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.
Your response is terrible logic. No it does not invoke nazism, this is not discrimination its people making a bad choice. It would be no different tham sayinf speed limits discriminate against people who like to drive fast.You basically are the teem complaining about curfew I was referencing.
Your we dont kbow thing is also horrible logic, and basically goes against triaging in medicine. You deal with the current immideate danger and then the future ones. It would be like not taking chemo/radiation for your cancer because what if it kills you in 25 years?
Also, you have to be unwell to think that something that is much safer now would somehow magically swap to less safe later.
You cant compare unvax long term to vax lomg term. You have to compare unvax with covid long term to vaxx possibly with covid long term. And when we know beond question that vax + covid is WAY WAY better off in the short and medium term (the only thing we can know because thats the knly time frame to exist) than unvaxx with covid, why in the hell would that magically switch? Not to mention ALL the experts that would know best necause of their decades and decades of studying medicne and viruses are also telling us this.
Italic - actually any form of segregation of society will bring this comparison and bad choice is relative depending on person. Not changing your faith to avoid repercussion is bad choice also??
Bolded - doesn't matter how many times you call someone who disagree with you, kid, teen, flat earther, or whatever else will come to your mind - it won't make them ones. What you will achieve, is not being taken seriously.
Italic2 - or it would be like not taking chemo/radiation for sinuses.
Of course I can't - there is any data as of now. I can however account for that. Italic is just a nonsense. "ALL the experts" is just lie.
On January 28 2022 23:49 Acrofales wrote:
Honestly speaking, yes, you are right. If we had such a backlog of surgeries that people were dying of treatable causes, but we lacked the equipment to do the surgeries (rather than the people, which is infinitely more likely, and not as easily solved), and doing the surgery with dirty equipment would increase the risk per patient, but overall more people would live then we should ABSOLUTELY do surgery with dirty equipment.
However, over here in the real world, sterlilized equipment is NOT the limiting factor in how many people can get life-saving surgery...
Thank you for understanding that this is just example. (bizarrely it is somewhat uncommon). Point of view on that one I would guess would be dependant on position in the queue . Also how do we know that overall more people would live?
On January 29 2022 00:13 JimmiC wrote:
Good point, he is also right that if this was a zombie apocalypse movie instead of real world the vaccine would be a more likely cause than Covid.
I don't recall stating anything like that?? (I may be wrong though)
You either don’t get a vaccine in any useful timely manner by sticking to the standard regulatory framework, or you drop certain standards because of the exceptional circumstances to put one out to market much quicker.
You never should drop some standards. Dropping standards in testing of medicine/vaccine to get it to the market quicker is comparable to saying: We have backlog of surgeries, lets drop requirement for disinfecting tools - that way we may perform more surgeries and people who wouldn't live to get them done now have a chance.
It's not only a good idea to protect yourself and minimize your own risk, but you reduce the amount you transmit to others, in turn reducing the severity of their illness.
The stupidest part about the big pharma excuse is who do you think are profiting off the hospitalizations? These treatments are super expensive, hell the mononucial antibodies DeSantis is a huge fan of is costs between 2100 and 12000 a dose and despite it not working for Omnicron he still pushes it, oh and his biggest doaner is heavily invested in regeneron. Hydro, ivermectin all these "cures" are big pharma and they all cost more than the vaccine.
Not sure what mob you ate talking about, but the crowd that listens to experts understands that in a democratic society rights come with responsibilty. It has long been the case that when a individual is not responsible they get fined, lose that right and even can lose their personal freedom for a time.
The strangest part of all this is its easy, safe and helpful. The not doing it when you get through the made up fluff, is " dont tell me what to do/i dont want too". Its like kids who wont eat their veggies and get a timeout/grounded. Its hard to feel sorry for people getting consequences for making a terrible choice not only for themselves but effects everyone around them.
People have long since given up on trying to make an arguement against vaccines because the cost benift is so damn clear, its now just being mad about having to do something good for them because they don't want too. Its people acting like spoiled children. Even the invoking of nazi Germany is what tweens and teens do when they dont like their curfew or whatever. It is pretty pathetic.
Italic - this responsibility however should have limits. There were times where being black, jew, women, or not of noble birth also came with certain responsibilities, Primae Noctis was also responsibility. Now read your second sentence in this paragraph then entire paragraph again and explain, why are you surprised that people invoke Nazi Germany??
Bolded - this is the part we don't know. Currently there is no way of knowing if vaccine doesn't increase the risk of you getting whatever disease in the span of years. You know what's so brilliant about it? That with high enough vaccination rate, there won't be any way to connect the 2. (excluding vastly unlikely occurrence of totally new disease affecting only previously vaccinated)
What are your proposals to deal with a pandemic as vaccines are now off the table?
Your response is terrible logic. No it does not invoke nazism, this is not discrimination its people making a bad choice. It would be no different tham sayinf speed limits discriminate against people who like to drive fast.You basically are the teem complaining about curfew I was referencing.
Your we dont kbow thing is also horrible logic, and basically goes against triaging in medicine. You deal with the current immideate danger and then the future ones. It would be like not taking chemo/radiation for your cancer because what if it kills you in 25 years?
Also, you have to be unwell to think that something that is much safer now would somehow magically swap to less safe later.
You cant compare unvax long term to vax lomg term. You have to compare unvax with covid long term to vaxx possibly with covid long term. And when we know beond question that vax + covid is WAY WAY better off in the short and medium term (the only thing we can know because thats the knly time frame to exist) than unvaxx with covid, why in the hell would that magically switch? Not to mention ALL the experts that would know best necause of their decades and decades of studying medicne and viruses are also telling us this.
Italic - actually any form of segregation of society will bring this comparison and bad choice is relative depending on person. Not changing your faith to avoid repercussion is bad choice also??
Bolded - doesn't matter how many times you call someone who disagree with you, kid, teen, flat earther, or whatever else will come to your mind - it won't make them ones. What you will achieve, is not being taken seriously.
Italic2 - or it would be like not taking chemo/radiation for sinuses.
Of course I can't - there is any data as of now. I can however account for that. Italic is just a nonsense. "ALL the experts" is just lie.
On January 28 2022 23:49 Acrofales wrote:
Honestly speaking, yes, you are right. If we had such a backlog of surgeries that people were dying of treatable causes, but we lacked the equipment to do the surgeries (rather than the people, which is infinitely more likely, and not as easily solved), and doing the surgery with dirty equipment would increase the risk per patient, but overall more people would live then we should ABSOLUTELY do surgery with dirty equipment.
However, over here in the real world, sterlilized equipment is NOT the limiting factor in how many people can get life-saving surgery...
Thank you for understanding that this is just example. (bizarrely it is somewhat uncommon). Point of view on that one I would guess would be dependant on position in the queue . Also how do we know that overall more people would live?
On January 29 2022 00:13 JimmiC wrote:
Good point, he is also right that if this was a zombie apocalypse movie instead of real world the vaccine would be a more likely cause than Covid.
I don't recall stating anything like that?? (I may be wrong though)
Point 1: Society is already segregated for health and safety all the time. People with Drivers licenses can drive and people who do not can not. Truckers who use their electronic drive time recorders can continue to Truck commercially those who do not cannot. People who want to travel for work to certain areas are required to get various shots (vaccines!) for things like hepatitis. To go to public and private school is most places there is a vaccination requirement. There are shit tons of examples of this. People have not been taken away their choice, they just have to deal with the consequences of that choice.
Point 2: True, but at some point when there is no ability to reason it becomes child like and pointing that out may help if reason does not and if not its therapeutic for me.
Point 3. It would not, because Covid is real and serious and has killed millions, left even more with long term issues and cost the healthcare system Trillions of dollars. I'm not sure why you ignore these facts but it is likely the reason your logic makes no sense to people living with the real facts. If you believed 1+1=3 you would get a ton of math questions wrong as well and also not understand why so many people think you are wrong.
Point 4. Of course doctors are not always right, especially historically. But they are still right most of the time, and not 51%. If you had Cancer or a heart attack where would you go and who would you listen too. If the answer is fringe internet sites and facebook memes by all means continue the actions you take, if you would go to the hospital and take medical advice on a medical issue then also do that now. It is not complicated when you take the made up grievances, politics and silliness out.
Point 5. There is no certainty to anything. I could drive at night on the highway with no lights on, I might not crash. I could drive with my lights on and they could reflect of a another car at just the right angle and cause me to crash. Both of the above are true, however, through data, logic and a whole host of other reasons we know that turning your lights on when you drive is WAY safer so now we require it, in fact we went as far as to require it from the manufactures that there lights are on all the time because relying on people to do it was not as effective. Society took away people choice to drive with out lights! OMG where was your freedom fighting ways then? (there are 100,000's of examples)
To the "all" experts, if you would rather me say 99.99 that is fine, it does not change the point. There are also some dentists out there that don't recommend brushing your teeth.
The last one was a joke by me based on the one reason I could think of where choosing to get covid over choosing to get vaccinated ahead of covid would make sense. It of course is a terrible reason because a zombies are made up, but many people still believe and fear zombies, so it may actually be a reason for some, maybe even you.
Point 1 - yes it is, however not based on the meds you taking. Your driver examples are really bad. Driving within speed limits doesn't put life of the driver at risk. Other vaccines you mentioned are actually properly tested, used for long time now and not forced on entire population. Beside what you are talking about is not segregation - certain activities require certain skills. Not having this skills just prevents you from those certain activities, not anything else. For example nobody suggests higher taxes for people without driving licences. Situation now looks more similar to the treatment of people with Hansen disease in medieval times.
Do those numbers justify, enforcing mass vaccination??
Point 4 - Fact that it eventually turns out that doctors were wrong, is of little condolence for people who suffered because of this "wrong". Satisfaction of saying "I told you so" is nothing compared to loss of health. And your examples are again incorrect. Cancer is in no way comparable to Covid. I am in group of really low risk when it comes to covid. So taking not fully tested vaccine to prevent infection is actually comparable to curing sinuses with radiation.
Point 5 - You may just not drive at night...
To "all the experts" I highly doubt 99.99% is correct, but I don't know actual numbers so won't argue that.
Majority of experts doesn't have to be right too, ask him: Ignaz Semmelweis.
On January 29 2022 01:54 WombaT wrote:
What are your proposals to deal with a pandemic as vaccines are now off the table?
Not off the table. I would suggests vaccine to risk groups, explained that they are still being tested, but they are facing significant risk from Covid and vaccine actually increases their chances.
Your response is terrible logic. No it does not invoke nazism, this is not discrimination its people making a bad choice. It would be no different tham sayinf speed limits discriminate against people who like to drive fast.You basically are the teem complaining about curfew I was referencing.
Your we dont kbow thing is also horrible logic, and basically goes against triaging in medicine. You deal with the current immideate danger and then the future ones. It would be like not taking chemo/radiation for your cancer because what if it kills you in 25 years?
Also, you have to be unwell to think that something that is much safer now would somehow magically swap to less safe later.
You cant compare unvax long term to vax lomg term. You have to compare unvax with covid long term to vaxx possibly with covid long term. And when we know beond question that vax + covid is WAY WAY better off in the short and medium term (the only thing we can know because thats the knly time frame to exist) than unvaxx with covid, why in the hell would that magically switch? Not to mention ALL the experts that would know best necause of their decades and decades of studying medicne and viruses are also telling us this.
Italic - actually any form of segregation of society will bring this comparison and bad choice is relative depending on person. Not changing your faith to avoid repercussion is bad choice also??
Bolded - doesn't matter how many times you call someone who disagree with you, kid, teen, flat earther, or whatever else will come to your mind - it won't make them ones. What you will achieve, is not being taken seriously.
Italic2 - or it would be like not taking chemo/radiation for sinuses.
Honestly speaking, yes, you are right. If we had such a backlog of surgeries that people were dying of treatable causes, but we lacked the equipment to do the surgeries (rather than the people, which is infinitely more likely, and not as easily solved), and doing the surgery with dirty equipment would increase the risk per patient, but overall more people would live then we should ABSOLUTELY do surgery with dirty equipment.
However, over here in the real world, sterlilized equipment is NOT the limiting factor in how many people can get life-saving surgery...
Thank you for understanding that this is just example. (bizarrely it is somewhat uncommon). Point of view on that one I would guess would be dependant on position in the queue . Also how do we know that overall more people would live?
Good point, he is also right that if this was a zombie apocalypse movie instead of real world the vaccine would be a more likely cause than Covid.
I don't recall stating anything like that?? (I may be wrong though)
Oh, so you agree standards can, and should be changed for emergency situations as long as they save lives? Because the rest is statistics. We can calculate how many more life-saving surgeries we could perform if we dropped the need to sterlilize equipment, and we could run some quick lab experiments or maybe use 19th century estimates to tell us how many patients would die from dirty-equipment-caused complications, and then decide. And until we were certain we would save more lives, and quality of life, than without that measure, we wouldn't do it, for a given measure of "certain" as defined by statistics.
You know, very similar to how we use statistics to inform us about the safety and efficacy of vaccines! Turns out that these vaccines are almost a best-case scenario: a negligible chance of serious side effects and a very good protection against vanilla and alpha variants. And even if you didn't trust it at the time, the sample size for the safety of the vaccine is now a few billion, and still with negligible chance of serious side effects!
Why are we even talking about corners being cut in the development of the covid vaccines? Because as far as I know they passed all the usual scrutiny for vaccines. There is nothing special about them in this regard.
On January 29 2022 03:58 justanothertownie wrote: Why are we even talking about corners being cut in the development of the covid vaccines? Because as far as I know they passed all the usual scrutiny for vaccines. There is nothing special about them in this regard.
People who don't understand the imense cost of vaccine development in short periods and those that think that because it didn't take years to be approved its somehow bad.
I don't like capitalism for a lot of reasons but even GH can't deny that when it wants to do something it can very effectively just throw money at the problem until it is solved. Big Pharma partnered up with bio tech firms and universities and the FDA had its schedule cleared up to all hands start testing the vaccine. they also were producing the vaccine in incredible numbers long before they had any idea if it was good or not, specifically in contradiction to any financial logic because the government foot the bill for any and all possible vaccine production.
If it was just one country saying it was good like the sinovac and the Russian Sputnik equally as much as phizer or moderna than you have every right to be suspicious. But when nation after nation after nation does independent investigations and they all come up the same you don't have a right to be suspicious anymore.
Japan took a massive gamble and put off getting vaccinations going in the midst of having the olympics coming to their country and came to the same conclusion as the rest of the world did.
One of the claims that is going around is that the vaccines aren't limiting hospitalizations and/or deaths against Omicron. This claim is false and the following links will address it.
In the video at 13 minutes 43 seconds, the graph shows a very strong link between the vaccination rate and the hospitalization rate. This includes existing data on Omicron.
Furthermore, data from the UK and Spain (also Italy in a graph for 60-79 y/o) shows a very clear disparity between vaccinated and unvaccinated regarding Omicron. Deaths as well as hospitalizations are at least three times and up to five times more likely among the unvaccinated. The data includes people aged 20 or above. I wish there was also data available for kids, but I can't reasonably see the trend there showing that vaccination wasn't helpful.
PS: The MedCram video is mostly about monoclonal antibodies, so here's a quick rundown in case someone's curious: it's explained which monoclonal antibodies are effective and which are ineffective against Omicron specifically. Lilly and Regeneron unfortunately are ineffective against Omicron but still highly effective against prior variants, while GSK fortunately is still highly effective against all variants including Omicron.
PPS: I have a policy of not responding to any comments or questions. This post is purely for information purposes.
Welcome back, Magic Powers! Your insights are sorely missed. Please do stick round more. Not just to dispense information, but to share your opinion. The thread is certainly more interesting with you around.
P.S. To keep one's sanity and mental well-being in here, not getting into arguments and filtering 'noise' is a good policy...
We also have a dashboard with good stats on vaccination/hospitalization outcomes rates and outcomes.
Nobody below the age of 70 with a booster shot has been hospitalized, compared to some amount for every age group with 1/2 dose (last 2 months is pretty much all omicron). That alone should be enough to justify the booster doses.
Not quite sure how they get the age standardized numbers, but at 2 dose, 1/5 chance of hospitalization, 1/4 for ICU, and 1/4.5 for death already shows ~ 75-80% effectiveness for preventing severe illness. Booster shot just bumps that up to 100% for younger age groups.
EDIT: Sidenote, with similar initial conditions for catching covid (both showed symptoms within a day of each other so we probably got infected at the same time)
Me, 3x Moderna - Scratchy throat(like ate a family sized bag of chips scratchy, no pain but uncomfortable), minor cough for ~4 days so far. Had minor chills this afternoon, but slept it off with a tylenol and felt perfectly fine after a couple hours of nap. Probably past the worst of it. Bro, 3x Pfizer - Very sore throat, fever & chills for a day. Cough for 5 days(severity comparison is hard).
"The new variant is very capable of infecting vaccinated individuals, as studies from the UK have shown: the effectiveness of two doses against symptomatic infections could drop to almost zero after six months, whereas with the delta variant it remained at 40%. Even after the booster shot, vaccine effectiveness against omicron is partial, with rates of between 40% and 60%, again with figures worse than those recorded against delta (90%).
These results are adjusted according to many variables. In fact, when the basic infection rates are compared for the vaccinated and unvaccinated without factoring in the variables, they are very similar or even worse for the vaccinated group than for those who have not received any shots. This could be the case if there are many more individuals among the unvaccinated who have natural immunity from a previous infection and may explain why some studies find what looks like negative vaccine effectiveness, as has been noted in reports from the UK and a preliminary study in Denmark.
Something similar is observed in the official data coming out of Iceland: the 14-day incidence rate is higher among the vaccinated population who have not received a booster shot than among the unvaccinated (5,600 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 4,000 in the unvaccinated group). However, the lowest incidence is among Icelanders with three doses.
This coincides with the data emerging from Catalonia: in November the incidence was lower for the vaccinated than for the unvaccinated in all age groups. But since the arrival of omicron, among the under-50 population – a demographic that has received few boosters – the infection rates seem to be higher among the vaccinated."
On January 29 2022 23:12 Razyda wrote: El Pais article is interesting:
"The new variant is very capable of infecting vaccinated individuals, as studies from the UK have shown: the effectiveness of two doses against symptomatic infections could drop to almost zero after six months, whereas with the delta variant it remained at 40%. Even after the booster shot, vaccine effectiveness against omicron is partial, with rates of between 40% and 60%, again with figures worse than those recorded against delta (90%).
These results are adjusted according to many variables. In fact, when the basic infection rates are compared for the vaccinated and unvaccinated without factoring in the variables, they are very similar or even worse for the vaccinated group than for those who have not received any shots. This could be the case if there are many more individuals among the unvaccinated who have natural immunity from a previous infection and may explain why some studies find what looks like negative vaccine effectiveness, as has been noted in reports from the UK and a preliminary study in Denmark.
Something similar is observed in the official data coming out of Iceland: the 14-day incidence rate is higher among the vaccinated population who have not received a booster shot than among the unvaccinated (5,600 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 4,000 in the unvaccinated group). However, the lowest incidence is among Icelanders with three doses.
This coincides with the data emerging from Catalonia: in November the incidence was lower for the vaccinated than for the unvaccinated in all age groups. But since the arrival of omicron, among the under-50 population – a demographic that has received few boosters – the infection rates seem to be higher among the vaccinated."
You are very good at selective reading. Remember that some of those variables being factored in here are stuff like age, comorbidities and so forth. If the average non-vaccinated person is younger and healthier than the average vaccinated person (for example because people who are more at risk are more likely to get vaccinated), then it might be the case that you both find that the average non-vaccinated person has better results and that the vaccine improves results in pretty much every group.
You need to be careful when looking at statistics if you have no clue about statistics.
I'd be pretty sure that if you compare the rates of dying of cancer among people who got cancer treatments with those who don't, you will find that the rate of dying of cancer is higher in the group who got treatment.
Does that mean that you should not get treatment? No. I means that people who have cancer are far more likely to get cancer treatment than those who don't.
On January 29 2022 23:12 Razyda wrote: Something similar is observed in the official data coming out of Iceland: the 14-day incidence rate is higher among the vaccinated population who have not received a booster shot than among the unvaccinated (5,600 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 4,000 in the unvaccinated group). However, the lowest incidence is among Icelanders with three doses.
I only bothered to check this one since it's the only one with hard numbers and no strange caveats like "without factoring in the variables" or "seems".
The data is from here, ctrl+f "vaccination group" to jump straight to the relevant graph: https://www.covid.is/data
Three things to note:
1. There's a disclaimer below it explaining how the total unvaccinated population is calculated and why that's likely to overstimate it and thus underestimate incidence
2. Ask yourself whether someone distrusting medical science is as likely to get voluntarily tested as someone who isn't
3. The graph right below it is hospitalization rate. I should note it also has a disclaimer, but it doesn't apply to just one group
It's really unfortunate that people wanting vaccines to be ineffective is such a large niche that national newspapers are scraping the bottom of the barrel for some cherries to feed them.
If you read the post above vaccination and boosting are EXTREMELY effective against the more severe consequences which matters so much more than number of infected.
On top of that, there are other reasons why the numbers look like more vaccinated people are being infected, the most obvious being that vaccinated people get tested way more often than not. In fact there is many many unvaccinated who tell others to not get tested to keep the numbers down, so many of the unvaccinated that end up with mild versions just never get tested.
But even if for some magical reason being vaccinated makes you more likely to be infected if it makes you 5x less likely to be hospitalized or die it is still a way better choice than not.
Bolded - Do you have some data to back that claim? Logically it seems incorrect - there are situations where test is required from unvaccinated person, while it is not required from vaccinated.
Italic is just very wrong and goes against of whole purpose of vaccine which is stopping/slowing down spread of the virus...
On January 29 2022 23:54 Simberto wrote:
You are very good at selective reading. Remember that some of those variables being factored in here are stuff like age, comorbidities and so forth. If the average non-vaccinated person is younger and healthier than the average vaccinated person (for example because people who are more at risk are more likely to get vaccinated), then it might be the case that you both find that the average non-vaccinated person has better results and that the vaccine improves results in pretty much every group.
You need to be careful when looking at statistics if you have no clue about statistics.
I'd be pretty sure that if you compare the rates of dying of cancer among people who got cancer treatments with those who don't, you will find that the rate of dying of cancer is higher in the group who got treatment.
Does that mean that you should not get treatment? No. I means that people who have cancer are far more likely to get cancer treatment than those who don't.
Problem is neither of those variances is specified. Another variance example may be the fact that (as main benefit of the vaccine seems to be reducing symptoms) vaccine increase chance of asymptomatic (therefore undetected) infection, skewing numbers even further.
Italic - I guess that his is just example for bad reading of statistics, but just in case of it being some sort of test: correct would be checking cancer patients who got treatment vs cancer patients who didn't.
On January 30 2022 00:19 Dan HH wrote:
I only bothered to check this one since it's the only one with hard numbers and no strange caveats like "without factoring in the variables" or "seems".
The data is from here, ctrl+f "vaccination group" to jump straight to the relevant graph: https://www.covid.is/data
Three things to note:
1. There's a disclaimer below it explaining how the total unvaccinated population is calculated and why that's likely to overstimate it and thus underestimate incidence
2. Ask yourself whether someone distrusting medical science is as likely to get voluntarily tested as someone who isn't
3. The graph right below it is hospitalization rate. I should note it also has a disclaimer, but it doesn't apply to just one group
It's really unfortunate that people wanting vaccines to be ineffective is such a large niche that national newspapers are scraping the bottom of the barrel for some cherries to feed them.
Denmark study also have numbers.
1.only caveat is registered residents vs residents currently in Iceland which on last day (24/01/2022) to match incidence it would have to be 1.500 (almost - 1.4xx) per 100000 unvaccinated being infected while outside of Iceland. EDITED: twice(this one was wrong). It does seem plausible enough, but I dont have a clue about actual number. People with 1 dose of vaccine also count as unvaccinated, but admittedly in this point in time their number is most likely irrelevant (to small to be of significance).
2 - This is addressed above in my answer to Jimmy
3 - this is somewhat addressed in my answer to Jimmy - italic
Actually most of national newspapers seems to be pro vaccine? Same with linked article? Similarly I can say that it is a shame that national newspapers hiding important data at the end of article. I also dont think that anyone "wants" vaccine to be ineffective.
Razyda, the purpose of the vaccine is just as much to make people less sick from the virus, not just stopping the spread of it. We see that the vaccines we have used to be fairly good at stopping the spread and also that they made people less sick. Now, with omicron, they're much less good at stopping the spread, but they still do a very good job at making people less sick.
Oh please Jimmy. There is no room for selection bias - they dint selected representative group, they took all the omicron cases, there wasn't any selecting. There are though other variables, for example lets say that in big cities everyone is vaccinated while in rural areas everyone is not - this would obviously skew the numbers. Now considering that this data comes from 3 (UK study mentioned, but not linked it seems) independent and unrelated sources (lets ignore Canada provinces mentioned in the article you linked and focus on nationwide research only) this surely should be investigated more? What we get though? "This could be the case", "may explain", "probably", "likely". See all this have one amazing trait when it comes to research, science, or anything really. Anything they relate to can be safely ignored, may as well be not written, because it is guess not a fact. You can say literally anything after any of them. It also appears that University of Ottawa epidemiologist Raywat Deonandan you quoted share my opinion on this (further research). I am not implying in any way that I perceive myself, or my opinion equal to his, just had problem finding a phrase not suggesting some equality.
Thank you for reminding me of Trump quote, it made me chuckle. I'll trust on the rest of it though, as dont really see a point in searching for those.
I disagree with it simply because it assumes that Omnicron is last variant, or that vaccine will have the same effect, when it comes to severity, on all following variants. However discussion about this is moot, as we dont know yet if vaccine indeed have negative efficiency. Given that such a possibility exists and amount of people vaccinated it should be researched with utmost care.
EPT
. Also how do we know that overall more people would live?
