CDC Weighs in on vaccines vs immunity from infection

[wdefromtx 3,159]

34 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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

 

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 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 don't 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.

 

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.

I understand how to use VAERS. It’s pretty dam easy to use the search field, filter by vaccine type, filter by adverse events…death for instance, filter by onset of the adverse event. 
 

All the deaths aren’t due to the vaccine, but you are a moron if you believe all the numbers are invalid. 
 

Add in the fact the Covid vaccine is the first one where I heard of someone within my circle of acquaintances (or whatever you want to call it) die from the vaccine. 
 

So in summary…..STFU!

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just now, wdefromtx said:

I understand how to use VAERS. It’s pretty dam easy to use the search field, filter by vaccine type, filter by adverse events…death for instance, filter by onset of the adverse event. 
 

All the deaths aren’t due to the vaccine, but you are a moron if you believe all the numbers are invalid. 

No, you don't.  If you did you'd quit pointing to it as if the raw numbers there meant something.  Again I'll quote the article:

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.”

 

Just now, wdefromtx said:

Add in the fact the Covid vaccine is the first one where I heard of someone within my circle of acquaintances (or whatever you want to call it) die from the vaccine. 
 

So in summary…..STFU!

First of all, you don't get to dictate to me when to say something or to be quiet.  

Second, we may be at the point where you simply don't get to chime in on medical discussions - or at least those surrounding COVID and the vaccines.  I'm not going to allow this forum to be a source of misinformation and FUD-generating bull****.  You traffic in ignorance and are impervious to facts and understanding.  There's legitimate debate and questioning and then there's just persistently being a megaphone for stupidity and you've clearly planted a flag in the latter.  

So in summary, take this Vaudeville, story-telling sideshow somewhere else.  AUF isn't the place for it.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Get Vaxxed or not, but I read the data and got Vaxxed. My whole family is Vaxxed. We are not going to take crazy chances.

Edited November 9, 2021 by DKW 86

[SLAG-91 1,483]

So, does a vaccine prevent transmission? Nope.

Vaccine reduce severity of symptoms if you get it? Seems to in most cases.

Should agencies be mandating vaccination on the basis of preventing spread? Nope...because that doesn't appear to be the case. Vaccinated folks can both spread and catch.

"Protecting vaccinated from unvaccinated" is what I keep hearing...not really seeing the logic behind that notion, though. 

Then you throw in the relative pooh-poohing of having already had Covid as being equivalent to a vaccination (CDC has grudgingly admitted that it's at least roughly equivalent to a vaccination, which had to be painful for the bureaucratic face of the organization to say out loud...Mrs. Walensky can mask forever, btw. Maybe 3-4 combined with a face shield would serve as a de facto mute button. I'm sure there are good folks working in the background at the CDC, but they get subsumed by the frontline talking heads), and I'm not seeing any sort of convincing case for a mandate.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

16 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

So, does a vaccine prevent transmission? Nope.

Absolutely 100%?  No.  Does it make it several times less likely that you'll transmit the virus?  Yes - because you're not only less likely to get infected to begin with, but in the event you do, the period where the viral load is high enough to transmit is much shorter (thanks, T-cells!).

 

16 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Vaccine reduce severity of symptoms if you get it? Seems to in most cases.

Documented that it does in the the overwhelming majority.

 

16 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Should agencies be mandating vaccination on the basis of preventing spread? Nope...because that doesn't appear to be the case. Vaccinated folks can both spread and catch.

This is overly simplistic.  The fact that people are several times less likely to get COVID and thus several times less likely to develop illness, be hospitalized or die, it's reasonable to mandate that people either get vaccinated or if they insist on irrationally holding out, to be tested frequently.

 

16 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

"Protecting vaccinated from unvaccinated" is what I keep hearing...not really seeing the logic behind that notion, though. 

Protecting the vulnerable from the unvaccinated is what you're hearing from normal people.  "Protecting the vaccinated" is what you hear from far right wing nuts trying to sow FUD.

 

16 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Then you throw in the relative pooh-poohing of having already had Covid as being equivalent to a vaccination (CDC has grudgingly admitted that it's at least roughly equivalent to a vaccination, which had to be painful for the bureaucratic face of the organization to say out loud...Mrs. Walensky can mask forever, btw. Maybe 3-4 combined with a face shield would serve as a de facto mute button. I'm sure there are good folks working in the background at the CDC, but they get subsumed by the frontline talking heads), and I'm not seeing any sort of convincing case for a mandate.

I'm not going to defend all the messaging by the CDC - they are far too conservative at times and have produced mixed messages as a result.  But the fastest way to say goodbye to masks forever is for all these holdouts believing half baked bull**** about vaccines to get vaccinated.  Being bullheaded about this is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

Just wanted to pop in to let everyone know that @bigbird emphatically Supports Child vaccination

[bigbird 60,580]

12 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Just wanted to pop in to let everyone know that @bigbird emphatically Supports Child vaccination

I absolutely do.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

USC-Cal postponed until December 4 because of roughly two DOZEN cases on the Cal football team.

Link--Read on, McDuff

Vaccination rate of the Cal football team? 

99%

NINETY. NINE. PERCENT

"Get vaccinated so we can get back to normal, everybody!"

It's past time to treat this like any other endemic disease.

"Leaky" vaccine? Leaky like a water sprinkler, apparently.

Mandate under the pretext of reducing spread is an incredibly disingenuous and largely inaccurate position, and disregarding those who've already had it as "not counting...still have to get the shots" is beyond disingenuous.

[bigbird 60,580]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/10/people-exposed-to-covid-yet-not-falling-ill-may-have-immune-memory-finds-study

[bigbird 60,580]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/11/moderna-says-covid-vaccine-has-fewer-breakthrough-cases-than-pfizers.html

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Where are they going with this? I guess reading their playbook might help.

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/resources

 

Download and read the manual to see for yourself how well they prepared for this pandemic.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

On 11/2/2021 at 11:52 AM, TitanTiger said:

Dummy.  This is true of every vaccine in history. 

You sound like a nut.

I worked on a gonorrhea vaccine team from Walter Reed in South Korea in 1982-83. We monitored labs for antibodies, with very little difference between subjects both male and female. I could go into detail, but most here can figure it out for themselves.

[homersapien 11,440]

22 hours ago, Bottomfeeder said:

I worked on a gonorrhea vaccine team from Walter Reed in South Korea in 1982-83. We monitored labs for antibodies, with very little difference between subjects both male and female. I could go into detail, but most here can figure it out for themselves.

Maybe because the vaccine being tested at that time didn't work? 

First Prophylactic Gonorrhea Vaccine Developed

by Press Release

August 26, 2020

 

https://outbreaknewstoday.com/first-prophylactic-gonorrhea-vaccine-developed-65210/

Edited November 15, 2021 by homersapien

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

On 11/8/2021 at 5:49 AM, TitanTiger said:

Absolutely 100%?  No.  Does it make it several times less likely that you'll transmit the virus?  Yes - because you're not only less likely to get infected to begin with, but in the event you do, the period where the viral load is high enough to transmit is much shorter (thanks, T-cells!).

Debunked. Vaccinated people can carry a much higher viral load. https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/08/31/scientists-fully-vaccinated-carry-251-times-the-covid-viral-load-as-unvaccinated/

 

This will be dismissed as right wing lunacy. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

6 hours ago, Farmer Brown said:

Debunked. Vaccinated people can carry a much higher viral load. https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/08/31/scientists-fully-vaccinated-carry-251-times-the-covid-viral-load-as-unvaccinated/

 

This will be dismissed as right wing lunacy. 

First, whether it's right wing lunacy or not, I can't say, but you evidently don't know what a pre-print is or you wouldn't so easily toss around words like "debunked."  A pre-print never debunks anything.  It's a paper that hasn't been peer reviewed.  Educate yourself:

https://www.aje.com/arc/benefits-of-preprints-for-researchers/

In this case it's one paper.  And it doesn't even say what you're claiming.  It isn't claiming to make an apples to apples comparison between unvaccinated and vaccinated people.  It's comparing the new Delta strain in vaccinated healthcare workers against the old Alpha and Beta strains in unvaccinated people from March/April 2020.  The point was to show how much more infectious Delta is compared to the earlier strains, even with people who are vaccinated, which is something we already know.  If anything was "debunked," it's your bad hot take on what the paper said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-251-viral-idUSL1N2PX1HH

Second, studies such as the ones referenced below make the point I actually made - not that viral loads aren't as high, but that viral loads diminish much faster in the vaccinated.  In other words, even though the viral loads look similar, the period where they are that high is much shorter than in the unvaccinated:

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/new-data-on-covid-19-transmission-by-vaccinated-individuals

Stop reading sources that don't understand how to read data, don't understand what preprints vs peer-reviewed studies are, and that make sensationalist headlines as clickbait.

 

[alexava 6,973]

SCIENTISTS: People are contagious for 10 days

CORPORATIONS: [sliding the CDC a $20]

THE CDC: So people can stop isolating after 5 days

SCIENTISTS: what

THE CDC: Remember, we're all -working together- to end the pandemic

[bigbird 60,580]

47 minutes ago, alexava said:

SCIENTISTS: People are contagious for 10 days

CORPORATIONS: [sliding the CDC a $20]

THE CDC: So people can stop isolating after 5 days

SCIENTISTS: what

THE CDC: Remember, we're all -working together- to end the pandemic

Trust the science...

[bigbird 60,580]

56 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Trust the science...

Homer, why dislike the science?

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

SCIENTISTS: People are contagious for 10 days

CORPORATIONS: [sliding the CDC a $20]

THE CDC: So people can stop isolating after 5 days

SCIENTISTS: what

THE CDC: Remember, we're all -working together- to end the pandemic

 

58 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Trust the science...

 

https://www.popsci.com/science/cdc-shortens-asymptomatic-covid-quarantine/

"Despite the surge, the CDC explains that halving the recommended isolation time “is motivated by science demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.” The critical period for transmission are the first few days of  infection, which is why the agency emphasizes quarantine and vigilant masking in that immediate period upon exposure or illness.

Some health experts have been calling for this kind of change for months, since shorter isolation and quarantine periods appeared to be sufficient to slow the spread, though others say the CDC’s updated guidelines are confusing to the public."

 

No offense Bird, but I am surprised that you, in particular, would denigrate science.  (Assuming of course that the above post was sarcastic.)

 

[homersapien 11,440]

 

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Homer, why dislike the science?

Why indeed!? 

(More to the point, there are many many things I dislike about nature but I don't deny their reality.)

Edited December 29, 2021 by homersapien

[bigbird 60,580]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

Why indeed!? 

 

Idk...you're the one that disliked it

[homersapien 11,440]

5 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Idk...you're the one that disliked it

Well, please clear it up for me.

Were you being sincere or sarcastic when you said "trust the science......."

[McLoofus 35,182]

On the 5 day thing... another possibility... they knew that people wouldn't do 10 days so they asked for 5 in hopes that more people would comply, i.e. 10 doing 5 > none doing 10. 

Some of you just need to admit that you're opposed to the concept of social responsibility on principle alone and just **** off with all the bull**** theories. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

20 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

On the 5 day thing... another possibility... they knew that people wouldn't do 10 days so they asked for 5 in hopes that more people would comply, i.e. 10 doing 5 > none doing 10. 

Some of you just need to admit that you're opposed to the concept of social responsibility on principle alone and just **** off with all the bull**** theories. 

 

bUt ThEy'Re tRyInG tO CoNtRoL uS!!!!!

[AUDub 11,182]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

bUt ThEy'Re tRyInG tO CoNtRoL uS!!!!!

Swear to God if Biden passed a mandate on breathing a third of the population would suffocate.