General Corona Virus Discussion

[Uwe]

In Australia with a 95% double vaccination rate the severe outcome of ICU treatment is about 20 time more likely in an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person.

Really? Source?

Over what period of time was this data collected? Every time I've seen a claim like that and dug into it, the data included a long period of time when hardly anyone was vaccinated (for example all of 2021, or even going back the whole way to the start of the "pandemic".

Then there's the question of how a "vaccinated" person is defined. In the context of claims like this, "vaccinated" often means "at least two weeks since the second shot", and anyone who hasn't passed that threshold is lumped into the "unvaccinated" category. That's mighty convenient in light of the fact that there's a period of several weeks after the first shot when people are actually more vulnerable to infection and and severe outcomes than when if they hadn't taken any shots at all.

When we look at only current data in an honest way, let's say people in the ICU today, or people in the ICU over the last month, the picture changes quite dramatically.

But even if we were to accept your claim as factual, with a "95% double vaccination rate", you guys sure have a raging infection rate now, which makes it quite clear that these so-called vaccines do not prevent transmission or infection. If all they do is prevent a severe outcome, then they should be regarded as prophylactic therapeutics, not as "vaccines", and it absolutely should be a personal choice whether someone takes them or not.

-Uwe-

 

[Crasher]

If in say a decades time in depth unbiased studies from a source you respect show that the vaccines had a positive affect, will you still doubt the figures?

 

[jyoung8607]

If in say a decades time in depth unbiased studies from a source you respect show that the vaccines had a positive affect, will you still doubt the figures?

He will, because "unbiased studies" and "source you respect" are dynamically defined as studies and sources that agree with him at the moment.

Wish I was wrong, but you're talking to a man that can teleport all of Sweden in-and-out of existence depending on the current argument.

Can't even communicate that nobody even really cares that much if he vaccinates, just that he doesn't aerosolize his decision near us.

Edit: time-warp edition!

As you insist on continuing with personal attacks on me and others who don't see things your way, you are no longer welcome to participate in this thread.

The Bar proprietor has decided this post will be my final post in this particular thread, and enforced his decision in vBulletin. His Bar, his rules. So be it. I desire a continued relationship with him and his company more than I'd like to push him into a moderation corner by starting another thread.

My parting thoughts:

I'd like you to introspect upon the cognitive process that led you to believe that was a personal attack. Just about anyone else in the world would read that sentence and have no earthly idea what I was talking about. In order to be angered by that statement, you had to read it, get the reference, and in order for it to hit a nerve like it clearly did, you had to recognize there was truth in it. Truth that can't be reconciled with your beliefs. And here we are.

I have, at times in this thread, communicated in a way that reflects frustration developed over a long period of time. It's not my first choice, it's not something I'm particularly proud of, but it's the place we're now at. If my friend @Uwe insists "drinking antifreeze is delicious and refreshing", it is not the place of a friend to walk away, and it is not the act of a friend to say "we'll agree to disagree". The act of a friend is to explain, to persuade, and eventually to get really fucking blunt if that's what it takes. Bruised feelings are fleeting; death is forever.

I wish you long life and good health. Get there however your personal beliefs permit. Please don't endanger me and mine while treading the path you choose.

 

[Uwe]

If in say a decades time in depth unbiased studies from a source you respect show that the vaccines had a positive affect, will you still doubt the figures?

Sure. But what if in a decades time, in depth, unbiased studies show that these vaccines have been an unmitigated disaster?

The catch is, we need a control group to make a determination either way, and the the powers that be, all bought and paid for by the pharma industry, are trying their damnedest to make sure there isn't one.

-Uwe-

 

[Uwe]

you're talking to a man that can teleport all of Sweden in-and-out of existence depending on the current argument.

As you insist on continuing with personal attacks on me and others who don't see things your way, you are no longer welcome to participate in this thread.

-Uwe-

 

[dieseldub]

So three shots in one year and you still got infected?

That might make a person wonder if they're just as "safe" as they are "effective".

-Uwe-

Correct. They did incorrectly state early on that they would prevent infection and prevent the vaccinated from being able to spread. They were wrong. Data has proven this.

But, what data has also proven is that it is highly effective at preventing you from getting an infection severe enough that it requires hospitalization. Not saying it doesn't happen either, but your chances are far, far better to have some immunity from the vaccines than none at all should you get infected. And that is, afterall, the entire reason we had any restrictions in the first place: to prevent us from overwhelming the healthcare system.

 

[RGH0]

Really? Source?

Over what period of time was this data collected? Every time I've seen a claim like that and dug into it, the data included a long period of time when hardly anyone was vaccinated (for example all of 2021, or even going back the whole way to the start of the "pandemic".

Then there's the question of how a "vaccinated" person is defined. In the context of claims like this, "vaccinated" often means "at least two weeks since the second shot", and anyone who hasn't passed that threshold is lumped into the "unvaccinated" category. That's mighty convenient in light of the fact that there's a period of several weeks after the first shot when people are actually more vulnerable to infection and and severe outcomes than when if they hadn't taken any shots at all.

When we look at only current data in an honest way, let's say people in the ICU today, or people in the ICU over the last month, the picture changes quite dramatically.

But even if we were to accept your claim as factual, with a "95% double vaccination rate", you guys sure have a raging infection rate now, which makes it quite clear that these so-called vaccines do not prevent transmission or infection. If all they do is prevent a severe outcome, then they should be regarded as prophylactic therapeutics, not as "vaccines", and it absolutely should be a personal choice whether someone takes them or not.

-Uwe-

The vaccinated versus unvaccinated data is recent for current ICU admissions in the last few weeks during the current Omicron outbreak and based on various hospital and government statements in Victoria and NSW which have the largest number of cases.

The 95% vaccination number is current for Victoria and NSW for the eligible population 12 years and older prior to children 5 to 12 becoming eligible in the last couple of weeks. Most of the 95% was achieved well before Christmas in these states. So the vaccination data and ICU data is over the period.

The "raging" infection rate reflects a large number of factors and is also relative to extremely low numbers previously and a continuing low fatality rate

1. The Omicron variant arriving in Australia in December and its increased transmissibility combined with its lesser symptoms so many people don't know they have it and spread it more.
2. A deliberate government relaxation on restrictions in December as it was no longer politically tolerable to continue to lock down the population after the last 2 years.
3. A dramatic increase in testing in December to meet testing requirements for travel over the summer holidays when the travel restrictions were lifted and replaced with testing requirement. More testing gives more cases.

I am not sure what the definition of a "vaccine" is but if it keeps me out of hospital and ICU you can call it what you like

cheers
Rohan

 

[rks]

It will you not keep out of hospital, is this so hard to understand?

You will die. If not on Covid, then on the diseases following a crippled immune system. You simply ignore serious scientists not earning money with this thing.

First and second shot: Ok, let's do something. Still fear the illness after reading experiences and calculating mortality. Or not, just panic.
Third shot: Let's do it again what did not solve the problem two times. Normally, even a panic would wonder if something is going wrong here.
Forth shot: IQ test and you failed.

Being in stadium 3+ and still copy + paste propaganda: criminal.

Remember me, you will die.

 

[RGH0]

Hi RKS
I presume you are replying to my post. The vaccination will not absolutely keep you out of hospital but it reduces your risk of going to hospital and ending up in ICU by an order of magnitude as far as i can see from the Australian data I follow and that applies to me

I dont understand the last 2 lines of your post.... an explanation would be appreciated

regards
Rohan

 

[PetrolDave]

Sure. But what if in a decades time, in depth, unbiased studies show that these vaccines have been an unmitigated disaster?

The catch is, we need a control group to make a determination either way, and the the powers that be, all bought and paid for by the pharma industry, are trying their damnedest to make sure there isn't one.

-Uwe-

100% agree, the only good science is science that is unbiased by either source of funding or preconceived opinions of those involved in investigating the science.

This lack of true independence has become endemic in recent years which IMHO is why there is so much bad (or at least questionable) 'data' in many fields not just medicine but especially 'climate'.

 

[Crasher]

But what if in a decades time, in depth, unbiased studies show that these vaccines have been an unmitigated disaster?

We won't need any studies, most of us would be dead which is pretty convincing.

 

[Fred's Imports]

In Australia with a 95% double vaccination rate the severe outcome of ICU treatment is about 20 time more likely in an unvaccinated person than a vaccinated person. This appears to be relatively consistent across all age groups. It is hard to explain this difference in behavioural terms between the 95% of the population who are vaccinated and the 5% who are not and it is most likely because vaccination is very effective in preventing severe outcomes in most cases. I call that effective enough for me.

The overall death rate in Australia continues to be about normal with a reduction in other deaths balancing generally the increase in deaths due to Covid, this is due to a range of factors including lockdowns reducing car accidents, reduction in influenza deaths especially in the elderly and a reduced number treatments for other diseases with a reduced number of negative outcomes from the treatment, some of this reduction of treatment will come back in higher deaths in the future possibly

So far no significant impact of the high vaccination rate causing deaths or significant illness from side effects but maybe 2 years and 25 million people is not enough of a trial yet. Who knows but I call that safe enough for me.

Others of course may judge differently

cheers
Rohan

Provisional Mortality Statistics, Jan - Apr 2022

Provisional deaths data for measuring changes in patterns of mortality

www.abs.gov.au

• There were 124,184 deaths that occurred between 1 January and 31 October 2021 and were registered by 30 November. Data is preliminary and it is expected that deaths occurring in October will increase as additional registrations are received.
• This is 5,418 deaths (4.6%) more than the 2015-19 average and 5,000 deaths (4.2%) more than in 2020.
• The age-standardised death rate (SDR) for January to October 2021 was 357.8 per 100,000 people. This is comparable to 2020, where an SDR of 355.3 per 100,000 people was recorded for the same period.

 

[Quintus Rotam]

Remember me, you will die.

You are 100% correct.

Hi RKS

I dont understand the last 2 lines of your post.... an explanation would be appreciated

This is how I saw it:

 

[morris39]

You are 100% correct.


This is how I saw it:

Yes but you might be able to do it more gracefully, if you are lucky. Lucky= resources and opportunity. Not an argument for or against vax

 

[rks]

I recommend every junkie to have a look at page 28 and to sum the numbers of hospitalizations and people on intensive care due to "Omikron". I count 44 for intensive care with 77.091 Omikron infected people in total.
("Auf Intensivstation betreute symptomatische COVID-19-Fälle¹" 1+0+18+25 = 44

How many do you count?

Now remember the numbers in the VAERS database...

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Situationsberichte/Wochenbericht/Wochenbericht_2022-01-27.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

 

[Crasher]

Remember me, you will die.

When I was informed of this devastating fact, which was not pointed out to me at conception, I did write to my maker demanding a full refund but received no reply

 

[DV52]

When I was informed of this devastating fact, which was not pointed out to me at conception, I did write to my maker demanding a full refund but received no reply

@Crasher: I suspect that your error was in your understanding of the term "maker"

Despite what you may have been told at the time, there was no need to put your warranty claim in writing - because at least one of the makers was actually present at the event!!

Maybe demand a full refund again - this time from your parents (the true and only "makers")

Don

 

[RGH0]

even a "lifetime" warranty only lasts a lifetime

 

[Uwe]

How many do you count?

Now remember the numbers in the VAERS database...

Yep, this is one of the things people don't get when they say stuff like:

it reduces your risk of going to hospital and ending up in ICU by an order of magnitude

Let's say that's true. I don't accept that it is true (at least not by an order of magnitude) but let's pretend it is and analyze things as follows:

Given the that only a very small fraction of people who get infected end up needing to be hospitalized, and an even smaller fraction end up in the ICU, and an even smaller fraction die:

How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to prevent one hospitalization?
How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to prevent one ICU admission?
How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to prevent one death?

This number is called "NNV" (Number Needed to Vaccinate). It is not small. It obviously varies with age and co-morbidities. On a population-wide basis, the lowest estimates of NNV I've seen for keeping people out of the hospital is around 250. The highest are in the thousands, and for children, they have 5 digits. For preventing an ICU admission, and for preventing a death, the numbers are clearly even higher than that.

Now whatever that number is for a particular age and risk category, it means that one person out of that large number of people who got vaccinated got the benefit of not going to the hospital, not being admitted to the ICU, or not ending up dead, but all of them took whatever risk of (supposedly rare) serious side effects the vaccines have.

-Uwe-

 

[RGH0]

Hi Uwe
Yes the risk ratio of beneficial outcomes to non beneficial outcomes of vaccinations is the heart of the matter. My assessment is that the beneficial outweigh the non beneficial in this case. Others may differ in their analysis.

Its like airbags ... do you disconnect them in your cars due to the risks of having multiple explosive devices a foot from your head and chest and legs or do you want the benefits the air bag provides in the event of a serious accident. Both are rare events ( may be not so rare with the Takata issues) but all cars must have airbags... its mandated

cheers
Rohan