6 Americans, 4 of Them Vaccinated, Test Positive for COVID After Royal Caribbean Cruise

deleted... Reason: Nevermind, I don't think it actually adds to what I posted in the last post.

 

You have no clue what you are talking about - just reciting stuff from the link - pretending to know what it means - but you don't.

Your claim that you explained why the numbers don't say what I think - is completely false .. you did no such thing. All you did was make up a strawman - accusing me of things I did not do.

Your claim that the raw numbers do not tell a story is also completely false. We had 2 big waves in Alberta - both roughly the same size - One dominated by earlier varients - the other dominatd by Delta .. and the rate of death for Delta is far lower.

What "Control factors" and/or "Constraints" would you like included and why ?

Your study looks only at cases from Feb 2021 to June 2021 - looking only at cases during one wave - which does not make much sense given the nature of a virus to becomes less pathogenic with time.

To measure this .. you have to compare over different time periods .. one in which earlier varients are dominant - the other when later varients are dominant -- which this study does not do. This study just looks at the differences in varients that happened to be around during one wave and tries to use statistical manipulation and models to make estimations based on assumptions.

What I did was compared the death rates between two time periods - one dominated by earlier variients - the latter dominated by delta - which is how you have to do it if you want to assess toxicity of a the virus over time.

Do you understand the methological difference here - and why it matter.

In the Ontario Study - you have 211,197 cases looked at - again - all from one time period - so no comparison to the lethality of the previous wave - which is moronic but lets look at the numbers from Table 1.


Cases - 43,000 - No Varient of Concern (VOC) 162,000 (VOC not Delta) - 5,600 Probable Delta
Deaths - 378 or 0.9% 1384 - 0.9% 39 - 0.7%

First thing we note is that the sample size of Delta is comparatively small. - second - is that overall deaths were slightly lower for Delta - and not higher as is claimed.. with no explanation of the difference. "When we removed this and this and that -and made some assumptions" we managed to show that delta deaths were higher in a particular sample.

Regardless .. the study is fatally flawed on the basis that it is comparing different varients within the same time period - which makes no sense .. doomed from the start. .

 

The problem you have in understanding this is pretty clear. You do not understand the concept of confounding variables and controlling for them. It's a hard thing to get if you haven't had some kind of advanced statistics course but without understanding that I can not help you to understand why raw deaths or unadjusted death rates in 1 wave vs deaths in another wave do not tell you how toxic/virulent a strain is.

The time issue doesn't matter in identification of strains. Strains are defined by genetics, mutations, not the time per se.

The small population issue is only an issue if the study is underpowered. Usually we use p values of <0.05 to determine if we reached statistical signficance. This study isn't very explicit about them, but the range they give for increased risk by convention is the 95% confidence interval, and since those do not cross 0% we can assume the p value is <0.05.

Please trust the experts when you don't get something. I guess knowing what you don't know can be hard.

 

I told you the methodological errors - Stats are not my weak suit - being a research scientist you get to know such things. Your not even on the same page .. can't figure out what is being said to you. .. but given the P-Value for Deaths is 0.37 .. ..the numbers I posted were from the Table 1 - as are the P values. your "assumption" is wrong .. but it matters not.

What part of Two different time periods - did you not understand .. ? Doesn't matter what you control for if the study is not looking in the wrong direction.. Viruses mutate over time - Correct .. where you are completely incorrect is in your claim that time does not matter.

The natural tendency of a flue virus is to get more contageous and less lethal over successive mutations - doesn't want to kill the host ,, and this is exactly what the numbers tell us that Covid is doing.


What is clear from the data -and you can see this on the Ontario data as well - same pattern .. way more deaths per case early on and decreasing over time.

 

I agree with most of your post but the bolded part is not strictly true.

Mutations are purely based on the toss of a dice (die ).

The reason why a virus has become less lethal or more contagious is that the variant has randomly mutated into a new variant that is less lethal and more contagious. A new variant can become the most common because the body has not yet developed antibodies to fight off this variant. New variants are occurring all the time; some the body can fight off with no problems at all due to being very similar to past variants. Some variants die off straight away because the "lock and key" mechanism has failed and so cannot replicate - we will never discover these variants. There is just as much a probability that a variant will arise that is more lethal however if too quickly lethal the rate of transmission is reduced

Am I being pedantic? Maybe but I think that it is important to point out

 

This is important - what you have said. You are completely correct that it is a lottery.. but this not a strictly random lottery - it is a game of roulette with 30 numbers on the board - but pays out like it was 38 numbers (including the 0 , 00)

The skewed table in this case is on the basis of natural selection - but I am not talking about natural selection going forward. I am talking about that which is already built into the code mate. This is an extremely sophisticated machine - that reacts to the surrounding environment .. trying to survive includes working its way through out defenses .. but it also includes not wanting to kill the host - as if there is no more host - you die as well - so the one's that survive over time - are the ones that do not kill the host.

Now - what I have presented is uber simplistic - the fact that it is so easy to understand - is because I am a subject matter expert who knows what he is talking about .. those that don't can not put things in easy to understand terms - hiding behind technical terms they do not understand.

By SME I am talking a certain area - Microbiology being my specialty - in particular environmental microbiology = 9 out of every 10 cells in your body. 9 out of 10 people who die from covid die from pneumonia .. same is true for the flue.

Pneumonia is when the bad bugs win the war. Your defense is the good bugs - who operate in a symbiotic relationship with your immune system - both fight together - to beat off the bad bacteria. We all lose the war at the end - if something else hasn't taken us. the bad bugs eventually win.

Those who are suceptible to pneumonia thus have 10 times the risk of the normal person - those who are not - 10 x less risk.

So when you look at risk - which is normally 20/100,000 in a normal flue season - initially this thing was at 5-10 times at the peak of some of the initial waves - The 4th wave in my area - and many others is normal or less than normal death rate .. with the main distinction that while if you were not over 80 with 3 comorbidities in the inital wave - and not pneumonia impaired .. your chances were really low - near zero for folks under 20.

Now - the death rate is lower - but those included in the number are more diverse .. and this is exactly what we expect .. more contagious - less lethal ... but, yes .. as with any random probability ... this means a few kids will die .. pictures all over the front page ..

 

A p value for deaths of 0.37 would not allow them to draw any conclusions about death (anything greater than 0.05 really, so the real issue that more often comes up in peer review is the validity of their methods, e.g. did they control for all important variables). Where did you get that number?

Edit: I think I see the reason for your error. Table 1 does not cover what you think it does. You need to view Table 3. They stated it a little strangely in the text. You need to add 1.0 (100%) to the values because they are talking about an increase from baseline. Their table 3 shows an OR 2.37 (1.5-3.3) for delta strain death.

The relevance. Our main argument is centered over whether the delta strain is less virulent. Delta wasn't prevalent early on, but other than that the strain is strictly defined by genetics, a mutation that can be tested for. Delta 6 months ago is delta now. What has changed is the persons being infected and their vaccination/infection history. Those variables, NOT time, need to be controlled for.

No, the numbers tell us that vaccination helped to exclude the most vulnerable from being infected. Controlled studies have not reached a consensus on virulence. Viruses do not always get less lethal over time. The only thing that matters to a virus is that it becomes better at infecting more people. A mechanism by which a virus can become more infectious while also more virulent is to increase the viral load produced, for example. Using asymptomatic carriers or low-level symptoms over a longer period (more infectious, less virulent) are strategies (i.e. beneficial mutation for the virus), but not the only strategies possible. Symptoms are a way of spreading a virus, but whether the host ultimately lives or dies is irrelevant. It's all about how many other people got infected before the host got better or died.

Fewer old people getting infected is the main reason, because they were prioritized for vaccination. An older person will have a death rate of about 10%. A young person will have a death rate of <1%. It makes a big difference.

 

You seem to have some undertanding of statistics -

The number comes from your link - the study you are using .. Table 1 - same place I got the death numbers from.

You half correct in what the main argument is "Less virulent than What" is what you missing ?! .. and seem to lack understanding and of virology/microbiology/genetics in general - and this is crystal clear from the statements you are making.

It doesn't matter if Delta was prevailent early on. In fact there was no Delta varient early on -- The comparison being made the toxicity of "the Virus" that was around in the first part of the pandemic - to the virus that was around today .. in all its mutant variatiosn. You claiming this is not relevant .. is a patent absurdity. Its the main thing that is relevant.

and we can control for other factors within this methodology.. Your claim that time need not be controlled for -- in a conversation about toxicity of a virus over time .. is abject nonsense .. Sorry mate .. but you are dead wrong.



-

 

Fear-mongering is what the government does, especially these Biden liberals. They do it because it works so well.

 

well that has yet to be seen because here we have people that have been vaccinated becoming reinfected.

the flu vaccine isn't an mRNA based vaccine. It's a more traditional vaccine and the reason why you have to get a shot every year for the flu is because there are so many different variants.

Assuming the vaccine doesn't create antibody dependence is mRNA vaccines in animal testing have been shown to do very consistently for decades.

 

Yes - Utilitarian Justification for Policy/Law - the utopian "What is best for the collective" - with no regard for individual rights - an anathama to the founding principle - when applied as the sole justification - which is what is happening .. except it is far worst than that.. Blue does not even have good Utilitarian justification - as what they are doing is "NOT" best for the collective in many ways - so it is fallacious justification - as even if you say there are good arguments on both sides - that is not proof of claim .. and thus the fallacy in logic.

Imagine if they stood on stage and said "Well we think this is the best path - but were not sure - as really good arguments on the other side as well" but just give up your essential liberty on this basis - we gonna "Mandate" - no vax .. no flying - no gov't job - and corps will follow suit. .. it is forced. sometimes with zero justification - such as the forced vaxing of people who have had covid - already immune to the strain that is out there and will be for quite some time .. certainly longer than the vax.

 

Well considering the type of vaccine this is previous variant might be able to get people sick.

This isn't a vaccine like smallpox or even the flu. This is a real cutting edge technology called mRNA vaccinations. And the science behind this is so incredible.

It's just in animal testing it hasn't shown to be a very long lasting immunity. Since the covid vaccine is the first human trial we'll have to wait and see.

 

It is NOT a vaccine. It is new technology, experimental and dangerous as hell.

Like the masks and the PCR tests, they don't protect anybody from anything.

 

Well that's fair but generally it's called the vaccine there is to be understood I'll refer to it as that.

Yeah I agree there's some danger involved in it because it's experimental we won't know the extent of it for a while. I do believe drug companies are partly the reason for that. Bad publicity is bad for the bottom line.

I would say it's pretty solid fact that the type of mask people wear don't protect them from droplets. Much like the so-called vaccine and social distancing for that matter it's wishful thinking. People want to believe they're doing something so therefore they will defend it.

I remember hearing something about the way they tested for covid and it wasn't testing for the virus per se it was testing for the immune response. Immune response would be the same for the flu a cold maybe even allergies. And I remember hearing something about how they really turned up the sensitivity of these tests I'm not sure about all this so I'm not going to say it as far as definite. I will have to keep reading

 

One of George Orwell's tidbits as to propaganda techniques really applies in this time of universal deception we live in. "First corrupt the language. What follows naturally is the corruption of the thought processes."

Why must the manufacturers call it something that it is not? Is that somehow related to Pfizer's have pleaded guilty several times to criminal medical fraud charges in 2004 and 2009? Most likely it is.

I generally agree with your comments on masks.

The PCR tests have been the foundation of the fraud perpetrated during these last 18 months. Using a fine test for something it was not designed for is a variation on a theme of Orwell's observation.

 

I think there's a component of deception that seems to be forgotten about and discussions of deception. And that's the people want to be deceived. They want to believe that the people that they argue with or disagree with are evil so when someone plays into that they are far more easily deceived because they want to believe it.

If they're told to wearing amulets or burning sage will run off bad spirits then they believe that because they want to they want to feel like to have control.


The worst deception the worst illusion to quote Jurassic Park is the illusion of control.

It's because they don't want people to be cautious of it. The more test subjects they have the clearer a data picture they will gain.

Also they are protected against lawsuits regarding this I'm not sure about criminal charges.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong about the testing I'm just saying I don't know enough.

Over the past couple of days I've learned a lot about vaccines and this particular so-called vaccine.

And I've known about masks for years because I have used vapor masks and they are very very different from even an N95 mask.

 

Only the cognitive dissonant individual WANTS to be deceived, and I think we all have a bit of CD in us, depending upon the situation.

In Greek theater all those years ago, a necessary requirement for successful drama is "a willing suspension of disbelief". We all suspend our disbelief willingly to participate in drama.

It seems that the masses spend so much time doing TV drama that they are in a permanent state of suspension of disbelief. Many cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

 

the desire to be deceived seems to be something that humans have been dealing with for a long time I think it's part of our genome. Look at history, someone like Jim Jones doesn't convince people to commit mass suicide by forcing them to do it he does it by telling them comforting lies.

well the easier life becomes the more we're willing to accept deception to keep it that way.

Well as the saying goes you can fool some of the people all of the time you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all of the time.

When reality hits them like a freight train that's the end of some of the time. This is spoken from experience the reason why we say truth hurts is because it removes the comfortable lie.

As the late Ronnie James Dio said, "between the Velvet lies there is a truth as hard as steel"

 

Yes I figured it out and edited it before you posted this. Table 1 doesn't show what you think it does. Look at Table 3 and/or my prior post.

Obviously I was referring to a comparison to the original pandemic strain. No idea how you draw conclusions to my understanding of biology. I'm a pathologist, but definitely more anatomic (mostly cancer) than clinical (labs, including microbiology) in practice.

Nope. Not relevant at all. It's true that delta wasn't there at first though. The main issue is you're not controlling for the age and comorbidities when you just compare wave to wave. In your Alberta link, for example, one of the sublinks showed that the per capita infection of those who were older was much higher in the first wave than later. COVID-19 Alberta statistics | alberta.ca ... and sure the infection numbers for the oldest is somewhat low, but they have a massive effect anyway because they're about 1000 times more likely to die than a young adult.

This isn't about "toxicity" over time, it's about the virulence of a specific strain that has become the dominant strain and is genetically defined. The time is incidental and an inferior method of measurement compared to identifying the strain.

 

No clue what you are talking about .. this has everything about the toxicity of the virus at one point in time .vs the toxicity of later strains - over time - at other periods of time. .

Done - .. if you can't figure that much out .. then go figure it out and come back to me.

 

I'm confused. Did you actually think the vaccine creates a magical force field around you, preventing the virus from getting to you? If so, how did you come to such a bizarre conclusion?

 

Not going to agree with you, but it doesn't really matter for this debate because I am not assuming the delta strain is any more or less virulent (the source we've discussed suggests it's more, but I know it's not the final word, just a better word than your analysis). Either way, you still have the same problem in your analysis that you didn't account for (control for) age at a minimum (and hopefully but less importantly other comorbidities relevant to covid death rate such as asthma, pregnancy). Vaccination rates in different groups vary. C.D.C Studies Say Young Adults Are Less Likely to Get Vaccinated - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

People who are old or have lung conditions were more likely to be early adopters of vaccination, and that is why these people with higher death rates are underrepresented in later waves, and this phenomenon has led you to think that your preconceived position is correct, but it's a SPURIOUS association.

 

Which won't matter because no one will die from it! It will be less than the common cold - or at least no worse.

 

Yes, very mild symptoms. As in no need for hospitals.