|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
You yourself provided the refutation to your claim in your own post.
"What? Of course people died after a vaccination!"
"Of course it is often difficult to see if it is "death because of the vaccination" or just "happenstance""
People have died after vaccination => true
People have died because of vaccination => false
There's no proof that covid-19 vaccines have caused any deaths. I'll also provide a link to a full breakdown of the true risk of the vaccines.
https://fullfact.org/health/VAERS-reporting-america/
|
On August 20 2021 17:36 Nikon wrote:I'm not saying they'd argue against vaccination, just blanket mass vaccinating everyone. As long as the vaccine does not offer immunity to the virus, vaccinating everyone is going to be a lot less effective towards solving the problem than is suggested. The virus is a lot more widespread than the official data shows. It will still be here next year this time, with a new variant, and it will keep going like that. Coincidentally, now is about the best time to get a vaccine if you're in a risk group, as long as the vaccine is effective against the Delta variation. Show nested quote +On August 20 2021 17:21 Magic Powers wrote:
and not a single death can be attributed to covid-19 vaccination. I'm doubtful about this statement, but that's beside the topic.
If a vaccine is considered safe for one person, then it's because it's considered safe for all people of the same demographic. So it makes no sense to argue for vaccination but not also for blanket mass vaccination. The studies show that the vaccines are overwhelmingly safe, and - even when accounting for unknown unknowns - many times safer than the risk of getting infected with all its possible consequences.
Vaccine hesitancy has nothing to do with the question what's the best strategy to end the pandemic. You can end the pandemic in a few ways and all of those ways can include mass vaccination as an additional measure. There's no detriment to that. Do you have a source that suggests that mass vaccination should not be part of the plan?
So if you want to argue that mass vaccination alone isn't going to end the pandemic, then I'm on your side. But that has nothing to do with vaccine hesitancy. The more people get vaccinated, the less the virus spreads. The data strongly suggests that this can only be beneficial.
|
|
|
As a scientist, I am really, really uncomfortable with the huge spike in public consumption of preprint papers, especially in medicine and public health. The pandemic has caused an explosion of questionable, "pre-review" reports, and a matching explosion of laymen ferreting around in preprint sites for results that match their biases.
I have no experience in survey design and no expertise to assess that study as anything but another layman, but I have plenty of experience reviewing absolutely garbage papers that will never see the light of day. If it has not been peer-reviewed, it is not science. Full stop.
Preprints used to be largely a physics thing. This worked fine, because the general public didn't give a rat's about the things physicists were writing preprints on, and the few that the public did care about were results like gravitational waves and the Higgs from huge flagship teams that you could assume had been through really rigorous internal review. This confidence should absolutely not be extended to small teams in medical fields in the middle of a pandemic.
Even as a layman looking at that paper, there seem to be two obvious red flags. One, it relies exclusively on Facebook data, and given that of the 100+ PhDs I know, maybe a half dozen still use Facebook for anything other than messenger, that seems problematic. Two, it depends on the respondents reporting their level of education accurately, which is equally problematic. Self-selected and self-reported is a recipe for nonsense unless it's managed very carefully.
|
On August 20 2021 20:27 Belisarius wrote:
As a scientist, I am really, really uncomfortable with the huge spike in public consumption of preprint papers, especially in medical fields. The pandemic has caused an explosion of these questionable, "pre-review" reports, and a matching explosion of laymen ferreting around in preprint sites for results that match their biases.
Preprints used to be largely a physics thing, and this worked fine because the general public doesn't give a rats about most things physicists want to preprint about, and the few things the public did care about were things like gravitational waves and the Higgs with huge flagship teams behind them that you could assume had been through really rigorous internal review. This confidence should absolutely not be extended to small teams in medical fields in the middle of a pandemic.
If it has not been peer-reviewed, it is not science. Full stop. I have no experience in survey design and no expertise to assess that study, but I have plenty of experience reviewing absolutely garbage papers that will never see the light of day. Until a group of independent experts have signed off on it, it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
Specific to that paper, there are two obvious red flags. It relies exclusively on Facebook data, and given that of the 100+ PhDs I know, maybe a half dozen still use Facebook for anything other than messenger, that seems problematic. Two, it depends on the respondents to report their level of education accurately, which is equally problematic. Self-selected and self-reported is a recipe for nonsense unless it's managed very carefully.
How dare you seek to exclude the qualifications of people who earned their PHD from the School of Hard Knocks!
|
On August 20 2021 18:24 Magic Powers wrote:You yourself provided the refutation to your claim in your own post. "What? Of course people died after a vaccination!" "Of course it is often difficult to see if it is "death because of the vaccination" or just "happenstance"" People have died after vaccination => true People have died because of vaccination => false There's no proof that covid-19 vaccines have caused any deaths. I'll also provide a link to a full breakdown of the true risk of the vaccines. https://fullfact.org/health/VAERS-reporting-america/
You are probably also into that there are no people dying from Covid too... just "with"...
For example thrombosis is a (relative) common reaction to a vaccination, espacially with astrazeneca. And people died from that! Period!
|
Norway28911 Posts
By relatively common you mean 4-6 cases per million.  (this still means that the 'people have died from vaccines statement ' is correct, and being Norwegian with my health and in my age group, I actually think AZ might be more lethal (distinctly different from dangerous) for me than what being unvaccinated would be. )
|
On August 20 2021 21:51 Geisterkarle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2021 18:24 Magic Powers wrote:You yourself provided the refutation to your claim in your own post. "What? Of course people died after a vaccination!" "Of course it is often difficult to see if it is "death because of the vaccination" or just "happenstance"" People have died after vaccination => true People have died because of vaccination => false There's no proof that covid-19 vaccines have caused any deaths. I'll also provide a link to a full breakdown of the true risk of the vaccines. https://fullfact.org/health/VAERS-reporting-america/ You are probably also into that there are no people dying from Covid too... just "with"... For example thrombosis is a (relative) common reaction to a vaccination, espacially with astrazeneca. And people died from that! Period!
Common? No.
"How common are sinus vein thromboses after vaccinations?
The cases are very rare. In the United Kingdom, where about 18 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine had been administered by March 24, there had been 30 cases by then, seven of which were fatal. In Germany, with 2.7 million doses of the vaccine administered, there had been 31 cases by March 29, with nine deaths. For Johnson & Johnson's vaccine, six cases were reported in the U.S. through April 13, though no deaths. There, 6.8 million doses had been administered by then."
https://www.dw.com/en/covid-is-there-a-link-between-vector-vaccines-and-thrombosis/a-57213452
The rare chance of developing a serious side effect from the covid vaccine is magnitudes less probable than developing a serious side effect from covid itself; the same goes for death.
|
|
|
On August 20 2021 21:51 Geisterkarle wrote:
You are probably also into that there are no people dying from Covid too... just "with"...
For example thrombosis is a (relative) common reaction to a vaccination, espacially with astrazeneca. And people died from that! Period!
"Especially"? With the covid-19 vaccines, so far only AZ has such a record. Moderna and Pfizer for example aren't showing any such problems. Also, a causal link between AZ and deaths from blood clots is yet unconfirmed. There's only talk of a "possible link". The WHO considers it "plausible, but unconfirmed".
The following article goes into some detail:
"In a statement on Thursday, AstraZeneca said the research published in the New England Journal of Medicine was drawn from “a small sample size.”
“Recent real-world evidence drawn from millions of individuals shows that AstraZeneca’s vaccine has a comparable safety profile with other vaccines and that incidences of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia are extremely rare and treatable,” said a spokesperson.
The spokesperson added that there was “a far greater risk” of rare blood clotting events through contracting Covid-19."
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/blood-clots-linked-to-astrazeneca-shot-have-22percent-mortality-rate-study.html
Despite the lack of definitive proof, accommodations have been made away from AZ and towards other vaccines. That even though the known downsides from risking infection far outweigh the suspected downsides of AZ vaccination.
And please spare me the "deaths with covid-19" argument, it only shows the inconsistency of some people's reasoning. We've been hearing of alleged "exaggerated covid-19 death rates" since day one, or even rejection of excess deaths altogether. Then when it comes to vaccines that same skepticism suddenly goes out the window?
If sars-cov-2 was an intelligent being with sinister plans, it'd probably thank you for being such a helpful ally.
|
For what it's worth, COVID has also been a nightmare for peer review (well, pre-publication peer review). I mean, the ivermectin paper that was the basis to conduct multiple RCTs (and is heavily relied on by quacks) was only found to be totally fabricated by a student months after its final publication, and the same thing happened to multiple other papers. Even the best peer review can't detect the fabricated data that is behind some of the most misleading COVID studies.
|
On August 20 2021 21:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:By relatively common you mean 4-6 cases per million. (this still means that the 'people have died from vaccines statement ' is correct, and being Norwegian with my health and in my age group, I actually think AZ might be more lethal (distinctly different from dangerous) for me than what being unvaccinated would be. )
That is not necessarily true. There are 4-6 cases per million vs. how many in the control group? Afaik it's something like 2-3 cases per million? From what I recall, many (most?) of the post-vaccine thrombosis cases were identified. It's a treatable condition, so you can expect that some of those people were saved. The question you should be asking is whether the number of deaths resulting from thrombosis was higher than among the non-vaccinated people (per capita).
As for AZ being more lethal, I highly doubt that. 4-6 cases per million. Even if all cases were deadly, that'd give mortality risk of 0.0006%. Here's some data on COVID-19 mortality by age:
Fig. 3 here, Fig. 2a here and Fig. 4A here.
If you're in your thirties, the risk of dying is somewhere around 0.01-0.1%.
|
On August 20 2021 20:27 Belisarius wrote:
As a scientist, I am really, really uncomfortable with the huge spike in public consumption of preprint papers, especially in medicine and public health. The pandemic has caused an explosion of questionable, "pre-review" reports, and a matching explosion of laymen ferreting around in preprint sites for results that match their biases.
I have no experience in survey design and no expertise to assess that study as anything but another layman, but I have plenty of experience reviewing absolutely garbage papers that will never see the light of day. If it has not been peer-reviewed, it is not science. Full stop.
Preprints used to be largely a physics thing. This worked fine, because the general public didn't give a rat's about the things physicists were writing preprints on, and the few that the public did care about were results like gravitational waves and the Higgs from huge flagship teams that you could assume had been through really rigorous internal review. This confidence should absolutely not be extended to small teams in medical fields in the middle of a pandemic.
Even as a layman looking at that paper, there seem to be two obvious red flags. One, it relies exclusively on Facebook data, and given that of the 100+ PhDs I know, maybe a half dozen still use Facebook for anything other than messenger, that seems problematic. Two, it depends on the respondents reporting their level of education accurately, which is equally problematic. Self-selected and self-reported is a recipe for nonsense unless it's managed very carefully.
Is that a PhD or just an age thing? I mean... I have a PhD and only use Facebook for messenger (and that only occasionally), but I don't think friends with a lower education still use Facebook either. Instagram and Whatsapp? Sure, but facebook itself is just "passé". Which just reinforces the problem: facebook surveys with 5million respondents seem... fishy.
And yes, if PhDs are less likely thank most to use facebook that just exacerbates the subgroup analysis problem. That means through self-selection effect, the 2% in the general population (which is already a problematically small subgroup) becomes << 2% through self-selection bias of PhDs not using facebook.
Add to that the self-reporting problem where people just fill in shit for the lulz (especially if it's a facebook survey with 5million responses in this day and age)... I think I'll go and read that paper to study their exact methodology, because at face value that paper will be "pre-print" forever.
|
Norway28911 Posts
On August 20 2021 22:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2021 21:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:By relatively common you mean 4-6 cases per million. (this still means that the 'people have died from vaccines statement ' is correct, and being Norwegian with my health and in my age group, I actually think AZ might be more lethal (distinctly different from dangerous) for me than what being unvaccinated would be. ) That is not necessarily true. There are 4-6 cases per million vs. how many in the control group? Afaik it's something like 2-3 cases per million? From what I recall, many (most?) of the post-vaccine thrombosis cases were identified. It's a treatable condition, so you can expect that some of those people were saved. The question you should be asking is whether the number of deaths resulting from thrombosis was higher than among the non-vaccinated people (per capita). As for AZ being more lethal, I highly doubt that. 4-6 cases per million. Even if all cases were deadly, that'd give mortality risk of 0.0006%. Here's some data on COVID-19 mortality by age: Fig. 3 here, Fig. 2a here and Fig. 4A here. If you're in your thirties, the risk of dying is somewhere around 0.01-0.1%.
In Norway only 6 people younger than 40 have died of Covid. That is from 2.7 million or so people. To my knowledge, all had other serious illnesses in addition to Covid. Me writing 'being Norwegian with my health and age group' was a crucial part of my post, because I include the likelihood of contracting the disease, that I have no serious underlying conditions, and that our Healthcare system is excellent and never in danger of collapsing into the equation. (Fwiw, I heard the same statement that I made and had a 'that can't be true' response to it, but it seems to check out math-wise. )
(Edited cuz my initial number was wrong)
|
You're comparing the numbers for the overall population for vaccination risk with COVID-19 mortality for a specific subset of the population. The blood clot issue occurred predominantly in young women, are you one? ;-)
You're also assuming you don't have any underlying issues you're not aware of. I know people who had heart defects they were not aware of.
|
Norway28911 Posts
Valid I guess.  But healthy Norwegian 30-40 year olds still have a mortality rate of 0 from covid.
|
What's their mortality from the vaccine? :-)
|
Norway28911 Posts
To my knowledge, we have not used any astrazeneca for this age group, and hardly at all. Prolly would've been 0 though. My main point is that for a healthy person younger than 40 living somewhere with low infection rates and where the health care system is fully operational and functional, covid is not lethal. It can still be dangerous, but it does not kill. A miniscule chance of thrombosis is less dangerous than covid is, but it is more likely than 0 to actually kill you.
|
|
|
On August 21 2021 00:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
To my knowledge, we have not used any astrazeneca for this age group, and hardly at all. Prolly would've been 0 though. My main point is that for a healthy person younger than 40 living somewhere with low infection rates and where the health care system is fully operational and functional, covid is not lethal. It can still be dangerous, but it does not kill. A miniscule chance of thrombosis is less dangerous than covid is, but it is more likely than 0 to actually kill you.
Yes, this sort of blood clotting has a non-zero chance of killing you, but you have a much greater chance of developing it by contracting the virus than from the vaccine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
