patrick.net

So I'm saying that to even find 400 vaxxed infected and the 400 nonvaxxed infected, they needed to look through many more non-vaxxed people, because the non-vaxxed are less likely to get infected.

This is also consistent with pretty much every public figure who is known to be vaxxed then subsequently getting sick: Biden, Pfauci, Bourla, Walensky, etc.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

Point im trying to make is that this study sample consists entirely of infected individuals, separated by vax status. So the question it can answer is "what is the prevalence of different strains in vax vs non vax infected populations?".... It can not answer the question "Are vax or non vax people more likely to get omicron infections?" yet the headline of the article implies it addresses the latter.

In percentages like this:

Vax Group: 5.4%Omicron, 94.6% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)
NonVaxGroup: 0.7% Omicron, 99.3% Non Omicron (Total 100% infected)

What it's saying is that vaxxed people who are infected are more likely to be infected with Omicron than non-vaxxed infected people are, but does not say anything about the overall infection rate. It's looking only at infected people.

This is consistent with other reports...

Patrick says

The title, "Get Vaxxed? You Might Be 8 Times More Likely Than Non-Vaxxed To Catch South African Variant" is not exactly false.

When comparing already-infected vaxxed and already-infected unvaxxed, the vaxxed were 8 times more likely to have caught Omicron, the South African variant.

Though I see what you're saying in that it does not talk about the probability of being infected overall as a function of being vaxxed. I contend that the probability of being infected is indeed much higher if you have been vaxxed.

Patrick says

So I'm saying that to even find 400 vaxxed infected and the 400 nonvaxxed infected, they needed to look through many more non-vaxxed people, because the non-vaxxed are less likely to get infected.

This is also consistent with pretty much every public figure who is known to be vaxxed then subsequently getting sick: Biden, Pfauci, Bourla, Walensky, etc.

@Patrick's point about not revealing the proportion of infected (jabbed or unjabbed) relative to the entire population in each group is, and I say this as a formally trained statistician, profoundly misleading. For example, if in the jabbed group of say 10,000 people 2,000 people contract Wuhan, whereas in the non-jabbed group of 10,000, only 200 contract Wuhan, then on it's face, the jabbed are 10X more likely to contract Wuhan than the unjabbed, precisely because (and this has been well known for over 50 years) natural immunity focuses on as many loci on the invading virus as possible (spike, nucleocapsid, etc.).

Now if we just express the percentages of who was infected by what variant, COMPLETELY EXCLUDING THE ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF THOSE INFECTED RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL SAMPLE SIZE IN EACH GROUP, and we just report the percentages, we have completely missed the forest for the trees.

@DeficitHawk - this is where you are naive (a more polite way of saying that you are ignorant). You only see what is said or claimed, not what has been withheld (lies of omission, as the example above) or how the data have been misrepresented. Surely (and I'm not calling you Shirley) you've heard the expression "Lies, damned lies, and statistics?" Statistics can be used to fool the naive and ignorant, but as someone versed in statistics, I can recognize the ways in which they have been manipulated.

DeficitHawk says

Onvacation says

So you agree that the back doesn't work to stop infection?

I agree that the original strain vaccines dont work as well on Omicron. yes. that was my personal anecdotal experience, and its also what the article Patrick shared says.

Its also what studies from 'my side of the aisle' also say.

It's far worse,. ADE will make the jabbed get sick more often, worse and increase their chance of death. But for that you need basic medical/vaccine knowledge. Or at least the inclination and time to read up on it. And that doesn't include any of the grave side effects of repeat vaccination within a short amount of time with the experimental dna altering mrna shots

stereotomy says

Now if we just express the percentages of who was infected by what variant, COMPLETELY EXCLUDING THE ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF THOSE INFECTED RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL SAMPLE SIZE IN EACH GROUP, and we just report the percentages, we have completely missed the forest for the trees.

@DeficitHawk - this is where you are naive (a more polite way of saying that you are ignorant). You only see what is said or claimed, not what has been withheld (lies of omission, as the example above) or how the data have been misrepresented. Surely (and I'm not calling you Shirley) you've heard the expression "Lies, damned lies, and statistics?" Statistics can be used to fool the naive and ignorant, but as someone versed in statistics, I can recognize the ways in which they have been manipulated.

Stereotomy, How I think this study was done is simply by pulling 400 positive test samples form Vax and Non-Vax populations and send for sequencing, and then tally the results by variant. That is to say, there never was a quantified larger population from which the researchers selected the infected individuals. This study has no information on what overall fraction of vax or non-vax people are sick. Only what relative fraction of variants the populations have. so I think we are all saying the same thing at this point regarding this study. The question everyone really wants an answer to simply isnt in the dataset in this study.

DeficitHawk says

This study has no information on what overall fraction of vax or non-vax people are sick.

You're right about that @DeficitHawk

What I want to see are unassailable numbers on sickness as a function of whether and how often someone is vaxxed. The graph here claims to show something like that, but I don't know whether their methodology is unassailable or not:

https://patrick.net/post/1377632/2022-11-10-can-anyone-find-some-democrats-willing?start=347#comment-1897749

Patrick says

Some similar articles (boy, it is hard to wade through all the articles that fellate the CDC and shit on anyone who dares to doubt):

I took a look at these ones that use UK data too. I also dont agree with the conclusions implied by those charts, but for different reasons than the other study.

This is not a control group study. Its passive monitoring of test swab submissions, plotting positive results by age and vaccine status. Who is doing test swab submissions anymore? who knows at this point.. its not random, and its not evenly distributed. Us lefty triple-vaxxers keep lining up to get tested over and over because we have nothing better to do.

Here, Im gonna go with Mell's method. Instead of counting the people who voluntarily submitted swabs, count the people who died. Or people presnted to the ER for treatment.
Like I always say, I always agree with how Mell does analysis!

Column on the left is what they are charting in those websites linked... the other columns are severe illness presenting at ERs, or deaths. VERY different story.



The raw reports are here.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1049160/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-3-2022.pdf

fwiw, The guy who made those charts is literally taking the UK government tables which contains an explicit statement in the footnote "dont use these data for estimating vaccinne efficacy because the samples are not administered uniformly", and rejecting that warning, throwing away the ER admission and death data and plotting ONLY the data he knows is not valid.

@DeficitHawk Interested in your take on the Democratic party seemingly morphing into the Neo-conservatives they've always hated. I grew up in a neocon household that was also very religious. Not sure how my parents justified two irreconcilable ideologies, but seems people will sacrifice everything for their party. Even personal morals.

OK first, this is what you mean by neoconservative: Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism.

First, I dont think all democrats fall into this category. The uber-libbies actually dont. Its more often the moderates like me who do. This is a case where the Trumpers and the AOC types will all agree with each other and try to throw the moderates of both parties out of the tent.

Most often I am for non-intervention (militarily) when there isnt a threat to USA or global security, but think engagement via trade and cultural exchange is always a plus and can gain allies. When there is a threat, I guess I do think peace through strength is the path.

I suppose you are asking about Ukraine? Yup, I support helping Ukraine push Russia back to the border. I think both parties should honor the borders they agreed to when the USSR broke up, and failure to contain the aggression will encourage more.

DeficitHawk says

richwicks says

Cite source.

Directly from the article patrick linked above

Then link it.

Patrick says

What I want to see are unassailable numbers on sickness as a function of whether and how often someone is vaxxed.

Seems like a fundamental question. There should be hundreds of such studies by now intending to answer it. If they existed and they showed the vaccines had a definite overall benefit, we all would have heard of them.

Undoctored says

Seems like a fundamental question. There should be hundreds of such studies by now intending to answer it. If they existed and they showed the vaccines had a definite overall benefit, we all would have heard of them.

see the table in comment 378. thats the UK data we were discussing.

Undoctored says

There should be hundreds of such studies by now intending to answer it.

I find it hard to trust most studies as they are for the most part financed by the same people who committed the crime.

DeficitHawk says

I tend to get my information from online print sources.

Me too, TV is a waste of time. I can read quicker than anyone can talk. Besides the talking heads are full of hot air and the “reporting” is just sensational sound byte laden BS.

Reuter’s is a good source, but to get certain facts you must go outside the mainstream. Consider the hunter Biden laptop story that mainstream media said was fake news but now has begrudgingly and slowly began to admit was true. Relying on mainstream media for news is like living your life connected to a BS machine. Here is another example: mainstream media said that bats in a food market in China were the origins of SARS COV-2. But that was another lie, it is clear the virus is not natural at all, but the product of gain of function research and engineered by “science”.

Do you know what it is like to take the red pill figuratively speaking? Mainstream media is the blue pill as in the Matrix movies. And it is not always lies like the lies about hunter Biden’s laptop being Russian hoax or the origin of the virus but it is the truths they don’t report even when they aren’t lying that are the most deadly, like the fact that the young are more likely to be injured by the Pfizer or Moderna jabs than by infection.

You folks are not getting it. People(bots!) spoke how much they liked Biden mega inflation and free money press, free student loans, free abortions, free vaccines, free sex education for children, free to get away from law, free affordable housing, free money for Ukrainians, free to cross boarders just to begin with. Isn’t it obvious you are a racist if you don’t like or question any of those free programs.

PeopleUnited says

but to get certain facts you must go outside the mainstream

Why do you think I come here? Hint: Its not for the friendly encouragement from richwicks.

Blue says

Isn’t it obvious you are a racist if you don’t like or question any of those free programs.

And the FBI might come to your door to ask you what's wrong with you for not liking those things.

NuttBoxer says

seems people will sacrifice everything for their party. Even personal morals.

They will even sacrifice their children, who have a near-zero risk of death from the virus, by injecting them with the new Thalidomide and dramatically increasing their risk of death.

Illinois Congressman Sean Casten's daughter was most likely killed in this way.

DeficitHawk says

see the table in comment 378. thats the UK data we were discussing.

Well there’s that warning you mention which completely invalidates that table as the “unassailable source” that Patrick is looking for, which I reproduce in full here from page 3 in the report (emphasis in the original):

These [sic] raw data should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness as the data does [sic] not take
into account inherent biases present such as differences in risk, behaviour and testing in the
vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Besides that, these charts do not measure overall sickness as after taking the vaccines. They only look at what happens after a COVID-19 diagnosis. They do not look at vaccine side effects, no matter how serious. Probably the best attempt at a prospective study that could answer these questions (the one that led to the Pfizer vaccine’s approval) actually showed that, if anything, vaccination leads to more death! That and more criticism of that study here:

https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-COVID-19-Inoculations-More-Harm-Than-Good-REV-Dec-16-2021.pdf

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/11/wots-in-the-shots/

According to the latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, excess mortality was over 17 per cent in July. It is similarly elevated in other highly vaccinated populations.

In Germany, excess mortality in people over 60 increased by 174 per cent between 20 September 2021, when 85 per cent of people over 60 were fully vaccinated, and October 2022.

In the UK, there have been more excess deaths in the last three months than at any time during the pandemic or indeed since 2010. In the most recent week, excess mortality in England was 16 per cent.

In the US, excess mortality in people aged 25 to 44, and in those aged 75 to 84, is 18 per cent, and it is 15 per cent in those aged 65 to 74.

The situation is all the more alarming because there should be fewer deaths now, since so many people died earlier in the pandemic. There has also been a dramatic rise in people with disabilities.

As for Covid, in Australia, vaccine efficacy appears to be negative, judging by the statistics in NSW which are far from perfect but the best in Australia.

Not that this is a scientific paper, but The Spectator is prestigious at least, not a crackpot site.

DeficitHawk says

When there is a threat, I guess I do think peace through strength is the path.

DeficitHawk says

Yup, I support helping Ukraine push Russia back to the border.

Pretty much what I assumed. In this respect, you'd get along quite well with my Christian, Republican ticket voting parents.

The hippies are dead, conquered by the very war hawks they once protested.

NuttBoxer says

The hippies are dead, conquered by the very war hawks they once protested.

NuttBoxer, Im pretty much a lone voice on this thread with an outlook different from the rest of the crowd. I gather you are too.

Even if we dont agree, wanna jump in here and stir the pot with me?

DeficitHawk says

Maybe some places it was 'take the jab or you cant work here'.

One of the poster here was fired for refusing to tell his employer his private medical information.

Thankfully there were not storm troopers forcably jabbing most people, but there were reports of people in nursing homes and other care facilities as well as patients under anesthesia for surgery who were given injections of Pfizer or Moderna against their will/without consent. In places around the world it became common place to ask for your jab papers and people who falsified jabs to work or shop were severely punished. The point is that it is a slippery slope once you begin to mandate. We were only about one step away from either stormtroopers, prison camps or denial of care for those who refuse the jabs. It is reason for concern. Which is why so many oppose the mandate and draw the line at any mandates.

DeficitHawk says

Even if we dont agree, wanna jump in here and stir the pot with me?

NuttBoxer doesn't deny the truth of election fraud, vaccine safety and efficacy, and the facts behind the Ukrainian war.

Do you also believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that is causing runaway heating of the earth?

Things that dems believe:
Elections are safe and fair (when they win).
Trump is a racist that colluded with Putin.
Global warming is an existential threat.
The vax is safe and effective.
Whites have privilege just because of their skin color.
America is a democracy.

PeopleUnited says

DeficitHawk says

Maybe some places it was 'take the jab or you cant work here'.

One of the poster here was fired for refusing to tell his employer his private medical information.

Thankfully there were not storm troopers forcably jabbing most people, but there were reports of people in nursing homes and other care facilities as well as patients under anesthesia for surgery who were given injections of Pfizer or Moderna against their will/without consent. In places around the world it became common place to ask for your jab papers and people who falsified jabs to work or shop were severely punished. The point is that it is a slippery slope once you begin to mandate. We were only about one step away from either stormtroopers, prison camps or denial of care for those who refuse the jabs. It is reason for concern. Which is why so many oppose the mandate and draw the line at...

One thing that is truly, fanatically evil about the mandates is that organ transplant candidates are being dropped from the transplant lists unless they are jabbed. This, despite the fact that there has been a big increase in organ rejections by jabbed recipients. Corneal transplants, for example, are hardly ever rejected, but among the jabbed, rejection rates are orders of magnitude (100X, 1000X) higher than observed before 2021.

Onvacation says

Things that dems believe:
Elections are safe and fair (when they win).
Trump is a racist that colluded with Putin.
Global warming is an existential threat.
The vax is safe and effective.
Whites have privilege just because of their skin color.
America is a democracy.

I can’t believe there are still vaxx commercials. While not scientific I know a lot of older people who got the jab that are having serious health issues.

DeficitHawk says

PeopleUnited says

but to get certain facts you must go outside the mainstream

Why do you think I come here? Hint: Its not for the friendly encouragement from richwicks.

I think I've literally talked to you twice.

I don't think you're authentic. I could be wrong though, Patrick is mostly talking with you. I don't think you're authentic because you haven't discussed policy in anything you've written that I've seen, but I also am not reading too closely.

DeficitHawk says

Even if we dont agree, wanna jump in here and stir the pot with me?

Ohh, I'm definitely a pot-stirrer, ask anyone here.

Onvacation says

NuttBoxer doesn't deny the truth of election fraud, vaccine safety and efficacy, and the facts behind the Ukrainian war.

I don't buy someone who can't stay awake on live TV getting more votes than Obama. I mean was Reagan ever this bad? Biden is a post-turtle, that is by far the best adjective I've heard to describe him. But Trump was, and is no more of a savior than Musk is. Sad that in these times heroes are so lacking we try to invent them...

I practice preventative health, so do my wife and kids. We have seen too much confirmation in our lives, and the lives of friends and family who practice the treatment method to ever go back. Safe prevention means avoiding lab produced solutions unless absolutely necessary. That's why Ivermectin and Hodroxychloroquine are the only medications I've take the past 10 years. And those sparingly as needed, which has been one time.

And I know that when everyone lines up behind a war, there is heavy propaganda at work, as wars are almost never the answer. And racism is always wrong. I called it out when I saw it happening with Muslims and Middle Easterner's after 9/11, and I've called it out again with Russians being discriminated against.

Democrats are NOT to blame for the world's woes, neither are Republicans. Central banks and those behind them are the real culprits. But there is a shared blame on both parties for the current state of this country, as they have been the willing slaves of the bankers, and never given a shit about anyone besides themselves. People like Ron Paul are the lonely exceptions to this rule.

But good news. God created a beautiful world, and He loves all of you. And as being's made in His image, we have the power to change all of this for the better. Love your neighbors, pray for your enemies. Stand up for what is right, protect those who can't protect themselves. Not through voting or going online, but in real life. Live for the world you want to see, and together, with God's help, we will make it a reality.

There is waaaaaaaaaaaay too much emphasis on the death rate.

There were millions and millions of hospitalizations.

It's also estimated that there is 2-4 million people out of the labor market because of "Long Covid".

The death rate is comparable to measles. Sounds like the complications are about the same too.

Misc says

It's also estimated that there is 2-4 million people out of the labor market because of "Long Covid".

That's another name for vax injury.

Onvacation says

Things that dems believe:
Elections are safe and fair (when they win).
Trump is a racist that colluded with Putin.
Global warming is an existential threat.
The vax is safe and effective.
Whites have privilege just because of their skin color.
America is a democracy.

Things that dems believe:
Elections are safe and fair (when they win). -- Yup, and also when the other guys win. (2022 congress, 2000 Bush)

Trump is a racist that colluded with Putin. -- Dont think Trump is a racist, nor are his policies racist. But I DO think there are racists in the country and Trump wanted their votes so he didnt criticize them much.

Global warming is an existential threat. -- More like an unfortunate reality that we will have to adapt to.. but yes, real.

The vax is safe and effective. -- Yup, per the double blind studies, though I acknowledge the tracking doesnt go out too many years so long term side effects havent been proven except by projection.

Whites have privilege just because of their skin color. -- Nope, not privilege due to skin color. But I DO think that wealth is (rich vs poor) is strongly tied to the fortunes of the family you were born into and merit-based social mobility is not as strong as I wish it was.

America is a democracy. -- Well a republic/representative democracy

richwicks says

I don't think you're authentic because you haven't discussed policy in anything you've written that I've seen,

Well, Im not sure what you mean by authentic.. Im not a bot. I am not employed by Pfizer. Ive been responding to the topics posed to me, which were Trump, Covid and Vaccines. If you are inviting me to propose some nugget of policy.... OK.. how about immigration? I favor much more legal immigration, and not just white collar immigrants. Full economic spectrum of immigrants. From all of the continents. I favor much LESS illegal immigration, for several reasons... one is security which I bet is shared with this crowd... but another is that I morally dont like that we allow a large population of '2nd class' people who we let stay but dont allow to be citizens. I think its economic exploitation and both parties allow it to go on for their own reasons. Immigration should be wider spread, legal, and lead to citizenship.

NuttBoxer says

But good news. God created a beautiful world, and He loves all of you. And as being's made in His image, we have the power to change all of this for the better. Love your neighbors, pray for your enemies. Stand up for what is right, protect those who can't protect themselves. Not through voting or going online, but in real life. Live for the world you want to see, and together, with God's help, we will make it a reality.

This is probably the statement on this thread that I agree with most strongly so far... despite that I am an atheist.

Being an atheist doesn't mean giving up hope ;)

DeficitHawk says

Things that dems believe:
Elections are safe and fair (when they win). -- Yup, and also when the other guys win.

Not at all when Trump won. The election denial from Democrats was very loud and persistent.

DeficitHawk says

The vax is safe and effective. -- Yup, per the double blind studies, though I acknowledge the tracking doesnt go out too many years so long term side effects havent been proven except by projection.

I'm pretty certain that Pfizer's and the FDA's studies were exceptionally weak (8 mice for the last one?) and the outcome was pre-determined so that the participating scientists were not about to risk their careers by stating anything that would interfere with profits. You can smell their fear in most papers about the vaxx, where very unscientific denials of any possible danger are sprinkled about. Nothing like this has ever happened before in my memory.

I probably agree with you on most other things through.

DeficitHawk says

I morally dont like that we allow a large population of '2nd class' people who we let stay but dont allow to be citizens. I think its economic exploitation and both parties allow it to go on for their own reasons.

Boom! That is the crux of the matter. Big business loves having an underclass that always lives under the threat of deportation. Dems and Republicans coordinate here, playing good cop/bad cop.

Right, both sides of the Uniparty get donations from corporate farms, meat packing, construction, etc, which all profit mightily from illegal alien labor.

When, due to an apparent oversight, actual immigration enforcement occurred at a chicken processing plant in Chicago iirc, the plant was forced to hire local black American citizens at twice the wages the company was paying illegals. That is how it should be.

Undoctored says

DeficitHawk says

I morally dont like that we allow a large population of '2nd class' people who we let stay but dont allow to be citizens. I think its economic exploitation and both parties allow it to go on for their own reasons.

Boom! That is the crux of the matter. Big business loves having an underclass that always lives under the threat of deportation. Dems and Republicans coordinate here, playing good cop/bad cop.

I also entirely agree this is what illegal immigration is about. Either change the law or enforce the law. Our criminal politicians are intentionally making a slave labor class.

I suspect that some of the profits from illegal alien labor are used to print up and distribute lawn signs like "Hate has no home here" and "Immigrants welcome" (not mentioning that they are A. illegal and B. stealing jobs from the poorest US citizens).

Patrick says

Not at all when Trump won. The election denial from Democrats was very loud and persistent.

Oh right, that one... well we may have to agree to disagree on that one.

richwicks says

Either change the law or enforce the law.

Yup, or my preference is to change the law (increase legal immigration) AND enforce the law (stop illegal immigration)

DeficitHawk says

Patrick says

Not at all when Trump won. The election denial from Democrats was very loud and persistent.

Oh right, that one... well we may have to agree to disagree on that one.

Wait @DeficitHawk are saying that Democrats did not deny the 2016 election, loudly and persistently?

Would you like a ton of evidence that they did?

Patrick says

Wait DeficitHawk are saying that Democrats did not deny the 2016 election, loudly and persistently?

Would you like a ton of evidence that they did?

Oh, I misunderstood you, I thought you were talking about 2020.... but actually you were talking about when he ACTUALLY won...

There was quite a bit of whining, I will give you that. And claims that "he only won because... (insert here... dirty tricks, russians, etc...)" Yes I will definitely say the democrats were not graceful losers in that election.

BUT its somewhat different from saying the election outcome itself was fraud, rejecting the result, and claiming your side as the rightful winner, and trying to undermine the outcome by force..... which democrats did NOT do in 2016. Hillary conceded.

(also, I was speaking for myself, not all democrats in those responses above)