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
Posted by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
182455 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:58 pm to
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 by Lokistale
Member since Aug 2013
1344 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:59 pm to
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 by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
173758 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:59 pm to
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 by WeeWee
Member since Aug 2012
45567 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 3:59 pm to
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 by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
173758 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:00 pm to
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 by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
173758 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:01 pm to
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 by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
182455 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:02 pm to
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 by shel311
McKinney, Texas
Member since Aug 2004
112894 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:03 pm to
quote:

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.
How am I acting like that if you admitted that you understand what I'm saying?



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 by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
173758 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:04 pm to
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.
Posted by WeeWee
Member since Aug 2012
45567 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:06 pm to
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 by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
182455 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:07 pm to
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.

This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 4:10 pm
Posted by ABearsFanNMS
Formerly of tLandmass now in Texas
Member since Oct 2014
20205 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:09 pm to
Oh no now you did it. This is the OT where real men wear masks and call any questioning “the science” idiots!
Posted by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
182455 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:09 pm to
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 by Lokistale
Member since Aug 2013
1344 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:13 pm to
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 by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
173758 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:14 pm to
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 by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
173758 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:15 pm to
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 by shel311
McKinney, Texas
Member since Aug 2004
112894 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:17 pm to
quote:

I would argue that there are plenty of people not vaxxed at all that are tested quit frequently.
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?

Who ya got?
quote:

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.

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.

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 by JayDeerTay84
Texas
Member since May 2013
9956 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:17 pm to
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 by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
173758 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:18 pm to
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 by shel311
McKinney, Texas
Member since Aug 2004
112894 posts
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:21 pm to
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
Jump to page
Page First 11 12 13 14 15 ... 19
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 13 of 19Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram