Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

Oh yes, that's when your buddy fudged his numbers by two decimal points in his favour, and you didn't call him out on it - because you shared the narrative.

Keep backpedaling, vaxcuck, it's all you guys can do these days.

Oh and here :



Looks like that third shot is really, really effective, doesn't it?

You didn’t know what inferential statistics were last time you posted a graph similar to this. Likewise, you didn’t understand the importance of adjusting for important confounders. I see you still haven’t learned.

I don’t want to side track this thread too much, but I’ll try one more learning experience with you. Go to a scientific search engine. Pub med. Scholar. I don’t care. Type in a few key words. Covid-19 Vaccine effectiveness severe disease mortality. Read the literature on the first few pages. Notice how it overwhelming demonstrates the opposite of what you think your one ****ty graph shows?

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Originally Posted By Reliance012⏩

There is some (preliminary) in vitro evidence that BA.5 has reverted back to a tropism that exploits the lungs more aggressively, at least relative other Omicron variants. This has nothing to do with the vaccines. Bossche's hypothesis is riddled with faulty assumptions and honestly a fundamental misunderstanding of virulence evolution. I’ve broken it down and explained why several times on this forum. Not sure I care to do it again.

I can't speak to the specific arguments of his hypothesis, only what I've heard from him. I've not seen or read the 30 page paper he references in the interview and says that he sent out to multiple parties.

That the virus is hitting the lungs harder seems like a change worth knowing about vaccine related or not.

Originally Posted By Reliance012⏩

He predicted the vaccines would select for higher virulence. Well, that’s the opposite of what has happened. Early periods of pandemic when we had none to very small proportions of the population vaccinated, saw selection for higher virulence. Delta > Alpha > WH. As vaccination increased, we saw a Omicron - a genetically more benign variant that has reduced predilection for the lungs - rise in frequency. It is the exact opposite of what he predicted. We also see overwhelmingly that vaccinated hosts are significantly less likely to die from C19 than unvaccinated hosts. Everything that has happened is the opposite of what he predicted.

Is it possible that he is correct in his assertion that the vaccination program lead to an increase in infectiousness? Further is it possible that an increase in infectiousness has set the stage for an increase in virulence?

From data out of Canada and the UK the vaccinated are not significantly less likely to be hospitalized or die. When that showed up in the data the health agencies stopped reporting vaccine status as part of their public data release.





UK article:

https://expose-news.com/2022/07/11/b...-covid-deaths/

I'm watching a livestream now which just showed screenshots of the data re:vaccination and illness with covid. Also has screenshots showing thatfor non-covid causes of death the vaccinated had higher mortality. I hadn't seen that before. I would share it now, except that the livestream is still running.

ETA:livestream ended, screen shots of UK data

Vaccine Status & COVID



Vaccine Status & Non-Covid Mortalities



^^^
Unvaccinated 795.3

Vaccinated about 1600 up to around 2000

Originally Posted By Reliance012⏩

Back to BA.5, contrary to the popular talking point, pathogens with higher virulence can incur a fitness edge over less virulent competitors. There is no all encompassing rule or generalization that can be made. It’s specific to the pathogen and the immediate environment. The idea that pathogens evolve to mildness because it’s not in their interest to harm the host is long-standing misconception. Pathogens can both maintain high virulence and evolve higher virulence.

No argument. They can become both more infectious and more virulent. I believe that is much less common though.

INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew

INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

Beavercel data showed the triple vaxxed people were just as likely to die from Covid as unvaccinated ones.

But it is nice to see vaxcucks forced to backpedal more and more every passing day.

It's mostly old people getting the boosters, so relative to others any benefit is muted by their age and higher inherent risk. And practically everyone's already been infected at least once, creating a wall of relative immunity the jabs themselves cannot. With each passing month CDC stats show the people dying with Covid are older than the previous month and older than in 2020. It's further evidence of so many dying WITH, not from Covid. Data from the UK tells us 42% of them are dying WITH, not from Covid. And they aren't as loose as the US with labeling someone a Covid death, so the proportion dying with Covid, not from is even higher here.

Yeah Buddyyy! Light weight! Light weight baby!!!!

INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

Sure, I'll play with you.

Aside from the fact my "chitty graph" is off the beavercel government website, using actual beavercel data... If you want to jerk off to "scientific" sources, instead of looking at real world numbers, be my guest.

But here's a better way to prove how pseudo intellectual you are:

Can you be a dear, and give us the effectiveness of BNT62b2?

I forecast you tucking your tail between your legs, and running away.

Yeah, how dare we consider scientific sources that use appropriate methods for making conclusions. Your graph is descriptive. We can take the data behind it, and then apply the appropriate analyses to generate meaningful conclusions.

Effectiveness needs context. Infection? Symptomatic infection? Hospitalization? ICU admission? Death?

Again, the vaccine effectiveness talk has been endless. It’s futile and at this point, boring. There’s another thread dedicated to it.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

"YoU DiN't AdjUst fOr iMpoRtAnT coNf0unDeRs!!11"

"TrUst tHe ScIenCe!1"

Double the mortality rate per 100,000 people.

Please feel free to confound away.

INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

"iT iS Fut1lE anD BoRiNg to dIsCuSs WhY bO0stEd peOplE arE dYing aT HigHeR ratEs thAn thosE WithOUt aNy ShoTs!11"

You have to see this to believe it. Kamala telling an audience that all the people in the hospital are vaccinated. That the people dying from Covid are vaccinated.

So everyone need to roll up their sleeves and get a shot.



Link to short clip:

INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew

Originally Posted By katya422⏩

Double the mortality rate per 100,000 people.

Please feel free to confound away.

This is exactly why we need more science literacy in this country.

Let’s ignore the very important fact that the table doesn’t account for important comorbidities, which are expected to differ between the two populations. Even more importantly, it doesn’t account for arguably the most important variable: prior infection. I want you to think hard. We’re not comparing the protection generated by the vaccine vs. infection. Vaccine effectiveness is saying, holding all other variables constant, how much does vaccination reduce the risk of some outcome. Katya, you’re trying to compare two groups, one that has experienced disproportionate infection and death (so there’s already a selection effect). By adjusting for previous infection, you’re able to compare those who have been vaccinated and previously uninfected to those who are unvaccinated and previously uninfected. The adjustment would also compare those that have been infected in both groups to each other.

Let’s use an example with extremes to illustrate the problem. Some highly lethal pathogen sweeps through the pop and kills 99% of those unvaccinated, and 10% of those vaccinated in its first year. Additionally, during much of the first year the vaccine reduced the odds of infection (true of C19 vax). During year two, You decide to compare the risk of dying from the pathogen in the two groups, those unvaccinated and those vaccinated. If the data show vaccinated in year 2 dying at equal or higher rates, would you conclude the vaccine is not effective? Would you advise someone who has yet to be infected not to take the vaccine based on that information? I’d hope not. The unvaxxed pop has already been bottlenecked in two ways. They were more likely to be infected (this is true of c19 during most of the pandemic) so they will have higher rates of infection induced immunity. Also, those that have been infected and survived don’t represent the population. They were probably outliers (health, genetics, etc).

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

Originally Posted By Anachron⏩

Thanks for confirming that you believe that infection induced immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity.

It certainly can be. Depends on what you were infected with previously and what variant you’re exposed to. I have no issues with broadly saying previous infection provides better immunity (vague I know) than two doses of the vaccine.

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

"Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole."

- Peaking to Life Crew -

INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew