You write: "Notice that she is so casual, in writing about rate bias above, that the more vaccinated people there are, the more vaccinated people will die. It should be just the opposite if the vaccines worked!"
No, that's not how the math works. The vaccines are not 100% effective.
Let's say we have a population of 10,000 people, and a deadly pandemic where 20 percent of people who contract the disease die. At first, no one is vaccinated, and if 1000 people catch the disease, 200 of them die.
Then a vaccine is developed. Let's say it's 80% effective at preventing death. If all of the population had had the vaccine initially, only 40 of the original 1000 would have died (20% x 200), reducing the death rate to 4% from 20%.
Then 90 percent of the population is vaccinated. Everyone is exposed to the virus and varients. Of 9,000 vaxxed, 360 die (4% x 9,000). Of the unvaxxed, 200 die (20% x 1,000).
Antivaxxers scream "More vaccinated people are dying than unvaxxed! Vaccines are killing peope!" When in fact, if no one had been vaxxed, 2,000 would have died.
Yes, this is an oversimplification. But not as oversimplified as saying "vaccines don't work because vaccinated people die."
Thanks for inviting the clarification. No, the vaccines are not 100% effective. In fact, many claim they have negative effectivity. That's just in preventing disease, not even factoring in the adverse effects. I'll post links as appropriate.
Did you check out the Steve Kirsch link? It is typical. All-cause mortality is highest where vaccination levels are highest.
No, have not checked out that link yet. I'm trying to determine if "excess deaths" method used by many on both sides makes sense to me. But I agree that with large variations in rates of vaccination across the world, data on both vaccine efficacy and any real dangers should be available. The problem, for both you and I, is credibility of sources.
Please take the effort to look at the UK Challenge study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01780-9. We can't know how many in the population were quite immune to the virus initially (at least the viral load imposed in the study) and the challenge might have analytic difficulties but some of us would have never become infected. If Kirsh, among others, is right about vaccines affecting the immune system we may have damaged some of us via the vaccine. More unknowns to ponder.
So far nobody with a high level of Vitamin D has died. We need a lot more of that sort of data. So far, an enormous number of people have been exposed given Omicron's infectivity but the death rates remain fairly low. But many of the most vulnerable have been removed from the population.
Byt the way, I just read an old piece by Dr. Scott Atas about the politics of COVID. I count myself among the guilty for dismissing him because he was chosen by Trump. But at the time, my choice of media was too limited.
Here is the story of a liberal who was "profiled" by liberals in a state data base. Of course, few see the creeping authoritarianism when it's "their" side stepping on liberties.
I commented on your piece about your surveillance. They really treated their work as critical, as if your restrictions were the solution to reducing spread. When I see such zeal in their work it reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Atlas has made a point that the team wasn't much interested in on-going research other than their own. Going through several MMWR reports reveals they have a conclusion and arrange data to fit. My cynicism has become toxic.
I read the challenge study. Thank you for the reference.
It seems about half the participants contracted COVID after being innoculated, and almost all recovered within a couple of weeks to the point where they were no longer shedding virus at a level that would infect others.
I think it is clear that comorbidities play a huge role in hospitalizations and death from COVID (these were prescreened out in the challenge study). As you point out, the impact of Vitamin D has not been studied, and there is an argument to be made that Ivermectin should have been tested when used with other vitamins.
Personally, I take massive doses of Vitamin C along with Zinc and echinecia whenever experiencing early symptoms of any corona virus, and believe these reduce the likelihood of developing full onset.
My initial response to Graham was triggered by what I thought was a misstatement as to data regarding the rates of hospitalization/death in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. This argument is made all the time, that there are now higher rates among vaccinated, therefore vaccines don't work or cause the disease. I was trying to point out that this is a fallacy.
The challenge trial showed that some NEVER got infected as demonstrated by the lack of antibody detection; the virus never replicated. That nearly half had such immunity gives great pause as to how that is possible. Same with the early case of the couple on the Diamond Princess where the wife of an elderly pair never became ill. We are all not necessarily susceptible, and we don't know why that might be. Could it actually be nearly half of us? Anecdotally, we hear of those who were never vaccinated in a family where members became ill but they never became ill.
Some of that thinking goes with the unevenness of spreaders. Some people seem to be quite efficient like the lady in the Korean church choir where she managed to infect 50 others. We don't know if some in that group never got infected either.
My point, we are making a lot of assumptions about people. Worse we may have created a drug that might be harmful to some of us.
The woman I was dating at the time was also vaccinated. We were quite "close" when I was probably at my highest viral load, feeling lousy, five days after I was exposed. She did not "catch" my COVID.
We know that not all are susceptible. We also know that quite a few died. We may have created a drug that is harmful to some — I have another friend (vaccinated) who collapsed because of blood clots in his lungs like earth worms.
Ultimately, until we really determine what separates those susceptible from those who are not, those who may benefit fromthe vaccine from those who face danger from the vaccine, we are playing a numbers game. It seems (to me) that the numbers show vaccines save lives *overall.*
God, then we have to take into account all the enviroonmental factors of living in an industrial world. Tis complicated.
All right, I looked at the Kirsch link. We've been over this: Kirsch is not credible, possibly a narcissist, and I won't follow him down every rabbit hole. He promotes "Dr." Jane Ruby, a pretender with a stethoscope — she is not a medical doctor and the doctor of what is open to question. Ruby is in turn linked to Stew Peters, obviously a shill. We can do better.
They keep comin'. This is from bad cattitude, which to my recollection has nothing to do with Stew Peters, Jane Ruby, Steve Kirsch or any of the others. He does his own research. Worth following.
You write: "Notice that she is so casual, in writing about rate bias above, that the more vaccinated people there are, the more vaccinated people will die. It should be just the opposite if the vaccines worked!"
No, that's not how the math works. The vaccines are not 100% effective.
Let's say we have a population of 10,000 people, and a deadly pandemic where 20 percent of people who contract the disease die. At first, no one is vaccinated, and if 1000 people catch the disease, 200 of them die.
Then a vaccine is developed. Let's say it's 80% effective at preventing death. If all of the population had had the vaccine initially, only 40 of the original 1000 would have died (20% x 200), reducing the death rate to 4% from 20%.
Then 90 percent of the population is vaccinated. Everyone is exposed to the virus and varients. Of 9,000 vaxxed, 360 die (4% x 9,000). Of the unvaxxed, 200 die (20% x 1,000).
Antivaxxers scream "More vaccinated people are dying than unvaxxed! Vaccines are killing peope!" When in fact, if no one had been vaxxed, 2,000 would have died.
Yes, this is an oversimplification. But not as oversimplified as saying "vaccines don't work because vaccinated people die."
Thanks for inviting the clarification. No, the vaccines are not 100% effective. In fact, many claim they have negative effectivity. That's just in preventing disease, not even factoring in the adverse effects. I'll post links as appropriate.
Did you check out the Steve Kirsch link? It is typical. All-cause mortality is highest where vaccination levels are highest.
No, have not checked out that link yet. I'm trying to determine if "excess deaths" method used by many on both sides makes sense to me. But I agree that with large variations in rates of vaccination across the world, data on both vaccine efficacy and any real dangers should be available. The problem, for both you and I, is credibility of sources.
Please take the effort to look at the UK Challenge study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01780-9. We can't know how many in the population were quite immune to the virus initially (at least the viral load imposed in the study) and the challenge might have analytic difficulties but some of us would have never become infected. If Kirsh, among others, is right about vaccines affecting the immune system we may have damaged some of us via the vaccine. More unknowns to ponder.
So far nobody with a high level of Vitamin D has died. We need a lot more of that sort of data. So far, an enormous number of people have been exposed given Omicron's infectivity but the death rates remain fairly low. But many of the most vulnerable have been removed from the population.
Byt the way, I just read an old piece by Dr. Scott Atas about the politics of COVID. I count myself among the guilty for dismissing him because he was chosen by Trump. But at the time, my choice of media was too limited.
Here is the story of a liberal who was "profiled" by liberals in a state data base. Of course, few see the creeping authoritarianism when it's "their" side stepping on liberties.
https://erikdolson.substack.com/p/profiled-by-the-state-of-oregon?s=w
I commented on your piece about your surveillance. They really treated their work as critical, as if your restrictions were the solution to reducing spread. When I see such zeal in their work it reminds me of the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Atlas has made a point that the team wasn't much interested in on-going research other than their own. Going through several MMWR reports reveals they have a conclusion and arrange data to fit. My cynicism has become toxic.
Wait, you know about the Stanford Prison Experiment? Zimbardo?
I read the challenge study. Thank you for the reference.
It seems about half the participants contracted COVID after being innoculated, and almost all recovered within a couple of weeks to the point where they were no longer shedding virus at a level that would infect others.
I think it is clear that comorbidities play a huge role in hospitalizations and death from COVID (these were prescreened out in the challenge study). As you point out, the impact of Vitamin D has not been studied, and there is an argument to be made that Ivermectin should have been tested when used with other vitamins.
Personally, I take massive doses of Vitamin C along with Zinc and echinecia whenever experiencing early symptoms of any corona virus, and believe these reduce the likelihood of developing full onset.
My initial response to Graham was triggered by what I thought was a misstatement as to data regarding the rates of hospitalization/death in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. This argument is made all the time, that there are now higher rates among vaccinated, therefore vaccines don't work or cause the disease. I was trying to point out that this is a fallacy.
Thank you again.
Regarding rates vax vs unvax, you may wish to take a look at https://igorchudov.substack.com/ specifically at https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-covid-becoming-chronic-like-aids?s=r. At issue is whether the vaccines have negative effectiveness. The fallacy of numbers does apply given the different bases, but rates are a bit different.
The challenge trial showed that some NEVER got infected as demonstrated by the lack of antibody detection; the virus never replicated. That nearly half had such immunity gives great pause as to how that is possible. Same with the early case of the couple on the Diamond Princess where the wife of an elderly pair never became ill. We are all not necessarily susceptible, and we don't know why that might be. Could it actually be nearly half of us? Anecdotally, we hear of those who were never vaccinated in a family where members became ill but they never became ill.
Some of that thinking goes with the unevenness of spreaders. Some people seem to be quite efficient like the lady in the Korean church choir where she managed to infect 50 others. We don't know if some in that group never got infected either.
My point, we are making a lot of assumptions about people. Worse we may have created a drug that might be harmful to some of us.
All true. The link I shared earlier pointed out that I was a *breakthrough* case. https://erikdolson.substack.com/p/profiled-by-the-state-of-oregon?s=w
The woman I was dating at the time was also vaccinated. We were quite "close" when I was probably at my highest viral load, feeling lousy, five days after I was exposed. She did not "catch" my COVID.
We know that not all are susceptible. We also know that quite a few died. We may have created a drug that is harmful to some — I have another friend (vaccinated) who collapsed because of blood clots in his lungs like earth worms.
Ultimately, until we really determine what separates those susceptible from those who are not, those who may benefit fromthe vaccine from those who face danger from the vaccine, we are playing a numbers game. It seems (to me) that the numbers show vaccines save lives *overall.*
God, then we have to take into account all the enviroonmental factors of living in an industrial world. Tis complicated.
All right, I looked at the Kirsch link. We've been over this: Kirsch is not credible, possibly a narcissist, and I won't follow him down every rabbit hole. He promotes "Dr." Jane Ruby, a pretender with a stethoscope — she is not a medical doctor and the doctor of what is open to question. Ruby is in turn linked to Stew Peters, obviously a shill. We can do better.
There are a vast number. I'll keep 'em coming.
I trust "The Economist." How about you?
They keep comin'. This is from bad cattitude, which to my recollection has nothing to do with Stew Peters, Jane Ruby, Steve Kirsch or any of the others. He does his own research. Worth following.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/meanwhile-back-in-the-northeast?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxOTc5ODk3LCJwb3N0X2lkIjo1MzQ1Mjk5OCwiXyI6InE3MXBqIiwiaWF0IjoxNjUxNzI2Nzk0LCJleHAiOjE2NTE3MzAzOTQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0zMjM5MTQiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.K4kjWiTQJpwQUB-rZ7f1EiuO51gTsmYbJTTRiMaVJQ4&s=r
The Economist has editorial biases, such as WRT Covid. But every source does.