Vaccine Redux - Vax up and go to Class

102,047 Views | 2329 Replies | Last: 8 hrs ago by AunBear89
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Finland is now also pausing Moderna vaccinations in those 30 and under.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

USucks, I apologize in advance for not including whatever positive information you feel I need to include here so that my factual post is not misleading.

To cover it, I will just say the following: vaccines are good.
Perfect example of how you are intentionally misleading. You should say that Finland is administering Pfizer instead of Moderna in men under 30 because Pfizer is believed to lead to a lower incidence of myocarditis. You've turned a comparative statement between two mRNA vaccines into an absolute one. There is no reduction in mRNA vaccinations happening but you make it seem as if there is.

It's so easy to say things in a non-misleading fashion but you never manage to do it.


Wow, you have really gone on an mRNA vaccine defending crusade if you think my post is misleading. It is not misleading at all, zealot.

Moderna is like 1 in 5k myocarditis for teens and Pfizer, a lower dose, is around 1 in 10k. It all depends on your tolerance for safety in a vaccine, what other vaccines you have available, and the threat of covid 19.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Finland is now also pausing Moderna vaccinations in those 30 and under.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

USucks, I apologize in advance for not including whatever positive information you feel I need to include here so that my factual post is not misleading.

To cover it, I will just say the following: vaccines are good.
Perfect example of how you are intentionally misleading. You should say that Finland is administering Pfizer instead of Moderna in men under 30 because Pfizer is believed to lead to a lower incidence of myocarditis. You've turned a comparative statement between two mRNA vaccines into an absolute one. There is no reduction in mRNA vaccinations happening but you make it seem as if there is.

It's so easy to say things in a non-misleading fashion but you never manage to do it.


Wow, you have really gone on an mRNA vaccine defending crusade if you think my post is misleading. It is not misleading at all, zealot.

Moderna is like 1 in 10k myocarditis for teens and Pfizer, a lower dose, is around 1 in 5k. It all depends on your tolerance for safety in a vaccine, what other vaccines you have available, and the threat of covid 19.
Wow you are really hysterical. If Moderna has a 2x lower incidence of myocarditis, why would countries choose pfizer over moderna for young men?

Obviously everything is a balance. The risk of myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines isn't so low as to be background noise or so high as to cause these nordic countries to stop giving vaccines. What they have determined is that both moderna and pfizer are safe and effective vaccines but that pfizer leads to a lower incidence of myocarditis in young men so they are choosing to only give pfizer to young men. That's the story. You are making it out to be something it isn't - which is what you are always doing. And it's misleading and you know it is which is why you keep doing what you are doing.

EDIT: and I think anyone else paying attention realizes this but in case anyone cares, I hold no position on vaccine technology. I am in favor of whatever safe and effective vaccines there are. If something comes out that is safer and more effective, I will love it. If something is more effective and just as safe, I will love it. If something is more effective and just as safe I will love it. If something is better at one and worse at the other, I don't know what I would think. I'm a rational person and don't need to take any other theoretical positions the way you do. We have the choices available and it's quite obvious right now that the best choice is Pfizer or Moderna right now.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Finland is now also pausing Moderna vaccinations in those 30 and under.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

USucks, I apologize in advance for not including whatever positive information you feel I need to include here so that my factual post is not misleading.

To cover it, I will just say the following: vaccines are good.
Perfect example of how you are intentionally misleading. You should say that Finland is administering Pfizer instead of Moderna in men under 30 because Pfizer is believed to lead to a lower incidence of myocarditis. You've turned a comparative statement between two mRNA vaccines into an absolute one. There is no reduction in mRNA vaccinations happening but you make it seem as if there is.

It's so easy to say things in a non-misleading fashion but you never manage to do it.


Wow, you have really gone on an mRNA vaccine defending crusade if you think my post is misleading. It is not misleading at all, zealot.

Moderna is like 1 in 10k myocarditis for teens and Pfizer, a lower dose, is around 1 in 5k. It all depends on your tolerance for safety in a vaccine, what other vaccines you have available, and the threat of covid 19.
Wow you are really hysterical. If Moderna has a 2x lower incidence of myocarditis, why would countries choose pfizer over moderna for young men?

Obviously everything is a balance. The risk of myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines isn't so low as to be background noise or so high as to cause these nordic countries to stop giving vaccines. What they have determined is that both moderna and pfizer are safe and effective vaccines but that pfizer leads to a lower incidence of myocarditis in young men so they are choosing to only give pfizer to young men. That's the story. You are making it out to be something it isn't - which is what you are always doing. And it's misleading and you know it is which is why you keep doing what you are doing.


I fixed the typo. I must have been hysterical when I wrote it***. There is nothing misleading about what I wrote. You just have a desire to spin it to defend mRNA vaccines. That is all. Carry on.

***So as not to be misleading, I wasn't actually hysterical. It is a joke because USucks likes to accuse others of being hysterical. Sometimes, people make typos.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Finland is now also pausing Moderna vaccinations in those 30 and under.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

USucks, I apologize in advance for not including whatever positive information you feel I need to include here so that my factual post is not misleading.

To cover it, I will just say the following: vaccines are good.
Perfect example of how you are intentionally misleading. You should say that Finland is administering Pfizer instead of Moderna in men under 30 because Pfizer is believed to lead to a lower incidence of myocarditis. You've turned a comparative statement between two mRNA vaccines into an absolute one. There is no reduction in mRNA vaccinations happening but you make it seem as if there is.

It's so easy to say things in a non-misleading fashion but you never manage to do it.


Wow, you have really gone on an mRNA vaccine defending crusade if you think my post is misleading. It is not misleading at all, zealot.

Moderna is like 1 in 10k myocarditis for teens and Pfizer, a lower dose, is around 1 in 5k. It all depends on your tolerance for safety in a vaccine, what other vaccines you have available, and the threat of covid 19.
Wow you are really hysterical. If Moderna has a 2x lower incidence of myocarditis, why would countries choose pfizer over moderna for young men?

Obviously everything is a balance. The risk of myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines isn't so low as to be background noise or so high as to cause these nordic countries to stop giving vaccines. What they have determined is that both moderna and pfizer are safe and effective vaccines but that pfizer leads to a lower incidence of myocarditis in young men so they are choosing to only give pfizer to young men. That's the story. You are making it out to be something it isn't - which is what you are always doing. And it's misleading and you know it is which is why you keep doing what you are doing.


I fixed the typo. I must have been hysterical when I wrote it***. There is nothing misleading about what I wrote. You just have a desire to spin it to defend mRNA vaccines. That is all. Carry on.

***So as not to be misleading, I wasn't actually hysterical. It is a joke because USucks likes to accuse others of being hysterical. Sometimes, people make typos.

Yes we've already established that I have a desire to provide context to your anti-vax rhetoric in order to prevent the spread of false and misleading information. I'm sorry for anyone who accidentally makes a good decision based in part on my criticism of the spread of anti-vax information.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Finland is now also pausing Moderna vaccinations in those 30 and under.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

USucks, I apologize in advance for not including whatever positive information you feel I need to include here so that my factual post is not misleading.

To cover it, I will just say the following: vaccines are good.
Perfect example of how you are intentionally misleading. You should say that Finland is administering Pfizer instead of Moderna in men under 30 because Pfizer is believed to lead to a lower incidence of myocarditis. You've turned a comparative statement between two mRNA vaccines into an absolute one. There is no reduction in mRNA vaccinations happening but you make it seem as if there is.

It's so easy to say things in a non-misleading fashion but you never manage to do it.


Wow, you have really gone on an mRNA vaccine defending crusade if you think my post is misleading. It is not misleading at all, zealot.

Moderna is like 1 in 10k myocarditis for teens and Pfizer, a lower dose, is around 1 in 5k. It all depends on your tolerance for safety in a vaccine, what other vaccines you have available, and the threat of covid 19.
Wow you are really hysterical. If Moderna has a 2x lower incidence of myocarditis, why would countries choose pfizer over moderna for young men?

Obviously everything is a balance. The risk of myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines isn't so low as to be background noise or so high as to cause these nordic countries to stop giving vaccines. What they have determined is that both moderna and pfizer are safe and effective vaccines but that pfizer leads to a lower incidence of myocarditis in young men so they are choosing to only give pfizer to young men. That's the story. You are making it out to be something it isn't - which is what you are always doing. And it's misleading and you know it is which is why you keep doing what you are doing.


I fixed the typo. I must have been hysterical when I wrote it***. There is nothing misleading about what I wrote. You just have a desire to spin it to defend mRNA vaccines. That is all. Carry on.

***So as not to be misleading, I wasn't actually hysterical. It is a joke because USucks likes to accuse others of being hysterical. Sometimes, people make typos.

Yes we've already established that I have a desire to provide context to your anti-vax rhetoric in order to prevent the spread of false and misleading information. I'm sorry for anyone who accidentally makes a good decision based in part on my criticism of the spread of anti-vax information.


My rhetoric is not anti-vax. I am not spreading false and misleading information. You are biased, albeit for a noble cause.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Finland is now also pausing Moderna vaccinations in those 30 and under.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

USucks, I apologize in advance for not including whatever positive information you feel I need to include here so that my factual post is not misleading.

To cover it, I will just say the following: vaccines are good.
Perfect example of how you are intentionally misleading. You should say that Finland is administering Pfizer instead of Moderna in men under 30 because Pfizer is believed to lead to a lower incidence of myocarditis. You've turned a comparative statement between two mRNA vaccines into an absolute one. There is no reduction in mRNA vaccinations happening but you make it seem as if there is.

It's so easy to say things in a non-misleading fashion but you never manage to do it.


Wow, you have really gone on an mRNA vaccine defending crusade if you think my post is misleading. It is not misleading at all, zealot.

Moderna is like 1 in 10k myocarditis for teens and Pfizer, a lower dose, is around 1 in 5k. It all depends on your tolerance for safety in a vaccine, what other vaccines you have available, and the threat of covid 19.
Wow you are really hysterical. If Moderna has a 2x lower incidence of myocarditis, why would countries choose pfizer over moderna for young men?

Obviously everything is a balance. The risk of myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines isn't so low as to be background noise or so high as to cause these nordic countries to stop giving vaccines. What they have determined is that both moderna and pfizer are safe and effective vaccines but that pfizer leads to a lower incidence of myocarditis in young men so they are choosing to only give pfizer to young men. That's the story. You are making it out to be something it isn't - which is what you are always doing. And it's misleading and you know it is which is why you keep doing what you are doing.


I fixed the typo. I must have been hysterical when I wrote it***. There is nothing misleading about what I wrote. You just have a desire to spin it to defend mRNA vaccines. That is all. Carry on.

***So as not to be misleading, I wasn't actually hysterical. It is a joke because USucks likes to accuse others of being hysterical. Sometimes, people make typos.

Yes we've already established that I have a desire to provide context to your anti-vax rhetoric in order to prevent the spread of false and misleading information. I'm sorry for anyone who accidentally makes a good decision based in part on my criticism of the spread of anti-vax information.


My rhetoric is not anti-vax. I am not spreading false and misleading information. You are biased, albeit for a noble cause.
Why don't you tell the class what you think I'm biased against. I'm happy to be judged by a jury of my peers but you have yet to actually explain the nature of your accusation of bias. Saying that I'm biased in favor of a particular vaccine technology is a lazy answer so don't waste everyone's time with that.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Finland is now also pausing Moderna vaccinations in those 30 and under.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

USucks, I apologize in advance for not including whatever positive information you feel I need to include here so that my factual post is not misleading.

To cover it, I will just say the following: vaccines are good.
Perfect example of how you are intentionally misleading. You should say that Finland is administering Pfizer instead of Moderna in men under 30 because Pfizer is believed to lead to a lower incidence of myocarditis. You've turned a comparative statement between two mRNA vaccines into an absolute one. There is no reduction in mRNA vaccinations happening but you make it seem as if there is.

It's so easy to say things in a non-misleading fashion but you never manage to do it.


Wow, you have really gone on an mRNA vaccine defending crusade if you think my post is misleading. It is not misleading at all, zealot.

Moderna is like 1 in 10k myocarditis for teens and Pfizer, a lower dose, is around 1 in 5k. It all depends on your tolerance for safety in a vaccine, what other vaccines you have available, and the threat of covid 19.
Wow you are really hysterical. If Moderna has a 2x lower incidence of myocarditis, why would countries choose pfizer over moderna for young men?

Obviously everything is a balance. The risk of myocarditis from the mRNA vaccines isn't so low as to be background noise or so high as to cause these nordic countries to stop giving vaccines. What they have determined is that both moderna and pfizer are safe and effective vaccines but that pfizer leads to a lower incidence of myocarditis in young men so they are choosing to only give pfizer to young men. That's the story. You are making it out to be something it isn't - which is what you are always doing. And it's misleading and you know it is which is why you keep doing what you are doing.


I fixed the typo. I must have been hysterical when I wrote it***. There is nothing misleading about what I wrote. You just have a desire to spin it to defend mRNA vaccines. That is all. Carry on.

***So as not to be misleading, I wasn't actually hysterical. It is a joke because USucks likes to accuse others of being hysterical. Sometimes, people make typos.

Yes we've already established that I have a desire to provide context to your anti-vax rhetoric in order to prevent the spread of false and misleading information. I'm sorry for anyone who accidentally makes a good decision based in part on my criticism of the spread of anti-vax information.


My rhetoric is not anti-vax. I am not spreading false and misleading information. You are biased, albeit for a noble cause.
Why don't you tell the class what you think I'm biased against. I'm happy to be judged by a jury of my peers but you have yet to actually explain the nature of your accusation of bias. Saying that I'm biased in favor of a particular vaccine technology is a lazy answer so don't waste everyone's time with that.


You are biased for the EUA Covid 19 vaccines. You are biased against anything that portrays them in a negative manner.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?


My question is why are people not outraged that these companies are not allowing thier vaccine to be used in comparison trials with other vaccines? They are blocking competition and monopolizing the market. Your the only that's bothered to report on it and it's a very big deal.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/07/cepi-warns-of-major-hurdle-to-developing-new-covid-19-vaccines-boosters/

CEPI warns of major hurdle to developing new Covid-19 vaccines and studying best booster approaches

An easy alternative would be to use comparison trials between vaccines. Pfizer puts in it's purchasing agreements however that it's vaccine cannot be used for research purposes. Moderna does the same.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?



"The Delta wave may truly be behind us, though unvaccinated people in heavily unvaccinated areas will always be in danger, Axios' Sam Baker writes.

The U.S. is now averaging 102,000 new cases per day a 22% drop over the past two weeks.
Deaths are also falling, by a nationwide average of about 13%. The virus is now killing roughly 1,800 Americans per day.

Context: A year ago, when no one was vaccinated and the worst wave of the pandemic was just getting started, experts were sounding the alarm because cases had crept up above 50,000 a day.

To be sitting above 100,000 daily cases now, even after millions of Americans have been vaccinated or have some level of immunity from a previous infection, is a sign of just how transmissible the Delta variant is and how poorly the U.S. has contained it.

While some vaccinated people do get infected, almost none will die.

Stunning stat: Six months after every American adult became eligible for a vaccine, the virus' death toll in the U.S. is still roughly equivalent to a 9/11 every two days." Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LOL this is why MAGAts aren't getting vaccinated.


The world is an ugly terrifying place when MAGA faithful believe that the rest of the country is as dumb, gullible, and as willing to lie and cheat as they are and thereby justify their own cr@ppy character and lack of any sincerely held belief.

"The Bear will not quilt, the Bear will not dye!"
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:




"The Delta wave may truly be behind us, though unvaccinated people in heavily unvaccinated areas will always be in danger, Axios' Sam Baker writes.

The U.S. is now averaging 102,000 new cases per day a 22% drop over the past two weeks.
Deaths are also falling, by a nationwide average of about 13%. The virus is now killing roughly 1,800 Americans per day.

Context: A year ago, when no one was vaccinated and the worst wave of the pandemic was just getting started, experts were sounding the alarm because cases had crept up above 50,000 a day.

To be sitting above 100,000 daily cases now, even after millions of Americans have been vaccinated or have some level of immunity from a previous infection, is a sign of just how transmissible the Delta variant is and how poorly the U.S. has contained it.

While some vaccinated people do get infected, almost none will die.

Stunning stat: Six months after every American adult became eligible for a vaccine, the virus' death toll in the U.S. is still roughly equivalent to a 9/11 every two days." Axios

The last 100,000 or so Americans that died from COVID... it didn't have to happen, but they made their choice.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is a good read on Moderna. It highlights its toxicity and patent issues involved in its LNP delivery system.

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/investigative-reports/moderna-a-company-in-need-of-a-hail-mary/?s=07

While they had always been incredibly secretive in their trial data, it is of note that they recorded heart issues in previous trial participants on a different vaccine.

"mid-September 2019, Moderna gathered investors together to showcase scientific evidence it claimed would finally prove that its mRNA technology could "turn the body's own cells into medicine-making factories" and hopefully "turn skeptical investors into believers." This data, which was derived from a very preliminary study that involved only four healthy participants, had complications. Three of the four participants had side effects that prompted Moderna to state at the meeting that they would need to reformulate the mRNA treatment to include steroids, while one of the participants suffered heart-related side effects, including a rapid heart rate and an irregular heartbeat. Moderna, which asserted that none of the heart-related side effects was serious, could not "definitively pinpoint the cause of the heart symptoms." Yet, as previously mentioned, it was likely related to the safety issues that had been plaguing its experimental products for years."
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also, United States appears miffed that Moderna is not keeping up with its vaccine donation commitments.

"Moderna holds secret a vaccine recipe that humanity needs; a vaccine pioneered significantly by public science and developed in large part by billions in public money"

"The U.S. government co-invented the vaccine," a senior administration official told Politico. "We've spent over $8 billion"

https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/white-house-spat-moderna-builds-pressure-to-supply-more-covid-vaccine-donations?mkt_tok=Mjk0LU1RRi0wNTYAAAF_-43V6Haerm-UGyqvfR6gpwfrId1tjL-9OM2bUtGMJqrlLEuVTTZekIDNK4KBCeKFpmakF1PF9CkPtP69GW1AUmic83rbl4XIt1Pc3-uBQYvstNt6-g&mrkid=12709032
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://m.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/health-ministry-to-consider-asking-newly-vaccinated-to-avoid-working-out-681317/amp

The Health Ministry may ask newly vaccinated people to avoid exercise for a week due to a small number of myocarditis cases.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In other news that anti-vaxxers don't like to talk about, Pfizer's vaccine is still effective at preventing hospitalization and death.

Quote:

New research published in The Lancet has found that the efficacy of the 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech against COVID-19-related hospitalization for all variants remains high for at least 6 months.

Notably, the vaccine's efficacy against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 88% to 47% over the 6-month study period. However, efficacy against hospitalizations remained at 90% overall and for all variants. These findings are consistent with data from the CDC and underscore the importance of improving COVID-19 vaccination rates, according to the study.

...

Notably, efficacy against Delta variant-related hospitalizations remained at 93% for the duration of the study period.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

In other news that anti-vaxxers don't like to talk about, Pfizer's vaccine is still effective at preventing hospitalization and death.

Quote:

New research published in The Lancet has found that the efficacy of the 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech against COVID-19-related hospitalization for all variants remains high for at least 6 months.

Notably, the vaccine's efficacy against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 88% to 47% over the 6-month study period. However, efficacy against hospitalizations remained at 90% overall and for all variants. These findings are consistent with data from the CDC and underscore the importance of improving COVID-19 vaccination rates, according to the study.

...

Notably, efficacy against Delta variant-related hospitalizations remained at 93% for the duration of the study period.



The study period was December 4, 2020 (the date Pfizer got EUA), to August 8, 2021. Delta arrived in the USA (in any significant number) in March.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

In other news that anti-vaxxers don't like to talk about, Pfizer's vaccine is still effective at preventing hospitalization and death.

Quote:

New research published in The Lancet has found that the efficacy of the 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech against COVID-19-related hospitalization for all variants remains high for at least 6 months.

Notably, the vaccine's efficacy against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 88% to 47% over the 6-month study period. However, efficacy against hospitalizations remained at 90% overall and for all variants. These findings are consistent with data from the CDC and underscore the importance of improving COVID-19 vaccination rates, according to the study.

...

Notably, efficacy against Delta variant-related hospitalizations remained at 93% for the duration of the study period.



The study period was December 4, 2020, to August 8, 2021.
Do you have a link to any studies from the future we can look at?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

In other news that anti-vaxxers don't like to talk about, Pfizer's vaccine is still effective at preventing hospitalization and death.

Quote:

New research published in The Lancet has found that the efficacy of the 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech against COVID-19-related hospitalization for all variants remains high for at least 6 months.

Notably, the vaccine's efficacy against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 88% to 47% over the 6-month study period. However, efficacy against hospitalizations remained at 90% overall and for all variants. These findings are consistent with data from the CDC and underscore the importance of improving COVID-19 vaccination rates, according to the study.

...

Notably, efficacy against Delta variant-related hospitalizations remained at 93% for the duration of the study period.



The study period was December 4, 2020, to August 8, 2021.
Do you have a link to any studies from the future we can look at?
No, but when you make a claim that something is STILL effective at something and then accumulate data from the entire time period, you are being INCREDIBLY MISLEADING, which is something you wrongly accuse others of.

Do you have data from, say, around July through September? That would validate your claim.

btw, I do believe the vaccine still prevents hospitalization and death at 80%+ after 5 months; however, there is no need to make misleading statements using data from an older time period.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

In other news that anti-vaxxers don't like to talk about, Pfizer's vaccine is still effective at preventing hospitalization and death.

Quote:

New research published in The Lancet has found that the efficacy of the 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech against COVID-19-related hospitalization for all variants remains high for at least 6 months.

Notably, the vaccine's efficacy against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 88% to 47% over the 6-month study period. However, efficacy against hospitalizations remained at 90% overall and for all variants. These findings are consistent with data from the CDC and underscore the importance of improving COVID-19 vaccination rates, according to the study.

...

Notably, efficacy against Delta variant-related hospitalizations remained at 93% for the duration of the study period.



The study period was December 4, 2020, to August 8, 2021.
Do you have a link to any studies from the future we can look at?


Do you have data from, say, around July through September? That would validate your claim.


Please share this data, I would love to see it. I reported on the most recent study I am aware of.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

In other news that anti-vaxxers don't like to talk about, Pfizer's vaccine is still effective at preventing hospitalization and death.

Quote:

New research published in The Lancet has found that the efficacy of the 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech against COVID-19-related hospitalization for all variants remains high for at least 6 months.

Notably, the vaccine's efficacy against all SARS-CoV-2 infections declined from 88% to 47% over the 6-month study period. However, efficacy against hospitalizations remained at 90% overall and for all variants. These findings are consistent with data from the CDC and underscore the importance of improving COVID-19 vaccination rates, according to the study.

...

Notably, efficacy against Delta variant-related hospitalizations remained at 93% for the duration of the study period.



The study period was December 4, 2020, to August 8, 2021.
Do you have a link to any studies from the future we can look at?


Do you have data from, say, around July through September? That would validate your claim.


Please share this data, I would love to see it. I reported on the most recent study I am aware of.
You want me to provide data that validates your claim? Are you dense? A normal person would walk back their incorrect claim. The data is available to the sources in your article. They just choose to share it (or not share it) in a manner that supports their arguments, which you regurgitate.

regardless, your intentions are noble, and you deserve a pat on the head.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

For some perspective on vaccine efficacy, the CDC has updated its breakthrough page through August 16, so we can now do some time-based analysis.

I found some info on prior version (from August 2) and it looks like over that 2-week period, we had about 300 total breakthrough deaths, and about 20% of all "breakthrough" deaths are for patients who were asymptomatic or who died of something else. During this period we had less than 1k breakthrough hospitalizations.

The updated page also now breaks out by 65 and over so now we know that there have been only about 200 total breakthrough deaths for people under 65 from the beginning, which is around 10% of all breakthrough deaths. We don't know how many were immuno-compromised or had underlying conditions.

By comparison, over the same 2 week period we averaged about 600 deaths per day and 11k hospitalizations per day. So, doing the quick math, about 4% of all COVID deaths over that period were vaccinated (presumably 90% over 65 as with all breakthrough deaths) and less than 1% of all hospitalizations were vaccinated.
Update for period from August 16 through October 4th.

CDC now shows 6,617 total breakthrough deaths, with fewer than 1k being people under 65. As of August 16 there were just over 1,800 total breakthrough deaths, with 200+ being under 65. So we've had ~4800 total breakthrough deaths and ~800 under age 65 since August 16.

That sounds like a lot until you realize that 80,000 Americans have died during that time period and that people 65+ have very high vaccination rates (75%?). Even if you look at it without regard to age, over the past 6 weeks, over 90% of all COVID deaths are coming from around 40% of the population (because ~60% of the US is vaccinated), which puts vaccines in the high 90's in preventing deaths in the US during the latter part of the Delta wave.

This was fairly quick back of the envelope math so I would welcome anyone who wants to provide more detailed data.

oski003 said:


You want me to provide data that validates your claim? Are you dense? A normal person would walk back their incorrect claim. The data is available to the sources in your article. They just choose to share it (or not share it) in a manner that supports their arguments, which you regurgitate.

regardless, your intentions are noble, and you deserve a pat on the head.
LOL you are such an emotional wreck. You are so desperate in your quixotic war against mRNA vaccines that you really believe it's your job to discredit at all costs. I'm sorry to have to tell you again and again that the vaccines are effective and that it's causing you distress. Look on the bright side - maybe you will manage to convince some people to remain unvaccinated at their own peril. Congrats for having dreams.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Unit2Sucks said:

For some perspective on vaccine efficacy, the CDC has updated its breakthrough page through August 16, so we can now do some time-based analysis.

I found some info on prior version (from August 2) and it looks like over that 2-week period, we had about 300 total breakthrough deaths, and about 20% of all "breakthrough" deaths are for patients who were asymptomatic or who died of something else. During this period we had less than 1k breakthrough hospitalizations.

The updated page also now breaks out by 65 and over so now we know that there have been only about 200 total breakthrough deaths for people under 65 from the beginning, which is around 10% of all breakthrough deaths. We don't know how many were immuno-compromised or had underlying conditions.

By comparison, over the same 2 week period we averaged about 600 deaths per day and 11k hospitalizations per day. So, doing the quick math, about 4% of all COVID deaths over that period were vaccinated (presumably 90% over 65 as with all breakthrough deaths) and less than 1% of all hospitalizations were vaccinated.
Update for period from August 16 through October 4th.

CDC now shows 6,617 total breakthrough deaths, with fewer than 1k being people under 65. As of August 16 there were just over 1,800 total breakthrough deaths, with 200+ being under 65. So we've had ~4800 total breakthrough deaths and ~800 under age 65 since August 16.

That sounds like a lot until you realize that 80,000 Americans have died during that time period and that people 65+ have very high vaccination rates (75%?). Even if you look at it without regard to age, over the past 6 weeks, over 90% of all COVID deaths are coming from around 40% of the population (because ~60% of the US is vaccinated), which puts vaccines in the high 90's in preventing deaths in the US during the latter part of the Delta wave.

This was fairly quick back of the envelope math so I would welcome anyone who wants to provide more detailed data.

oski003 said:


You want me to provide data that validates your claim? Are you dense? A normal person would walk back their incorrect claim. The data is available to the sources in your article. They just choose to share it (or not share it) in a manner that supports their arguments, which you regurgitate.

regardless, your intentions are noble, and you deserve a pat on the head.
LOL you are such an emotional wreck. You are so desperate in your quixotic war against mRNA vaccines that you really believe it's your job to discredit at all costs. I'm sorry to have to tell you again and again that the vaccines are effective and that it's causing you distress. Look on the bright side - maybe you will manage to convince some people to remain unvaccinated at their own peril. Congrats for having dreams.

I thought only California, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington provide breakthrough case data to the CDC. 43 states do not. Eventually, they will use the NNDSS, but that data is not available. Extracting that data against overall deaths is misleading. Your study should have accurate data but doesn't bucket it in a way that supports your conclusion.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iceland just halted Moderna altogether until more safety studies are ran.

Now, two items of note so as not to be misleading.

1) Iceland only has a population of about 370,000 people, so this isn't that significant, although additional news after Norway, Finald, Sweden, and Denmark have issued pauses; and

2) I got two doses of Moderna and ultimately am fine and grateful because it protects me from hospitalization and death. I got my second dose in late April. Moderna vaccine is way better than no vaccine, at least for me.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Unit2Sucks said:

For some perspective on vaccine efficacy, the CDC has updated its breakthrough page through August 16, so we can now do some time-based analysis.

I found some info on prior version (from August 2) and it looks like over that 2-week period, we had about 300 total breakthrough deaths, and about 20% of all "breakthrough" deaths are for patients who were asymptomatic or who died of something else. During this period we had less than 1k breakthrough hospitalizations.

The updated page also now breaks out by 65 and over so now we know that there have been only about 200 total breakthrough deaths for people under 65 from the beginning, which is around 10% of all breakthrough deaths. We don't know how many were immuno-compromised or had underlying conditions.

By comparison, over the same 2 week period we averaged about 600 deaths per day and 11k hospitalizations per day. So, doing the quick math, about 4% of all COVID deaths over that period were vaccinated (presumably 90% over 65 as with all breakthrough deaths) and less than 1% of all hospitalizations were vaccinated.
Update for period from August 16 through October 4th.

CDC now shows 6,617 total breakthrough deaths, with fewer than 1k being people under 65. As of August 16 there were just over 1,800 total breakthrough deaths, with 200+ being under 65. So we've had ~4800 total breakthrough deaths and ~800 under age 65 since August 16.

That sounds like a lot until you realize that 80,000 Americans have died during that time period and that people 65+ have very high vaccination rates (75%?). Even if you look at it without regard to age, over the past 6 weeks, over 90% of all COVID deaths are coming from around 40% of the population (because ~60% of the US is vaccinated), which puts vaccines in the high 90's in preventing deaths in the US during the latter part of the Delta wave.

This was fairly quick back of the envelope math so I would welcome anyone who wants to provide more detailed data.

oski003 said:


You want me to provide data that validates your claim? Are you dense? A normal person would walk back their incorrect claim. The data is available to the sources in your article. They just choose to share it (or not share it) in a manner that supports their arguments, which you regurgitate.

regardless, your intentions are noble, and you deserve a pat on the head.
LOL you are such an emotional wreck. You are so desperate in your quixotic war against mRNA vaccines that you really believe it's your job to discredit at all costs. I'm sorry to have to tell you again and again that the vaccines are effective and that it's causing you distress. Look on the bright side - maybe you will manage to convince some people to remain unvaccinated at their own peril. Congrats for having dreams.

I thought only California, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington provide breakthrough case data to the CDC. 43 states do not. Eventually, they will use the NNDSS, but that data is not available. Extracting that data against overall deaths is misleading. Your study should have accurate data but doesn't bucket it in a way that supports your conclusion.
CDC says 49 states have reported data but I'm not sure who the missing state is or whether the states have provided 100% of the data. You are correct that if the CDC data is incomplete than the assumptions I used would be wrong.

I just noticed the CDC has a new vaccine effectiveness page where they are reporting the vaccines (collectively) were between 86 and 89% effective against hospitalizations in August, although hospitalization is no longer the most meaningful stat as more and more people have gone to the hospital for treatment of mild infections.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Unit2Sucks said:

For some perspective on vaccine efficacy, the CDC has updated its breakthrough page through August 16, so we can now do some time-based analysis.

I found some info on prior version (from August 2) and it looks like over that 2-week period, we had about 300 total breakthrough deaths, and about 20% of all "breakthrough" deaths are for patients who were asymptomatic or who died of something else. During this period we had less than 1k breakthrough hospitalizations.

The updated page also now breaks out by 65 and over so now we know that there have been only about 200 total breakthrough deaths for people under 65 from the beginning, which is around 10% of all breakthrough deaths. We don't know how many were immuno-compromised or had underlying conditions.

By comparison, over the same 2 week period we averaged about 600 deaths per day and 11k hospitalizations per day. So, doing the quick math, about 4% of all COVID deaths over that period were vaccinated (presumably 90% over 65 as with all breakthrough deaths) and less than 1% of all hospitalizations were vaccinated.
Update for period from August 16 through October 4th.

CDC now shows 6,617 total breakthrough deaths, with fewer than 1k being people under 65. As of August 16 there were just over 1,800 total breakthrough deaths, with 200+ being under 65. So we've had ~4800 total breakthrough deaths and ~800 under age 65 since August 16.

That sounds like a lot until you realize that 80,000 Americans have died during that time period and that people 65+ have very high vaccination rates (75%?). Even if you look at it without regard to age, over the past 6 weeks, over 90% of all COVID deaths are coming from around 40% of the population (because ~60% of the US is vaccinated), which puts vaccines in the high 90's in preventing deaths in the US during the latter part of the Delta wave.

This was fairly quick back of the envelope math so I would welcome anyone who wants to provide more detailed data.

oski003 said:


You want me to provide data that validates your claim? Are you dense? A normal person would walk back their incorrect claim. The data is available to the sources in your article. They just choose to share it (or not share it) in a manner that supports their arguments, which you regurgitate.

regardless, your intentions are noble, and you deserve a pat on the head.
LOL you are such an emotional wreck. You are so desperate in your quixotic war against mRNA vaccines that you really believe it's your job to discredit at all costs. I'm sorry to have to tell you again and again that the vaccines are effective and that it's causing you distress. Look on the bright side - maybe you will manage to convince some people to remain unvaccinated at their own peril. Congrats for having dreams.

I thought only California, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington provide breakthrough case data to the CDC. 43 states do not. Eventually, they will use the NNDSS, but that data is not available. Extracting that data against overall deaths is misleading. Your study should have accurate data but doesn't bucket it in a way that supports your conclusion.
CDC says 49 states have reported data but I'm not sure who the missing state is or whether the states have provided 100% of the data. You are correct that if the CDC data is incomplete than the assumptions I used would be wrong.

I just noticed the CDC has a new vaccine effectiveness page where they are reporting the vaccines (collectively) were between 86 and 89% effective against hospitalizations in August, although hospitalization is no longer the most meaningful stat as more and more people have gone to the hospital for treatment of mild infections.


The 49 states have reported breakthrough data?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
However, DNA vaccines come with other benefits. In trials so far, they appear to be very safe. "We haven't really seen safety concerns," says Horton. "Whereas with the other platforms that are out thereluckily the side effects are rarebut there are some safety issues with both the mRNA and the viral vector vaccines."

https://www.clinicalomics.com/topics/patient-care/therapeutics/vaccines/dna-vaccines-the-next-stage-in-the-vaccine-revolution/
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Unit2Sucks said:

For some perspective on vaccine efficacy, the CDC has updated its breakthrough page through August 16, so we can now do some time-based analysis.

I found some info on prior version (from August 2) and it looks like over that 2-week period, we had about 300 total breakthrough deaths, and about 20% of all "breakthrough" deaths are for patients who were asymptomatic or who died of something else. During this period we had less than 1k breakthrough hospitalizations.

The updated page also now breaks out by 65 and over so now we know that there have been only about 200 total breakthrough deaths for people under 65 from the beginning, which is around 10% of all breakthrough deaths. We don't know how many were immuno-compromised or had underlying conditions.

By comparison, over the same 2 week period we averaged about 600 deaths per day and 11k hospitalizations per day. So, doing the quick math, about 4% of all COVID deaths over that period were vaccinated (presumably 90% over 65 as with all breakthrough deaths) and less than 1% of all hospitalizations were vaccinated.
Update for period from August 16 through October 4th.

CDC now shows 6,617 total breakthrough deaths, with fewer than 1k being people under 65. As of August 16 there were just over 1,800 total breakthrough deaths, with 200+ being under 65. So we've had ~4800 total breakthrough deaths and ~800 under age 65 since August 16.

That sounds like a lot until you realize that 80,000 Americans have died during that time period and that people 65+ have very high vaccination rates (75%?). Even if you look at it without regard to age, over the past 6 weeks, over 90% of all COVID deaths are coming from around 40% of the population (because ~60% of the US is vaccinated), which puts vaccines in the high 90's in preventing deaths in the US during the latter part of the Delta wave.

This was fairly quick back of the envelope math so I would welcome anyone who wants to provide more detailed data.

oski003 said:


You want me to provide data that validates your claim? Are you dense? A normal person would walk back their incorrect claim. The data is available to the sources in your article. They just choose to share it (or not share it) in a manner that supports their arguments, which you regurgitate.

regardless, your intentions are noble, and you deserve a pat on the head.
LOL you are such an emotional wreck. You are so desperate in your quixotic war against mRNA vaccines that you really believe it's your job to discredit at all costs. I'm sorry to have to tell you again and again that the vaccines are effective and that it's causing you distress. Look on the bright side - maybe you will manage to convince some people to remain unvaccinated at their own peril. Congrats for having dreams.

I thought only California, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington provide breakthrough case data to the CDC. 43 states do not. Eventually, they will use the NNDSS, but that data is not available. Extracting that data against overall deaths is misleading. Your study should have accurate data but doesn't bucket it in a way that supports your conclusion.
CDC says 49 states have reported data but I'm not sure who the missing state is or whether the states have provided 100% of the data. You are correct that if the CDC data is incomplete than the assumptions I used would be wrong.

I just noticed the CDC has a new vaccine effectiveness page where they are reporting the vaccines (collectively) were between 86 and 89% effective against hospitalizations in August, although hospitalization is no longer the most meaningful stat as more and more people have gone to the hospital for treatment of mild infections.


The 49 states have reported breakthrough data?
In this page they say: "49 states have reported at least one vaccine breakthrough infection to this system."

In that second page they say "During the same time, CDC received reports from 50 U.S. states and territories."

They don't say how complete the data is.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Unit2Sucks said:

For some perspective on vaccine efficacy, the CDC has updated its breakthrough page through August 16, so we can now do some time-based analysis.

I found some info on prior version (from August 2) and it looks like over that 2-week period, we had about 300 total breakthrough deaths, and about 20% of all "breakthrough" deaths are for patients who were asymptomatic or who died of something else. During this period we had less than 1k breakthrough hospitalizations.

The updated page also now breaks out by 65 and over so now we know that there have been only about 200 total breakthrough deaths for people under 65 from the beginning, which is around 10% of all breakthrough deaths. We don't know how many were immuno-compromised or had underlying conditions.

By comparison, over the same 2 week period we averaged about 600 deaths per day and 11k hospitalizations per day. So, doing the quick math, about 4% of all COVID deaths over that period were vaccinated (presumably 90% over 65 as with all breakthrough deaths) and less than 1% of all hospitalizations were vaccinated.
Update for period from August 16 through October 4th.

CDC now shows 6,617 total breakthrough deaths, with fewer than 1k being people under 65. As of August 16 there were just over 1,800 total breakthrough deaths, with 200+ being under 65. So we've had ~4800 total breakthrough deaths and ~800 under age 65 since August 16.

That sounds like a lot until you realize that 80,000 Americans have died during that time period and that people 65+ have very high vaccination rates (75%?). Even if you look at it without regard to age, over the past 6 weeks, over 90% of all COVID deaths are coming from around 40% of the population (because ~60% of the US is vaccinated), which puts vaccines in the high 90's in preventing deaths in the US during the latter part of the Delta wave.

This was fairly quick back of the envelope math so I would welcome anyone who wants to provide more detailed data.

oski003 said:


You want me to provide data that validates your claim? Are you dense? A normal person would walk back their incorrect claim. The data is available to the sources in your article. They just choose to share it (or not share it) in a manner that supports their arguments, which you regurgitate.

regardless, your intentions are noble, and you deserve a pat on the head.
LOL you are such an emotional wreck. You are so desperate in your quixotic war against mRNA vaccines that you really believe it's your job to discredit at all costs. I'm sorry to have to tell you again and again that the vaccines are effective and that it's causing you distress. Look on the bright side - maybe you will manage to convince some people to remain unvaccinated at their own peril. Congrats for having dreams.

I thought only California, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington provide breakthrough case data to the CDC. 43 states do not. Eventually, they will use the NNDSS, but that data is not available. Extracting that data against overall deaths is misleading. Your study should have accurate data but doesn't bucket it in a way that supports your conclusion.
CDC says 49 states have reported data but I'm not sure who the missing state is or whether the states have provided 100% of the data. You are correct that if the CDC data is incomplete than the assumptions I used would be wrong.

I just noticed the CDC has a new vaccine effectiveness page where they are reporting the vaccines (collectively) were between 86 and 89% effective against hospitalizations in August, although hospitalization is no longer the most meaningful stat as more and more people have gone to the hospital for treatment of mild infections.


The 49 states have reported breakthrough data?
In this page they say: "49 states have reported at least one vaccine breakthrough infection to this system."

In that second page they say "During the same time, CDC received reports from 50 U.S. states and territories."

They don't say how complete the data is.



https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

These states are publicly reporting information on vaccine breakthrough cases.

California
Louisiana
Nebraska
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Washington, DC

It sounds like there is more reporting than just those seven states, and the vaccines are at least 80% effective at preventing severe illness and probably more so after boosting. We aren't that far apart here.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Unit2Sucks said:

For some perspective on vaccine efficacy, the CDC has updated its breakthrough page through August 16, so we can now do some time-based analysis.

I found some info on prior version (from August 2) and it looks like over that 2-week period, we had about 300 total breakthrough deaths, and about 20% of all "breakthrough" deaths are for patients who were asymptomatic or who died of something else. During this period we had less than 1k breakthrough hospitalizations.

The updated page also now breaks out by 65 and over so now we know that there have been only about 200 total breakthrough deaths for people under 65 from the beginning, which is around 10% of all breakthrough deaths. We don't know how many were immuno-compromised or had underlying conditions.

By comparison, over the same 2 week period we averaged about 600 deaths per day and 11k hospitalizations per day. So, doing the quick math, about 4% of all COVID deaths over that period were vaccinated (presumably 90% over 65 as with all breakthrough deaths) and less than 1% of all hospitalizations were vaccinated.
Update for period from August 16 through October 4th.

CDC now shows 6,617 total breakthrough deaths, with fewer than 1k being people under 65. As of August 16 there were just over 1,800 total breakthrough deaths, with 200+ being under 65. So we've had ~4800 total breakthrough deaths and ~800 under age 65 since August 16.

That sounds like a lot until you realize that 80,000 Americans have died during that time period and that people 65+ have very high vaccination rates (75%?). Even if you look at it without regard to age, over the past 6 weeks, over 90% of all COVID deaths are coming from around 40% of the population (because ~60% of the US is vaccinated), which puts vaccines in the high 90's in preventing deaths in the US during the latter part of the Delta wave.

This was fairly quick back of the envelope math so I would welcome anyone who wants to provide more detailed data.

oski003 said:


You want me to provide data that validates your claim? Are you dense? A normal person would walk back their incorrect claim. The data is available to the sources in your article. They just choose to share it (or not share it) in a manner that supports their arguments, which you regurgitate.

regardless, your intentions are noble, and you deserve a pat on the head.
LOL you are such an emotional wreck. You are so desperate in your quixotic war against mRNA vaccines that you really believe it's your job to discredit at all costs. I'm sorry to have to tell you again and again that the vaccines are effective and that it's causing you distress. Look on the bright side - maybe you will manage to convince some people to remain unvaccinated at their own peril. Congrats for having dreams.

I thought only California, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington provide breakthrough case data to the CDC. 43 states do not. Eventually, they will use the NNDSS, but that data is not available. Extracting that data against overall deaths is misleading. Your study should have accurate data but doesn't bucket it in a way that supports your conclusion.
CDC says 49 states have reported data but I'm not sure who the missing state is or whether the states have provided 100% of the data. You are correct that if the CDC data is incomplete than the assumptions I used would be wrong.

I just noticed the CDC has a new vaccine effectiveness page where they are reporting the vaccines (collectively) were between 86 and 89% effective against hospitalizations in August, although hospitalization is no longer the most meaningful stat as more and more people have gone to the hospital for treatment of mild infections.


The 49 states have reported breakthrough data?
In this page they say: "49 states have reported at least one vaccine breakthrough infection to this system."

In that second page they say "During the same time, CDC received reports from 50 U.S. states and territories."

They don't say how complete the data is.



https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

These states are publicly reporting information on vaccine breakthrough cases.

California
Louisiana
Nebraska
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Washington, DC

It sounds like there is more reporting than just those seven states, and the vaccines are at least 80% effective at preventing severe illness and probably more so after boosting. We aren't that far apart here.

Thanks - the key word is "publicly." Those 7 states are reporting data to the public (eg us) while the other states are just reporting the data to the CDC. Of course we don't know which, if any, states may be reporting less comprehensively.

The CA data is probably the most relevant for people here. As of early September, California says that the unvaccinated are 17.4x as likely to die as vaccinated are. So that puts you at around 95% effectiveness for the vaccines as a group. And Minot would point out that perhaps 1/3 of unvaccinated previously had COVID so presumably they have some level of protection as well.

Needless to say, the best way to reduce your chances of serious infection or death is to get a jab, or, to isolate yourself from society to prevent infection. The former is very easy to do while the latter has plenty of challenges.




Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Also recently read about another tragedy that could have been easily avoided. Hopefully more awareness of these senseless deaths will help more young people choose to protect themselves.

Quote:

Before Tyler Blaylock died of COVID-19, his mom said he wished he had been vaccinated against the coronavirus. Tyler's whole family wishes that, too.

He died following his bout with COVID-19 on Sept. 16 at the University of Kansas Health System - St. Francis Campus in Topeka, Kansas.

Tyler tested positive for coronavirus on Aug. 16, WIBW reported. And in just five days, Tyler was struggling to breath.

"It went so fast, it was like a tornado," his mom, Kayla, told the station.

The Topeka 20-year-old was a "beloved son, brother, teammate, and friend," and now his family has established the Tyler Blaylock Foundation in hopes of saving the lives of others.

bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?




* Most of these White boy pilots, cops and military personnel that won't vax are not resisting because they consider their bodies temples that they worship, they are refusing because "No Vax" is part of the bundled belief system of a tRumpist. I used to think there were just a few rotten apples in the barrel. Now it is clear that there are a whole lot of rotten barrels.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Great news for COVID in Texas. The socialist authoritarian governor has decided by executive order that businesses may not impose COVID vaccine mandates. Is anyone else old enough to remember when conservatives criticized this sort of central planning and believed businesses were best left to make their own decisions? Seems like it was just yesterday they pretended to be free market small government champions.

Quote:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday issued another executive order cracking down on COVID-19 vaccine mandates this time banning any entity in Texas, including private businesses, from requiring vaccinations for employees or customers.

Abbott also called on the Legislature to pass a law with the same effect. The Legislature is in its third special legislative session, which ends Oct. 19.

"The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, & our best defense against the virus, but should always remain voluntary & never forced," he said in a tweet announcing his latest order.

dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Great news for COVID in Texas. The socialist authoritarian governor has decided by executive order that businesses may not impose COVID vaccine mandates. Is anyone else old enough to remember when conservatives criticized this sort of central planning and believed businesses were best left to make their own decisions? Seems like it was just yesterday they pretended to be free market small government champions.

Quote:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday issued another executive order cracking down on COVID-19 vaccine mandates this time banning any entity in Texas, including private businesses, from requiring vaccinations for employees or customers.

Abbott also called on the Legislature to pass a law with the same effect. The Legislature is in its third special legislative session, which ends Oct. 19.

"The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, & our best defense against the virus, but should always remain voluntary & never forced," he said in a tweet announcing his latest order.


So if I am a federal employee working in Texas where does that leave me?

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Great news for COVID in Texas. The socialist authoritarian governor has decided by executive order that businesses may not impose COVID vaccine mandates. Is anyone else old enough to remember when conservatives criticized this sort of central planning and believed businesses were best left to make their own decisions? Seems like it was just yesterday they pretended to be free market small government champions.

Quote:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday issued another executive order cracking down on COVID-19 vaccine mandates this time banning any entity in Texas, including private businesses, from requiring vaccinations for employees or customers.

Abbott also called on the Legislature to pass a law with the same effect. The Legislature is in its third special legislative session, which ends Oct. 19.

"The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, & our best defense against the virus, but should always remain voluntary & never forced," he said in a tweet announcing his latest order.


So if I am a federal employee working in Texas where does that leave me?




You work for the authoritarian Joe Biden not the authoritarian Greg Abbott
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Great news for COVID in Texas. The socialist authoritarian governor has decided by executive order that businesses may not impose COVID vaccine mandates. Is anyone else old enough to remember when conservatives criticized this sort of central planning and believed businesses were best left to make their own decisions? Seems like it was just yesterday they pretended to be free market small government champions.

Quote:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday issued another executive order cracking down on COVID-19 vaccine mandates this time banning any entity in Texas, including private businesses, from requiring vaccinations for employees or customers.

Abbott also called on the Legislature to pass a law with the same effect. The Legislature is in its third special legislative session, which ends Oct. 19.

"The COVID-19 vaccine is safe, effective, & our best defense against the virus, but should always remain voluntary & never forced," he said in a tweet announcing his latest order.


So if I am a federal employee working in Texas where does that leave me?




At increased risk of community spread because Greg Abbott doesn't want you to be safe.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.