numbers we find are that roughly 1300 unshielded people got hit by bullets compared to only about 185 shielded folks.  And that in the end 22 of the unshielded people died compared to 2 shielded folks.

You don't then say that "well, only 1.69% of those hit by bullets who were unshielded died compared to 1.1% of the shielded folks - shields don't really significantly prevent death."  No, you say that out of 10,000 people on each side, 22 people died and 1300 were wounded compared to only 2 people dying and 185 being wounded. 

It's you who is parsing the numbers wrong, not me, and not the CDC.

[CoffeeTiger 5,111]

Here's the Federalist, with another wacky Take of far right politics melded with evangelical Christianity:

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/18/for-christians-dying-from-covid-or-anything-else-is-a-good-thing/

Basically; you're vaxxed status doesn't matter because God determines when you'll die anyway + if you are a Christian then you'll go to heaven anyway so death is actually a good thing. 

Then she goes off on a rant about how American Christians are being persecuted, because...of course. 

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I know how to parse the data.  It's you and wdefromtx that seem to be struggling with it.

I don't know whether you guys came up with this conclusion on your own or got it from somewhere else, but you're both making a bad comparison because you aren't factoring in how less likely you are to even get COVID in the first place.

It's like this:  Let's say we take two groups of 10000 people, put them in an area and go hunt and fire bullets at each of them.  One group has a shield that can stop bullets but has some holes in it or is of limited size (it doesn't protect your head to toe).  The other is completely unprotected and has to just rely on getting down, running around to make them harder to get good aim on, get to area out of range for the shooter, etc.  At the end of the shooting we find that far more people who were unprotected were hit and far more were killed than the group that had a shield, because the shield blocked a really high percentage of the bullets and the shielded group was good about protecting their most vital areas around the head and chest with it.  

The numbers we find are that roughly 1300 unshielded people got hit by bullets compared to only about 185 shielded folks.  And that in the end 22 of the unshielded people died compared to 2 shielded folks.

You don't then say that "well, only 1.69% of those hit by bullets who were unshielded died compared to 1.1% of the shielded folks - shields don't really significantly prevent death."  No, you say that out of 10,000 people on each side, 22 people died and 1300 were wounded compared to only 2 people dying and 185 being wounded. 

It's you two who are parsing the numbers wrong, not me, and not the CDC.

Ok, I will word it how you recommend...and I will use the same data from the CDC graphs we are talking about, but will fix the fact I did not convert to an occurrence per 100K population.......

There were 164,446,964 people on team Vax and out of that 5,397,362 got wounded (cases) by the virus which is 3.28% of Team Vax, there were also 64,608 deaths from the virus on Team Vax which is 0.0393% of Team Vax that died from the virus. So 1.2% of the wounded on Team Vax ended up dying.

On Team No-Vax there were 168,468,109 people and out of that 10,942,641 got wounded (cases) by the virus which is 6.5% of Team No-Vax, there were also 184,042 deaths from the virus on Team No-Vax which is 0.109% of Team No-Vax that died from the virus. So 1.68% of the wounded on Team No-Vax ended up dying.

So you are 1.97 times more likely to get wounded on Team No-Vax and 2.78 times more likely to die on Team No-Vax. 

This data is straight from the CDC. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,486]

7 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Ok, I will word it how you recommend...and I will use the same data from the CDC graphs we are talking about, but will fix the fact I did not convert to an occurrence per 100K population.......

There were 164,446,964 people on team Vax and out of that 5,397,362 got wounded (cases) by the virus which is 3.28% of Team Vax, there were also 64,608 deaths from the virus on Team Vax which is 0.0393% of Team Vax that died from the virus. So 1.2% of the wounded on Team Vax ended up dying.

On Team No-Vax there were 168,468,109 people and out of that 10,942,641 got wounded (cases) by the virus which is 6.5% of Team No-Vax, there were also 184,042 deaths from the virus on Team No-Vax which is 0.109% of Team No-Vax that died from the virus. So 1.68% of the wounded on Team No-Vax ended up dying.

So you are 1.97 times more likely to get wounded on Team No-Vax and 2.78 times more likely to die on Team No-Vax. 

This data is straight from the CDC. 

 

Your numbers are wrong.  I don't know whether you're uncritically pulling numbers from VAERS, which would be idiotic, or from somewhere else and just mistyping them, but they're way off.  I've already given you links to the correct ones.  There have only been about 7200 deaths of people from COVID who were fully vaccinated.  

Furthermore, no where near 5,000,000 vaccinated people have experienced breakthrough infections.  Through April the CDC only had about 11,000 breakthrough cases.  They started focusing on hospitalizations and deaths after that, but even if you assume with the Delta variant that it jumped significantly, I'll guarantee you it didn't rocket from 10k to 5 million from April to October.  More likely in the range of 50-75k or so by now.

The math problems all stem from that.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Your numbers are wrong.  I don't know whether you're uncritically pulling numbers from VAERS, which would be idiotic, or from somewhere else and just mistyping them, but they're way off.  I've already given you links to the correct ones.  There have only been about 7200 deaths of people from COVID who were fully vaccinated.  

Furthermore, no where near 5,000,000 vaccinated people have experienced breakthrough infections.  Through April the CDC only had about 11,000 breakthrough cases.  They started focusing on hospitalizations and deaths after that, but even if you assume with the Delta variant that it jumped significantly, I'll guarantee you it didn't rocket from 10k to 5 million from April to October.  More likely in the range of 50-75k or so by now.

The math problems all stem from that.

THE DATA IS STRAIGHT FROM THE CDC WEBSITE ON THE PAGE YOU F-ING QOUTED!! 

Here I will make it simple for you....

And yes the number of cases are that high!!! They give occurrences per 100,000 people. Regardless, the % will still come out to be the same. 

CDC COVID Data Tracker

If you dive into all three worksheets you will see that they are cherry picking what they want to present. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by wdefromtx

[TitanTiger 20,486]

7 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

THE DATA IS STRAIGHT FROM THE CDC WEBSITE ON THE PAGE YOU F-ING QOUTED!! 

Here I will make it simple for you....

And yes the number of cases are that high!!! They give occurrences per 100,000 people. Regardless, the % will still come out to be the same. 

CDC COVID Data Tracker

Let us try this again:

 

7200 deaths from COVID of people who were fully vaccinated:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/health/coronavirus-vaccine-powell-breakthrough.html

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

 

275,000 deaths from COVID since Jan 31, 2021:

This number:  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2021/10/06/us-covid-19-deaths-for-2021-surpass-toll-from-2020/

Minus this number:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/us-reports-record-number-of-covid-deaths-in-january.html

 

Even on the link that you use above, that I linked originally, you can see with your own eyes how those who understand what they are looking at interpret the data.  6.1x more likely to catch COVID unvaccinated vs vaccinated.  11.3x more likely to die from COVID unvaccinated vs vaccinated.

At what point do you stop and ask yourself why you're so confident that you're finding something in the data that they aren't?

YOU'RE READING THE DATA WRONG.

 

[TitanTiger 20,486]

Honestly, I don't have time for this.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

@AUDub or someone with perhaps more patience and a better way of communicating than I do, can you please take a whack at getting through to this guy?

[McLoofus 35,182]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Honestly, I don't have time for this.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

@AUDub or someone with perhaps more patience and a better way of communicating than I do, can you please take a whack at getting through to this guy?

There really isn't any point. He's just another Mikey clone who, whether too stupid or disinterested in good faith argument*, won't be coming back to the light once he's turned away from it. 

*Definitely both. Spotted him as soon as he started posting here and clearly most others have since. He's got some "enemy of my enemy" friends around here but they're all playing the same vacuous troll game.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

59 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Let us try this again:

 

7200 deaths from COVID of people who were fully vaccinated:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/health/coronavirus-vaccine-powell-breakthrough.html

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

 

275,000 deaths from COVID since Jan 31, 2021:

This number:  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2021/10/06/us-covid-19-deaths-for-2021-surpass-toll-from-2020/

Minus this number:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/us-reports-record-number-of-covid-deaths-in-january.html

 

Even on the link that you use above, that I linked originally, you can see with your own eyes how those who understand what they are looking at interpret the data.  6.1x more likely to catch COVID unvaccinated vs vaccinated.  11.3x more likely to die from COVID unvaccinated vs vaccinated.

At what point do you stop and ask yourself why you're so confident that you're finding something in the data that they aren't?

YOU'RE READING THE DATA WRONG.

 

I will concede that my numbers were off. It was due to missing information to come up with weighted averages. Which is a piece of information they did not provide that I was able to look up. But you do realize that we are talking about a only a difference of 0.096% right? When you are considering sides effects of the vaccines and that there are other options out there that narrow the chances of dying that 0.096% delta shrinks rapidly. 

So the end results is still the same, but 11.3x's makes it sound way better. 

Like I have said too, give the vaccine to the groups that need it most. Don't force it on everyone. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

There really isn't any point. He's just another Mikey clone who, whether too stupid or disinterested in good faith argument*, won't be coming back to the light once he's turned away from it. 

*Definitely both. Spotted him as soon as he started posting here and clearly most others have since. He's got some "enemy of my enemy" friends around here but they're all playing the same vacuous troll game.

Says the master idiot of trolls........

[TitanTiger 20,486]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

I will concede that my numbers were off. It was due to missing information to come up with weighted averages. Which is a piece of information they did not provide that I was able to look up. But you do realize that we are talking about a only a difference of 0.096% right? When you are considering sides effects of the vaccines and that there are other options out there that narrow the chances of dying that 0.096% delta shrinks rapidly. 

So the end results is still the same, but 11.3x's makes it sound way better. 

Like I have said too, give the vaccine to the groups that need it most. Don't force it on everyone. 

All I know is that 275,000 people have died since January in the US of COVID.  Only about 7200 or so of them were fully vaccinated.  That's actually about 38 times as many.  The CDC is saying 11.3x which is likely adjusted down for Delta being basically the only strain out there.  I know during the height of the Delta surge in Alabama, ADPH was reporting that something like 90-95% of the deaths in the state during that period were unvaccinated people. Now, I'm not up on the new math or anything, but I'm pretty sure that that's a significant difference any way you slice it.  

And I'm betting you're still missing something in coming up with the 0.096% figure.

[SaltyTiger 7,814]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I know during the height of the Delta surge in Alabama, ADPH was reporting that something like 90-95% of the deaths in the state during that period were unvaccinated people

Percentage of ventilated COVID-19 patients who are not fully vaccinated climbs to nearly 90% at EAMC

• DIMON KENDRICK-HOLMES
•  
  • Sep 20, 2021 Updated Sep 23, 2021
  •  
    •  1