- 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 8:55 am to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 9/9/21 at 8:55 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Do you think that there was absolutely no nefarious intent with the changing of the definition?
quote:
Not nefarious, no
Lets see what your stance is after Biden installs fascism in the name of public health today. His “six degrees of oppression “ is not a political island imho. Just my .02.
1
Posted on 9/9/21 at 8:57 am to jimmy the leg
I’ve been pretty open about my opposition to some of the public policies and mandates surrounding the pandemic.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 8:59 am to roadGator
quote:No, I've been busy being pissed that Joe was the best option that either party could find.
What’s up Korky. Haven’t seen you in a while.
Too busy applauding dementia Joe’s work to come visit with us?
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:00 am to Rhino5
quote:
From the beginning, we've seen the people in charge of the numbers LIE AND CENSOR DATA that doesn't fit the narrative.
Is 100% related to this imho...
quote:
This virus didn’t come from a wet market, it was genetically engineered and leaked out on purpose or on accident by the dumb Chinese.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:03 am to ShortyRob
quote:Good. Looks like it will take at least that long for you guys to get it.
This one may be an all-timer for the Poli-board. The kind that gets hung on your neck for years.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:05 am to Toomer Deplorable
Well, given that a large number of Americans dont know the definition of immunity, they needed to dumb it down a bit.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:06 am to Korkstand
quote:
Seems like you have used the risk reduction for only the duration of the studies.
Yes. That’s how NNV is calculated. You have to have data. Pfizer is welcome to update their data. They haven’t and won’t.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:12 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
This is complete nonsense. Flu severity ranges dramatically from asymptomatic carriers to death. Millions of people globally die of “stomach bugs” every year. One of those “stomach bugs” was one of the leading causes of death in children for all of human history.
And even if it were true, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the topic in question:
Are employers mandating a flu shot? Are they mandating a stomach bug shot? You just said those are fatal, why haven’t they come up for a vaccine for those, and massively pushed for it and incentivized and mandated those like they are covid. And while literally changing the English language to fit new definitions of words to fit their narrative. Talk about moving the goalposts.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:21 am to Korkstand
quote:
The problem with your argument is that your NNV calculation appears to use an incidence rate of around 1%.
A little less than 1%. That’s what Pfizer and the FDA thought was good enough to approve the vaccine. Your argument is with them, not me. I would have welcomed another 6 months of data. They could have done that even while vaccinating the at-risk population. They didn’t do that.
Then they destroyed their control arm by getting them vaccinated.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:23 am to the808bass
quote:So why are you calculating it without data? Is it because it makes NNV look bad? That's a rhetorical question.
Yes. That’s how NNV is calculated. You have to have data.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:24 am to Rhino5
quote:
Are employers mandating a flu shot?
Many do, yes
quote:
Are they mandating a stomach bug shot?
All public schools do, yes (though it’s not a shot, it’s a liquid formulation taken by mouth)
quote:
why haven’t they come up for a vaccine for those
They have
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:26 am to Korkstand
Lol. You’re flailing now.
The study NNV is established. You’re surprised because you didn’t even understand vaccine efficacy until you googled it last night.
Subsequent NNV numbers after the variants in large populations have gotten worse. Not better.
Now you’re arguing my point that the study should’ve gone longer to get a better infection penetration rate into the control arm at the very least to have a better picture of the true efficacy of the vaccine. And not even understanding that’s what you’re arguing.
You have a very large gap between what you think you know and what you know. It is bridged only by your arrogance.
ETA: note that NNV is directly figured by the absolute risk reduction of the vaccine. You probably hadn’t figured that out either so I thought I’d save you the Googling.
The study NNV is established. You’re surprised because you didn’t even understand vaccine efficacy until you googled it last night.
Subsequent NNV numbers after the variants in large populations have gotten worse. Not better.
Now you’re arguing my point that the study should’ve gone longer to get a better infection penetration rate into the control arm at the very least to have a better picture of the true efficacy of the vaccine. And not even understanding that’s what you’re arguing.
You have a very large gap between what you think you know and what you know. It is bridged only by your arrogance.
ETA: note that NNV is directly figured by the absolute risk reduction of the vaccine. You probably hadn’t figured that out either so I thought I’d save you the Googling.
This post was edited on 9/9/21 at 9:29 am
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:27 am to the808bass
quote:I believe that was the number needed for statistical significance.
A little less than 1%. That’s what Pfizer and the FDA thought was good enough to approve the vaccine.
quote:No, it's you who is trying to calculate NNV without the necessary data.
Your argument is with them, not me.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:29 am to Korkstand
quote:
No, it's you who is trying to calculate NNV without the necessary data.
lol. Child. Anyway.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:36 am to the808bass
quote:The study was to determine efficacy, not NNV.
The study NNV is established.
quote:Link?
Subsequent NNV numbers after the variants in large populations have gotten worse. Not better.
quote:No, I understand quite well. I agree that longer studies would provide more accurate results. I seem to be one of the few here who understands that immunity can fade over time. Have you missed all the times that I've tried to explain that immunity is neither absolute nor permanent? That misunderstanding is the reason for this thread.
Now you’re arguing my point that the study should’ve gone longer to get a better infection penetration rate into the control arm at the very least to have a better picture of the true efficacy of the vaccine. And not even understanding that’s what you’re arguing.
quote:
You have a very large gap between what you think you know and what you know. It is bridged only by your arrogance.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:38 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Here’s some data that should answer your questions
Thank you for the links
I guess they raise more questions but I’m not going to follow up.
I read the cdc information and am skeptical as it reads like an advocacy
The other article said that the shots are equally effective against D variant which we know is not true.
Wish I had time to really dig in but I did not read anything that gave me that realization moment on getting the vaccine … coming from someone reluctantly getting it
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:40 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I’ve been pretty open about my opposition to some of the public policies and mandates surrounding the pandemic.
I am aware.
We just have different views on the justifications for said mandates. You seem to view them as public health driven. I view that as a means to subjugate, isolate, manipulate, marginalize, and ultimately...dehumanize.
Those are not driven by public heath aspects imho.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:43 am to the808bass
quote:I am aware. And you should note that an efficacy study determines relative rather than absolute risk reduction.
ETA: note that NNV is directly figured by the absolute risk reduction of the vaccine.
Posted on 9/9/21 at 9:45 am to Korkstand
quote:
No, I understand quite well. I agree that longer studies would provide more accurate results. I seem to be one of the few here who understands that immunity can fade over time. Have you missed all the times that I've tried to explain that immunity is neither absolute nor permanent? That misunderstanding is the reason for this thread.
That’s not the biggest reason for a longer study. The biggest is to get to an infection rate in the control arm that allows you to actually compare what the vaccine’s efficacy is versus the real world rate of infection. When only 0.7% of the group that didn’t get the vaccine is infected, it doesn’t tell you much.
“If you take the vaccine, your risk of infection is reduced by 0.6x%!!!” isn’t a great marketing tag line, though. No one ever said Pfizer was dumb about marketing.
I’m enjoying you learning about Pharma studies as you simultaneously pontificate. It’s quite the production.
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News