Stupid shit in Medellin

[JjBee62]

Perhaps you need to research what a "right" is. The left seems to have a real challenge with that. They tell us that health insurance (sold as health care, as if it's the same thing) is a right. So, yet another mandate.

The funny thing they never understand. They count on the government to solve all. But in reality, they never do. They only compound the problem. But like well trained puppies, they keep voting for the snake oil salesman. The COVID mandates are just the latest examples. They have failed. That is plain to see. But reality doesn't matter to them. So long as the "Dem" beats the "Rep". So foolish.

Sorry. I still have an hour before I can sleep and this helps keep me awake.

It's strange you've never complained about the seatbelt mandate. The Selective Service registration mandate also seems to have avoided your ire. Auto insurance, vehicle registration, Social Security, and countless other mandates and not even a whisper of complaint.

Perhaps the most authoritarian mandate of all, nobody even knows it exists. I'm talking about the Pants mandate. Everyone, male or female is required to keep their ass and genitalia completely covered at all times in public. Why?

I've seen thousands of naked bodies, all ages, all types, all sexes. Not once has it made me sick, although some have caused mild nausea. Certainly seeing a naked body has never sent me to the hospital.

Where is your outrage? Why aren't you fighting against the evil pants mandate? You're ready to go to battle over Covid vaccine mandates, even though the vaccines indisputably save lives and improve patient outcomes. Yet not a single peep from you over a mandate that only exists to benefit the clothing industry.

If you believe people have the right to choose whether they kill other people, why do you believe people don't have the right to walk around naked?

And yes, that's a serious question. Public nudity is common in many countries. The practice is harmless. It's certainly safer than confining a bunch of unvaccinated children with an unvaccinated teacher for several hours per day.

[JjBee62]

Perhaps you need to research what a "right" is. The left seems to have a real challenge with that. They tell us that health insurance (sold as health care, as if it's the same thing) is a right. So, yet another mandate.

The funny thing they never understand. They count on the government to solve all. But in reality, they never do. They only compound the problem. But like well trained puppies, they keep voting for the snake oil salesman. The COVID mandates are just the latest examples. They have failed. That is plain to see. But reality doesn't matter to them. So long as the "Dem" beats the "Rep". So foolish.

Another funny post.

Consider this:

You accused me of having a closed mind because I pointed out that an anti-vax group, which is clearly an anti-vax group, was an anti-vax group. Yet, with this post and several others, you not only declare you have a closed mind, your positions are totally dependent on politics. No other factor is more important to your decision making.

If the talking head who tells you your opinions goes on air today and states all true patriots will cut off their balls, paint them red, white and blue and hang them around their neck, tomorrow you would be explaining your colorful scrotum necklace to the EMTs.

I've never debated any subject based on right or left, conservative or liberal, or Republican or Democrat. It's irrelevant.

Take health care. My opinion on healthcare has nothing to do with what the Democrats want, which is almost exactly the same thing the Republicans want. The Democrats have held a majority in the house many times. Not once have they proposed a bill to make healthcare a right, or to provide free healthcare. The most extreme thing they have done was the ACA, which is fundamentally the same as the Republican plan adopted by Massachusetts.

My opinion on healthcare comes from the fact that I moved up my wedding by 7 months because my fiancee was about to lose her health insurance. That would have forced her to choose between death, or losing everything she owned, if her cancer returned.

My opinion on healthcare is based on being unable to afford insurance for nearly 10 years. 10 years without a single doctor's visit, with several injuries, a couple of illnesses and one bad infection. After you've sliced open your infected arm with a razor blade and washed out the infection with rubbing alcohol, your opinion on healthcare might change.

My opinion on healthcare is based on listening to a single mother, employed full time, explain how she could only take her kids to the ER when they got sick because her employer didn't offer insurance. All those ER visits get billed directly to the taxpayers.

Another funny thing is that you go to Colombia, where healthcare, including dental and vision, is a right. Every girl with perfect teeth, a clear complexion and in good health is the beneficiary of healthcare as a right. Which also makes you the beneficiary of healthcare as a right. How many of those girls would have nice white, straight teeth if dental costs were similar to the US? How many mongers would still choose Colombia?

[JjBee62]

Perhaps you need to research what a "right" is. The left seems to have a real challenge with that. They tell us that health insurance (sold as health care, as if it's the same thing) is a right. So, yet another mandate.

The funny thing they never understand. They count on the government to solve all. But in reality, they never do. They only compound the problem. But like well trained puppies, they keep voting for the snake oil salesman. The COVID mandates are just the latest examples. They have failed. That is plain to see. But reality doesn't matter to them. So long as the "Dem" beats the "Rep". So foolish.

Another funny post.

Consider this:

You accused me of having a closed mind because I pointed out that an anti-vax group, which is clearly an anti-vax group, was an anti-vax group. Yet, with this post and several others, you not only declare you have a closed mind, your positions are totally dependent on politics. No other factor is more important to your decision making.

If the talking head who tells you your opinions goes on air today and states all true patriots will cut off their balls, paint them red, white and blue and hang them around their neck, tomorrow you would be explaining your colorful scrotum necklace to the EMTs.

I've never debated any subject based on right or left, conservative or liberal, or Republican or Democrat. It's irrelevant.

Take health care. My opinion on healthcare has nothing to do with what the Democrats want, which is almost exactly the same thing the Republicans want. The Democrats have held a majority in the house many times. Not once have they proposed a bill to make healthcare a right, or to provide free healthcare. The most extreme thing they have done was the ACA, which is fundamentally the same as the Republican plan adopted by Massachusetts.

My opinion on healthcare comes from the fact that I moved up my wedding by 7 months because my fiancee was about to lose her health insurance. That would.

[JjBee62]

I didn't initially watch the CCCA video where they discussed Absolute Risk Reduction versus Relative Risk Reduction. I should have done that before I responded.

Unfortunately, watching the video revealed 2 things.

1. ARR, as they are using it is a useless number. More on that in a moment.

2. The CCCA cherry picked data from the Pfizer study to further their anti-vax agenda.

Second point first: The numbers they used to determine ARR were from 7 days into the 2 month study, which shows an ARR of 0. 84%. If they had any interest in honesty they would have used the data from the completed study, with an ARR of about 2.5%.

Why is ARR, as they are using it, useless? Because to determine ARR you first must determine Absolute Risk. I can think of only 2 methods to determine Absolute Risk and neither is a possibility.

The first method requires doing nothing, except weekly testing of the entire population for a minimum of 1 year. No vaccines, masks, shutdowns, curfews, school closings, etc. As much of the population as possible needs to be exposed to Covid. It's simple. You can't determine the risk of catching Covid for people who have not been exposed to Covid. Eventually most people will be exposed, but that could take several years. The more people try to prevent exposure to Covid, the longer it takes.

The second impossible option also requires time travel. First step, before the beginning of the Pfizer study, is to verify all study participants are free of Covid and free of Covid antibodies. Prior infection gives some acquired immunity. Two weeks of isolation with daily testing should give you an untainted pool.

Continue isolation and give the first dose. Continue isolation and testing for 3 more weeks and give the second dose. After another 2 weeks of isolation and testing, to reach peak vaccine effectiveness, expose everyone to Covid.

Continue isolation and testing for another 2 weeks. This fits pretty close to the 2 month study length. The percentage of infected in the placebo group gives you Absolute Risk. The infected percentage in the vaccine group lets you determine ARR.

However, even if you could perform such a study, ARR still only tells part of the story. You have to also determine risk reduction for the different levels of severity. A 1% overall ARR isn't a bad thing if the vaccine reduces the risk of serious illness by 50%.

[Paulie97]

Mr E with another fake analogy? This is the most ridiculous one of all. Early Euro settleters in contact with Native Americans had no more knowledge of how disease is spread than the Founding Fathers. You have no right to be a fat clown? Get it? No right exists, in the USA or anywhere else. Yo. LOL.

[RamDavidson84]

That was different. 2 reasons.

1. Them durn founding fathers didn't see the indigenous people as their equals. They wouldn't have considered you as their equal either. Did you forget about that 3/5 thing and the slavery stuff? I'm not justifying their beliefs, merely pointing out that morality is determined by belief.

2. From the early settlers up to the early 20th century, the white men were at war with the natives. Once again I'm not justifying the actions, but morality standards in warfare are not indicative of the general public standards.

Unfortunately, if you want to decide how early US leaders would have reacted to any situation, you first have to limit the discussion to white men of European descent. Considering they used conscription among other things, suggests vaccine mandates would not have been universally rejected.

I think they "Founding Fathers" were more concerned about survival during this time period and creating societies comparable to European Standards which could eventually one day compete in international markets. They valued organized cities with professional skilled occupations as well as schools, hospitals, court houses, rule of law, etc. The Native Americans Hunter-Gatherer culture and way of life was always going to be a hinderance to the overall societal goal of Early Colonial and American leaders. The French alliance with the Native Americans vs the British was an original divisive event which pitted the colonists against most of the Native Americans. I don't think Colonists saw them as biologically inferior as much as they saw the realistic truth which was a massive societal and culture difference which was never going to allow the two groups to co-exisiting in the same community without violent conflict. The British also made an alliance during the American Revolution and the War of 1812 with most of the Native Americans west of the Appalachians. Native American Legends like Tecumseh, Blackfish, and Pontiac unfortunately picked the wrong side and became huge losers of those conflicts along with the British. You can't blame them as the British promised to reserve large swaths of land for them, while the Americans saw that land as capital which they could sell to pay off their massive debts from war. If you fought against a group of people for generations, you are probably not going to be overly concerned for the rights as humans.

As for the blankets with small pox, I don't think that was something that occurred with any time of frequency. I think it was more of an isolated event which you can't really use to define the morals and values of the general population during this time period. It was a brutal era with many instances of horrific acts of violence where both colonists and Indians many times had the blood of innocents on their hands.

I am almost certain Washington would have made vaccines mandatory, he purposely infected his entire army with smallpox, or the flu, during the winter at Valley forge. It killed a small percentage of his men, but going forward they were immune to what ever sickness was ravaging the population at that time period.

My opinion, I may be wrong as I aways think, you must live through the time period and experience it first hand to really understand what happened.

[JjBee62]

Didn't they see it as their right to spread disease to the natives; both intentionally and unintentionally? Seems like I vaguely remember something about blankets infected with smallpox being distributed. Or maybe that was different.

That was different. 2 reasons.

1. Them durn founding fathers didn't see the indigenous people as their equals. They wouldn't have considered you as their equal either. Did you forget about that 3/5 thing and the slavery stuff? I'm not justifying their beliefs, merely pointing out that morality is determined by belief.

2. From the early settlers up to the early 20th century, the white men were at war with the natives. Once again I'm not justifying the actions, but morality standards in warfare are not indicative of the general public standards.

Unfortunately, if you want to decide how early US leaders would have reacted to any situation, you first have to limit the discussion to white men of European descent. Considering they used conscription among other things, suggests vaccine mandates would not have been universally rejected.

[JjBee62]

You are making a valid point that the absolute risk reduction is the true measure of reduction. And I agree with you that the RRR is less informative than the ARR if you are a policy maker. However, the ARR is not a gold standard. It cannot be a gold standard, because it is constantly changing and depends on a gazillion of other factors.

A couple of months ago, some of the folks cheering you on here were up in arms about a paper that appeared in the Lancet about waning antibodies, resulting in a decrease of vaccine effectiveness. At the time, your buddies thought the decrease of effectiveness was the end of the world. What apparently goes completely over their heads is that effectiveness is a RRR. Which I tried to explain to them at the time:

"Effectiveness per se is not super helpful in policy decisions, since it is a relative risk (in the paper you cite, the calculations are based on hazard ratios). What you ideally want to have are absolute risks, which are much harder to come by because they depend on many things such as the time frame we are talking about, what variants we are looking at and how transmittable they are, your environment, the prevalence of the virus, etc. So the effectiveness doesn't tell you how likely or unlikely you are to get infected, it tells you how much less likely you are to get infected relative to some comparison group over the course of the study (and that can also get dicey, more on that below). You also need some sense of absolute risk to estimate the basic reproduction number R0, which is what you really want to know for public health recommendations (if R0 is less than 1, the virus is not finding enough hosts to infect, and the incidence goes down)..

Perhaps I can shed some light on this.

Dcrist is referring to a video put out by a Canadian anti-vax group called the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. In the video, they compared the number of infected in the initial Pfizer trial, only over the first 7 days of the trial.

I've already pointed out the anti-vax group cherry picked from the Pfizer study to support their agenda. This is a fine example. Pfizer reported their initial tests suggested a 95% protection from Covid. After the 2 month study the RRR had dropped to 91%. However, the absolute risk of contracting Covid was much higher (170 cases in the first 7 days, 927 cases in the first 2 months) within Pfizer's study. After 7 days only 0. 88% of the trial participants had contracted Covid. After 2 months 2.5% had contracted Covid.

That alone increases ARR from 0. 84% to 2. 3%. However, when you're cherry picking data, you don't want to point out things like that. It gets worse (if you're on the cherry picking team). Overall it appears that absolute risk of infection is close to 20%, and the number continues to rise. That brings ARR up to perhaps 10%. I haven't tried to find numbers on vaccinated vs unvaccinated strictly on reported cases.

Looking deeper, something the anti-vax folks refuse to do, is even more revealing. Hospitalization rates for Covid cases show a much higher risk reduction for the vaccine. Getting infected with Covid isn't bad. Getting really sick or dying from Covid is bad. So a 1%, 2%, or 10% ARR from being infected with Covid isn't an important number. Even 99.9% ARR would be worthless if Covid was always just a minor illness.

It's a shame Covid refuses to cooperate. While an individual's risk of getting Covid might be 20% or less (without vaccines or any precautions), if you get Covid there's about a 20% chance you'll end up in the hospital, unvaccinated. Vaccinated that number drops to around 3%. And unless you have 4 or more risk factors, fully vaccinated people with Covid die less than 0. 4% of the time. Compare that to about 2% death rate among unvaccinated.

Unfortunately, nobody knows how Covid will affect them, until they get it. You might be young, healthy, in shape with a top notch immune system and end up barely able to breathe. You might be an overweight alcoholic with liver disease and high blood pressure and only have a minor illness (yes, I know that person).

Telling people they shouldn't get vaccinated, for any reason, unless you're a medical professional who is advising an individual patient based upon their specific risk (to Covid or the vaccine), is at best irresponsible. At worst, it's despicable.

[JjBee62]

It actually surprises me that the anti-vaxxers are still here in any real numbers weaving out their BS from fake wingnut online media sources. It must take a basement existence somewhere in England or Sweden, or an equally meager life in the states.

I'm also ultimately surprised by the "freedom" thumpers as if the Founding Fathers envisioned anything like a right to spread disease. It's all as ludicrous as the Trump presidency..

Didn't one of those founding fathers organize one of the first mass vaccinations?

[JjBee62]

You have a bunch of internet scientists here going back and forth and it's pretty hilarious / pathetic, the reality is the pandemic is over.

I just flew in on the 1st and a quarter of the plane had a nasty cough, probably covid. But wait everyone is vaxxed!

The only place that has asked for a vaccine card and is the casino, and then I took my mask off when I walked in.

I said but wait I'm boosted what gives? Doesn't matter still have to wear the mask they said.

The people in govt are stupid as shit, in every single coutnry, and they push mandates because follow the freaking money. The vaccines don't do shit to stop covid and people are literally in a trance after an endless propaganda campaign by the media.

And you have people here on the streets wearing masks outside in the scorching heat even though theyre vaxxed lmao why? Because they're quite literally brainwashed by the news and arent smart..

This is one of your funniest contributions. Good work!

It's funny because, when I came home yesterday afternoon, there was a Covid self test kit on the counter. I share a house with my brother (I'm gone for work a minimum of 5 days every week), so I was obviously curious about it.

When he returned home from work he informed me that half of his fellow employees are currently sick with Covid. Considering where I live, there's a good chance half of the employees at that business are unvaccinated. My brother shocked me a few weeks ago when he mentioned getting a booster. He was pretty resolved about not getting vaccinated 6 months ago. I didn't know he had changed his mind. Anyway, the owner asked everyone to take a test, so he can decide whether he can keep the doors open.

On to the punch line:

Apparently nobody told the pandemic it's over, because it certainly is acting like it's still going strong with 2.5 million new cases today, 4 times more new cases than when the pandemic wasn't "over."

Keep up the excellent analysis!

[Paulie97]

It's amazing how little most Americans listened in school, wasting opportunities. There's no big conspiracies going on here, "Big Tech, capitalist elites, Jewish bankers, govts, etc. " Plagues happen, and have since the beginning of recorded history. Sometimes they have effected the entire known world. Interesting we had the same nonsense conspiracy theories and various downplaying and denials going on back in the Middle Ages during the bubonic plagues. It's in the primary sources. Well it's your lucky day. You get to live through a historic pandemic, and it's far from the first.

As to the freedom horseshit. The Constitution offers no such thing in the matter spreading disease. For one thing no understanding of germ theory existed in the late 1700's. All ideas of how disease was spread then we're either very misguided or completely erroneous. Leeches anyone? Or to the barber shop for blood letting? Your rights are imaginations.

[Ptrbrgr]

Lastly, clearly the nuance of relative vs absolute is lost on you. That is unfortunate because that is the most alarming nugget from the entire presentation. Frankly, I thought they gave a thorough explanation. But why it matters? The RRR is essentially the marketing ploy. That's the big number that gets people so hopeful about "efficacy". Marketing: "Hey, take our jab and your 95% more likely to avoid COVID. ". But that just isn't true. That is a lie. ARR is the true measure of reduction. You calling ARR bullshit tells me you either don't understand it or don't want to understand it. If you see it as bullshit, you stand in opposition with the scientific community. It's not bullshit. It's simple math. And it is the gold standard.

You are making a valid point that the absolute risk reduction is the true measure of reduction. And I agree with you that the RRR is less informative than the ARR if you are a policy maker. However, the ARR is not a gold standard. It cannot be a gold standard, because it is constantly changing and depends on a gazillion of other factors.

A couple of months ago, some of the folks cheering you on here were up in arms about a paper that appeared in the Lancet about waning antibodies, resulting in a decrease of vaccine effectiveness. At the time, your buddies thought the decrease of effectiveness was the end of the world. What apparently goes completely over their heads is that effectiveness is a RRR. Which I tried to explain to them at the time:

"Effectiveness per se is not super helpful in policy decisions, since it is a relative risk (in the paper you cite, the calculations are based on hazard ratios). What you ideally want to have are absolute risks, which are much harder to come by because they depend on many things such as the time frame we are talking about, what variants we are looking at and how transmittable they are, your environment, the prevalence of the virus, etc. So the effectiveness doesn't tell you how likely or unlikely you are to get infected, it tells you how much less likely you are to get infected relative to some comparison group over the course of the study (and that can also get dicey, more on that below). You also need some sense of absolute risk to estimate the basic reproduction number R0, which is what you really want to know for public health recommendations (if R0 is less than 1, the virus is not finding enough hosts to infect, and the incidence goes down)."

So here is where I think you are off: when you start a clinical trial in infectious disease, you always go to a population where the incidence is super high. The higher the rate of viral exposure, the sooner your trial will end. In such a setting, if your vaccine is effective, the ARR is huge. In a population where the prevalence of the virus is low, the ARR is dismal. However, the RRR is the same in both settings. In real life the viral prevalence constantly changes (among other things), which means the ARR constantly changes.

The RRR is not a marketing ploy. It is the thing we can reliably estimate in a randomized clinical trial, comparing two groups. And calculating the ARR is the polar opposite of simple math, since it requires a bunch of parameters we usually don't know much if anything about.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Absolutely, viruses mutate all the time but let us be real. We are talking hypotheticals. You are not being realistic.

I thought they were trying to beef up the vaccine for omicron but if you watch the interview with Dr. Malone he says no the current vaccine does not target omicron.

And even if there was, I would not take it. Nobody has died from omicron so what is the point?

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/cov...05/id/1051218/

[Dcrist0527]

I'm also ultimately surprised by the "freedom" thumpers as if the Founding Fathers envisioned anything like a right to spread disease.

Perhaps you need to research what a "right" is. The left seems to have a real challenge with that. They tell us that health insurance (sold as health care, as if it's the same thing) is a right. So, yet another mandate.

The funny thing they never understand. They count on the government to solve all. But in reality, they never do. They only compound the problem. But like well trained puppies, they keep voting for the snake oil salesman. The COVID mandates are just the latest examples. They have failed. That is plain to see. But reality doesn't matter to them. So long as the "Dem" beats the "Rep". So foolish.

[Mr Enternational]

I'm also ultimately surprised by the "freedom" thumpers as if the Founding Fathers envisioned anything like a right to spread disease.

Didn't they see it as their right to spread disease to the natives; both intentionally and unintentionally? Seems like I vaguely remember something about blankets infected with smallpox being distributed. Or maybe that was different.