- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: CDC Quietly Changes It’s Official Definition of “Vaccine” and “Vaccination.”
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:27 am to the808bass
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:27 am to the808bass
quote:I take it you couldn't point out how my dumbed down version doesn't follow from the more detailed one, so you've gone back to name calling? I laid it all out, should be easy for you.
Lol. “I shouldn’t have phrased it in a way that made me look stupid and now I have to copy paste from Wikipedia and pretend I was dumbing it down.” Retard.
2
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:30 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And our point is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what immunity means.
Jesus Fing Christ
I’ve said like 5 times that I was telling you what 99% of people THINK it means, hence why I said “commonly accepted definition” and that is why instead of clarifying what immunity means they changed the definition of vaccine.
Here is their current definition of immunity: “ if you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”.
That’s not what you’ve been saying nor is it what the claim the Covax will do, which is lessen symptoms.
So we’re they wrong before when they said vaccines conferred immunity?
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:37 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And our point is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what immunity means.
I think you hit on the main issue without realizing it.
The problem ultimately is how we are defining immunity. If the CDC were being honest they would have altered the definition of immunity to be more accurate. They didn’t. Instead they changed the definition of vaccine to include the imperfect nature of immunity while letting people still hold on to the belief that immunity is infallible.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:47 am to the808bass
quote:
In Pfizer’s study, it took almost 120 Covid vaccines to prevent one case of Covid.
You’ll have to point me to where you’re getting this number, but the larger point here that such a stat means NOTHING in a vacuum. How many measles vaccines do you think have to be given to prevent one case of measles? Or polio vaccines to prevent a case of polio?
Better yet, how many flu vaccines in 2020 would I have had to give to prevent one case of flu?
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:48 am to Robin Masters
quote:
So we’re they wrong before when they said vaccines conferred immunity?
I’m saying individual and population level immunity doesn’t equal “can’t get the disease”. It never has in the scientific world. The fact that most laymen believe it does doesn’t make it so.
This post was edited on 9/9/21 at 12:50 am
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:53 am to Robin Masters
quote:
The problem ultimately is how we are defining immunity. If the CDC were being honest they would have altered the definition of immunity to be more accurate. They didn’t. Instead they changed the definition of vaccine to include the imperfect nature of immunity while letting people still hold on to the belief that immunity is infallible.
I’m unaware of anyone in healthcare or public health that has ever claimed the covid vaccine or any vaccine is infallible with respect to preventing disease entirely. I believe the healthcare establishment has been very clear vaccination in the short term is about dissociating cases from severe illness and death.
Now, is much of the other policy surrounding that nonsensical in context? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean that anyone is trying to create a narrative that vaccination prevents everyone from getting any degree of disease whatsoever.
This post was edited on 9/9/21 at 12:54 am
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:54 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Better yet, how many flu vaccines in 2020 would I have had to give to prevent one case of flu?
Typically, NNV for flu vaccine is around 70.
quote:
You’ll have to point me to where you’re getting this number
LINK
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:55 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
saying individual and population level immunity doesn’t equal “can’t get the disease”. It never has in the scientific world. The fact that most laymen believe it does doesn’t make it so.
Page 6 and you still haven’t figured out that this thread isn’t related to “the scientific world”?
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:55 am to Korkstand
quote:
I take it you couldn't point out how my dumbed down version doesn't follow from the more detailed one
They don’t say anywhere close to the same thing. Pretending they do makes you look silly in additional to the original stupid look.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 12:57 am to Korkstand
quote:
Second, holy hell what a creative way to interpret the results! Hey why don't you tell the class how many millions of polio vaccines we have to administer to prevent one case of polio.
If we were experiencing a current worldwide outbreak of polio, the NNV would be much more important than it is now. Facilely comparing the two scenarios is why you are exactly as dumb as you appear to be.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 1:01 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
that doesn’t mean that anyone is trying to create a narrative that vaccination prevents everyone from getting any degree of disease whatsoever.
No. It was just a happy little accident I’m sure. Woops! 99,9.% of people think immunity means “I can’t get the disease.” How did that happen?!?
Oh and so when the cdc makes needed changes did they clarify what immunity means to properly educate the masses???……..
No they did not!
This post was edited on 9/9/21 at 1:04 am
Posted on 9/9/21 at 1:13 am to the808bass
quote:
Typically, NNV for flu vaccine is around 70.
Correct, but that number is dependent on disease incidence. Its not a static number, its a relative data point. And its not a surrogate for vaccine efficacy, its a property of the population being vaccinated.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 1:18 am to the808bass
quote:
If we were experiencing a current worldwide outbreak of polio, the NNV would be much more important than it is now. Facilely comparing the two scenarios is why you are exactly as dumb as you appear to be.
But again, the NNV isnt really a good measure of vaccine efficacy especially on an individual level. It's dictated largely by whatever population you're studying the vaccine in. A far more efficacious vaccine could have a much higher NNV than a less efficacious vaccine for a different disease in a given population.
This post was edited on 9/9/21 at 1:20 am
Posted on 9/9/21 at 1:23 am to the808bass
quote:You'll need to give a page number or explain how you calculated NNV from that. Is it for a period of 1 month? If so, wouldn't an NNV of 120 in a month work out to about 10 for a year?quote:LINK
You’ll have to point me to where you’re getting this number
This post was edited on 9/9/21 at 1:37 am
Posted on 9/9/21 at 3:42 am to mouton
quote:
Did they define the flu vaccine as a vaccine? Yes or no?
No. They do not.
They specifically tell you that you aren't being vaccinated against ALL FORMS of influenza. So its not a "flu vaccine", its a therapeutic designed toward guesswork, People still die from the flu, despite having the flu shot
Thats why all the advertisements clearly say "get your flu shot". Similar to a steroid shot, because its not a steroid vaccine
Posted on 9/9/21 at 4:13 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Does whatever they inject you with prevent you from getting covid?
It does for some people, yes. That number of people was much higher with previous variants than it is with delta however.
Question, how do we actually know this? What is the testing parameters that confirm?
quote:
f you are vaccinated and you get infected you have lower viral loads, a shorter time frame where you are shedding the virus and have less symptoms (less sneezing/coughing specifically)
Again, how do we know this? I’ve heard that vaccinated may she more of the virus but don’t know.
Unvaccinated with the virus did not show any symptoms in cases. How can we be positive this is doing what you say?
quote:
quote:
Is there a statistical difference in death rate from being injected vs not being injected?
Yes, dramatically so
Just looked up stats and it shows death rate less than 1.8% for unvaccinated. Data on vaccinated is scarce but seems to be minuscule upward percentage because deaths do occur even with the vaccine and that number should also include deaths from the vaccine.
Thanks for the prior answer.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 6:47 am to Korkstand
quote:
Yeah, I shouldn't have phrased it in a way that could be interpreted as absolutes. I forgot that I was talking to children.
Hey idiot, your Narcissism is showing.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 6:49 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
the NNV isnt really a good measure of vaccine efficacy especially on an individual level. It's dictated largely by whatever population you're studying the vaccine in.
It is a better raw number than RRR.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 6:50 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And its not a surrogate for vaccine efficacy, its a property of the population being vaccinated.
It’s a property across the population being vaccinated.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 6:50 am to Korkstand
quote:
Yeah, I shouldn't have phrased it in a way that could be interpreted as absolutes. I forgot that I was talking to children.
OMG
You're pants are around your ankles man.
Good Lord. This one may be an all-timer for the Poli-board. The kind that gets hung on your neck for years.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News