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

Not sure what debate you are having with yourself at this point in time... but you were adamant that my claim was wrong - and my claim - was that the Delta is less lethal than previous versions.. as in 'The ones in the past " - back in time.

You posted a study that did not look - "back in time" .. which is fine - but does not address my claim - never mind refute it.

Delta is far less lethal than the original covid - approathing that of a normal flue in many places.

 

My previous position was that it is unknown whether it is more or less lethal.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...src=ngp::int_cmp=amp::int_add=amp_readtherest

Hopefully the link works. I had to enter my email address. But one point is delta is both more virulent and contagious because of increased viral load, it appears. Starting to feel persuaded it is more severe.

Still unsure why you think you can ignore the variable of age when it is such a huge factor in death rate. And I've explained that vaccination rate, and case rates by wave, have varied in age distribution.

 

Except when it kills them.

 

It kills the unvaccinated at twenty times the rate of the unvaccinated for those under 50

 

we could possibly make a new flu vaccine now like we did with covid, one that targets the spikes on that virus too, so that it would also affect the variants

now, I say could.... because I doubt the pharmaceuticals will invest in that and kill the profits from the yearly shots

 

I have not ignored the variable of age ? Don't be making up falsehood and attributing to me por favor .. and some opinion piece in Nat Goe (which I could not read because I don't want the disney family sending me emails) whose headline contradicts the data in both Alberta and Ontario doesn't help. Post what you think is relevent from the artiticle if you like.

So no - not persuaded at all. What is confounding is why you are so desperate to ignore the data. I said earlier .. find me a population where this is true - there should be something out there just due to natural variation - and I will gladly say .. "Yes - the data says this"

But the data we have reviewed .. simply doesnt .. not the Data from Alberta - not from Ontario. There could well be other populations that do show strengthening .. what we have looked at so far shows the reverse.

You can go to many places and check here https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

 

Interesting!

 

In order to die from COVID when fully vaccinated, you would need to be almost dead already. Cancer patient, 99 years old, morbidly obese with galloping diabetes .. that kind of poor health. And if you're that unwell generally, you're going to be dying from something any minute either way. There's a point beyond which nothing saves us. For everyone else though, that vaccination will dramatically decrease your risk of death.

 

How did you account for the fact that the age distribution of those infected varies from wave to wave with a trend towards fewer elderly infected?

I assume you know it's more severe in the elderly. So to use an extreme example to help you get it: If the final wave of covid in the future almost entirely involved those under 12 who are not eligible for vaccination, you know the death rate will be even lower right? And it has nothing to do with virus virulence, but rather a different mortality rate (FROM COVID) for children vs elderly.

 

Huh ? What do you think it would be like with no vaccine. Care to guess.

 

This is a simple question -- one which if you had better knowledge of the subject matter - you would not be asking .. If the overall death rate has decreased by a factor of 4 . .. which is what the data is showing .. but the transmission has increased to the young .. no problem. How many young have been dying and you have your adjusted number.

Then tell me the number of people dying or "Serious reaction" from the vax ..

 

Right, but dying from the clot shot is another matter and another statistic.

While I don't know anybody out of dozens who died from the virus last year, I already know 4 who've died from the clot shot.

 

Transmission decreased to the elderly is the key. I'm not going to pull out an SPSS or Minitab analysis so let's use a simplified version of the Alberta waves 1 and 2. See figure 9: COVID-19 Alberta statistics | alberta.ca

We'll compare the biggest group to the oldest group. Let's say we have the 30-59 age group (biggest group) with a mortality rate of 0.125% (1 in 800, based upon my next link, age 45 as average) and let's say the 80+ group is approximately 10% mortality.

How Dangerous Is Coronavirus to the Middle-Aged? (webmd.com)
The coronavirus is most deadly if you are older and male — new data reveal the risks (nature.com)

Peak of wave 1 in December for these groups are 855 per week for 30-59, and 85 per week for 80+. Peak of wave 2 in April-May we have 958 per week at 30-59, and 12 per week at 80+.

For these groups taken together, assuming the same covid virulence but the difference in ages observed, one would expect 10 deaths per week at peak for wave 1 ([855*0.00125]+[85*0.1]), and 2 deaths per week for wave 2 ([958*0.00125]+[12*0.1]). This is a ~5-fold difference. Age alone accounts for a large difference in mortality. The only other group that would affect this potentially more than 1 death per week would be 60-79 year olds, but they also saw a decrease in wave 2.

I haven't seen any good information on many people dying from the vax.

 

Agree that this thing targets the old - almost exclusively in the beginnning.

No surprise that this information is difficult to find that goes against the propaganda narrative being peddled. My wife was shocked at what I pulled up the other day - posted it on FB - was taken down almost immediately.

No suprise that the media never gives context by stating what the death rate is during a normal flue season.

The site in Canada has this info. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/

of the 12,000 Adverse effects 3063 were "Serious"

So - these are "Serious" reactions .. as in the person nearly died and was need of hispital care for significant time .. or disabled/incapacitated.

Number dead from the is vax 163.
Number dead from Covid - 26,761.

Now what do with these numbers 70% been vaxed so adjust the dead from vax number up to 200.
The Death rate is tougher - as the rate is much lower now than previous .. but will use 20,000 to make easy numbers - keeping in mind that more realistic would be around 8,000.

Over 95% of the deaths ar folks with co-morbidities - ave age 80 - with a distribution highly skewed from 70-90.

This means that for those not in the "high risk" category - deaths were 2000. 9 our of 10 die from pneumonia - so those that are not pneumonia prone represent 200 of the total.

So - if you are healthy - no comorbidities - your risk of death is about the same as taking the vax (not including things that have not yet been caused by the vax)

As soon as you take the vax a second time down the road ( not counting the second shot as another time) - your risk of death has just doubled - continue for a lifetime - and well .. you can do the math from here.

This is doing it without factoring in that Delta is far less toxic -approaching the rate of a normal flue season which is 7200, a year.

The moral of this story is that if you are old and/or have comorbidities you should get vaxed - or if you are pneumonia succeptible. For the normal person the risk of harm/death from the vax is not much different than getting covid. .

Since these Vax's don't stop transmission - and in fact are very poor at stopping transmission - there is no legitimate reason to be mandating vaccination. This is not "Small Pox" or the Plague.

What this also means is that our politicians and media have been "Lying" - I put lying in quotes because I am including the "Sin of Omission" as lying.

 

Well, it's a good source but that part of the data is a little unfortunate. Prolonged hospitalization being in the serious category is a bit problematic in terms of knowing if it means much. If somebody gets muscle aches and a fever from the vaccine they might keep them in the hospital longer to make sure they're okay as a precaution, for example. But it's hard to parse, so we'll focus on death.

Well, wait a second there. The source says:
"Deaths

• Up to and including August 6, 2021, a total of 169 deaths were reported after the administration of a vaccine. Following medical case review using the WHO-UMC causality assessment categories, it has been determined that:
  • 33 are still under investigation
  • 69 of these deaths are unlikely linked to a COVID-19 vaccine
  • 61 deaths could not be assessed due to insufficient information.
  • 6 deaths followed a diagnosis of TTS (refer to the TTS bullet above)"

If somebody dies after getting the vaccine, it could have been what put them in the hospital that killed them and not the vaccine. So they investigate. TTS is the main confirmed mechanism by which the vaccine seems to cause death, so we'll call those confirmed. 69 deaths were shown to be NOT related to the vaccine, 33 not yet known, and 61 we can't tell. So the fair thing would probably be to use the ratio for the ones we know about. 6 caused by the vaccine, and 69 not. That's 8% of these deaths being cause by vaccine, so if the unknowns are not significantly different that would be ~14 deaths caused by the vaccine, out of approximately 50 million doses. That's a 0.000028% death rate per dose, an easier to process number is 1 in 3.6 million chance of death. The chance of death for an unvaccinated average 25 year old from getting covid is 1 in 10,000 (same source as I used in my prior post). Even for the young, risk of death is reduced by vaccination.

No that's not how the math works. The value would be 1-[(1-(1 in 3.6 million))^y]... where y is the number of times vaccinated. This remains a small number in the numbers of vaccines a person would get in a lifetime and it's such a small number it's hard to work with.

You cannot claim that. I explained away your point about less lethal waves BECAUSE older ages were affected in earlier waves. This is occurring because more old people are vaccinated. We could agree that the mortality rate of covid in general is not much more than the flu for the young.

Actually the most important effect, particularly since delta is so contagious and herd immunity looks out of reach, is that it makes infection less severe.

 

So don't take the clot shot. We initially only had the clot shot in this country, and people were just not prepared to take it. Now that we have other options, our vax rate is climbing quickly.

 

Its not problematic - a prolonged hospital stay only happens when what happened was "serious"
The death number is 169 - for a reason - the person took the vax and they died,

Did you not understand the part about "Me -Research Scientist" "You - pretender" is not sinking in. When you tak a vax for Covid - and then next year take a vax for "Rovid" your risk of harm doubles. What part of that math - do you not understand ?

For example - if the risk of death from Delta is 2 in a million - and the risk of death from vax is 1 in a million. Your chance of dying from Delta is twice as much on taking one shot. As soon as you take a second shot down the road - your chance of dying is now the same as Delta.

Not sure I can explain it any simpler.

 

The reason they have that number is they need each of those cases to be investigated to see if the vaccine caused it. They investigated it, and when they found the cause only 8% of the time was it caused by the vaccine. Using 169 as the number of people who died because of the vaccine is incorrect by an order of magnitude.

And I'm an MD with MPH. But 4% of doctors aren't getting the vaccine so clearly there's idiots in every field.

It's abundantly clear you do not understand the math. If you flip a coin twice the odds of getting heads at least once is not determined by ****ing adding the numbers together. I don't know in what capacity you do research, but it's clear you're not handling the stats part. This part isn't the biggest lapse for you though, because as an estimate for small probabilities (not 50% like heads or tails) it's not terrible. The egregious part is you don't understand the need to control for confounding variables.

You're simply incorrect and I explained why. You don't just report a "risk of death" for covid it depends a LOT on the type of patient we're talking about (old, young, asthma, pregnant... and it VARIES from wave to wave the proportions of types of patients affected largely because of different vaccination rates). I am not sure if you're willfully blinding yourself, are trolling, or just can't/don't understand what is needed to evaluate this, but it's obviously pointless to try to educate you.

 

No pal .. it is you who has no clue about the math.. and you nave been proving that over and over by your lack of understanding of the math I have been trotting out for you.

If you take Vax A - with probability of harm = 1 per million
Then you take Vax B - with probability of harm = 1 per million

Your risk of harm is now 2 per million. What part of that do you not understand.

Your claim about control variables is completely false - you proving that you do not understand these either. How many studies using control variables have you done ? - I have done "Too many to count" You are an arrogant pretender - since when does being an MD - qualify your Math skills ? I do statistics all the time - multivariable analysis of complex living systems -

Nor does an MD have any clue about environmental microbiology in general - hopelessly lost in most cases.

Took you forever to figure out that the study you posted didn't apply - and you failed to recognize the key constraint - now trying to project your failure onto me.

Further - you claimed constraints were not considered - when these were right in the text of my post.

 

It's funny because your estimate isn't bad, but the way you present it makes it sound like you don't know the math. When using odds well under 1%, this sort of estimation works, but it's not an equation where you add them together. Like if you had a 3% odds of an adverse event, it's not like you get a 100% chance of an adverse event after 34 trials. It would be 1-(0.97^34) =0.64499 or ~64% of at least one adverse event.

Stop using appeal to authority on yourself. We're having a debate on issues and credentials do not determine who is correct. Why do you still deny the fact that having more older people in the first wave skewed the results towards higher mortality? It doesn't take many 80 year olds to skew the results because they are 1000 times more likely to die than a young person. You MUST adjust for age when comparing waves. And you didn't. And that's the biggest hole in your "decreasing toxicity" narrative.

Yeah I think the MPH is more useful here.

Don't know what you're talking about here. You never adjusted for age. You just cited overall death rates from wave to wave. This is a failure to adjust for the MAJOR confounding factor of age. And in all likelihood, a decreased number of unvaccinated elderly people is the main reason for the lower death rates in later waves.

 

This link pretty much describes the dire straits we're all in. Everyone should read this link:

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/07/30/cdc-report-shows-vaccinated-people-can-spread-covid-19/​

As Hoosier8 stated: 35,000 breakthrough cases each week among the vaccinated, and 15 percent of the deaths are among the vaccinated.

And what's the CDC's answer to it all? Blame it all on the unvaccinated.

 

After first crying "You don't know the Math" - when it you who lacks understanding projecting your falure onto others - you now say "Your estimate isn't bad" -

And then go on to say - "When using odds well under 1%, this sort of estimation works - where you add them together"

which is what I did - as the odds in this case are way under 1% .. ... as opposed to the case where odds are 3% (nice of you to do the calculation of adverse event but that is not "this case" ) ... so glad you figured out that my calculation was correct.

The rest of your Ad Hom fallacy projection --- in the rest of your post -- as was you who started the pud measuring contest - now crying because you were found sorrowly wanting - .. not interested in what your creds are .. Put it down on paper - like I have - in the posts sent to you.

You are the one who has been engaging in that fallacy .. I have shown my work - ripped a your claim about Delta being more toxic to shreds - as the study you posted in support "Appeal to Authority" .. did not support your claim - as it was not methodologically suited to test th claim that Delta is less lethal.

You got it handed to you.. Now after crying "You don't know the Math" .. in relation to Vax vs Delta risk of death - you figure out that my calculation was correct..

Glad we are making progress.. did you have further questions or concerns- ask away .. subject matter Expert at your service .. for the moment - as progress is slow - and getting tiresome.

Did I mention that I read Thorpe's book on counting cards when I was maybe 14 .. in grade 8 used to host gambling nights. .. thats how i made my money.. had. roulette wheel (good sized one .. plastic but nice) Craps matt which went nicely on the pool table ... and blackjack.. .. afterwords when the crowd thinned we would play poker.

 

Pretty much not provable. The human body is very complicated so much of the decision whether death is caused by the vaccine is a guess.

 

so 85% of the deaths are unvaccinated

 

Well it's based upon the clinical judgement of the doctors taking care of them, and in some cases the pathologist who does the autopsy. Hospitalist/internal medicine and emergency medicine doctors have an idea of whether a patient was close to death based upon their experience taking care of patients near death. If the patient was sick, but very much expected to survive, and then they get the vaccine and get clots, it's pretty clear it was the vaccine. When the patient was in the hospital with a COPD exacerbation, intubated and not doing well. They can still get the vaccine to help them if they survive this hospitalization, but if they die in a way consistent with the doctors experience of people with a COPD exacerbation dying, then that's likely the cause of death. When a patient dies in a way that surprises them, that's when they ask the family if a pathologist can do an autopsy.

Should also be noted that Canada was using the vaccine known to cause clots and that's what caused those 6 deaths. Pfizer's, for example, doesn't have the same issue.