Thread: Stupid shit in Medellin
+
Add Report
Results 4,201 to 4,215 of 7069
-
01-09-22 17:19 #2869
Posts: 2923Originally Posted by Paulie97 [View Original Post]
You are assuming a lot of things and you think you know about human behavior. Did you know before there will be so many people not taking vaccine.
Originally Posted by Paulie97 [View Original Post]
-
01-09-22 16:06 #2868
Posts: 14Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
-
01-09-22 15:28 #2867
Posts: 650I recognize you guys
Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]Originally Posted by JohnnyWalker55 [View Original Post]
BTW I think I recognize you two guys. Didn't they make a movie about you, starring Jeff Daniels and Jim Carey?
-
01-09-22 13:47 #2866
Posts: 1775Originally Posted by JohnnyWalker55 [View Original Post]
-
01-09-22 07:27 #2865
Posts: 5448Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
There are 2 concerns for people traveling to Colombia at this time. One is not knowing if there are going to be shutdowns, curfews or a return of pico and cedula restrictions. The ministry of health previously stated those types of restrictions are based upon hospital available capacity, not on number of cases. Fortunately, Colombia has been diligent about getting people vaccinated, so hospitalization and death rates are much lower than when the strictest restrictions were enforced. Do a search and you might be able to find the reports on available hospital capacity. That will help you to decide whether or not it's a good time to visit.
The other concern is testing positive before the trip ends, forcing a quarantine which would extend the trip. If a 2 week extension of the trip would cause serious problems for you, it's probably not a good time to travel. The girls I regularly talk to are all telling me that a lot of people around them are getting sick. Fortunately, they are young, healthy and vaccinated, so none of them are suffering serious symptoms.
-
01-09-22 06:10 #2864
Posts: 1680Well
Originally Posted by Nounce [View Original Post]
You also throw out the false dilemma fallacy. There are more choices besides living in fear and throwing caution to the wind. For example reasonable caution doesn't have to involve fear. It's just being smart.
-
01-09-22 06:00 #2863
Posts: 1680Lol
Originally Posted by JohnnyWalker55 [View Original Post]
-
01-09-22 04:33 #2862
Posts: 2579Well
Originally Posted by Elvis2008 [View Original Post]
-
01-09-22 04:08 #2861
Posts: 223Pretty much
Originally Posted by JustTK [View Original Post]
-
01-09-22 00:51 #2860
Posts: 3216Originally Posted by Paulie97 [View Original Post]
-
01-08-22 23:01 #2859
Posts: 5448You're at your best when all you have are ad hominem attacks and avoidance of the issues. Unfortunately, that's not exactly a high standard.
Originally Posted by Dcrist0527 [View Original Post]
As simple as possible, the video on ARR you keep referring to claims an ARR of 0. 84%. That number comes from the data after the first 7 days of the Pfizer study. Still with me?
The Pfizer study ran for 2 months. It didn't run for 7 days. The 7 day data was simply for a preliminary finding. Does the vaccine behave as expected? Are there unexpected side effects? Should the study be continued, or scrapped?
After 7 days, unless you have deliberately exposed everyone to the virus, you have absolutely no idea what ARR is, because you have no way of knowing how many people in your study have been exposed. Even after 2 months ARR can't be determined, but it is at least slightly closer to reality. If your anti-vax heroes were not cherry picking data they would have used the data from the end of the study instead of the beginning.
Did you understand that. It's about as basic as I can make it. If I had the time I would run the explanation past a bunch of children of different ages to figure out what age range is compatible with your ability to comprehend. Then perhaps I could get an elementary school teacher to fit the information to your level. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of time. If you don't understand, perhaps you should go play with your toys and leave the discussion to those who can understand.
But even if I follow your speculation, you are disconnected. From reality. The manufacturers are now onto their fourth do$e. That kinda throws a kink in your math, no?
My current numbers are simply what you get if you use the same simple math with the current number of total cases. The vaccine efficacy number I used, "maybe 10%" is due to the fact that positive tests are not separated based on vaccination status. That "maybe" should have been self-explanatory.
Here, again, I'll mention my biggest premise. Pfizer bastardized numbers to misrepresent capabilities. The poster you were responding to acknowledges that. They took the RRR number and sold it as your own personal protection. To your point, no one can argue the vax doesn't help protect against serious illness. But that's not how it was sold. Pfizer's efficacy marketing was on contracting COVID. Our politicians told us it would stop transmission. Hell, even the Supreme Court justices just yesterday were spouting that lie. Repestedly. Talk about misinformation!
Again I'm trying to make it as simple as possible for you. You've already stated that analogies are beyond your ability to comprehend, so I'm rather limited here.
If you are locked within a sterile environment, nothing comes in without being sterilized, no visitors allowed into your hermetically sealed environment, your risk of a Covid infection is 0. 0000%. There is no risk to you. If you take 1000 people and place all but one in the same type of isolation, and the one person outside gets Covid, what's the actual risk of Covid infection? Is it 0.1%, or is it 100%? You don't know.
That's the hyperbolic demonstration with the problem of only considering ARR. You can't adequately determine ARR, without knowing the complete exposure details of every single person. You only know that the infected people were exposed. You don't know about the uninfected people, unless both groups are within an environment where avoiding exposure is unlikely, or unless you deliberately expose your entire test population to the virus.
Fortunately, we have 2 different types of enclosed environments we can collect data from. Unfortunately, each one has a much different risk factor.
Environment 1, a US Navy ship, initially at sea, before the first infection was detected and in isolation shortly after. I'm talking about the USS Roosevelt. Of the up to 5680 crew and air wing onboard, 1271 tested positive for Covid. That's an Absolute Risk of 22%. Nobody was vaccinated and it's unlikely any had previously recovered from Covid. However, average age of the population is probably 22-25, required to meet physical fitness and obesity standards. Most likely a much healthier population than used in any study. Remember that number, 22%.
Environment 2, any nursing home, assisted living facility or correctional facility infected with Covid. You can find data for any Nursing home at http://data.cms.gov.
For this example I picked a nursing home I'm familiar with. Out of the 36 residents, 26 were confirmed with Covid, 18 died. That's an Absolute Risk of 72%, with a 50% fatality rate. This happened well before any vaccines were available. Some nursing homes had a much higher percentage of cases. This is the other end of the spectrum. Many had pre-existing conditions, many had multiple risk factors. You would expect a less effective immune system compared to the Roosevelt crew.
Using the 2 examples, adjusting for average age and risk factors, Absolute Risk falls somewhere between 22-72%. You could go and find the nursing homes with the highest or lowest percentage of cases, but ideally you would use all the available data, rather than cherry picking.
Again, you'll criticize actual data as cherry picked but then throw these numbers out? This is just overt speculation at best. The height of hypocrisy.
Here again, your language is telling. "I know that person. " As if "that person" is a unicorn. The US is the land of obesity. Roughly a third of the country is obese. Newsflash: a third of the country hadn't croaked. Yes, obesity is a comorbidity. But you talk like the fat guy that survives covid is unique. I'm a fat ass. I got it relatively early on and it was essentially a cold. You downplay that the overwhelming majority of people recover just fine.
Oh, the irony, part two. I'm going to assume this wasn't directed at me or anyone in particular. I have never told anyone not to get vaccinated. Just the opposite, actually. But stop and think what you said. "Irresponsible. " "Despicable. " But you have no problem mandating what someone must do to themselves. No problem taking away their jobs because they don't subscribe to the group think. THEY aren't afforded the "medical professional advice. " That's settled science, right? Telling people what they must do = not despicable? Ok, bro. Gotcha.
Nor have I told people what they must do. Are you a child or an idiot? If there's a third option, explain it to me. The discussion is about the CCCA cherry picking data, misrepresenting their expertise and credentials and lying about the Pfizer study. It's not about mandates, supporting mandates or unicorns. If you lack the ability to discuss a simple subject, then perhaps you should find something better suited to your talents.
-
01-08-22 22:35 #2858
Posts: 1775Originally Posted by Dcrist0527 [View Original Post]
-
01-08-22 22:20 #2857
Posts: 1775Originally Posted by Plan77 [View Original Post]
But that should not concern you. You do not need to show a negv test result to enter Colombia so you can enter without concern. Omicron is a pretty feeble virus so I don't see why you should worry about postponement. Just take out tarvel insurance if you are still cautious.
-
01-08-22 20:36 #2856
Posts: 1283Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
I'm not an anarchist. And while I will usually favor freedom, I do think a society is entitled to setting norms to an extent. But I'll use your seatbelt example. And I'll speak on principle, which will be unpopular. But as I said in a recent reply, I am pro-freedom with a heavy dose of personal responsibility. I wear my seat belt. Why? Not because it's the law but I make the personal choice to protect myself. If someone chooses not to and they end up going through a windshield, well, we just improved the gene pool. Personal responsibility means something.
I got vaxxed using a similar logic. Let's pretend we had actual data, which the CDC won't release. If someone makes an informed decision to not get the vaccine, contracts the virus and dies? I lose no sleep about that. We all own the rewards and consequences for our decisions.
-
01-08-22 20:26 #2855
Posts: 1283Originally Posted by JjBee62 [View Original Post]
I often hear the vaccine has become a political issue. That is so sad. I don't quite agree entirely but yes, there are many that make their decisions based on our political hacks, be them elected or on MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN etc.
What gave you the impression I 'declare I have a closed mind, my positions are totally dependent on politics. ' . I am baffled. Call me wrong. Call me an idiot. You can call me a lot. LOL But I greatly value my independent thought. Sean Hannity makes me just as nauseous as Rachel Maddow.
My opinions are founded on principles. I have a strong bias towards freedom and with that, personal responsibility. Only recently has a "freedom thumper" become a dirty phrase. I could go on about my perspective, but pretty sure no one gives a shit. But suffice to say, you could not be more wrong in your assessment.