CDC Weighs in on vaccines vs immunity from infection

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

The CDC finds itself attempting to defend the indefensible--making people who have superior immunity from a previous infection (at least according to some good Israeli research) get a vaccine anyway. This has inspired them to do some truly embarrassing research which resulted in this paper (also released on Friday) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w

This graphic and statement summarizes their findings:

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

Now they know this will be widely reported and understood to mean that you if you have had covid but are unvaccinated, you are five times more likely to get infected again than somebody who is vaccinated. But if you actually look at the study, it says no such thing.  They are comparing 2 ratios. Now I've taught high school math before, and I know firsthand ratios tend to confuse people.  This seems to be the intent. You can make a ratio out of anything, but they don't always mean anything.  You can make a ratio out of the number of people hospitalized with covid and compare that to the number of hot dogs consumed on Tuesday.  You get a perfectly valid ratio, but does it actually tell you anything? That's kind of what they have done here.  They have made a ratio out of the number of people who were hospitalized with covid and compared it to the number of people who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms."   So let's look at unvaccinated people who have had a prior case of covid first.  They found 89 people who were hospitalized again with covid out of a total of 1020 who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms".  So roughly 8% of the total had covid.  For people who were fully vaccinated, they found 324 who were hospitalized with covid out of a total of 6005 who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms".  In this group, 5% had covid. Now if you follow what they are doing, they are saying fewer people tested positive who were vaccinated, so that is somehow better.  But is it?   There are two ways you can get a lower percentage. You can have fewer people hospitalized with covid. I think we can all agree that is meaningful.  But you can also get a lower percentage by having more people hospitalized with "covid-like symptoms" And that really has no relevance at all to the question at hand.  What does being hospitalized with the flu tell you about your immunity to covid? Nothing. And if more people in the unvaccinated group had been hospitalized with the flu, would that have somehow been "better".  Even though it made the ratio "better".  This is just a meaningless ratio. If it tells you anything, (and I don't think it does), it would be that fully vaccinated folks have a weakened immune response to other respiratory illnesses. But that graphic is all that will be ever reported out of this study and it will be repeated ad nauseum.  And that is all before you get into the "adjusted odds"  they used to translate 8% compared to 5% into 5x the chance of testing positive. That is not fully explained, but one can assume given the shoddiness of the premise, the adjustments can't be trusted either. This is an excellent example of why so many people don't trust the CDC anymore. This stuff ticks me off. It just undermines their credibility on everything.  If they can't find valid reasons, why can't they just admit people who have had covid don't need to be vaccinated?

TLDR: study from the CDC does not say what is being widely reported

Edited November 3, 2021 by Cardin Drake

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

During any kind of previous outbreaks, the vast majority of the public was eager to get vaccinated. Schools routinely didn't even get parental consent before dispensing polio preventing vaccines to their students.  There were counties across the U.S. that vaccinated more than 100,000 people per day.  There was no social media and therefore much fewer nonsensical conspiracy theories and a lot more trust in the family doctor.

The Polio was such a devastating disease for children and the PSAs at the time were so horrific that parents felt compelled to get their kids vaccinated. Fear is a strong motivator.  During the *15 days to slow the spread* the fear was ramped up and a lot of people have not let that fear lessened, so much so that they don’t trust their fellow man.  We have lived through a year and 9 months of this; do you think we haven’t learned a lot about how to protect ourselves and that everybody has had the opportunity to do just that?

There are people that are willing to give up their career to avoid the vaccine, for whatever reason, only because the company they work for has decided it is less of a risk of monetary fines then to keep an employee.  All because one person believes the only way to end this pandemic is if everybody gets vaccinated and to he!! With the rest of the population.

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

56 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

The CDC finds itself attempting to defend the indefensible--making people who have superior immunity from a previous infection (at least according to some good Israeli research) get a vaccine anyway. This has inspired them to do some truly embarrassing research which resulted in this paper (also released on Friday) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w

This graphic and statement summarizes their findings:

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

Now they know this will be widely reported and understood to mean that you if you have had covid but are unvaccinated, you are five times more likely to get infected again than somebody who is vaccinated. But if you actually look at the study, it says no such thing.  They are comparing 2 ratios. Now I've taught high school math before, and I know firsthand ratios tend to confuse people.  This seems to be the intent. You can make a ratio out of anything, but they don't always mean anything.  You can make a ratio out of the number of people hospitalized with covid and compare that to the number of hot dogs consumed on Tuesday.  You get a perfectly valid ratio, but does it actually tell you anything? That's kind of what they have done here.  They have made a ratio out of the number of people who were hospitalized with covid and compared it to the number of people who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms."   So let's look at unvaccinated people who have had a prior case of covid first.  They found 89 people who were hospitalized again with covid out of a total of 1020 who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms".  So roughly 8% of the total had covid.  For people who were fully vaccinated, they found 324 who were hospitalized with covid out of a total of 6005 who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms".  In this group, 5% had covid. Now if you follow what they are doing, they are saying fewer people tested positive who were vaccinated, so that is somehow better.  But is it?   There are two ways you can get a lower percentage. You can have fewer people hospitalized with covid. I think we can all agree that is meaningful.  But you can also get a lower percentage by having more people hospitalized with "covid-like symptoms" And that really has no relevance at all to the question at hand.  What does being hospitalized with the flu tell you about your immunity to covid? Nothing. And if more people in the unvaccinated group had been hospitalized with the flu, would that have somehow been "better".  Even though it made the ratio "better".  This is just a meaningless ratio. If it tells you anything, (and I don't think it does), it would be that fully vaccinated folks have a weakened immune response to other respiratory illnesses. But that graphic is all that will be ever reported out of this study and it will be repeated ad nauseum.  And that is all before you get into the "adjusted odds"  they used to translate 8% compared to 5% into 5x the chance of testing positive. That is not fully explained, but one can assume given the shoddiness of the premise, the adjustments can't be trusted either. This is an excellent example of why so many people don't trust the CDC anymore. This stuff ticks me off. It just undermines their credibility on everything.  If they can't find valid reasons, why can't they just admit people who have had covid don't need to be vaccinated?

TLDR: study from the CDC does not say what is being widely reported

Also note that they have an asterisk as part of their disclaimer and you have to get a mRNA vaccine............because they don't want the J&J vaccine further messing up their numbers they are trying to convince everyone with. 

[bigbird 60,580]

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Have you ever thought that you just might be wrong about this?

Always a good question to ask oneself

[AU9377 5,035]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Also note that they have an asterisk as part of their disclaimer and you have to get a mRNA vaccine............because they don't want the J&J vaccine further messing up their numbers they are trying to convince everyone with. 

Just making crap up as u go?  You know who works at the CDC?  People just like you and me.  Many of them have spent their entire lives working on methods to document and contain infectious diseases, among other things.  Stop listening to sources of information that benefit from spreading bad information. 

[AU9377 5,035]

18 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Always a good question to ask oneself

Some seem to be more comfortable fearing the boogey man and buying into some notion that everyone is out to get them than they are listening to reason.

[AU9377 5,035]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The Polio was such a devastating disease for children and the PSAs at the time were so horrific that parents felt compelled to get their kids vaccinated. Fear is a strong motivator.  During the *15 days to slow the spread* the fear was ramped up and a lot of people have not let that fear lessened, so much so that they don’t trust their fellow man.  We have lived through a year and 9 months of this; do you think we haven’t learned a lot about how to protect ourselves and that everybody has had the opportunity to do just that?

There are people that are willing to give up their career to avoid the vaccine, for whatever reason, only because the company they work for has decided it is less of a risk of monetary fines then to keep an employee.  All because one person believes the only way to end this pandemic is if everybody gets vaccinated and to he!! With the rest of the population.

 

 

One person?  I don't believe any one person sees vaccines as the cure all to end Covid.  There is an entire community of medical professionals that have the training and experience needed to review the relevant information.  They have overwhelmingly concluded that the vaccines are safe and effective.  That conclusion is based on extensive clinical trials, in addition to real time data from having administered hundreds of millions of doses of the vaccines.  This isn't an American problem or solution.  Medical & scientific experts in every first world country on the planet have made the same conclusion.

Honestly, people shouldn't be begging or coddling the ignorance that supports much of the anti vax nonsense.  It is nothing to be proud of.

[AU9377 5,035]

3 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

The CDC finds itself attempting to defend the indefensible--making people who have superior immunity from a previous infection (at least according to some good Israeli research) get a vaccine anyway. This has inspired them to do some truly embarrassing research which resulted in this paper (also released on Friday) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w

This graphic and statement summarizes their findings:

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

Now they know this will be widely reported and understood to mean that you if you have had covid but are unvaccinated, you are five times more likely to get infected again than somebody who is vaccinated. But if you actually look at the study, it says no such thing.  They are comparing 2 ratios. Now I've taught high school math before, and I know firsthand ratios tend to confuse people.  This seems to be the intent. You can make a ratio out of anything, but they don't always mean anything.  You can make a ratio out of the number of people hospitalized with covid and compare that to the number of hot dogs consumed on Tuesday.  You get a perfectly valid ratio, but does it actually tell you anything? That's kind of what they have done here.  They have made a ratio out of the number of people who were hospitalized with covid and compared it to the number of people who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms."   So let's look at unvaccinated people who have had a prior case of covid first.  They found 89 people who were hospitalized again with covid out of a total of 1020 who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms".  So roughly 8% of the total had covid.  For people who were fully vaccinated, they found 324 who were hospitalized with covid out of a total of 6005 who were hospitalized with "covid-like symptioms".  In this group, 5% had covid. Now if you follow what they are doing, they are saying fewer people tested positive who were vaccinated, so that is somehow better.  But is it?   There are two ways you can get a lower percentage. You can have fewer people hospitalized with covid. I think we can all agree that is meaningful.  But you can also get a lower percentage by having more people hospitalized with "covid-like symptoms" And that really has no relevance at all to the question at hand.  What does being hospitalized with the flu tell you about your immunity to covid? Nothing. And if more people in the unvaccinated group had been hospitalized with the flu, would that have somehow been "better".  Even though it made the ratio "better".  This is just a meaningless ratio. If it tells you anything, (and I don't think it does), it would be that fully vaccinated folks have a weakened immune response to other respiratory illnesses. But that graphic is all that will be ever reported out of this study and it will be repeated ad nauseum.  And that is all before you get into the "adjusted odds"  they used to translate 8% compared to 5% into 5x the chance of testing positive. That is not fully explained, but one can assume given the shoddiness of the premise, the adjustments can't be trusted either. This is an excellent example of why so many people don't trust the CDC anymore. This stuff ticks me off. It just undermines their credibility on everything.  If they can't find valid reasons, why can't they just admit people who have had covid don't need to be vaccinated?

TLDR: study from the CDC does not say what is being widely reported

Who do you think is out to get you at the CDC and why?  It is pretty clear that the people that don't want to trust the CDC see what they want to see. 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/prior-covid-19-infection-protect-vaccine-reinfection-cdc

[wdefromtx 3,159]

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Just making crap up as u go?  You know who works at the CDC?  People just like you and me.  Many of them have spent their entire lives working on methods to document and contain infectious diseases, among other things.  Stop listening to sources of information that benefit from spreading bad information. 

My source is the CDC and guess what? They are only including the two dose mRNA vaccine..............because...........the J&J is not as effective, the CDC has already shown how less effective it is. It is pretty easy to figure out why they don't include that vaccine in their totals here........

[AU9377 5,035]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

My source is the CDC and guess what? They are only including the two dose mRNA vaccine..............because...........the J&J is not as effective, the CDC has already shown how less effective it is. It is pretty easy to figure out why they don't include that vaccine in their totals here........

All anyone has to do is ask how many hospitalized Covid patients are vaccinated vs unvaccinated and then ask the rates of those in the ICU.  The effectiveness of vaccines is crystal clear at that point.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Who do you think is out to get you at the CDC and why?  It is pretty clear that the people that don't want to trust the CDC see what they want to see. 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/prior-covid-19-infection-protect-vaccine-reinfection-cdc

No what people see is a death rate of vaccinated  vs unvaccinated that the CDC says is you are 11.3x more likely to die if you are not vaccinated.....but that 11.3x equates to about a 0.096% difference using their numbers. You act like a vaccine is the end all be all to survive this when in fact there is widespread knowledge of other treatments that have had pretty good success in helping people recover. It would definitely make that 0.096% look even worse.

[bigbird 60,580]

19 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Some seem to be more comfortable fearing the boogey man and buying into some notion that everyone is out to get them than they are listening to reason.

And some rather disparage and demean than understand the science.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

All anyone has to do is ask how many hospitalized Covid patients are vaccinated vs unvaccinated and then ask the rates of those in the ICU.  The effectiveness of vaccines is crystal clear at that point.

First of all you aren't even talking about the same thing....I am not talking vaxxed vs unvaxxed, I am talking about the difference in how effective the J&J one is versus the other two. 

Why don't they use the same 6005 sample and extract the prior covid unvaccinated cases to make the comparison?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

No what people see is a death rate of vaccinated  vs unvaccinated that the CDC says is you are 11.3x more likely to die if you are not vaccinated.....but that 11.3x equates to about a 0.096% difference using their numbers. You act like a vaccine is the end all be all to survive this when in fact there is widespread knowledge of other treatments that have had pretty good success in helping people recover. It would definitely make that 0.096% look even worse.

Your math isn't any better, or more true, than it was the last time you threw this novel understanding out there.
 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Your math isn't any better, or more true, than it was the last time you threw this novel understanding out there.
 

I already said where I was off before and that was based on a lack of information from the CDC that I had to come up with on my own and the 0.096% checks out with the numbers feel free to work it out for yourself….

[AU9377 5,035]

15 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I already said where I was off before and that was based on a lack of information from the CDC that I had to come up with on my own and the 0.096% checks out with the numbers feel free to work it out for yourself….

You are wanting to find some sinister intent by saying 3 +4 =7, but if the 3 had been a 4, the answer would have been 8.  Yes Captain Obvious, that is correct, however it proves nothing.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 hours ago, bigbird said:

And some rather disparage and demean than understand the science.

They’d rather be spoonfed with what to think than look into it themselves….

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, AU9377 said:

You are wanting to find some sinister intent by saying 3 +4 =7, but if the 3 had been a 4, the answer would have been 8.  Yes Captain Obvious, that is correct, however it proves nothing.

Not sure what you are talking about but when your actual chances of dying from Covid are so low to begin with 11.3x turns out to be only a 0.096% difference….but hey it’s cool to fear monger right Captain Obvious? 

[AU9377 5,035]

5 hours ago, bigbird said:

And some rather disparage and demean than understand the science.

I haven't demeaned anyone.  That said, it is impossible to actually respect someone's opinion when that opinion is based on irrational fears that they picked up from very untrustworthy sources of information or, alternatively, they constantly misrepresent information that is valid.

[AU9377 5,035]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Not sure what you are talking about but when your actual chances of dying from Covid are so low to begin with 11.3x turns out to be only a 0.096% difference….but hey it’s cool to fear monger right Captain Obvious? 

There ya go.... back to the talking points and phrases like "fear mongering", which nobody has been doing. I know 6 people that have died from Covid.  I don't know 6 people that have died as the result of any other single cause.  What purpose does your desire to belittle efforts to combat the virus serve?  What motive exists for the agencies that have done great work in the past to all of a sudden be minions of some evil force?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

There ya go.... back to the talking points and phrases like "fear mongering", which nobody has been doing. I know 6 people that have died from Covid.  I don't know 6 people that have died as the result of any other single cause.  What purpose does your desire to belittle efforts to combat the virus serve?  What motive exists for the agencies that have done great work in the past to all of a sudden be minions of some evil force?

I know of 3 people that have died from Covid 2 vaccinated, one was not. 
 

I know of one in my circle of acquaintances that died from the vaccine and that was actually listed on his death certificate.

I’ve had about 11 months of side effects from the shot that is heart related. 
 

Im not anti vaccine, I’m anti vaccine forced on every one which Biden is doing and have friends that are having to make a choice of quitting their jobs or get the vaccine which they do not want because of the risks involved. 
 

The government should not be allowed to decide what risks are deemed severe enough to make everyone have to get it…at least as far as federal contractors go and also their stupid OSHA BS….ESPECIALLY WHEN there are other methods of treatment that have proven to be successful with Covid.

Also, you have no desire to combat the virus if all you think is the vaccine will do it. You’ve just regurgitated what the media wants you to. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I already said where I was off before and that was based on a lack of information from the CDC that I had to come up with on my own and the 0.096% checks out with the numbers feel free to work it out for yourself….

And I already said you were off conceptually because you can't get it through your head that being far less likely to get the disease in the first place because of the vaccine has to be factored into the chances of dying from COVID.  I don't know why that isn't computing for you.

I'm going to try to explain this one more time to you.

First lets establish that roughly half the country is fully vaccinated and half isn't.  The actual number on the Bing COVID tracker is 53% vaccinated so it's not that far off.  So the population sizes of unvaccinated and vaccinated is in the same ballpark.

Now, let's look at the CDC report that said you're 10 to 11x more likely to die of COVID if you're vaccinated vs unvaccinated.  Here it is:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_whttps://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w

Here's the key paragraph:

During April 4–July 17, a total of 569,142 (92%) COVID-19 cases, 34,972 (92%) hospitalizations, and 6,132 (91%) COVID-19–associated deaths were reported among persons not fully vaccinated, and 46,312 (8%) cases, 2,976 (8%) hospitalizations, and 616 (9%) deaths were reported among fully vaccinated persons in the 13 jurisdictions (Table). 

So you have two population groups of roughly equal size - unvaccinated and vaccinated.  But the numbers couldn't be more different.

569,000 in the unvaccinated group got COVID compared to only 46,312 in the vaccinated.

35,000 unvaccinated put in the hospital by COVID compared to only 3000 for the vaccinated

6100 deaths from COVID for the unvaccinated compared to just 600 vaccinated.

6100 deaths is between 10x and 11x greater than 600.  That is how you do the measurement (roughly - there's some weighting in there that is done to account for population differences .  The entire thing matters.  You are 10-11x less likely to die from COVID because you are so far less likely to get COVID or develop a serious symptomatic case of COVID in the first place.

Stop trying to say 0.96% difference when that is simply not true.  The methodology is completely off base and you look ridiculous continuing to say it.

It would be like if a new technology for cars came out that prevents most traffic accidents.  And after a while we looked at the numbers over a given time and among cars not equipped with the new tech, there were 10000 accidents resulting in 1000 hospitalizations and 100 deaths, but among cars with the new tech, there were only 900 accidents, 85 hospitalizations and 8 deaths.  The average person would look at that and say that you're more than 10x more likely to die in a car accident with a conventional car compared to the one with the accident avoidance tech.  But you're sitting there saying, "Well, actually what they don't tell you is that about 1% of those without the tech die if they get in an accident compared to 0.88% of those with the new tech - that's only a difference of 0.12% which isn't that much.  Save your money."

No, dummy - the accident avoidance tech saves lives because you're less likely to get in a wreck in the first place.  You're comparison is faulty.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

8 hours ago, bigbird said:

And some rather disparage and demean than understand the science.

Stop encouraging him.  It's not helping him.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

38 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And I already said you were off conceptually because you can't get it through your head that being far less likely to get the disease in the first place because of the vaccine has to be factored into the chances of dying from COVID.  I don't know why that isn't computing for you.

I'm going to try to explain this one more time to you.

First lets establish that roughly half the country is fully vaccinated and half isn't.  The actual number on the Bing COVID tracker is 53% vaccinated so it's not that far off.  So the population sizes of unvaccinated and vaccinated is in the same ballpark.

Now, let's look at the CDC report that said you're 10 to 11x more likely to die of COVID if you're vaccinated vs unvaccinated.  Here it is:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_whttps://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e1.htm?s_cid=mm7037e1_w

Here's the key paragraph:

During April 4–July 17, a total of 569,142 (92%) COVID-19 cases, 34,972 (92%) hospitalizations, and 6,132 (91%) COVID-19–associated deaths were reported among persons not fully vaccinated, and 46,312 (8%) cases, 2,976 (8%) hospitalizations, and 616 (9%) deaths were reported among fully vaccinated persons in the 13 jurisdictions (Table). 

So you have two population groups of roughly equal size - unvaccinated and vaccinated.  But the numbers couldn't be more different.

569,000 in the unvaccinated group got COVID compared to only 46,312 in the vaccinated.

35,000 unvaccinated put in the hospital by COVID compared to only 3000 for the vaccinated

6100 deaths from COVID for the unvaccinated compared to just 600 vaccinated.

6100 deaths is between 10x and 11x greater than 600.  That is how you do the measurement (roughly - there's some weighting in there that is done to account for population differences .  The entire thing matters.  You are 10-11x less likely to die from COVID because you are so far less likely to get COVID or develop a serious symptomatic case of COVID in the first place.

Stop trying to say 0.96% difference when that is simply not true.  The methodology is completely off base and you look ridiculous continuing to say it.

It would be like if a new technology for cars came out that prevents most traffic accidents.  And after a while we looked at the numbers over a given time and among cars not equipped with the new tech, there were 10000 accidents resulting in 1000 hospitalizations and 100 deaths, but among cars with the new tech, there were only 900 accidents, 85 hospitalizations and 8 deaths.  The average person would look at that and say that you're more than 10x more likely to die in a car accident with a conventional car compared to the one with the accident avoidance tech.  But you're sitting there saying, "Well, actually what they don't tell you is that about 1% of those without the tech die if they get in an accident compared to 0.88% of those with the new tech - that's only a difference of 0.12% which isn't that much.  Save your money."

No, dummy - the accident avoidance tech saves lives because you're less likely to get in a wreck in the first place.  You're comparison is faulty.

Which has been part of my argument the whole time.........I have always agreed that it lessons your chance of catching covid. But overall why would someone want to put something in their body that they know may cause problems when they can ultimately probably have the same overall success rate with some type of treatment that has already been used for other conditions and a couple of countries have shown that it is an effective treatment for Covid. I am vaccinated, hell I probably got it before you or at least many others on here.........I just recently had a friend who was unvaccinated catch Covid and he had a doctor prescribe him Ivermectin in the dosage used for river blindness as well as a corticoid steroid and within 2-3 days recovered, so in the grand scheme of things the vaccine is only a small tool in the arsenal, but you and so many others have been brainwashed to think it is the only thing that will save us. That is just dumb as hell......who the hell cares if you think this is all anecdotal evidence.....I have seen it work first hand for people and not to mention the other countries that have had success with it. I am just against the vaccine mandates, which I have friends that are seriously facing losing their jobs because they do not want the vaccine because of the risks........I just pulled deaths from VAERS for 0 all the way to 14 days after the vaccine was administered and the cases are pretty astounding. Not to mention I personally know of someone in my circle of people I know that died from it. I have had issues from it. You can't question the VAERS numbers and also say the rest of the CDC numbers are legit.........the CDC itself says VAERS is reliable. 

Do the vaccines help? Yes, are they the end all be all? Not even close, do they pose legitimate risks? Ummmm yeah!! If you can't realize that you are dumb AF and can kiss my a$$. 

They should be targeting for the highest risk groups instead of trying to force it down everyone's throat. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

7 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Which has been part of my argument the whole time.........I have always agreed that it lessons your chance of catching covid. But overall why would someone want to put something in their body that they know may cause problems when they can ultimately probably have the same overall success rate with some type of treatment that has already been used for other conditions and a couple of countries have shown that it is an effective treatment for Covid.

BECAUSE 👏 IT'S 👏 NOT 👏 THE 👏 SAME 👏 SUCCESS 👏 RATE!

 

Quote

I am vaccinated, hell I probably got it before you or at least many others on here.........I just recently had a friend who was unvaccinated catch Covid and he had a doctor prescribe him Ivermectin in the dosage used for river blindness as well as a corticoid steroid and within 2-3 days recovered, so in the grand scheme of things the vaccine is only a small tool in the arsenal, but you and so many others have been brainwashed to think it is the only thing that will save us. That is just dumb as hell......who the hell cares if you think this is all anecdotal evidence.....I have seen it work first hand for people and not to mention the other countries that have had success with it. I am just against the vaccine mandates, which I have friends that are seriously facing losing their jobs because they do not want the vaccine because of the risks........

Because it is anecdotal.  There's a reason that we do large scale, double-blind, controlled scientific studies for medications and treatments.  This is true of all scientific experimentation, or did they skip that chapter in middle school where you had to do a science project using the scientific method?  This insistence on "I've known some folks" that you keep doing reminds me of when I was a kid and I got so sick with what I believe now was some sort of migraine headache.  It was the worst.  My parents took me to the doctor after a day or two of this and they prescribed some kind of painkiller for it.  I went home and took one and I think it mildly helped, but the second one later in the day I took with a Dr. Pepper.  I fell asleep and when I woke up a few hours later the headache was finally gone.  I was convinced the Dr. Pepper had been the deciding factor.  I mean, I'd taken the medicine by itself and it didn't go away, but combined with a Dr. Pepper?  Bingo.  Correlation equals causation, right?

There are so many factors that go into the way someone's body will respond to things.  So you have to have a large sample size not a few people, or a few dozen people.  You have to give some people the actual treatment and others a placebo.  You have to screen people for various other medical conditions and factors so that your sample groups are as similar as possible and there aren't other underlying factors involved that could taint the results.  You have to properly measure the results.  And your results have to be repeatable.  And so far with ivermectin, time and again when medical experts do these experiments, and those who understand how to read, understand, evaluate and critique such things look at it - the results aren't there. The results don't back the confidence from anecdotes.

Meanwhile, we know without a shadow of a doubt that the vaccines are effective - massively so.  With tens of thousands of participants in controlled, double-blind studies, under the most intense scrutiny of perhaps any medical treatment in the history of the world.  And those results have only been validated in the BILLIONS of doses administered worldwide.

These are not two equal things to compare.  They are not even in the same galaxy.

 

Quote

I just pulled deaths from VAERS for 0 all the way to 14 days after the vaccine was administered and the cases are pretty astounding. Not to mention I personally know of someone in my circle of people I know that died from it. I have had issues from it. You can't question the VAERS numbers and also say the rest of the CDC numbers are legit.........the CDC itself says VAERS is reliable. 

The problem isn't that VAERS is some kind of repository of bad information or isn't useful.  It's that you don't know how to use it.

The CDC uses VAERS but none of those numbers are meant to be taken at face value.  It's meant to be a catch all.  They literally want to hear about any and every event that happens within 14 days of any vaccine.  They aren't asking or expecting you or the doctors reporting to it to decide for yourself what is related to the vaccine and what's just coincidental.  This explains it well:

Except, as the VAERS website warns, any report submitted to the database “is notdocumentation that a vaccine caused the event.” 

As we’ve explained before, anyone can submit a report of an event to VAERS, even if it’s not clear that a vaccine caused the problem. All reports are accepted into the database without determining whether the event was caused by a particular vaccine, and therefore, as a disclaimer warns, submissions “may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.” 

“One of the main limitations of VAERS data is that it cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event,” reads its website. “This limitation has caused confusion in the publicly available data from VAERS WONDER, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. There have been instances where people have misinterpreted reports of deaths following vaccination as deaths caused by the vaccines; that is not accurate.”

So when VAERS says it has received 2,509 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine as of March 29, that does not mean that those deaths were caused by the vaccine. 

In fact, after reviewing medical records, autopsies and death certificates for all of those cases, physicians from both the CDC and the FDA determined that there was “no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-viral-posts-misuse-vaers-data-to-make-false-claims-about-covid-19-vaccines/

I encourage you to read that entire article.  It does a great job of explaining VAERS - it's uses and limitations - in layman's terms.

In other words, it's just a tool to allow them to gather as much info as possible so they can sift through and see if there are any verifiable patterns of problems with a given vaccine.  Looking at the raw numbers on VAERS and drawing conclusions is buffoonery.

So in summary:

- Stop saying there's only a 0.96% difference in chances of death from COVID if you're vaccinated or unvaccinated.  You don't understand how to properly do the math

- Stop equating anecdotes as evidence.  They are not the same.

- Stop looking at VAERS numbers and acting like you know anything useful about vaccine side effects.  You don't understand how to use what you're looking at.