141–150 of 159 posts
I know this is a controversial take, but it should be in our national interest to get young children exposed and gain natural immunity, and avoid giving them the vaccine we have so little long-term data on. According to the CDC, 450 kids (0-18yo) died from Covid-19 since Jan 2020. A total of 4.6M kids tested positive since then. In the much shorter 2017-2018 Flu season, ~650 kids (0-17) died. We really have to keep t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe from John Hopkins[1]? According to them, U.S. had fatality rate of 1.6%, albeit they use confirmed infections of 38.7 million vs. CDC estimates of 120 million. Edit: It seems like CDC is inflating their infection rates compared to almost every other source. According to this[1] they also are more in-line with John Hopkins infection rates. To note, mortality is rather similar in all sources I can find, but only…
The CDC infection estimate is in no way inflated. If anything it's an undercount due to false negative test results.
I can't find what the date ranges are for John Hopkins' data. OurWorldInData says Feb 2020-Aug 27, 2021. The CDC link from GP says February 2020–May 2021.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a matched cohort study. They're starting with a large population in both of their target groups, and then picking pairs of demographically identical people (e.g. age, sex, location), one from each group, for the study. So you'd certainly expect the age distributions to match up exactly. It'd be more worrying if criteria they weren't doing the matching by also were exactly identical. That's not the case, all kind…
Thanks. One wonders how closely they matched time of infection and local infection rate.
But they would have arranged the study such that both people in the matched pair were considered for exactly the same time period. E.g. if the vaccinated person in pair was fully vaccinated on April 20th, they would have started counting re-infections for the previously infected person of the pair from April 20th too.
Local infection rates should be the same, since the pairs would be matched from the same geographic area and the study contstruction ensured they were considered for exactly the same time period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CDC infection estimate is in no way inflated. If anything it's an undercount due to false negative test results.
So then why are all other sources showing much lower infection rates? I can't find what the date ranges are for John Hopkins' data. OurWorldInData says Feb 2020-Aug 27, 2021. The CDC link from GP says February 2020–May 2021.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The text is copied from a website called "The Federalist": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)
It's plagiarized?
Natural immunity comes with a 10--25x greater risk of death, possibly much higher (see update) by COVID itself . (The risk from the vaccine, without a Covid infection, is effectively nil based on hundreds of millions of doses administered.) Natural immunity comes with a ~9x greater risk of hospitalisation, again from Covid itself. There's effectively no risk from the vaccine, again with hundreds of millions of doses…
Yes although the delta variant has undermined the efficacy of vaccines at preventing infection (from 91% to 66% [1]), it is still fairly effective at preventing severe outcomes such as hospitalization and death. > but a poor basis on which to shift policy from vaccination to infecting the entire population and blessing the survivors This is not at all what the paper is suggesting, and people should not be interpretin…
I don't think the OP meant that the paper is suggesting that, the article linked makes it clear that Senators (such as Rand Paul) are using this pre-print paper to suggest exactly that. Rand Paul has a lot of clout and influence over the various narratives in this country, especially against protective mandates. In his world, public policy would be non-existent, and the will of the people would be enacted through market forces (choosing to go to certain businesses based on their personal decisions to impose mandates as a business on their customers or employees). Then the market decides if we actually as a country naturally fight against the virus at all or instead help it spread, and further divide the country based on people's uninformed individual purchasing choices.
The science really doesn't enter the picture for Rand Paul, despite him being a medical doctor, because to him government intervention in anything is always inherently bad.
Natural immunity comes with a 10--25x greater risk of death, possibly much higher (see update) by COVID itself . (The risk from the vaccine, without a Covid infection, is effectively nil based on hundreds of millions of doses administered.) Natural immunity comes with a ~9x greater risk of hospitalisation, again from Covid itself. There's effectively no risk from the vaccine, again with hundreds of millions of doses…
Lies, damn lies and statistics hey?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The vaccine risk is strictly a subset of the viral risk. Getting the virus entails getting a lot more of the spike mRNA pumping out a lot more spike protein along with all the rest of the viral machinery and real infectious virions, infecting more cells than just in the muscle of your arm, attacking your heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. Getting the virus is always going to be worse, for everyone, than getting the vaccine.…
It isn't a strict subset. Vaccine risk includes cellular expression of spike protein in a scattershot way throughout your circulatory system (mRNA vaccine). Viral infection expresses whole virus, not just sprotein, and isn't targeted at or tramitted through the circulatory system, but instead the respiratory system. There are differences, and s-protein expression may trigger mild autoimmune disorders.
I know this is a controversial take, but it should be in our national interest to get young children exposed and gain natural immunity, and avoid giving them the vaccine we have so little long-term data on. According to the CDC, 450 kids (0-18yo) died from Covid-19 since Jan 2020. A total of 4.6M kids tested positive since then. In the much shorter 2017-2018 Flu season, ~650 kids (0-17) died. We really have to keep t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a counter point, in the 2017-2018 flu season, there were no protective measure taken. In 2020, the majority of people, especially in areas of high density, wore masks, reduced travel, washed hands more often, maintained distance, etc. The number of cases/hospitalizations/deaths from flu in the US were the lowest recorded by far (though complete records don't go back that far). This shows that those protective meas…
The 2017-2018 flu season had a vaccine as protective measure.
On the other hand, in 2017-2018, vanishingly few people were wearing masks, or social distancing, people weren't avoiding (or governments prohibiting) high density gatherings.
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.