- 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 5:29 pm to shel311
Posted on 12/29/22 at 5:29 pm to shel311
Like I said…
They didn’t miss them if they are pointing them out. And if they felt like the statistical noise that plagues virtually all research samples made their conclusions unreliable, they don’t seek peer review and they scrap the study.
But that really wasn’t my point. You could post a smoking gun study that either condemns the vax or redeems it, and all the same people would be here with all the same opinions. Not a single mind open to anything that breaks their political stances.
They didn’t miss them if they are pointing them out. And if they felt like the statistical noise that plagues virtually all research samples made their conclusions unreliable, they don’t seek peer review and they scrap the study.
But that really wasn’t my point. You could post a smoking gun study that either condemns the vax or redeems it, and all the same people would be here with all the same opinions. Not a single mind open to anything that breaks their political stances.
0
Posted on 12/29/22 at 6:14 pm to Lokistale
quote:
That should be the other way around... throughout all the variants and mutations for the past 3 years CoVID has NEVER demonstrated to cause more severe illness.
My god.
quote:
There is no pattern that the virus would deviate from its current trend since its existence 3+ years ago and mutate into a more virulent strain.
Again, my god.
quote:
Yes it is. Coronaviruses are respiratory viruses, 2nd most common cause of viral URI's (colds).
Except this virus, which has provable systemic effects, including replication in tissues which are not respiratory epithelium.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 6:19 pm to Lokistale
quote:
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!!
It's a hazard ratio.
quote:
Who in their right mental facilities would think a 70% failure rate is a positive?
Again, in any pathogen with a CFR over 0.1%, 30% efficacy is certainly 'good enough,' especially given the compacted timeline that vaccines were needed. A better vaccine is needed, because the CFR is still high and we've done nothing about the distribution of the virus.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 6:59 pm to Lokistale
quote:
Because previous CoVID vaccinations and boosters had a drop to 10-20% effectiveness after six months, this bivalent vaccine would not be expected to be any different.
You do think that the 30% would hold or get better over time?
The importance of the hazard ratio depends on the hazard itself… currently CoVID deaths and hospitalizations have dropped significantly… so if the hazard is as severe as a cold… what purpose would the hazard ratio serve?
A 30% effectiveness is 30% regardless of how you want to spin it… 30% effectiveness = 70% ineffectiveness
From your post it is apparent that you obviously know nothing of biostats, epidemiology, or medicine. I bet that if there was something that reduced your risk or erectile dysfunction you would be jumping for the ceiling in celebration.
Posted on 12/30/22 at 6:11 am to WeeWee
quote:
From your post it is apparent that you obviously know nothing of biostats, epidemiology, or medicine.
"Expertise" was rendered moot during Covid because the so-called "experts" were caught in repeated lies.
You can have all the knowledge in the world, but if you are a godamnned liar, your word means jack shite.
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:10 am to WeeWee
quote:
From your post it is apparent that you obviously know nothing of biostats, epidemiology, or medicine.
Do YOU know anything about biostatistics? I try not to question people’s intellect or call them stupid…
But do you know the significance of a hazard ratio of 0.7? Do you know what a hazard ratio of 0.7 means? Or are you just trying to sound smart.
Spoiler:
the lower (less than 1) the hazard ratio, the better the treatment. A hazard ratio of 1.0 mean there are no differences between the treatment group vs. control group.
Thus, a hazard ratio of 0.7 indicates that there’s a 70% chance that people that took the bivalent vaccine will still get CoVID!
Thus, the authors of the study stated that the bivalent vaccine only offered modest protection of 30% after 90 days.
That’s what a hazard ratio of 0.7 means, GTFO if you don’t know WTF you are talking about…
BTW, compared to previous boosters, this bivalent vaccine is actually performing worse.
Previous boosters
This post was edited on 12/30/22 at 9:24 am
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:28 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
So the vaccinated are more likely to be reinfected, but if you have to be hospitalized as an unvaccinated person with a prior infection, then you are more likely to die
Yes. Study after study has shown that vaccination prevents mortality and hospitalization but does not prevent infection.
quote:
No mention of major health issues. I wonder why?
The study uses matched cohorts (ie people with similar health conditions). It’s not some conspiracy to keep you in the dark.
quote:
Lastly, the study is only for those hospitalized.
What? It’s not. That’s pretty clear from just reading the abstract.
quote:
It doesn’t (and CANNOT) take into account those with natural immunity that never had to go to the hospital.
You could make this argument for the vaxxed too. Regardless, it doesn’t matter because they used 250k+ matched cohorts, they were literally looking at the exact same thing for the vaxxed and those with natural immunity.
quote:
In short, the study is flawed, and the conclusion is utter bullshite. Keep getting your boosters though Mr. Shot Nazi.
Bro IDGAF if you get boosters or not, but this is a solid study that you poo poo because it doesn’t fit your agenda, just like OP. And you shooting it down is laughable given your obviously poor comprehension of the study and its analysis.
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:30 am to Lokistale
I just cant fathom the Covid MRNA shot cult's thinking. It is an acute psychosis that needs to be studied. The emotional and physical investment is best explained as an extreme example of the sunk cost fallacy.
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:30 am to cwil177
I love watching plant baws argue about this shite with actual doctors
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:41 am to S
quote:
love watching plant baws argue about this shite with actual doctors
Does being a doctor vs. lets say any non doctor discount the actual data?
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:44 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Except this virus, which has provable systemic effects, including replication in tissues which are not respiratory epithelium.
Do we know that other common cold coronaviruses don’t replicate in other tissues? Have we just not looked?
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:45 am to Strannix
I think they certainly can interpret the data with a lot more clarity and less bias than the average individual with zero to minimal medical training.
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:47 am to cwil177
quote:
Yes. Study after study has shown that vaccination prevents mortality and hospitalization but does not prevent infection.
Maybe earlier in the pandemic.
The study in question doesn’t show that it reduces mortality. But feel free to critique the study if you want to.
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:49 am to S
+1 for the deflection
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:50 am to Strannix
+1,000,000 for believing in Q
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:52 am to S
I’m a MD that disagrees with crazy4lsu, weewee, and cwill
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:52 am to Strannix
quote:I care nothing about doing back and forth in here. You seem to like Cleveland clinic studies. So, if presented with studies from Cleveland clinic that showed positivity towards the vaccine, how would you react?
Strannix
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:52 am to stout
quote:
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:52 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:Not really. You are an MD that has locked in on this one study and ignored countless others willfully.
I’m a MD that disagrees with crazy4lsu, weewee, and cwill
Posted on 12/30/22 at 9:53 am to stout
"....but muh Democrats on TV said."
Page 15 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News