|
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. |
|
|
On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back.
What are you trying to say?
|
On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say?
That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)??
The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only.
|
On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only.
And you think those numbers show any of that?
|
On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only.
I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that?
|
On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that?
What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case.
Now which one you think is correct:
examining it thoroughly and then roll out (or not) more boosters,
or roll out more boosters and maybe examine it more thoroughly later?
|
That's not what that study showed at all.
You should consider not basing your conclusions on statistics you don't remotely understand.
|
|
|
On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case.
That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask:
1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".)
2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that?
As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either.
|
On June 22 2023 23:31 Mikau wrote:
That's not what that study showed at all.
You should consider not basing your conclusions on statistics you don't remotely understand.
It will be more productive raising your concerns with Nabin K Shrestha. I will suggest however reading the study before you start educating lead author about basing conclusion on statistics he doesn't remotely understand...
On June 22 2023 23:47 JimmiC wrote:
Like just take a step back. If the statistics did show what you think they do, are no doctors/health organizations capable of interpreting them? Or are they all in the pockets of big pharma (globally all) and if so why even release the statistics that show that?
If there is a global conspiracy where they have fooled basically everyone but a few people we call conspiracies, why would one of the perpetrators put out evidence showing it? And why wouldn't the cabal behind it block it?
If reasonable data came out that it didn't work they would stop recommending it. They have completely changed their recommendations on how frequent you should use it based on data. They have even taken out the original strain based on data.
They are making data based decisions, not evil ones for whatever purpose you think they are.
Why cabal/ global conspiracy? why not singular interests? Is it beyond of real of possibility that pharma rep will say to news outlet if you say something bad about our bestselling product we pulling our advertisement? or government thinking along the lines " we mandated those, how many votes we are going to loose if it turns out they are not as good as we made them to be?" Organizations have their funding, some doctors actually lost licence over vaccines, both seem like a pretty good reasons.
On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either.
I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again?
As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it?
|
|
|
On June 23 2023 02:39 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either. I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again?
Of course the covid vaccines are most effective for a "limited period", with boosters being required for anyone interested in keeping up with reduction of harm. And as covid strains mutate over the years (hopefully continuing to become less severe), your question of whether or not to bother getting a booster ends up being a legitimate personal question for individuals to consider.
As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it?
I did read it. Please paste the part where you believe the study addresses my concern ("One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider.").
|
On June 23 2023 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2023 02:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either. I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again? Of course the covid vaccines are most effective for a "limited period", with boosters being required for anyone interested in keeping up with reduction of harm. And as covid strains mutate over the years (hopefully continuing to become less severe), your question of whether or not to bother getting a booster ends up being a legitimate personal question for individuals to consider. Show nested quote +As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it? I did read it. Please paste the part where you believe the study addresses my concern ("One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider.").
"The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses."
"The study has several limitations. Individuals with unrecognized prior infection would have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Since prior infection protects against subsequent infection, such misclassification would have resulted in underestimating the protective effect of the vaccine. However, there is little reason to suppose that prior infections would have been missing in the bivalent-vaccinated and nonvaccinated states at disproportionate rates. There might be concern that those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine may have been more worried about infection and more likely to be tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine. We did not find an association between the number of COVID-19 tests done and the number of prior vaccine doses, however, suggesting that this was not a confounding factor. Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those who were more likely to have lower risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19. This would have the effect of finding a higher risk of COVID-19 in the nonvaccinated state, thereby potentially overestimating vaccine effectiveness, because the lower risk of COVID-19 in the bivalent-vaccinated state could have been due to lower risk-taking behavior rather than the vaccine."
I believe bolded addresses it? Traveling and meeting lots of people seems to fit under description of " risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19."
|
On June 23 2023 03:39 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2023 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 02:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:On June 21 2023 07:05 JimmiC wrote:
But what is the big take away, that fact checkers were too hamfisted and should have said it is possible it was an accidental lab leak and only banned the stuff about it being proven it was and all the stuff that said it was a bio weapon, or on purpose?
It is not like the scientific community stopped looking into it. It is not like anyone with a computer didn't hear about the theory. China was not letting people investigate as it was and also in basically every emergency especially a pandemic the number 1 priority is saving as many lives as possible and then figuring out the cause and how to prevent future emergency pandemics after.
I think it would be mostly a good thing if it came from a lab leak as that seems more preventable than it happening in nature especially as we get more and more humans.
Like, if I here "suppression of the truth" it makes me think that some one knew the truth and was keeping a bunch of lay people from "theorizing" (making up shit and saying it with authority for the most part) on social media is that bad of thing. But then again I do not think social media is a benefit to society.
Was anyone blocked from researching this theory? If so how are they doing it now? I get China was not letting investigators go, but there was nothing "the west" or "Main Stream Media" could do about that. Are we certain that if their was way more articles and facebook meme's at the height of the pandemic would have helped at all? Would have China given even less support to the world in dealing with it? Is the worst offense that Jon Stewart was made fun of?
Like it is pretty interesting that they are continuing to do the research and learn about it to make some changes so it does not happen again. But I'm missing the proof of any conspiracy. I do see that apparently lots of people were possibly or even likely wrong that 2 years we thought were right. But that happens all the time.
What evidence was hidden from investigators? Why are "they" letting it all come out now. My take is because there was no conspiracy to begin with.
And @ razyda it is not preventing infections that people have thought the vaccine was good at since well before Omni, pretty sure it was known before delta it was only good for that for an extremally shorty time, despite BJ's revisionist history. It was preventing the negative outcomes of the virus. Time for you to catch up. Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either. I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again? Of course the covid vaccines are most effective for a "limited period", with boosters being required for anyone interested in keeping up with reduction of harm. And as covid strains mutate over the years (hopefully continuing to become less severe), your question of whether or not to bother getting a booster ends up being a legitimate personal question for individuals to consider. As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it? I did read it. Please paste the part where you believe the study addresses my concern ("One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider."). "The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses." "The study has several limitations. Individuals with unrecognized prior infection would have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Since prior infection protects against subsequent infection, such misclassification would have resulted in underestimating the protective effect of the vaccine. However, there is little reason to suppose that prior infections would have been missing in the bivalent-vaccinated and nonvaccinated states at disproportionate rates. There might be concern that those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine may have been more worried about infection and more likely to be tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine. We did not find an association between the number of COVID-19 tests done and the number of prior vaccine doses, however, suggesting that this was not a confounding factor. Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those who were more likely to have lower risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19. This would have the effect of finding a higher risk of COVID-19 in the nonvaccinated state, thereby potentially overestimating vaccine effectiveness, because the lower risk of COVID-19 in the bivalent-vaccinated state could have been due to lower risk-taking behavior rather than the vaccine." I believe bolded addresses it? Traveling and meeting lots of people seems to fit under description of " risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19."
Those bolded parts repeat my concern, not solve my concern. As these are mentioned around the "limitations" section of the paper, it absolutely makes sense that they qualify these issues by using words like "could" instead of "we were able to control for X" (like when it says "Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those..."). This is a standard, good-faith attempt by the author to offer potential explanations and extensions outside of what was being studied. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the author writing about them; it suggests other things to consider in the broader narrative of this topic... but this study's data doesn't specifically address other potentially-confounding variables.
|
On June 23 2023 03:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2023 03:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 02:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:On June 21 2023 08:08 Razyda wrote:[quote] Bolded: I would say that there is quite a difference between not preventing and facilitating... As for preventing negative outcome of the virus: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/weekly-reports-archive.aspxLink to NSW archived weekly reports. Sadly it must be from archives, because report linked here came with this note: "Vaccination status of cases admitted to hospital, admitted to ICU and those who die will no longer be reported. These data were included from 2021 when vaccines were first rolled out to monitor trends in the relationship between vaccination and outcomes. With most of the population having received at least two doses of vaccine and there being differences in timings of booster dosing across different age groups, the trends between vaccines and outcomes cannot be interpreted using these data. " Week ending 31st December: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdfPage 4: (hospital) - (ICU) - (Deaths) Four or more doses 810 - 58 - 53 Three doses 377 - 29 - 19 Two doses 218 - 17 - 9 One dose 10 - 1 - 1 No dose 0 - 0 - 6 It seems like none of the unvaccinated died in hospital. This numbers look similar for quite few weeks back. What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either. I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again? Of course the covid vaccines are most effective for a "limited period", with boosters being required for anyone interested in keeping up with reduction of harm. And as covid strains mutate over the years (hopefully continuing to become less severe), your question of whether or not to bother getting a booster ends up being a legitimate personal question for individuals to consider. As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it? I did read it. Please paste the part where you believe the study addresses my concern ("One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider."). "The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses." "The study has several limitations. Individuals with unrecognized prior infection would have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Since prior infection protects against subsequent infection, such misclassification would have resulted in underestimating the protective effect of the vaccine. However, there is little reason to suppose that prior infections would have been missing in the bivalent-vaccinated and nonvaccinated states at disproportionate rates. There might be concern that those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine may have been more worried about infection and more likely to be tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine. We did not find an association between the number of COVID-19 tests done and the number of prior vaccine doses, however, suggesting that this was not a confounding factor. Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those who were more likely to have lower risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19. This would have the effect of finding a higher risk of COVID-19 in the nonvaccinated state, thereby potentially overestimating vaccine effectiveness, because the lower risk of COVID-19 in the bivalent-vaccinated state could have been due to lower risk-taking behavior rather than the vaccine." I believe bolded addresses it? Traveling and meeting lots of people seems to fit under description of " risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19." Those bolded parts repeat my concern, not solve my concern. As these are mentioned around the "limitations" section of the paper, it absolutely makes sense that they qualify these issues by using words like "could" instead of "we were able to control for X" (like when it says "Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those..."). This is a standard, good-faith attempt by the author to offer potential explanations and extensions outside of what was being studied. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the author writing about them; it suggests other things to consider in the broader narrative of this topic... but this study's data doesn't specifically address other potentially-confounding variables.
Yes they do, more also there may be more variables (eg more vaccinated may have been in direct contact with the patients). However given the fact that they addressed it isnt it fair to say that they accounted for them? And still decided to publish it. Shouldnt be concluded that they decided this deviations wouldnt change the overall result? Given that result was unexpected and controversial, one would expect that they checked it multiple times.
|
On June 23 2023 08:00 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2023 03:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 03:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 02:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 00:46 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
What are you trying to say? That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)?? The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either. I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again? Of course the covid vaccines are most effective for a "limited period", with boosters being required for anyone interested in keeping up with reduction of harm. And as covid strains mutate over the years (hopefully continuing to become less severe), your question of whether or not to bother getting a booster ends up being a legitimate personal question for individuals to consider. As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it? I did read it. Please paste the part where you believe the study addresses my concern ("One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider."). "The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses." "The study has several limitations. Individuals with unrecognized prior infection would have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Since prior infection protects against subsequent infection, such misclassification would have resulted in underestimating the protective effect of the vaccine. However, there is little reason to suppose that prior infections would have been missing in the bivalent-vaccinated and nonvaccinated states at disproportionate rates. There might be concern that those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine may have been more worried about infection and more likely to be tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine. We did not find an association between the number of COVID-19 tests done and the number of prior vaccine doses, however, suggesting that this was not a confounding factor. Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those who were more likely to have lower risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19. This would have the effect of finding a higher risk of COVID-19 in the nonvaccinated state, thereby potentially overestimating vaccine effectiveness, because the lower risk of COVID-19 in the bivalent-vaccinated state could have been due to lower risk-taking behavior rather than the vaccine." I believe bolded addresses it? Traveling and meeting lots of people seems to fit under description of " risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19." Those bolded parts repeat my concern, not solve my concern. As these are mentioned around the "limitations" section of the paper, it absolutely makes sense that they qualify these issues by using words like "could" instead of "we were able to control for X" (like when it says "Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those..."). This is a standard, good-faith attempt by the author to offer potential explanations and extensions outside of what was being studied. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the author writing about them; it suggests other things to consider in the broader narrative of this topic... but this study's data doesn't specifically address other potentially-confounding variables. Yes they do, more also there may be more variables (eg more vaccinated may have been in direct contact with the patients). However given the fact that they addressed it isnt it fair to say that they accounted for them? And still decided to publish it. Shouldnt be concluded that they decided this deviations wouldnt change the overall result? Given that result was unexpected and controversial, one would expect that they checked it multiple times.
The short answer is No; that's not what the "limitations" part of a research paper is for. In general, most published papers have a section (at the end) outlining certain limitations, afterthoughts, extensions, and suggestions for future research. Those are specifically things that weren't accounted for in the original study (because a single study can't do everything, of course), but should be considered and addressed in other future studies. Sometimes, the limitation is one that the authors had predicted from the beginning but couldn't really do much about (especially if it's observational data, rather than an experiment / randomized controlled trial); other times, the data suggests something surprising that hadn't been considered, and needs further research to explain. It's not a knock against this paper at all, but rather, the author is helping the audience by pointing out other things to look for in other papers, because they weren't fleshed out in this one.
|
On June 23 2023 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2023 08:00 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 03:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 03:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 02:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 02:11 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU (remember protect health services?) because 0s are 0s and no 100% of population is vaccinated, also they dont prevent spread, then whats the point of them (and mandates)??
The fact that unvaccinated who died werent hospitalised at all is actually a curiosity only. I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either. I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again? Of course the covid vaccines are most effective for a "limited period", with boosters being required for anyone interested in keeping up with reduction of harm. And as covid strains mutate over the years (hopefully continuing to become less severe), your question of whether or not to bother getting a booster ends up being a legitimate personal question for individuals to consider. As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it? I did read it. Please paste the part where you believe the study addresses my concern ("One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider."). "The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses." "The study has several limitations. Individuals with unrecognized prior infection would have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Since prior infection protects against subsequent infection, such misclassification would have resulted in underestimating the protective effect of the vaccine. However, there is little reason to suppose that prior infections would have been missing in the bivalent-vaccinated and nonvaccinated states at disproportionate rates. There might be concern that those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine may have been more worried about infection and more likely to be tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine. We did not find an association between the number of COVID-19 tests done and the number of prior vaccine doses, however, suggesting that this was not a confounding factor. Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those who were more likely to have lower risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19. This would have the effect of finding a higher risk of COVID-19 in the nonvaccinated state, thereby potentially overestimating vaccine effectiveness, because the lower risk of COVID-19 in the bivalent-vaccinated state could have been due to lower risk-taking behavior rather than the vaccine." I believe bolded addresses it? Traveling and meeting lots of people seems to fit under description of " risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19." Those bolded parts repeat my concern, not solve my concern. As these are mentioned around the "limitations" section of the paper, it absolutely makes sense that they qualify these issues by using words like "could" instead of "we were able to control for X" (like when it says "Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those..."). This is a standard, good-faith attempt by the author to offer potential explanations and extensions outside of what was being studied. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the author writing about them; it suggests other things to consider in the broader narrative of this topic... but this study's data doesn't specifically address other potentially-confounding variables. Yes they do, more also there may be more variables (eg more vaccinated may have been in direct contact with the patients). However given the fact that they addressed it isnt it fair to say that they accounted for them? And still decided to publish it. Shouldnt be concluded that they decided this deviations wouldnt change the overall result? Given that result was unexpected and controversial, one would expect that they checked it multiple times. The short answer is No; that's not what the "limitations" part of a research paper is for. In general, most published papers have a section (at the end) outlining certain limitations, afterthoughts, extensions, and suggestions for future research. Those are specifically things that weren't accounted for in the original study (because a single study can't do everything, of course), but should be considered and addressed in other future studies. Sometimes, the limitation is one that the authors had predicted from the beginning but couldn't really do much about (especially if it's observational data, rather than an experiment / randomized controlled trial); other times, the data suggests something surprising that hadn't been considered, and needs further research to explain. It's not a knock against this paper at all, but rather, the author is helping the audience by pointing out other things to look for in other papers, because they weren't fleshed out in this one.
Exactly - did you disregard results of all the other studies with this annotations? Even those which confirmed what you thought? I dont think there is many vaccine studies without "Limitations" section.
|
|
|
On June 23 2023 08:33 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2023 08:24 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 08:00 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 03:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 03:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 02:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either. I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again? Of course the covid vaccines are most effective for a "limited period", with boosters being required for anyone interested in keeping up with reduction of harm. And as covid strains mutate over the years (hopefully continuing to become less severe), your question of whether or not to bother getting a booster ends up being a legitimate personal question for individuals to consider. As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it? I did read it. Please paste the part where you believe the study addresses my concern ("One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider."). "The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses." "The study has several limitations. Individuals with unrecognized prior infection would have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Since prior infection protects against subsequent infection, such misclassification would have resulted in underestimating the protective effect of the vaccine. However, there is little reason to suppose that prior infections would have been missing in the bivalent-vaccinated and nonvaccinated states at disproportionate rates. There might be concern that those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine may have been more worried about infection and more likely to be tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine. We did not find an association between the number of COVID-19 tests done and the number of prior vaccine doses, however, suggesting that this was not a confounding factor. Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those who were more likely to have lower risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19. This would have the effect of finding a higher risk of COVID-19 in the nonvaccinated state, thereby potentially overestimating vaccine effectiveness, because the lower risk of COVID-19 in the bivalent-vaccinated state could have been due to lower risk-taking behavior rather than the vaccine." I believe bolded addresses it? Traveling and meeting lots of people seems to fit under description of " risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19." Those bolded parts repeat my concern, not solve my concern. As these are mentioned around the "limitations" section of the paper, it absolutely makes sense that they qualify these issues by using words like "could" instead of "we were able to control for X" (like when it says "Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those..."). This is a standard, good-faith attempt by the author to offer potential explanations and extensions outside of what was being studied. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the author writing about them; it suggests other things to consider in the broader narrative of this topic... but this study's data doesn't specifically address other potentially-confounding variables. Yes they do, more also there may be more variables (eg more vaccinated may have been in direct contact with the patients). However given the fact that they addressed it isnt it fair to say that they accounted for them? And still decided to publish it. Shouldnt be concluded that they decided this deviations wouldnt change the overall result? Given that result was unexpected and controversial, one would expect that they checked it multiple times. The short answer is No; that's not what the "limitations" part of a research paper is for. In general, most published papers have a section (at the end) outlining certain limitations, afterthoughts, extensions, and suggestions for future research. Those are specifically things that weren't accounted for in the original study (because a single study can't do everything, of course), but should be considered and addressed in other future studies. Sometimes, the limitation is one that the authors had predicted from the beginning but couldn't really do much about (especially if it's observational data, rather than an experiment / randomized controlled trial); other times, the data suggests something surprising that hadn't been considered, and needs further research to explain. It's not a knock against this paper at all, but rather, the author is helping the audience by pointing out other things to look for in other papers, because they weren't fleshed out in this one. Exactly - did you disregard results of all the other studies with this annotations? Even those which confirmed what you thought? I dont think there is many vaccine studies without "Limitations" section. But the people who produced the study did not come to the conclusion you did. If they did then people here would be on board.
Sorry can you specify what you mean? Which conclusion of mine people who produced the study didnt come to?
|
On June 23 2023 08:24 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2023 08:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 08:00 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 03:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 03:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 03:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 23 2023 02:39 Razyda wrote:On June 23 2023 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 22 2023 23:19 Razyda wrote:On June 22 2023 09:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I'm having trouble interpreting what you're saying. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? If you believe that it doesn't help, can you please explain why you believe that? What I am saying is that study I linked earlier shows that amount of Covid cases increase together with amount of boosters taken. NSW data seems like it is indeed the case. That's not what you just said, and what I had bolded. You were talking about hospitalization when you said "That if vaccine doesnt prevent hospitalisation and ICU", and that's the part I'm interested in. So, again, I'll ask: 1. Do you think that recently receiving a covid vaccine/booster doesn't help reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death? (If you'd like to simplify it, you can think of this as a Yes or No question: "Yes, I don't think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death", or "No, I do think receiving a covid vaccine/booster helps reduce serious symptoms, hospitalization, or death".) 2. If you believe that it doesn't help (the "Yes" answer), can you please explain why you believe that? As far as possibly having a positive correlation between number of boosters and number of times receiving covid is concerned: One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider. Also, over time, of course the vast majority of people are going to have at least one, if not more, covid vaccine doses/boosters, so it looks like you haven't taken those proportions into consideration either. I think for limited period they do, after that not so much, if at all (otherwise there wouldn't be boosters). Is short term protection worth, getting boosters over and over again? Of course the covid vaccines are most effective for a "limited period", with boosters being required for anyone interested in keeping up with reduction of harm. And as covid strains mutate over the years (hopefully continuing to become less severe), your question of whether or not to bother getting a booster ends up being a legitimate personal question for individuals to consider. As for second part of your post: Study mentioned seems to address this issues, did you actually read it? I did read it. Please paste the part where you believe the study addresses my concern ("One can imagine that people who have received multiple boosters might do so because they travel a lot or work in a field where they could be regularly exposed to covid (or a lot of strangers). Not every person has the same chance of coming into contact with someone who has covid, so any correlation here still has additional variables to consider."). "The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses." "The study has several limitations. Individuals with unrecognized prior infection would have been misclassified as previously uninfected. Since prior infection protects against subsequent infection, such misclassification would have resulted in underestimating the protective effect of the vaccine. However, there is little reason to suppose that prior infections would have been missing in the bivalent-vaccinated and nonvaccinated states at disproportionate rates. There might be concern that those who chose to receive the bivalent vaccine may have been more worried about infection and more likely to be tested when they had symptoms, thereby disproportionately detecting more incident infections among those who received the bivalent vaccine. We did not find an association between the number of COVID-19 tests done and the number of prior vaccine doses, however, suggesting that this was not a confounding factor. Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those who were more likely to have lower risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19. This would have the effect of finding a higher risk of COVID-19 in the nonvaccinated state, thereby potentially overestimating vaccine effectiveness, because the lower risk of COVID-19 in the bivalent-vaccinated state could have been due to lower risk-taking behavior rather than the vaccine." I believe bolded addresses it? Traveling and meeting lots of people seems to fit under description of " risk-taking behavior with respect to COVID-19." Those bolded parts repeat my concern, not solve my concern. As these are mentioned around the "limitations" section of the paper, it absolutely makes sense that they qualify these issues by using words like "could" instead of "we were able to control for X" (like when it says "Those who chose to get the bivalent vaccine could have been those..."). This is a standard, good-faith attempt by the author to offer potential explanations and extensions outside of what was being studied. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the author writing about them; it suggests other things to consider in the broader narrative of this topic... but this study's data doesn't specifically address other potentially-confounding variables. Yes they do, more also there may be more variables (eg more vaccinated may have been in direct contact with the patients). However given the fact that they addressed it isnt it fair to say that they accounted for them? And still decided to publish it. Shouldnt be concluded that they decided this deviations wouldnt change the overall result? Given that result was unexpected and controversial, one would expect that they checked it multiple times. The short answer is No; that's not what the "limitations" part of a research paper is for. In general, most published papers have a section (at the end) outlining certain limitations, afterthoughts, extensions, and suggestions for future research. Those are specifically things that weren't accounted for in the original study (because a single study can't do everything, of course), but should be considered and addressed in other future studies. Sometimes, the limitation is one that the authors had predicted from the beginning but couldn't really do much about (especially if it's observational data, rather than an experiment / randomized controlled trial); other times, the data suggests something surprising that hadn't been considered, and needs further research to explain. It's not a knock against this paper at all, but rather, the author is helping the audience by pointing out other things to look for in other papers, because they weren't fleshed out in this one. Exactly - did you disregard results of all the other studies with this annotations? Even those which confirmed what you thought? I dont think there is many vaccine studies without "Limitations" section.
I repeatedly stated that there's nothing wrong with having a Limitations section. And I don't know what other results or studies you're referring to. Keep in mind that I'm not disregarding the results of this paper you cited; I'm disregarding your personal interpretation of the reason for the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
