« First « Previous Comments 325 - 364 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
Interested in how your experience compares?
Id say vaccines geared towards the original strains may have helped me avoid the original strain, but did not prevent infection with omicron.
there are papers showing that getting the original vaxx makes you ~4x more likely to catch other strains
A study from Tel Aviv University found that a South African variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus affects people vaccinated with the Pfizer shot more than unvaccinated people.
The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated. Clalit Health Services, a top Israeli health-care provider, also helped in the study.
A study from Tel Aviv University found that a South African variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus affects people vaccinated with the Pfizer shot more than unvaccinated people.
Eventually I got a 2nd dose of J&J and a moderna booster, and felt soreness around the injection site with those too.
I recently had Covid in fall 2022... when omicron was the dominant version. It was like a cold, I isolated and tested until my test strips were negative before returning to work.
You could imagine public funding to drive control group studies on non-profitable drugs... that may have some significant public benefit. but it would be expensive and we'd have to pay for it.
Yes, I am ignoring some of the red flags in this article... CCP virus name, not peer reviewed... I'll set those aside for now adn focus on the data
Id say vaccines geared towards the original strains may have helped me avoid the original strain, but did not prevent infection with omicron. Omicron symptoms were not too bad for me.
how high would the death rate from the disease need to be before people in critical businesses decided they didnt want to take the risk...
So you agree that the back doesn't work to stop infection?
But patrick that article doesnt conclude what you said it concludes. It only allows the conclusion that Omicron evades the vaccine better than original strain. It doesnt say vaccinated people are more likely to get omicron than unvaccinated people. (if I understood the samples correctly per the description in the article)
The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated.
Yes, I am having a hard time keeping up with all the various responses, sorry I missed replying to yours.
It does say this:
The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated.
Am I correct to say that from the 400 vax+infected and the 400 nonvax infected, the results are:
Vax Group: 22 Omicron, 378 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)
NonVaxGroup: 3 Omicron, 397 Non Omicron (Total 400 infected)
Cite source.
10 months ago
Alex Berenson: "Vaccine efficacy has turned negative, meaning vaccinated people are more likely to catch Omicron about 24 weeks out after full vaccination...The vaccines are not just not controlling infection or transmission, but actually accelerating infection and transmission."
For Omicron, compared to no vaccine, mRNA vaccine effectiveness was –38% at 120–179 days and –42% at 180–239 days after the second dose...
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)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
This study has no information on what overall fraction of vax or non-vax people are sick.
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):
richwicks says
Cite source.
Directly from the article patrick linked above
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.
There should be hundreds of such studies by now intending to answer it.
I tend to get my information from online print sources.
« First « Previous Comments 325 - 364 of 699 Next » Last » Search these comments
By polite, I mean refraining from attacking the person in either direction, but sticking to points of argument instead. So no "You are a (whatever)" will not be allowed. The only appropriate use of "you" will be "Here you said..."
I just ran into an old guy in a cafe who pointed in the newspaper to the governor results in California, which added up to 110%. I said, "well, that's California" and so he accused me of being an "election denier". I asked if he'd seen "2000 Mules" and he said he hadn't "because it's been debunked". Uh, it's the same people who committed the election fraud who are claiming that "2000 Mules" was debunked.
Nor had he heard what was on Hunter's laptop, since he watches only corporate news.
I think I might have made a dent in his wall of denial, and I'd like to try with others.