- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: MRNA Vaccines Increase Risk of Contracting COVID-19; Each Booster Shot Raises Risk
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:58 pm to Powerman
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:58 pm to Powerman
quote:
You can fix it by stop posting stupid shite
Perhaps a message board that isn't an echo chamber of your beliefs isn't something you can handle.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:59 pm to WeeWee
quote:
So the vaccine did work. It did not work as well as expected but it did work.
A vaccine effectiveness of 30% less than 4 months (bivalent booster given September 12 according to the study)… that’s considered working for you?
You have a very low bar… make a 30 on a test is passing grade for you in school? A girl that’s a 3/10… damn… she’s a keeper!!
What will the effectiveness be after 6 months? 10-20%? Are you ok with that too?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:59 pm to stout
quote:
Perhaps a message board that isn't an echo chamber of your beliefs isn't something you can handle.
Quite ironic coming from you
You only post here because it is your personal echo chamber
I'm handling it just fine
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:59 pm to OKBoomerSooner
quote:
Do they raise the risk, or are the higher-risk people getting vaccinated?
Common sense says that people who are at higher risk are more likely to get vaccinated. The gateway pundit, the OP, and the anti-vax people want you to believe that they are at higher risk because they got vaccinated.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:00 pm to Lokistale
quote:
A vaccine effectiveness of 30% less than 4 months (bivalent booster given September 12 according to the study)… that’s considered working for you?
30%>0%
Not ideal but it had some benefit
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:01 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Common sense says that people who are at higher risk are more likely to get vaccinated. The gateway pundit, the OP, and the anti-vax people want you to believe that they are at higher risk because they got vaccinated.
The study also says that this is a likely explanation for the findings
And since the study apparently can't be questioned we'll have to consider that a strong possibility
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:02 pm to Powerman
quote:
You only post here because it is your personal echo chamber
If that was the case I'd avoid the OT. It's far from a pure echo chamber as evidenced by the discussion in this thread.
quote:
I'm handling it just fine
Yea man that is totally clear by the personal attacks you make when melting down like you have this entire week.
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:03 pm to stout
quote:How am I acting like that if you admitted that you understand what I'm saying?
but you're acting like just because a group of people didn't get vaccinated means they never get tested for CV even if sick.
You seem to agree that a person with more boosters is more likely to test than someone unvaxxed for the same symptoms, which is all I said. So how do you figure I'm "acting like" anything other than exactly what I said?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:04 pm to stout
I go after you because you're dishonest and I don't like dishonest people
Stop being dishonest and we're good
I actually agree with you on quite a lot
Just stop being a lying piece of shite. It would make you more likeable.
Stop being dishonest and we're good
I actually agree with you on quite a lot
Just stop being a lying piece of shite. It would make you more likeable.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:06 pm to Lokistale
quote:
A vaccine effectiveness of 30% less than 4 months (bivalent booster given September 12 according to the study)… that’s considered working for you?
Yes that is considered working. The hazard ratio is 0.7 which is a statistically significant reduction.
quote:
You have a very low bar… make a 30 on a test is passing grade for you in school?
You are comparing medical research to grade school grades. That is completely different things and you should feel stupid for doing so.
quote:
What will the effectiveness be after 6 months? 10-20%?
How are we supposed to know the 6 month effectiveness of a vaccine that has only been used for 4 months?
quote:
Are you ok with that too?
The question was if the vaccine worked or not. The question was not if the vaccine worked as well as expected or if I was satisfied with the results. The vaccine led to a statistically significant reduction in hazard ratio. So yes the vaccine worked.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:07 pm to shel311
I would argue that there are plenty of people not vaxxed at all that are tested quit frequently. Up until recently oilfield baws still had to be tested before a hitch on a rig. Hell..some may still be. I doubt many of them are vaxxed.
I know we are getting off the study statistics so this is pointless but it'd be great to have a wider study to compare.
I know we are getting off the study statistics so this is pointless but it'd be great to have a wider study to compare.
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:09 pm to stout
Oh no now you did it. This is the OT where real men wear masks and call any questioning “the science” idiots!
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:09 pm to Powerman
quote:
Just stop being a lying piece of shite. It would make you more likeable.
shite...a stranger on a message board thinks I'm a liar and will like me more if I don't say what he claims are lies?
Sounds good, pal. I'll get right on doing better, BFF
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:13 pm to Powerman
quote:
30%>0% Not ideal but it had some benefit
That’s stupid logic… again if you make a 30 on a test, are you going to rationalize that ‘well it’s not a 0’… but the truth: You still failed!!
In other words: the bivalent vaccine has a failure rate of 70% in preventing CoVID after less than 4 months!!
Who in their right mental facilities would think a 70% failure rate is a positive?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:14 pm to stout
quote:
I would argue that there are plenty of people not vaxxed at all that are tested quit frequently. Up until recently oilfield baws still had to be tested before a hitch on a rig. Hell..some may still be. I doubt many of them are vaxxed.
I'd say it's likely that only the people are compelled to do it are doing this though
If you didn't get the vax you definitely aren't getting tested without severe symptoms in most cases. And probably shouldn't be.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:15 pm to Lokistale
quote:
That’s stupid logic…
30% is greater than 0%
That doesn't have anything to do with "logic"
quote:
Who in their right mental facilities would think a 70% failure rate is a positive?
It's better than a 100% failure rate is it not?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:17 pm to stout
quote:I'll ask you very directly, who do you think is more likely to be tested in general with the same general starting symptoms: Someone who has had 4 boosters, or someone who is unvaccinated?
I would argue that there are plenty of people not vaxxed at all that are tested quit frequently.
Who ya got?
quote:Like I said, if the study had a sample of people in each bucket, and were testing at some regular intervals, this would make more sense.
I know we are getting off the study statistics so this is pointless but it'd be great to have a wider study to compare.
But unvaxxed people on average are rather obviously going to test less than those who are and even less than those who have 2, 3 or 4 shots. That was always going to skew this data to where I don't know what to do with it.
Does the study document or confirm less vaccinated were just as likely to get tested with the same symptoms?
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:17 pm to Powerman
quote:
I'd say it's likely that only the people are compelled to do it are doing this though
If you didn't get the vax you definitely aren't getting tested without severe symptoms in most cases. And probably shouldn't be.
So you are saying that all these Baws who didnt get the vax just roaming the streets all well and good would make the study more in favor of the VAX?
LOL...
I mean, wtf are you arguing about?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:18 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
So you are saying that all these Baws who didnt get the vax just roaming the streets all well and good would make the study more in favor of the VAX?
I'm saying anti vax people are probably not likely to get tested unless they have severe symptoms or are very high risk with milder symptoms
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:21 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
So you are saying that all these Baws who didnt get the vax just roaming the streets all well and good would make the study more in favor of the VAX?
LOL...
I mean, wtf are you arguing about?
quote:
who do you think is more likely to be tested in general with the same general starting symptoms: Someone who has had 4 boosters, or someone who is unvaccinated?
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 4:22 pm
Popular
Back to top



1




