COVID-19 Coronavirus current events

Mendel

Senior Member.
Even in this study they wouldn’t tell you how much more it protects you.
They did, an you quoted it. You correctly identified that model 3 compares the previously infected with the infected and vaccinated, same as the Kentucky study. The Israel odds ratio is 0.53 for reinfection, which is the same as 1.89-fold protection; that's well within the expected 1.5- to 3 from the Kentucky study that I talked about in my previous post. (The Kentucky study is more accurate because it had more reinfected people.)

While reading the study I found their data came from model three.



796BC46E-C7AC-4D0C-81E4-FF1456F1D604.jpeg

Then I did the math.

14,029 people were matched for this study . About 7000 in each group. Out of the people with just natural immunity 37 were reinfected which is .52% of the group. Out of the 7000 people with natural immunity and a vaccination 20 were infected or .286% Which is a overall benefit of less than .25% .

Not not much of a boost in my opinion.

The study is only looking at reinfections that occurred in Israel between June 1st and August 15th 2021. According to Wikipedia, Israel had 101574 cases during that period, which is 1.15% of the population. As more cases pile up, the risk gets bigger, so your 0.52% and 0.25% numbers will also get bigger. What is going to stay the same is that the "infected and vaxxed" group has half as many infected people as the "infected" group. So the "boost" accumulates as case numbers rise. (And the serious side effects of the vaccine are far less than that boost!)

Another part of the same study suggests that the immunity people acquire from an infection gets worse with time, so eventually it's going to make sense to have the booster shot to bring it back up. The Israel study had only half a year elapsed between the infection/vaccination and the outcome survey, so the infection risk is going to be bigger when more time has elapsed (which again results in a better boost).
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Let’s start at the beginning X is the total number of the group and Y is the total number of people infected from that group. My first question would be Y is what percent of X .
The answer to that is unsatisfactory because that number is going to go up with time.
And it's irrelevant for the comparison that the study aimed for.

If you want a running total of breakthrough infections, look elsewhere. It's not a secret.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
I noticed some press reports in the UK earlier this week claiming that, according to a survey by the Office for National Statistics, people who habitually wore a face covering (i.e. mask) in confined spaces had a substantially lower risk of being infected with Covid-19, compared with those who did not. The Times (September 28, page 16) described the finding as being that the non-mask-wearers were 'one and a half times more likely' to be infected. This wording seemed a bit ambiguous: taking mask-wearers as the baseline group, does it mean the non-wearers were one-and-a-half times as likely to be infected - giving a ratio of 1:1.5 - or that there was an additional risk equivalent to one-and-a-half times the base rate - giving a ratio of 1:2.5 ? The latter interpretation might seem strained, but not impossible, and clearly it makes a big difference.

So I tracked down the original ONS report, which is here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...del-populations-by-risk-of-covid-19-in-the-uk

The finding on face masks is only a small part of the research. To find it scroll down to section 5 of the report, and in particular Figure 4. The authors' own description is that 'People who never wore a face covering in enclosed spaces were more likely to test positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) than those who always wear a face covering in enclosed spaces'. Figure 4 shows that compared with mask wearers (the 'reference category') non-wearers had about a 1.6 times likelihood of testing positive; that is, 1.6 times as likely.

There are some complications. There is a rather wide 95% confidence interval, with the lower end of the interval at about 0.25x and the upper end about 2x. There is also an odd result that people who claimed not to need face masks because they didn't leave their home (at least in the survey period) had an enhanced risk similar to the non-wearers. Also, it doesn't mean that mask-wearers are 1.5 times less likely to ever get infected, just that they were less likely to be infected when the tests were taken.

I wouldn't put much weight on this single study, but it is interesting in giving some evidence that masks protect the wearers as well as those around them. I think the advocates of mask-wearing have been cautious about claiming that masks give much protection to the wearers, as against those whom they may infect if they are (knowingly or unknowingly) infected themselves.
 

Fallingdown

Member
Fallingdown said:

Let’s start at the beginning X is the total number of the group and Y is the total number of people infected from that group. My first question would be Y is what percent of X .





The answer to that is unsatisfactory because that number is going to go up with time.

And it's irrelevant for the comparison that the study aimed for.



Ok you lost me.
How can that number be irrelevant?

Just so you know I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just trying to understand.

In the phrase “two-fold increase”, the term “increase” refers to the fact that one number is greater than the other, not the amount by which one is greater than the other. The increase is two-fold because the new number is twice the old number. There's nothing sloppy or innumerate about it.

https://english.stackexchange.com/q...crease-the-same-amount-as-a-two-fold-increase



In the Israeli study they said there was a .53 fold increase.

A .53 increase over what ?



We might possibly be having a misunderstanding. Your post do without a doubt prove the claims in the study. But that’s not what is important to me in this conversation. I agree their claims are accurate. My problem is the delivery of the information to the average person.

You mentioned that the Israel study said natural immunity might wane.

Here’s a peer reviewed study from Sept 1st showing natural immunity‘s are affective up to six months after initial infection.






3C20988B-79DB-468A-ABA7-6B318703105D.jpeg77282439-58C5-454C-9722-8484EBEF8FDE.jpeg
The reason I post this is not so much for the data. It’s to show how easily the average person can misinterpret it. Most people would read the story in a news article and believe for a fact that antibodies only last six months. Few would bother to check the source and all but a handful of them would just read the conclusion.

I can tell that you understand the studies at a glance. I’ve got a beginners knowledge of them. Which is a lot more than most people .

In this day and age especially with the combative nature during this pandemic. Why doesn’t anybody explain these clearly to the average person. It’s well within the capability of physicians or even a informed reporters commenting on an article to explain all the factors.

They don’t !

I can’t grasp the reason why ?

If the reporter or scientist quoting the study said. “Natural immunities last up to six months and they may last longer because that was the length of the study”.

Just a few extra words would make everybody better informed.

The same goes for. “Natural antibodies and vaccine protect you better from the current one percent change of reinfection”.

Just think how much better the world would be informed. If people that understand decided to explain things in plain English .

Personally I think a lot of this problem is that the uber educated look down on everyone else from a supercilious perch.

They don’t bother to explain because they figure most people are too stupid to get it.

Call it the education gap .

There’s also the possibility that like with lateral thinkers. The educated naturally assume that everyone understands these things so there’s no sense in mentioning them.

Which basically puts them two or three steps ahead of everyone else.

I just believe with clear information out there. Everyone wouldn’t be at each other‘s throats like they are now.

What for the last year and a half the public has been operating under the mushroom analogy. “Everybody keeps us in the dark in feeds us BS”
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I just believe with clear information out there. Everyone wouldn’t be at each other‘s throats like they are now.
I disagree.
You have people like Mercola who deliberately mislead and confuse because they have an agenda, and other people share that because it fits the conclusion they would like to see, and all of that is then complicated by a big dose of distrust in the government numbers which have, by and large, been transparent. (Though you need to be aware that the govt can only provide the numbers it has, with all the flaws that come into collecting them. It helps to understand that.)

I also don't agree that communication hasn't been clear. Can't be clearer than "please get the vaccine for your own and everyone else's sake".

Regarding the studies, each study is typically designed to answer a specific question, and if you try to get another answer from it, you can easily arrive at a false conclusion.

That said, it would help for clarity here if you write down explicitly and in detail which questions you have that you'd like to have answered (and for which country or state).

-----

Regarding the waning, in the Israel study you cited, model 1 matched people vaccinated in January/February with people vaccinated in January/February and checked for reinfections in June-August. Under these conditions, the infection-acquired immunity was 13 times better than the vaccination.

In model 2, the people were not matched; there weren't any vaccinations in 2020, but there had been infections that are now included in the model, which obviously date further back than the in infections in model 1.With the older infections included, the infection-acquired immunity was only 6 times better than the vaccination (which hadn't changed). Therefore, the older infections made the protection 2 times worse on average. That is a clear indication that the protection wanes over time; otherwise the protection advantage should have stayed the same.

It's generally difficult to find out what that loss of protection looks like exactly over time, because the virus strains also get more infectious, and it's not clear whether an increase in re-infections is due to loss of protection or due to more dangerous strains emerging.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
In the Israeli study they said there was a .53 fold increase.

A .53 increase over what ?
If you look at my post with the table again, you saw that I compared the 50 vaccinated infected with the 107 that I calculated should have been there if the vaccination did nothing. I can summarize that as saying the vaccination provides 107/50 = 2.04-fold protection, or that it reduces the danger to 50/107=0.47. It's the same ratio, just turned around: you can say A is twice (2-fold) as good as B, or B is half (0.5-fold) as good as A, and you're saying the same thing with the ratio turned around, but it means the same.
This ratio is called the "odds ratio", and you can find it in the column labeled "OR" in the tables in the back of the study, and in many other studies as well that compare risks. It's computed exactly the same way I did it in my post, but depending on which way you look at it, you might get the inverse of the ratio (like 1/2 instead of 2).
 

Fallingdown

Member
Exactly!



To accurately convey the information in that article they needed to put a big “ maybe” Behind those statistic .



When I look at the main points of the article. There were a lot of holes.



People who had received one or two doses of a coronavirus vaccine were less likely to test positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) in the fortnight ending 11 September 2021.



That’s correct and it’s a gimmie. If you haven’t developed any natural antibodies you should be vaccinated. If you have natural immunity is weigh ALL of your options .



• People living in a household of three or more occupants were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 in the fortnight ending 11 September 2021.

That stands in direct opposition to the policy of lock downs.



Those in younger age groups were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 in the fortnight ending 11 September 2021



According to figure 4 the highest likely hood for the younger age group was in the 6 to 10 yr age group. At that age indirect contact through eyes and nose is heightened as is the 1 to 5 age group. For the last 75 years we’ve been taught indirect contact is the main way viruses spread. (Not sure if I need to supply a link for that. But that’s what all of us were taught about viruses untill 2020 for some unknown reason)



People who never wore a face covering in enclosed spaces were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 in the fortnight ending 11 September 2021.



Where was it coming from? COVID-19 is aerosol. So are the mask wearers passing it on to the non-mask wears? Or was everyone in the confined space unmasked? Not to mention the over pressure caused by mask wearers from breathing , coughing or sneezing especially in confined spaces . Those actions expel more concentrated aerosolized particles than breathing in free floating particles.

Those who reported socially distanced contact with 11 or more people aged 18 to 69 years outside their household were more likely to test positive for COVID-19, in the fortnight ending 11 September 2021.

Which stands in the face of social distancing and gives more credit to indirect contact as the source of infection.



That was every one of the main points for that article/survey/study. We can discuss it rationally here. But try to do it in public or online without someone jumping down your throat for merely questioning the data.

The issue is far too partisan. Which is something I believe can be fixed with clear interpretations.
 

Fallingdown

Member
You have people like Mercola who deliberately mislead and confuse because they have an agenda, and other people share that because it fits the conclusion they would like to see
I can see your point and agree but it’s not one-sided. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and Fox reach far more people than Mercola. If they would ethically report this information in plain English There would be a lot less conflict.

There is always going to be conspiracy theorists. They might be loud but they are in the minority.

I also don't agree that communication hasn't been clear. Can't be clearer than "please get the vaccine for your own and everyone else's sake".
The information on vaccines is so unclear it’s like muddy water.

The goal is to reach herd immunity.

Currently there is over 180 million people fully vaccinated.

5A525A33-69AD-4161-A284-A80D72B092BE.jpeg

The CDC flu burden estimate is around 120 million infected The vast majority with active antibodies. Which as the data keeps revealing itself or shown to be superior and longer lasting. (The article from September 1 I showed you for Instance)
F078B06F-85F3-46DA-BB1C-9DE77A6CA231.jpeg

That’s around 300 million people fully vaccinated or with natural antibodies . That is over 85% of the herd immunity level. To show that figure is relative look at the new cases they are in steep decline .

FB8A3081-69D3-44B5-BA7F-EE220D664BC5.png


The refusal of even discussion from the current administration to include natural antibodies into the herd immunity count doesn’t raise any red flags for you?

The data is clear that’s the risk of re-infection is very low . The attitude from the administration of trying to force everybody with antibodies to get a vaccine because .....

“ we’re just trying to help“

“ We want what’s best for you“

“ this is for your own good“

Are all psychological red flags of a control freak.

Every detail about vaccines is being obfuscated by the media and the administration.

The risk of reinfection is low and there is also a risk of adverse reactions from Vaccinations. people should be able to make their own choice due to those two factors.

The only way to move forward rationally is through clear honest discussion. Something we haven’ had for a year and a half.

“ if you want clear water go to the head of the stream“
 

Fallingdown

Member
If you look at my post with the table again,
I completely understand your position. I think we’re going at this from two different directions. So let me ask you a question.

According to the current data is the risk of re-infection low somewhere around 1%.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
For the last 75 years we’ve been taught indirect contact is the main way viruses spread.
Who taught you that?

There are different types of viruses, if you shed them via the blood or feces , you won't inhale them; same goes for STDs.

For your herd immunity, you need to consider that the vaccinations are not perfect, and neither is the natural immunity, so it's not enough to add up the numbers.

One of your quotes is incomplete:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...yriskoftestingpositiveforcovid19september2021

Figure 4 shows the meaning of this quote super clearly: the more people you meet outside the house, the more likely you're getting infected, even if you are socially distancing. (There are no numbers for contacts that are not socialy distanced, so you can't say how effective social distancing is from that data; and that's why the study does not say that.)

Here's another partial qupote completed:
That says something about household sizes and nothing about lockdowns (again, the study does not say anything about lockdowns for a reason).

--------------

You are always trying to angle conclusions from the study that aren't in there, and you tend to draw the wrong conclusions when you do that. If these conclusions were there to be drawn, they'd be written out.
(Best you can do is get some additional detail from the graphs and tables, but no scientist alive passes up a chance to get credit for some obvious results!)
You write "Which is something I believe can be fixed with clear interpretations" and then you seem to jump to the strangest interpretations you can come up with. You are confusing yourself.

I asked you to write clear specific questions; you haven't done that, so I'm out.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
i read only 60% (or 40% cant remember which now) of infected people made antibodies. so that has to be considered in the math.

i generally agree with your premise @Fallingdown but your numbers are off. so that doesnt help the discussion. basically there is an issue with the antibody tests. they all measure different things and even the scientists can't figure them out. so in short, they dont have anything adequate to measure antibodies in infected people (which yes, goes against my first paragraph news report :) ) . They want people to get the vaccine because they all suck at their jobs and they can't figure the natural immunity thing out.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
this isnt where i originally read it, but heres a source for the 40%
Article:
Chen Wang at Peking Union Medical College in Beijing and his colleagues took blood samples from more than 9,500 people in some 3,500 randomly selected households in Wuhan, China, the first place known to be widely affected by COVID-19 (Z. He et al. Lancet 397, 1075–1084; 2021). The team took samples at three separate times over the course of 2020: once in April, after the city’s lockdown lifted; once in June; and again between October and December. The team tested the samples for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, which indicate that a person has been infected with the virus.

The researchers found that only 7% of the population had been infected with the virus, of whom more than 80% had had no symptoms. Around 40% of the infected people produced neutralizing antibodies that could be detected for the entire study period.



edit add: hmmm...ok i think we can scratch that.
Article:
A study just published in the journal Emerging Infectious Disease found that 36% of those who had had Covid-19 didn’t have antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in their blood.

it certainly hasn’t been the first study to show that people who have had Covid-19 may not end up developing antibodies. For example, as described by a publication in EClinical Medicine 5% of 698 people in Israel remained seronegative despite having tested positive for the Covid-19 coronavirus. Another study, published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, found this rate to be even higher (20%) among a group of New Yorkers. Then there was the study from Germany published in the Journal of Clinical Virology which reported a whopping 85%.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Active Member
Some takeaways from this thread in terms of facts:

Fact #1: The protection of already infected people against re-infection is demonstrably potent, whilst nowhere near 100 %, according to multiple surveys the world over.

Fact #2: Administering the vaccine to already infected people boosts this protection further.

Fact #3: Covid-19 death rates amongst the unvaccinated significantly surpass Covid-19 death rates amongst the vaccinated.

Fact #4: Opting for natural herd immunity without vaccination is to opt for higher death rates.

To not take the vaccine and letting the virus 'burn through' to reach herd immunity is saying 'OK' to killing off more people. Why? Because of political affiliation and ideology. Not because of science and facts. Natural herd immunity argumentation is just a milder form of saying it would have been OK to let the smallpox take its terrible toll in order to achieve herd immunity through natural means.

Sometimes the science is on the side of the 'left', sometimes on the side of the 'right', but oftentimes its just far more nuanced than either. Let's choose science over politics. To save lives.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Sometimes the science is on the side of the 'left', sometimes on the side of the 'right', but oftentimes its just far more nuanced than either. Let's choose science over politics. To save lives.
I'd phrase that somewhat differently --"Let's let science inform our politics. To save lives." Politics is not a bad thing -- it's the suite of techniques that allows groups of people to (try to) reach some agreement on what to do next. Other historically popular techniques have centered around "let's you and me fight," or the more subtle "let's you and him fight." Politics is preferable, I think.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
I'd phrase that somewhat differently --"Let's let science inform our politics. To save lives." Politics is not a bad thing -- it's the suite of techniques that allows groups of people to (try to) reach some agreement on what to do next. Other historically popular techniques have centered around "let's you and me fight," or the more subtle "let's you and him fight." Politics is preferable, I think.

I agree if by "politics" is understood the generic idea of constructive public debate and the use of power to improve the human condition within a given jurisdiction. However, I meant "politics" in the specific sense of partisan politics and political tribalism. The sense in which our affiliation to scientific truth should trump partisan affiliation if the two are in conflict. Especially if they are in flagrant conflict.

P.S. The above statement on 'scientific truth' should not be misconstrued to imply that scientific truth is absolute or infallible.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Natural herd immunity argumentation is just a milder form of saying it would have been OK to let the smallpox take its terrible toll in order to achieve herd immunity through natural means.
small pox had a death rate of like 30%. and even higher for infants.

Because of political affiliation
it's not all political affiliation. Minorities lean left and they still have lower vax rates in many places, even though their death rates are higher.
Statements like yours keep it political. YOu could maybe say something like "all because people don't trust the government or health agencies"..something more neutral and factual?
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
small pox had a death rate of like 30%. and even higher for

Doesn't really refute the point.

it's not all political affiliation. Minorities lean left and they still have lower vax rates in many places, even though their death rates are higher.
Statements like yours keep it political. YOu could maybe say something like "all because people don't trust the government or health agencies"..something more neutral and factual?

The mistrust is politically fomented rather than purely based on bad experience.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
The human immune response is not just one thing, it's multilevel. The best part of it are "neutralizing antibodies", if you have those in the blood, you can take that blood in the lab, add some virus to it, and it'll be destroyed. People with these kinds of antibodies probably can't be reinfected at all. But there are some other levels of response, like other antibodies, or, once these have gone, a mechanism of recognition whereby the immune system can create these antibodies faster than it used to, and hence be much more effective in fighting the infection, leading to milder symptoms and a much lower chance of death. Or the immune system might fight off the virus without creating antibodies at all!

Obviously neutralizing antibodies are quite easy to detect in the lab, and tests can be made to detect other types of antibodies as well, but you can't test for the effectiveness of the whole immune system. What you'd really want to do is re-infect a bunch of people who might have immunity and see what happens. Obviously, this is only ethical to do with animals; with humans, you have to wait for enough people in your study to become re-infected naturally to see the effect. Then you have to account for the fact that these people led real lives that aren't exactly lab conditions, which is why they match these people to other similar people and compare these to each other.

An added factor is that we don't actually know about every re-infection because asymptomatic infections often go unnoticed (which has been a problem with this disease from the beginning!). The ONS report that DavidB66 introduced has a finding on that: that people who get tested regularly with quick tests are more likely to be infected; which may mean that they've got the same infection rate, but more of these infections get found. (It may also mean that people required to get tested regularly are at a higher risk of exposure to the virus.) And we don't really know how infectious asymptomatic people are, either.

To get a handle on this pandemic outside the lab is really quite unprecedented and challenging, and some information we'd like to have is simply hard to get. With all these real-world complications, it's easy to demand for scientists to "do their jobs", but not that easy for them to do.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Doesn't really refute the point.

ok, then the vaccine argument means people are ok with thousands -including children-dying each year because flu vaccines aren't mandatory. or the pneumonia vaccine, or HIV vaccine.

Should noone be allowed to work if they don't get the flu vaccine each year? and if so, then should those vaccines be free? because the court ruled the Obamacare mandate unconstitutional.

The issue is (like most issues around covid) "where do we draw the lines?"
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The pandemic response in the US has always been highly politicized. If I search for "vaccination rate political affiliation", I get a lot of different search results that come to similar conclusions. For example, from an NBC poll:
Article:
  • Democrats: 88 percent
  • Independents: 60 percent
  • Republicans: 55 percent
  • Republicans who support Trump more than party: 46 percent
  • Republicans who support party more than Trump: 62 percent
  • Democratic Sanders-Warren voters: 88 percent
  • Democratic Biden voters: 87 percent
  • Biden voters in 2020 general election: 91 percent
  • Trump voters in 2020 general election: 50 percent

The WHO warned back in March 2020 of the dangers of politicizing the epidemic, saying that this would help the virus. In many countries, the major parties have united to support the scientific advice in the pandemic, but the US have not.
That began with the delayed testing rollout (which I assume was politically motivated, because unlike other countries, the CDC eschewed the German WHO-approved PCR test) and continued throughout:
Article:
"It goes through the air," Mr Trump told the author on 7 February.
"That's always tougher than the touch. You don't have to touch things. Right? But the air, you just breathe the air and that's how it's passed.
"And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flus."

Later that month, Mr Trump promised the virus was "very much under control", and that the case count would soon be close to zero. He also publicly implied the flu was more dangerous than Covid-19.


Pandemic response must be political, but shouldn't be politicized.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
ok, then the vaccine argument means people are ok with thousands -including children-dying each year because flu vaccines aren't mandatory. or the pneumonia vaccine, or HIV vaccine.

Should noone be allowed to work if they don't get the flu vaccine each year? and if so, then should those vaccines be free? because the court ruled the Obamacare mandate unconstitutional.

The issue is (like most issues around covid) "where do we draw the lines?"

It's not, and the flu card is a poor and trite trope in this highly politicized debate. The reasons are simple:

(1) Flu is a serious public health concern rather than something to be trivialized. A mandatory flu vaccine is a perfectly sensible public policy consideration if serious flu symptoms (including death) were anywhere as preventable by vaccine as serious Covid-19 symptoms (including death). It turns out they're not. Influenza is notoriously adaptive in terms of resistance to shots, unlike Covid-19. As a result, every year new flu shots (which are moderately rather than highly effective) must be developed and manufactured.

(2) When allowed to freely spread, flu doesn't overload the health care system whereas Covid-19 does. This is due to the simple fact that the latter severely affects far more people and hence requires far more professional care. The data is in. Robustly.

(3) If there's a chance to save many lives and prevent serious symptoms (preventability by a vaccine) without overloading the health care system and causing other kinds of serious harm, it's our moral duty to do so.

Now, I'm sure you'll be the first to click 'dislike' or 'disagree' on this post. That's one way to engage in a discussion. But since this is MetaBunk, should you or others not be able to provide sound and evidence-based counter-arguments to the above 3 points (each of which are supported by both evidence and broadly shared moral sense), there's nothing unreasonable in assuming the absence of such evidence.

Therefore we would be back to partisan politics vs. science.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
and continued throughout:
Article: "It goes through the air," Mr Trump told the author on 7 February.
"That's always tougher than the touch. You don't have to touch things. Right? But the air, you just breathe the air and that's how it's passed.
"And so that's a very tricky one. That's a very delicate one. It's also more deadly than even your strenuous flus."

Later that month, Mr Trump promised the virus was "very much under control", and that the case count would soon be close to zero. He also publicly implied the flu was more dangerous than Covid-19.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54094559

what does this quote have to do with the topic?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The smallpox analogy doesn't suffer from the same absence of reason and compatibility. I'll let your above response stand as a testament to the soundness of the 3 points set out earlier.
yes it does. even more so. i'm not sure if you know so little about smallpox and the smallpox vaccine, or if you are just not understanding the point of this argument.

maybe i'll soundly refute your 3 "points" later and provide numbers from the cdc and who to back up my position, i have work to do today (and frankly im kinda hoping Mendel will look them up for me because its boring)

(meanwhile, dont pull on me that "if you dont prove your point then i'm right" spiel, that others pull on you. or i'll point out that you havent proven squat yourself. How come youre allowed to "just say things"? but i'm not? Double standard? hmmm? )
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
yes it does. even more so.

Please demonstrate how so. And please demonstrate how my usage of the smallpox analogy was misplaced rather than some strawman usage.

i'm not sure if you know so little about smallpox and the smallpox vaccine, or if you are just not understanding the point of this argument.

I understand the point of my smallpox argument somewhat well.

maybe i'll soundly refute your 3 "points" later

Take your time.

(meanwhile, dont pull on me that "if you dont prove your point then i'm right" spiel,

I didn't. I said "I disagree" alone is not a counter-argument, and if that's all that can be adduced, then it only adds credence to the 3 points articulated. I stand by that statement.

How come youre allowed to "just say things"?

Offering reasoning and summarizing evidence that's already been largely provided on this thread is not "just saying things". It's producing an argument. Producing a fact-based refutation of your flu comparison is also an argument.

Saying "so is smallpox" is just saying things. Especially when finished off with "all I'm saying". If, however, it's not all you're saying, as you're now 'saying' :), then well and good.

I'd say.
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Senior Member
so is the smallpox card. ..all i'm saying.
The COVID-19 mortality rate in the U.S. is closer to smallpox than to the seasonal flu.

Smallpox in Sweden in 1759 to 1793: 200 to 450 deaths per 100K per year
COVID-19 in the U.S. since Feb 2020: 130 deaths per 100K per year
Seasonal flu in the U.S.: 6 to 15 deaths per 100K per year

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...n-1750-1900-five-year-averages_fig1_268395207
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
ok, lets address the 3 points you are so fixated on.



if serious flu symptoms (including death) were anywhere as preventable by vaccine as serious Covid-19 symptoms (including death). It turns out they're not.

you can save me time by you presenting this data to back up your claim.

When allowed to freely spread, flu doesn't overload the health care system whereas Covid-19 does.

Article:
Hospitals across the state are sending away ambulances, flying in nurses from out of state and not letting children visit their loved ones for fear they’ll spread the flu. Others are canceling surgeries and erecting tents in their parking lots so they can triage the hordes of flu patients.


Article:
hospitals and urgent-care centers in every state, and medical centers are responding with extraordinary measures: asking staff to work overtime, setting up triage tents, restricting friends and family visits and canceling elective surgeries, to name a few.





and smallpox would overwhelm hospitals more. potentially 30x more. if the covid death rate is 1-2% and the smallpox death rate is 30%.....

Larry Brilliant (an eradicator) said smallpox Ro in US in the 1970s was roughly 4. which is certainly less than what they are claiming delta is now (roughly 6 i believe). BUT the population wasn't the same in the 1970s, so it is easy to assume in todays world smallpox could easily hit 6.

I brought up flu vaccines because you suggested that a mandatory smallpox vaccine (which is nothing like the current covid vaccines) is evidence that people should accept a mandatory Covid vaccine in order to go to work. You are comparing something potentially 30x worse than Covid, but belittling me for comparing Covid to something 10x less worse?

That's why i said it's a matter of "where we draw the line".

(3) If there's a chance to save many lives and prevent serious symptoms (preventability by a vaccine) without overloading the health care system and causing other kinds of serious harm, it's our moral duty to do so.
Hence why i said flu vaccine should be mandatory to keep your office job at Google also.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The COVID-19 mortality rate in the U.S. is closer to smallpox than to the seasonal flu.

Smallpox in Sweden in 1759 to 1793: 200 to 450 deaths per 100K per year
COVID-19 in the U.S. since Feb 2020: 130 deaths per 100K per year
Seasonal flu in the U.S.: 6 to 15 deaths per 100K per year

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...n-1750-1900-five-year-averages_fig1_268395207
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

130 from 450 = 320
15 from 130= 115

you are comparing long term flu rates, when at least 50% of the population gets a flu vaccine. esp the vulnerable populations.

so you should at the least, look for covid numbers today where our vaccine rates are similar.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
and smallpox would overwhelm hospitals more. potentially 30x more. if the covid death rate is 1-2% and the smallpox death rate is 30%.....

Larry Brilliant (an eradicator) said smallpox Ro in US in the 1970s was roughly 4. which is certainly less than what they are claiming delta is now (roughly 6 i believe). BUT the population wasn't the same in the 1970s, so it is easy to assume in todays world smallpox could easily hit 6.
Some sources claim an R0 of 7 for smallpox, but they must be confusing it with chickenpox or something, because smallpox is not that contagious. There's no pre-symptomatic transmission, and it's rarely airborne, but it did spread through fomites.
Article:
"Before smallpox was eradicated, it was mainly spread by direct and fairly prolonged face-to-face contact between people. Smallpox patients became contagious once the first sores appeared in their mouth and throat (early rash stage)."

If you look at the smallpox mortality rate of about 300 deaths per 100K, and assume an infection fatality rate of 30%, that means there were only 1,000 infections per 100K per year, meaning that 1% of the population was infected, compared to over 20% incidence of COVID-19 in the U.S.
130 COVID-19 deaths per 100K with a 0.6% infection fatality rate means 21,667 infections per 100K, or 22% of the population.
 
Last edited:

Agent K

Senior Member
130 from 450 = 320
15 from 130= 115
200 - 130 = 70
130 - 15 = 115

450/130=3.5
130/15=8.7

you are comparing long term flu rates, when at least 50% of the population gets a flu vaccine. esp the vulnerable populations.

so you should at the least, look for covid numbers today where our vaccine rates are similar.
Should I use the smallpox numbers where vaccine rates are similar as well?

The smallpox vaccine really was dangerous, but it was probably easier to achieve herd immunity because smallpox wasn't that contagious.
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
Personally I don't weigh a community being skeptical because
of indisputable past abuses by gov (Tuskegee) against them,

and hyper-partisans blindly following idiotic, unscientific advice
by dim, dishonest politicians, as similar.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
you can save me time by you presenting this data to back up your claim.

You can start with the following and compare it to the data on Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness and spike protein consistency provided on this thread.

Article:
Influenza vaccines, also known as flu shots or flu jabs, are vaccines that protect against infection by influenza viruses.[3] New versions of the vaccines are developed twice a year, as the influenza virus rapidly changes.[3]

...

In unvaccinated adults, 16% get symptoms similar to the flu, while about 10% of vaccinated adults do.[7] Vaccination decreased confirmed cases of influenza from about 2.4% to 1.1%.[7] No effect on hospitalization was found.[7]


Article:
Hospitals across the state are sending away ambulances, flying in nurses from out of state and not letting children visit their loved ones for fear they’ll spread the flu. Others are canceling surgeries and erecting tents in their parking lots so they can triage the hordes of flu patients.


Article:
hospitals and urgent-care centers in every state, and medical centers are responding with extraordinary measures: asking staff to work overtime, setting up triage tents, restricting friends and family visits and canceling elective surgeries, to name a few.

These links fail to demonstrate anywhere near comparable level of burden on the health care system that is produced by Covid-19 when roaming free. They do, however, demonstrate that flu is also a serious health care concern which is fully in alignment with my point #1.

and smallpox would overwhelm hospitals more. potentially 30x more. if the covid death rate is 1-2% and the smallpox death rate is 30%.....

It seems @Agent K already beat me to it. As to the main substance of your statement above, I fully agree. It doesn't refute anything I've stated earlier. If you think it does, quote me verbatim and demonstrate how the analogy I used is untenable. In so doing, you may find it useful to remind yourself of my careful expression "milder form of saying" in my original statement.

I brought up flu vaccines because you suggested that a mandatory smallpox vaccine (which is nothing like the current covid vaccines) is evidence that people should accept a mandatory Covid vaccine in order to go to work.

I didn't. Read again, but this time without 'reading into it'. However, if you wish to argue with strawmen of your own creation like the above, knock yourself out.

I 'suggested' that Covid-19 is a "milder form" (than smallpox) of a disease where vaccination prevents lots of deaths as compared to remaining unvaccinated by appeal to natural herd immunity.

You are comparing something potentially 30x worse than Covid, but belittling me for comparing Covid to something 10x less worse?

Wrong again. I'm saying all of the above are serious public health concerns while smallpox and Covid-19 are far more preventable by vaccine than the common flu, and far more taxing on the health care system. Hence their mutual comparability and the poor comparability of the common flu.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
ok, then the vaccine argument means people are ok with thousands -including children-dying each year because flu vaccines aren't mandatory. or the pneumonia vaccine, or HIV vaccine.

Should noone be allowed to work if they don't get the flu vaccine each year? and if so, then should those vaccines be free? because the court ruled the Obamacare mandate unconstitutional.

The issue is (like most issues around covid) "where do we draw the lines?"
Flu is a factor in 12,000 to 60,000 deaths in the USA flu seasons. What if everyone got a flu shot who can based on health issues, 16 percent to 50 percent fewer flu cased on the vaccinated... why not get the shot? Would thousand of Americans live a few more years instead of dying from complications associated with the flu?
Is 12,000 to 60,000 deaths a big deal? Who is going to get the flu shot now, to help keep the flu season less lethal?

Discussing how few get the flu shot to support getting, or not getting the Covid shot? Is that a valid argument, or issue?

My daughter is nurse, she is required to get a flu shot each year. If she has the flu while working the ER, or on the Hospital floor because she did not have the shot, and failed to know she is spreading the flu to at risk patients. If we all got the flu shot, how many would live years longer. Albeit the probability of death is 1, in the long or short run.

Covid is a factor in over 500,000 deaths, that is significant enough to get much more attention than the flu deaths. Why can't people find a vaccine that is acceptable and stop the nonsense of "choice". My mom is 95, and Aunt is 97 - both vaccinated for Covid - of course mom and aunt are the greatest generation, not the selfish my choice, my freedom nonsenses of the new anti-vaxxers hiding behind freedom and ignorance.

What if more would get the flu vaccine... what is the excuse?
What if more stepped up and got the Covid shot... what is the excuse?

Politically, it is irony as rightwing pundits/media/politicians seem to promote the anti-vaxxer sentiment. Misleading people in general.


"Definitely nots" and the "winner" is... right wing anti-vaxxers

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
Covid is a factor in over 500,000 deaths, that is significant enough to get much more attention than the flu deaths.

Likely far more deaths than 500,000 if Covid-19 had been allowed to roam as unrestrained as the common flu during normal flu seasons. Which only further highlights the naïvete of simple one-on-one comparisons between Covid-19 deaths and flu deaths by the anti-vaxxers.

But, well, as long as non-contextual figures are useful to serve a political purpose.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Discussing how few get the flu shot to support getting, or not getting the Covid shot? Is that a valid argument, or issue?
that's not the issue i'm discussing at all. i am specifically saying equating covid with the flu is bunk. and also equating smallpox with covid is bunk.

Covid is a factor in over 500,000 deaths, that is significant enough to get much more attention than the flu deaths.
its like almost 700,000 now.

i'm not sure i agree with "significant enough". the vast majority are over 80 years old. the next vast majority have multiple underlying health issues (often from personal choice issues).

if covid is "significant enough", then i think flu is "significant enough" to mandate vaccines or force office workers and retail workers to lose their jobs. Who decides where the line is drawn?
What if more would get the flu vaccine... what is the excuse?
What if more stepped up and got the Covid shot... what is the excuse?
There is no excuse. i'm only talking about mandates. and asking where the line should be drawn, or if it should be drawn at all for anything.
 

Woolery

Member
i'm not sure i agree with "significant enough". the vast majority are over 80 years old. the next vast majority have multiple underlying health issues (often from personal choice issues).

How often are the deaths and hospitalizations due to personal choice issues? I was under the impression that plenty of the folks with underlying health issues, such as those that are asthmatic and immunodeficient, were not that way due to personal choice. I also struggle a little with writing off seniors’ freedoms (such as life, liberty, etc.) to ensure others get the freedom to mull over whether or not they feel like adding one more injection to their regular medical maintenance.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
How often are the deaths and hospitalizations due to personal choice issues? I was under the impression that plenty of the folks with underlying health issues, such as those that are asthmatic and immunodeficient, were not that way due to personal choice. I also struggle a little with writing off seniors’ freedoms (such as life, liberty, etc.) to ensure others get the freedom to mull over whether or not they feel like adding one more injection to their regular medical maintenance.

I do realize some medications make people gain weight, so obviously that would not fall under personal choice.


Article:
A study of COVID-19 cases suggests that risks of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death are higher with increasing BMI.5
The increased risk for hospitalization or death was particularly pronounced in those under age 65. 5
More than 900,000 adult COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in the United States between the beginning of the pandemic and November 18, 2020. Models estimate that 271,800 (30.2%) of these hospitalizations were attributed to obesity.6



and smoking is a personal choice. that's another big risk factor for severe covid.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
D Claim: Videos of people exhaling vape smoke through a mask, demonstrate masks as useless against a virus.. Coronavirus COVID-19 42
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
trevor COVID vaccine and VAERS discussion Coronavirus COVID-19 17
Rory Claim: Covid vaccines contains self-aware aluminum parasites Coronavirus COVID-19 34
T Claim: Offguardian article claiming that Covid PCR testing is flawed and not reliable Coronavirus COVID-19 8
P Friend has fallen into COVID-conspiracies Coronavirus COVID-19 35
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Are 99% of COVID-19 Deaths Among the Unvaccinated? Coronavirus COVID-19 43
Peter Finnish politician on possible Covid Vaccine Genocide Coronavirus COVID-19 12
P Need Debunking: "Experimental Vaccine Death Rate for Israel's Elderly 40 Times Higher Than COVID-19 Deaths" Coronavirus COVID-19 7
G Claim: China refused to hand "key data" to WHO delegation during the recent investigation in Wuhan Coronavirus COVID-19 29
Oystein Report: "23 die in Norway after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine" (NY Post) Coronavirus COVID-19 9
JMartJr Covid Stimulus Bill mandates UFO Disclosure UFOs and Aliens 5
A.G. Explained: Covid-19 research with pre-2020 dates in Google search results Coronavirus COVID-19 4
Mick West Explained: "Disappearing needles" in Covid Vaccinations Coronavirus COVID-19 1
Adam Taylor A Plug for "You Can Know Things" Coronavirus COVID-19 0
B Covid hoaxer and anti vaxxer’s son, speaks out. Coronavirus COVID-19 1
A Needs Debunking: Proposed COVID Vaccine will become part of our DNA, make us programmable Coronavirus COVID-19 37
Shade sitter Claim: Covid vaccine gives you "Serpent" DNA/marks you 666 Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Arugula Claim: Only 6% of COVID deaths are "real" - the rest died due to comorbidities Coronavirus COVID-19 12
Mendel The E-PAI report on the Origins of COVID-19 Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Dingo Claim: U.S. Covid-19 Deaths are being Artificially Inflated Coronavirus COVID-19 38
omaehamoushindeiru Claim:Natural Covid-19 broke out of Wuhan lab (not man-made) Coronavirus COVID-19 72
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 32
Z.W. Wolf President Trump's Facial Changes After His Coronavirus Diagnosis. [AI upscaled image] Coronavirus COVID-19 25
Z.W. Wolf President Trump And First Lady Test Positive For The Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 126
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
derwoodii Retweet Networks Spreading Coronavirus Disinformation Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Mick West Local Perspectives on Coronavirus re-openings Coronavirus COVID-19 57
TEEJ Fake Coronavirus Detector in Iran Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Debunking Correlations Between 5G deployments and Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Mick West Boris Johnson in ICU with Coronavirus Symptoms Coronavirus COVID-19 8
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: China Mobile loses 8.116 Million subscribers because of Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Agent K Claim: Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 9
deirdre Coronavirus and Younger people Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Mick West Coronavirus Related Shortages in Shops Coronavirus COVID-19 111
Leifer Coronavirus Statistics: Cases, Mortality, vs. Flu Coronavirus COVID-19 281
Mick West 2020 US Election - Current Events Election 2020 372
Mick West TFTRH #32 - The Skeptic of the North: Former Conspiracist, Current Skeptic Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West 2017 Westminster attack Current Events 23
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
Bfahome ElectroBOOM debunks "Current Mohan" (History Channel) General Discussion 8
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
Mick West Edward Current: I was a Deluded 9/11 Truther Escaping The Rabbit Hole 3
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2
Related Articles
















































Related Articles

Top