nCoV 2019

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Nich

That's a bingo!

This particular dataset, less than an hour.

Okay, so, given that you didn't indicate you *do* have some stats/data relevant quals, I'll proceed with the rest of this on the assumption that you don't.

I did do some stats during my studies. Not enough that I would call myself an expert; not even close, really. I'm still a baby beginner stats guy, even after having done the equivalent of a stats major (~1.25 years of full time study on nothing but stats). I know enough to know that I basically know fuck all.

On more than one occasion, I've had some anti-vaxxer with no stats or data background at all point me at some data set or another and claim that it shows something or other, only for me to open the data and examine it myself and find that it actually shows the literal opposite of what they were claiming it showed. The problem was that their data-illiterate ass just had no idea how to actually understand the data.

That data you've linked to there on the UK ONS site is a big, complicated data set. I could spend a whole week going through it and I still wouldn't be comfortable drawing any solid conclusions from it without having a huge bunch of questions answered by the team that collected it first. For you, someone with no statistical background, to pull some conclusions out of it in an hour only tells me that you have literally no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Nich]

Originally Posted by Ab

This would be Dr Aseem Malhotra, author of the book "The 21-Day Immunity Plan" which claims to contain a special diet that can reduce the risk of COVID infection, yeah?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=4206070

per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities.

For every 1 COVID hospitalization avoided, 18 to 98 are hospitalized.

Beware though, I heard the authors collect ... salt lamps! Go along to fullfact or whatever and get whatever strawman talking points are meant to fob this study off.

Aseem Malhotra, thinks people in the western world are too fat. Being fat means you have a shit immune system. If you eat the right food, you stop being fat.

[Nich]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Why? Because I won't watch the videos of some random, self-proclaimed "expert" you've found online as opposed to an actual doctor who studied this most of their life, so by your logic I deserve to die? Check.

Why not, I get told because I refuse the COVID vaccine that *I* deserve to die. Now it's my turn. And I've got receipts. I've got links to real doctors, peer-reviewed studies, testimonies, hot mic slip ups, it makes zero difference.

But yet, on the otherside you've got ... what America's doctor who kept a working HIV drug off the market so hey could flog his pharma HIV drug... please. the sword cuts both ways. and now it literally is cutting back the other way.

[The Edge]

I have never said those words to you. It's your choice not to get the vaccine - but as an aside the virus itself couldn't care less about your choices or "medical freedoms". All it's looking for is people to hammer as hard as possible when they get infected. It's been proven that vaccination helps mitigate the symptoms and leads to better long-term health outcomes.
Anyway I already did this debate to death with Dr Titus (I never told him he deserved to die, either), and I'm not interested in covering the same ground again. Good luck with your fringe facts and figures and theories - moreso if you get infected.

[Nich]

Fair enough, you're getting splash back. Don't take it personally. I've been on the receiving end of wishing I'd get hurt by COVID and hurt bad because I didn't take the vaccine. If you did a tally. You will see that this is the ONE time I've said you deserve worse health if you -- in light of all the information available to you -- continue to keep getting the vaccine.

It's only vaccinated getting hit hard by COVID in 2022 anyway. I'm good.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Nich

Fair enough, you're getting splash back. Don't take it personally.

Maybe manage that for yourself? You do you, but it might help your position seem a little less woo-woo if you were engaging with what's going on here, rather than dumping shit you've collected elsewhere and making out it's ours.

[Nich]

The wishes I got more sick came from this thread. People like Fixed Truth, Nothing, Bradman, blah blah.

Can't I wish them to get more sick back? I do it ONE time and I'm a terrible person.

[Lightspeed]

Maybe I skipped over those comments? I definitely can't recall seeing anything like that from f_t or Nothing. And it doesn't fit with their general vibes.

I appreciate you probably don't want to go to the effort to dig the comments up.

[Nich]

Originally Posted by The Edge

It's been proven that vaccination helps mitigate the symptoms and leads to better long-term health outcomes.

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....20.21267966v2
See page 6, negative effectiveness after 90 days. Immune system is worse than when it started.

Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection During an Omicron Wave in Iceland
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2794886

The probability of reinfection increased with time from the initial infection (odds ratio of 18 months vs 3 months, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.08) (Figure) and was higher among persons who had received 2 or more doses compared with 1 dose or less of vaccine (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.78).

COVID vaccines may impair long-term immunity to the virus
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/328102
Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blinded phase of the mRNA-1273 Covid-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...2271936v1.full

Vaccines against the coronavirus may impair the body’s ability to produce a key type of antibody (anti-N Abs), thus potentially limiting the immune system’s defenses against mutated strains of the virus
Of all unvaccinated subjects who had been diagnosed with the virus during the trial, nearly all (93%) had measurable levels of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, compared to less than half (40%) of those in the vaccine cohort.

Why a 4th COVID-19 Shot Likely Won’t Provide More Protection
https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...ore-protection
COVID: Do multiple boosters 'exhaust' our immune response?
https://www.dw.com/en/covid-do-multi...nse/a-60447735

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Nich

For every 1 COVID hospitalization avoided, 18 to 98 are hospitalized.

No, no, no. A serious adverse event does not automatically mean hospitalisation. Not all adverse events are equally likely, and the more serious ones are typically a lot less likely. If you go a bit further into that not-yet-peer-reviewed article, you'll see figure one gives you the definitions for what counts as a serious adverse event. The definition includes the broad catch all of a "medically important event, based on medical judgement."

So that might be, for example, someone who passes out, gets up 10 seconds later, and is then fine, but a doctor decides to record it as a medically important event, and other things like that. There's no indication that this is a category that *requires* hospitalisation.

SAEs obviously also include death, but to date after more than 11 million doses administered in NZ, we have still only had 3 fatalities in which the vaccine is believed to have played a causal role.

There are another 8 deaths which are still being investigated and another 7 where there was not sufficient information available to determine one way or the other.

So, a whole lot of really terrible sounding stuff is in the SAE category, but not everything in that category is equally likely.

[Nothing]

Also those "1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities" can include a sore shoulder following the shot which makes you want to take a pain killer or avoid playing cricket that day. So, you know, not necessarily a big deal, and the vast majority of those people, probably not a big deal.

[Nich]

Page 14.

[Lightspeed]

Is there a way to find out what someone actually qualified has to say about these studies?

Even in my area of expertise I still rely on secondary sources, working experts with reputations they depend on explaining the nuance of a study, bringing in some history and the wider landscape of studies that are relevant.

[Nich]

So this report is lumping "no biggie" events with ... death events? Contrary to how FDA defines SAE?

https://www.fda.gov/safety/reporting...-adverse-event

Other Serious (Important Medical Events)
Report when the event does not fit the other outcomes, but the event may jeopardize the patient and may require medical or surgical intervention (treatment) to prevent one of the other outcomes. Examples include allergic brochospasm (a serious problem with breathing) requiring treatment in an emergency room, serious blood dyscrasias (blood disorders) or seizures/convulsions that do not result in hospitalization. The development of drug dependence or drug abuse would also be examples of important medical events.

Still seems serious.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Is there a way to find out what someone actually qualified has to say about these studies?

No, just get vaccinated.

[Lightspeed]

Fuck off with that cringe shit.

...

You're gonna rub one out over the idea you're irritating me, aren't you?

[Nich]

In anycase, the report is arguing:
To save one (fat or old) person from being hospitalized with COVID, this many people need to go through pain and discomfort which ranges from sore shoulder, to death (roll the dice, 18-29 year olds!).

I'm gonna sound a bit callous here but... you know, let the fat / old person die.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by The FDA

Other Serious (Important Medical Events) [...] The development of drug dependence or drug abuse would also be examples of important medical events.

[Nich]

If the 15,000 males and 15,000 females ages 18-29 years on the hypothetical campus were all boosted under a universal mandate, we estimate between 1.7 to 3.0 occurrences of myocarditis (rates of 1 in 7,00053 to 1 in 500051) among males and 0.7 cases among females. Boosting the entire campus could thus cause approximately 3-4 myo/pericarditis cases, among males predominantly, per single hospitalisation averted. (Figure 2)

Good luck with your shit heart over the next 5 years of your miserable sedentary life, but here's a gold star for keeping 1 boomer alive!

[StN]

I'm not placing much credence in the death rate comparison stats when the paradigm was entirely new. A vast amount of the planets population were living in semi isolation, not physically interacting with as wide and varied a snapshot of people they previously did, and typically were not driving much or indulging in risky behaviour*. So the whole playing field changed. Even limiting it to Covid related deaths amongst Vacc/UnVacc compared to other causes of a respitory nature seems flawed.

/I am not a statistician or medial professional.

*Except those that got fed up watching Tiger King and decided what non-flared-base objects they could insert.

[Cyberbob]

I bet that bitch Carol Baskin is anti-vax.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Nich

Why not, I get told because I refuse the COVID vaccine that *I* deserve to die.

Not by me. Tbh I assumed that everyone here against the vaccine reluctantly got it for work reasons.

Originally Posted by Nich

Still seems serious.

Whether you think the data seems serious, or whether I don't, has no bearing on whether it is or not. Because we're not qualified to make accurate conclusions from the information.

[Nich]

A lot of people think this of themselves, and others. You're reading the words, but you're not a scientist so you're not qualified to be concerned or reassured. Give yourself a bit more credit, you can read and comprehend, and scientists (sometimes) make the effort in their writings to be understood by the layman.

I promise you no one qualified -- to the standard that seems expected here -- will change their tune and categorically call COVID vaccines net negative. You're on your own to figure it out, like Lightspeed from the Hood. Then when you have figured it out, no one will say "No" on your behalf.

The non-celebrity doctors lose their license to practice if they take a stance against COVID vaccines... so anything they say is already easy to debunk (at least to the standard of fullfact: "This joker doesn't even have a medical license! shame, shame, shame")

Aseem Malhotra (food affects hormones and immune system!? why on insulinresistance.org? quack!)
Ryan Cole (quack)
Peter A McCullough (alt-right propagandist)
Robert Malone (...to be honest anti-vaxx celebrity has fucked this guy. In 2022 he has a tan and shaves his chest hair.)
Pierre Cory (horse paste!)
Mike Yeadon (shame, shame, shame!)
Brooke Jackson (she was just a receptionist!)
Paul E Marik (Vitamins affect health!? quack)

That's just the charismatic ones who can speak and write for large audiences.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Is there a way to find out what someone actually qualified has to say about these studies?

Even in my area of expertise I still rely on secondary sources, working experts with reputations they depend on explaining the nuance of a study, bringing in some history and the wider landscape of studies that are relevant.

Yeah, this is something I kind of struggle with myself. Anti-vaxxers take a shotgun approach - they figure that if they throw enough shit at the wall eventually some of it will stick. And just by chance, somewhere along the way, there might be some stuff that they're even right about.

But by that point, like the boy who cried wolf, anyone serious will be so sick of their shit and the fact that they use this shotgun approach instead of the scalpel which would be the right tool for the job, that nobody will want to listen to them. They're their own worst enemy in that way.

Take this study that Nich has posted - it's not peer reviewed yet. What are we to make of that? It's being shared by someone who we can tell by the way they're commenting isn't employing any nuance when evaluating these things. 18 - 98 hospitalisations. Definitely all hospitalisations. Doesn't even stop to question whether every SAE is actually a hospitalisation or not.

It might be reasonable to think that a big part of the *reason* that he's sharing a study that hasn't been peer reviewed is simply because the authors of the conclusions he has already decided are true aren't ever likely to get their publication *past* peer review.

But yeah, I haven't bothered taking the time to look into the authors of that paper and whether they're in any way credible or not. If there are honest to god problems with the vaccine, it might be the case that one day we'll know about it. In the mean time I'm certainly not going to run around being chicken little every time an anti-vaxxer sounds the alarm and posts some new credible looking bullshit.

They specialise in credible looking bullshit, and the vast majority of it ends up not stacking up for all sorts of different reasons. I'm comfortable with the view that if and when there are problems, actual credible sources will let us know.

[Nothing]

We've had 1.8 million cases of covid, which has cased 2038 deaths.

We've given 11.68 million doses of the vaccine, which has caused 3 deaths, and possibly a small handful of others.

2038/1.8m cases of covid = 0.11% mortality rate.

3/11.68m vaccination doses = 0.00003%

That would make the covid 4283 times more likely to kill you than the vaccine.

Admittedly, that is a best case scenario. But even if we change things up by saying, for example, that only 1 in 4 covid cases is actually detected, so that the real number of covid cases is more like 7.2m then we'd have:

2038/7.2m = 0.03%

At that point covid has dropped to a measly 1168 times more deadly than the vaccine.

And lastly, even if we said that all of the people who could *possibly* (but we're pretty sure weren't) be killed by the vaccine actually were, then you'd have

177/11.68m = 0.00152%

Even at this point, taking the worst case scenario reasonably imaginable, covid is still 20 times more deadly than the vaccine.

So, even if the vaccine only made covid a teeny tiny bit less likely to kill you, it would probably still be worth getting, but actually it seems to reduce the risk of death by about 10x.

A 0.00152% chance of death to turn a 0.03% chance of death into a 0.003% chance of death is a deal I'd do every time.

[Nich]

Mate, children are having strokes and heart attacks. Health Insurance companies are reporting 4 sigma death claims. It doesn't matter how well you LARP as Good Will Hunting, the vaccines are catastrophic for society.

[Nich]

Israel Ministry of Health doesn't share your confidence.
https://twitter.com/YaffaRaz/status/1565395051374592001
"We need to start thinking medical legal"

https://brownstone.org/articles/adve...try-of-health/

The team examined both the close categories of side effects that were set by the MOH (there were 7 such categories), and the free text (they identified 22 categories of side effects). Due to limited time and resources, they decided to first analyze only the 5 most common side effects they identified: 1. neurological injuries; 2. general side effects; 3. menstrual irregularities; 4. musculoskeletal system disorders; and 5. digestive system/kidney and urinary system.

I'm done entertaining this delusion of safe & effective.

[Lightspeed]

I hate to think the trough you're feeding at Nich.

[Nich]

Better than searching for comforting stats in Excel...

[Lightspeed]

That's your alternative?

Myself, I carry the discomfort. I'll take reality with all its glory and agony.

[Nich]

Well I'd rather avoid the agony of a damaged heart and handicapped immune system. I have zero hope that TGA will assist me with this desire after attempting for 2 years to cause as many damaged hearts as possible.

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, except you can't completely avoid that risk, can you? There are many ways to damage your heart, many ways to handicap your immune system.

And while your focus is captured by this risk, there's all the other risk you're neglecting.

How are you sure you're just not chasing dopamine hits?

[Nich]

That is a terrible read on my position. I mostly presume you choose a bad interpretation to encourage me to write more clearly. So thank you, I guess?

But what do you get out of this "Could be, but might not be!" type of challenge to what I'm saying?
Are you hoping to be convinced?

Well that was my position for the past 2 years when people said "Safe and effective.". well it could be, but might not be! "Anti-vaxxer!"

Now my position is "ya'll fucked up."

[Lightspeed]

No, that's not it. I think a full-time academic would struggle to properly digest the volume of data you post.

It looks compulsive. It looks like you're not choosing this behaviour, you MUST chase this data. I wonder what feelings come up for you at the idea of stopping? Just looking away, getting on with what you can actually get on with?

Wherever the fuck up is, I haven't encountered it yet. Don't know anyone who has encountered it. The problems of the world seem to be very much other things.

[Caesar]

So whats going to happen next time.

What happens when another even more deadly virus comes out and is deemed a Pandemic and the world has to pop out another Vaccine quickly to stop people from dieing.

Will there be even more vaccine hesitancy?

[Nothing]

Fuckwits gon' fuckwit, I guess.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Nothing

We've had 1.8 million cases of covid, which has cased 2038 deaths.

We've given 11.68 million doses of the vaccine, which has caused 3 deaths, and possibly a small handful of others.

2038/1.8m cases of covid = 0.11% mortality rate.

3/11.68m vaccination doses = 0.00003%

That would make the covid 4283 times more likely to kill you than the vaccine.

Admittedly, that is a best case scenario. But even if we change things up by saying, for example, that only 1 in 4 covid cases is actually detected, so that the real number of covid cases is more like 7.2m then we'd have:

2038/7.2m = 0.03%

At that point covid has dropped to a measly 1168 times more deadly than the vaccine.

And lastly, even if we said that all of the people who could *possibly* (but we're pretty sure weren't) be killed by the vaccine actually were, then you'd have

177/11.68m = 0.00152%

Even at this point, taking the worst case scenario reasonably imaginable, covid is still 20 times more deadly than the vaccine.

So, even if the vaccine only made covid a teeny tiny bit less likely to kill you, it would probably still be worth getting, but actually it seems to reduce the risk of death by about 10x.

A 0.00152% chance of death to turn a 0.03% chance of death into a 0.003% chance of death is a deal I'd do every time.

Whoops. I made a mistake in these numbers, whaddaya know. I mean, in principle the reasoning all works exactly the same, the only difference is that when calculating the lethality of covid vs the lethality of the vaccine, I used a population in which basically everyone had already been vaccinated. And so the vaccine does nothing to reduce the 0.03% chance of death any further in the worst case example, because everyone was already vaccinated.

But then, if you follow that logic, the starting example should have been how many deaths we could have *expected* to have if we didn't have a vaccine, rather than the number we *actually* had, with the vaccine. And then the expected number of deaths would have been something like 20,000/7,200,000 = 0.3%, which would then have the result that covid is about 198 times more likely than the vaccine to kill you, given the worst reasonable case scenario where we assume every death possibly caused by the vaccine was caused by the vaccine and where we assume only 1 in 4 covid cases is detected.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Caesar

So whats going to happen next time?

It would be easier to predict the next big meme.

[Nich]

Originally Posted by Caesar

So whats going to happen next time.

What happens when another even more deadly virus comes out and is deemed a Pandemic and the world has to pop out another Vaccine quickly to stop people from dieing.

Will there be even more vaccine hesitancy?

You mean when a more deadly virus released from a lab and a vaccine is quickly developed to maximise profits only and capitalise on the amplified fears?

No question about it, it will be resisted vehemently. Any politician or public health official will be assumed to be lying by default. And it will be glorious. They did it to themselves.


Consultant Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra will present new evidence relating to the safety and efficacy of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. This will include analyses that answers the question ‘is there a link between these new types of vaccines and an increase in cardiac events?’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojPT9TWBikU

[Ab]

Not until he's written a book about a miracle diet that can protect you from it, read the secret health tips that hospitals don't want you to know, click here