WyoNation.com

LanderPoke wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am If vax effectiveness wanes significantly, and does little to nothing to stop transmission as they have publicly admitted, how did the vax save many lives? That doesn't make much logical sense to me.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:59 pm

LanderPoke wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:39 am If vax effectiveness wanes significantly, and does little to nothing to stop transmission as they have publicly admitted, how did the vax save many lives? That doesn't make much logical sense to me.

Based on epidemiological data of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. It does appear that unvaccinated over 50 have a greater death rate than vaccinated. However, I think that data is still evolving.

LanderPoke wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:44 pm

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:59 pm

Based on epidemiological data of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. It does appear that unvaccinated over 50 have a greater death rate than vaccinated. However, I think that data is still evolving.

But if a person gets vaxxed they will eventually get covid and die if they are going to. Vax doesn't protect from getting covid whatsoever and does very little to protect from severe illness. The vax is formulated against the original strain which was around for a couple months of the scamdemic. I still don't see how it saved many lives. And it's got a horrendous side-effect profile.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:01 pm

LanderPoke wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:44 pm
But if a person gets vaxxed they will eventually get covid and die if they are going to. Vax doesn't protect from getting covid whatsoever and does very little to protect from severe illness. The vax is formulated against the original strain which was around for a couple months of the scamdemic. I still don't see how it saved many lives. And it's got a horrendous side-effect profile.

Theoretically, the per capita death rate should be an indication of vaccine effectiveness against death. There are several problems, though, and CDC method of reporting deaths is a big one. The other is that they appear to using mathematical gymnastics to make it look worse. Example: they started using mortality rate ratios to describe the differences between vaccine status. They report 14x more likely to die if unvaccinated (mortality rate ratio of 14.1).

BUT....
The death rate for unvaccinated is somewhere around 1.4 per 100k depending on week (98% of these are old or significant comorbidities)
The death rate for vaccinated is somewhere around 0.1

1.4 divided by .1 and your rr is 14. If they state 1.4 vs 0.1 it isn't nearly as scary as 14x more.

That and covid deaths may be overestimated by 70-80% due to the reporting practices prior to last Nov.

LanderPoke wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:10 pm

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:01 pm

Theoretically, the per capita death rate should be an indication of vaccine effectiveness against death. There are several problems, though, and CDC method of reporting deaths is a big one. The other is that they appear to using mathematical gymnastics to make it look worse. Example: they started using mortality rate ratios to describe the differences between vaccine status. They report 14x more likely to die if unvaccinated (mortality rate ratio of 14.1).

BUT....
The death rate for unvaccinated is somewhere around 1.4 per 100k depending on week (98% of these are old or significant comorbidities)
The death rate for vaccinated is somewhere around 0.1

1.4 divided by .1 and your rr is 14. If they state 1.4 vs 0.1 it isn't nearly as scary as 14x more.

That and covid deaths may be overestimated by 70-80% due to the reporting practices prior to last Nov.

That and the healthy vaccine user bias. Healthy people get vaccines way more often, whereas unhealthy fat, rural people don't. It was never an apple to apples comparison.

ZapPoke wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 10:07 pm I don’t know what to think about all of this. I got the vax when it first came out because I was old enough to be first. I was miserable for five days! I have not received any of the boosters. I’m obviously old, my BMI is 29, overweight but technically not obese. I’ve smoked for fifty years. If anyone should have died I guess it would be me.

I will say that I think it was rather fascist of the government to fire people for not getting the shot. I refuse to get any boosters. My wife tested positive but I never did. It’s just a weird situation and mostly served to make many of us lose all confidence in so called experts.

WYO1016 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:28 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 8:47 am

I need to read his book so not saying he is or is not a hack, but the Eco Health Alliance deal sure appears shady. Not sure I trust their take either. Trusting anything from them is trusting the fox in the henhouse. I've read the PNAS article and there are definitely parts that remain debatable. I'll have to go back and check but I think that article came from an Academy member and they have mechanisms to push those articles through without as robust a review. From personally reading all the primary literature, I don't feel the debate is fully settled. News agencies are motivated to promote any anti-lab leak literature they can find. Like the Hunter story, they wrongly buried this one without full investigation. Same for the vaccines.

The level of potential coincidence is just too high. Effective gain of function research (even if not technical--splitting hairs) in a lab in the city of origin of a virus that eventually breaks out and behave abnormally by immediately spreading rapidly through a new host.

That and during the original WHO investigation there was 1 US rep was Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance.

I've wondered all along if we were working with China to cover this mess up.

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry

/kənˈspirəsē ˈTHiərē,ˈTHirē/

noun
a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 10:29 am

WYO1016 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:28 am
con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry

/kənˈspirəsē ˈTHiərē,ˈTHirē/

noun
a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-agency ... eak-report

Where you at WYO1016. Your level of wrong in this thread is epic.

• IDGAF what your opinion of me is.

• A governmental entity that deals with national energy policy and nuclear power and wepons issuing an official opinion on a viral outbreak is akin to your opinion on weather balloons: uneducated and irrelevant.

• "Low confidence" = "We have no idea, but we kind of maybe think this could be something."

WYO1016 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 11:27 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 10:29 am

https://www.foxnews.com/world/us-agency ... eak-report

Where you at WYO1016. Your level of wrong in this thread is epic.

• IDGAF what your opinion of me is.

• A governmental entity that deals with national energy policy and nuclear power and wepons issuing an official opinion on a viral outbreak is akin to your opinion on weather balloons: uneducated and irrelevant.

• "Low confidence" = "We have no idea, but we kind of maybe think this could be something."

Now run along back to your coloring books while you bitch about a shot that you didn't get.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 5:23 pm https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-di ... hinese-lab

LanderPoke wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:11 am Imagine seeing stuff like this and then trusting these people about ANYTHING