Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Eirikrautha]

I don't necessarily know that those conclusions are correct.  In countries with high vaccination rates, if the vaccines don't prevent infection to begin with, you'd expect to see a larger percentage of infected who were previously vaccinated simply because of a larger percentage of the total population having been vaccinated.  One also can't discount that the vaccinated may be "riskier" in their behavior, leading to more of them being infected then those who aren't vaccinated and still hiding in their basements.

It's data, not a conclusion. There's undoubtedly confounders.
The real point is simply to emphasize that so much of the madness we see (e.g. demonization of outgroup, mandatory injections, social credit passports, concentration camps) are based on completely nonscientific indeed contrary-to-all-evidence assumptions about who is infected and spreading Sars-Cov-2.

Fair enough, but we also need to recognize that anti-vaxxers may draw the wrong conclusion that being vaccinated will lead to being more susceptible to getting infected.

If the data supports that conclusion, how exactly can you label it "wrong"?

[dkabq]

I don't necessarily know that those conclusions are correct.  In countries with high vaccination rates, if the vaccines don't prevent infection to begin with, you'd expect to see a larger percentage of infected who were previously vaccinated simply because of a larger percentage of the total population having been vaccinated.  One also can't discount that the vaccinated may be "riskier" in their behavior, leading to more of them being infected then those who aren't vaccinated and still hiding in their basements.

It's data, not a conclusion. There's undoubtedly confounders.
The real point is simply to emphasize that so much of the madness we see (e.g. demonization of outgroup, mandatory injections, social credit passports, concentration camps) are based on completely nonscientific indeed contrary-to-all-evidence assumptions about who is infected and spreading Sars-Cov-2.

Fair enough, but we also need to recognize that anti-vaxxers may draw the wrong conclusion that being vaccinated will lead to being more susceptible to getting infected.

You mean like this?
Delta drives surge in US cases before omicron gains foothold; 75% of US infections by new variant among vaccinated: Latest COVID-19 updates
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/12/08/omicron-covid-variant-vaccines-mandates/6425346001/

Worst...vaccine...ever...

[3catcircus]

I don't necessarily know that those conclusions are correct.  In countries with high vaccination rates, if the vaccines don't prevent infection to begin with, you'd expect to see a larger percentage of infected who were previously vaccinated simply because of a larger percentage of the total population having been vaccinated.  One also can't discount that the vaccinated may be "riskier" in their behavior, leading to more of them being infected then those who aren't vaccinated and still hiding in their basements.

It's data, not a conclusion. There's undoubtedly confounders.
The real point is simply to emphasize that so much of the madness we see (e.g. demonization of outgroup, mandatory injections, social credit passports, concentration camps) are based on completely nonscientific indeed contrary-to-all-evidence assumptions about who is infected and spreading Sars-Cov-2.

Fair enough, but we also need to recognize that anti-vaxxers may draw the wrong conclusion that being vaccinated will lead to being more susceptible to getting infected.

If the data supports that conclusion, how exactly can you label it "wrong"?

Because it doesn't.  The data does not show that you'll be more likely to catch covid as a result of being vaccinated.

What it does show is that if most of your population is vaccinated and most of the infected are vaccinated, then:

1. The expected ratio of vaxed to unvaxed who got covid correlates to the ratio of vaxed to  unvaxed of the overall population.

2. Vaccines aren't stopping infections from happening.

[dkabq]

I don't necessarily know that those conclusions are correct.  In countries with high vaccination rates, if the vaccines don't prevent infection to begin with, you'd expect to see a larger percentage of infected who were previously vaccinated simply because of a larger percentage of the total population having been vaccinated.  One also can't discount that the vaccinated may be "riskier" in their behavior, leading to more of them being infected then those who aren't vaccinated and still hiding in their basements.

It's data, not a conclusion. There's undoubtedly confounders.
The real point is simply to emphasize that so much of the madness we see (e.g. demonization of outgroup, mandatory injections, social credit passports, concentration camps) are based on completely nonscientific indeed contrary-to-all-evidence assumptions about who is infected and spreading Sars-Cov-2.

Fair enough, but we also need to recognize that anti-vaxxers may draw the wrong conclusion that being vaccinated will lead to being more susceptible to getting infected.

If the data supports that conclusion, how exactly can you label it "wrong"?

Because it doesn't.  The data does not show that you'll be more likely to catch covid as a result of being vaccinated.

What it does show is that if most of your population is vaccinated and most of the infected are vaccinated, then:

1. The expected ratio of vaxed to unvaxed who got covid correlates to the ratio of vaxed to  unvaxed of the overall population.

2. Vaccines aren't stopping infections from happening.

1. That isn't what the USA Today article says: "More than 35% of eligible Americans, including 28% of adults, still aren't fully vaccinated." So 75% of the covid cases are occurring in the 65% of the vaccinated population, and 25% of the covid cases are occurring in the 35% of the not-vaccinated population. That tells me that, at least in terms of becoming a reported covid case, being vaccinated provides no better protection that not being vaccinated.

2. Isn't that the purpose of a "vaccine", to stop infections from happening?

[3catcircus]

I don't necessarily know that those conclusions are correct.  In countries with high vaccination rates, if the vaccines don't prevent infection to begin with, you'd expect to see a larger percentage of infected who were previously vaccinated simply because of a larger percentage of the total population having been vaccinated.  One also can't discount that the vaccinated may be "riskier" in their behavior, leading to more of them being infected then those who aren't vaccinated and still hiding in their basements.

It's data, not a conclusion. There's undoubtedly confounders.
The real point is simply to emphasize that so much of the madness we see (e.g. demonization of outgroup, mandatory injections, social credit passports, concentration camps) are based on completely nonscientific indeed contrary-to-all-evidence assumptions about who is infected and spreading Sars-Cov-2.

Fair enough, but we also need to recognize that anti-vaxxers may draw the wrong conclusion that being vaccinated will lead to being more susceptible to getting infected.

If the data supports that conclusion, how exactly can you label it "wrong"?

Because it doesn't.  The data does not show that you'll be more likely to catch covid as a result of being vaccinated.

What it does show is that if most of your population is vaccinated and most of the infected are vaccinated, then:

1. The expected ratio of vaxed to unvaxed who got covid correlates to the ratio of vaxed to  unvaxed of the overall population.

2. Vaccines aren't stopping infections from happening.

1. That isn't what the USA Today article says: "More than 35% of eligible Americans, including 28% of adults, still aren't fully vaccinated." So 75% of the covid cases are occurring in the 65% of the vaccinated population, and 25% of the covid cases are occurring in the 35% of the not-vaccinated population. That tells me that, at least in terms of becoming a reported covid case, being vaccinated provides no better protection that not being vaccinated.

2. Isn't that the purpose of a "vaccine", to stop infections from happening?

I'm not saying that the vaccines are providing protection.  I'm stating that they do not offer any significant level of protection against infection, but cautioning that it doesn't mean that you're *more* likely to get infected if you've been vaccinated.

And, no - non-sterilizing vaccines are not intended to prevent infections.  We've just never been made aware of that fact despite the flu vaccine being non-sterilizing.  Veterinarians have been aware of this for years because some of the vaccines they administer are definitely in this category (I'm looking at you, bordetella...)

[dkabq]

I don't necessarily know that those conclusions are correct.  In countries with high vaccination rates, if the vaccines don't prevent infection to begin with, you'd expect to see a larger percentage of infected who were previously vaccinated simply because of a larger percentage of the total population having been vaccinated.  One also can't discount that the vaccinated may be "riskier" in their behavior, leading to more of them being infected then those who aren't vaccinated and still hiding in their basements.

It's data, not a conclusion. There's undoubtedly confounders.
The real point is simply to emphasize that so much of the madness we see (e.g. demonization of outgroup, mandatory injections, social credit passports, concentration camps) are based on completely nonscientific indeed contrary-to-all-evidence assumptions about who is infected and spreading Sars-Cov-2.

Fair enough, but we also need to recognize that anti-vaxxers may draw the wrong conclusion that being vaccinated will lead to being more susceptible to getting infected.

If the data supports that conclusion, how exactly can you label it "wrong"?

Because it doesn't.  The data does not show that you'll be more likely to catch covid as a result of being vaccinated.

What it does show is that if most of your population is vaccinated and most of the infected are vaccinated, then:

1. The expected ratio of vaxed to unvaxed who got covid correlates to the ratio of vaxed to  unvaxed of the overall population.

2. Vaccines aren't stopping infections from happening.

1. That isn't what the USA Today article says: "More than 35% of eligible Americans, including 28% of adults, still aren't fully vaccinated." So 75% of the covid cases are occurring in the 65% of the vaccinated population, and 25% of the covid cases are occurring in the 35% of the not-vaccinated population. That tells me that, at least in terms of becoming a reported covid case, being vaccinated provides no better protection that not being vaccinated.

2. Isn't that the purpose of a "vaccine", to stop infections from happening?

I'm not saying that the vaccines are providing protection.  I'm stating that they do not offer any significant level of protection against infection, but cautioning that it doesn't mean that you're *more* likely to get infected if you've been vaccinated.

And, no - non-sterilizing vaccines are not intended to prevent infections.  We've just never been made aware of that fact despite the flu vaccine being non-sterilizing.  Veterinarians have been aware of this for years because some of the vaccines they administer are definitely in this category (I'm looking at you, bordetella...)

I agree that you did not say that vaccines are providing protection from infection or transmission. And that there are other confounding factors that could be the cause of there being a disparity in the vacced/unvacced and vacced covid cases/unvacced covid cases.

That said, St. Fauci, et al. were proffering the vaccines as sterilizing (e.g., vax or mask, herd immunity) up until practically yesterday.

As a layman, other than the flu vaccine, I was unaware of the non-sterilizing/sterilizing categorization, nor that there were many vaccines that are non-sterilizing.

That said, I am still sticking with: worst...vaccine...ever...

[Zelen]

I'm not saying that the vaccines are providing protection.  I'm stating that they do not offer any significant level of protection against infection, but cautioning that it doesn't mean that you're *more* likely to get infected if you've been vaccinated.

UK HSA does demonstrate that vaccinated people are more likely to get infected. Could be there are some other variables that are affecting this? Sure. Should it be a red flag? Yes.

Similarly, the study linked suggests a correlation between a higher % of the population vaccinated, and rates of infection. Could be there are some other variables that are affecting this? Sure. Should it be a red flag? Yes.

[Kiero]

I'm not saying that the vaccines are providing protection.  I'm stating that they do not offer any significant level of protection against infection, but cautioning that it doesn't mean that you're *more* likely to get infected if you've been vaccinated.

And, no - non-sterilizing vaccines are not intended to prevent infections.  We've just never been made aware of that fact despite the flu vaccine being non-sterilizing.  Veterinarians have been aware of this for years because some of the vaccines they administer are definitely in this category (I'm looking at you, bordetella...)

If they're non-sterlising, they're not vaccines. They're therapeutic treatments.

These are shitty therapeutic treatments which don't even do what they were designed to do.

[Eirikrautha]

I don't necessarily know that those conclusions are correct.  In countries with high vaccination rates, if the vaccines don't prevent infection to begin with, you'd expect to see a larger percentage of infected who were previously vaccinated simply because of a larger percentage of the total population having been vaccinated.  One also can't discount that the vaccinated may be "riskier" in their behavior, leading to more of them being infected then those who aren't vaccinated and still hiding in their basements.

It's data, not a conclusion. There's undoubtedly confounders.
The real point is simply to emphasize that so much of the madness we see (e.g. demonization of outgroup, mandatory injections, social credit passports, concentration camps) are based on completely nonscientific indeed contrary-to-all-evidence assumptions about who is infected and spreading Sars-Cov-2.

Fair enough, but we also need to recognize that anti-vaxxers may draw the wrong conclusion that being vaccinated will lead to being more susceptible to getting infected.

If the data supports that conclusion, how exactly can you label it "wrong"?

Because it doesn't.  The data does not show that you'll be more likely to catch covid as a result of being vaccinated.

What it does show is that if most of your population is vaccinated and most of the infected are vaccinated, then:

1. The expected ratio of vaxed to unvaxed who got covid correlates to the ratio of vaxed to  unvaxed of the overall population.

2. Vaccines aren't stopping infections from happening.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any data in your post that justifies your conclusions and eliminates other potential conclusions.  Just your assertions that your conclusions are the correct ones.  Do you hate science?

[3catcircus]

I'm not saying that the vaccines are providing protection.  I'm stating that they do not offer any significant level of protection against infection, but cautioning that it doesn't mean that you're *more* likely to get infected if you've been vaccinated.

UK HSA does demonstrate that vaccinated people are more likely to get infected. Could be there are some other variables that are affecting this? Sure. Should it be a red flag? Yes.

Similarly, the study linked suggests a correlation between a higher % of the population vaccinated, and rates of infection. Could be there are some other variables that are affecting this? Sure. Should it be a red flag? Yes.

That's the issue - taking the clotshot isn't what is driving them to be more likely to be infected except the public has been led to believe it will.  It's the alteration of behavior resulting from the incorrect belief that they're now not going to be infected - less masks, less social distancing, more risk.  We know (some of us will before others) that this is a non-sterilizing vaccine, so it's not going to prevent transmission - it'll only moderate symptoms.

This entire thing is a shit-show caused by scientifically illiterate government officials taking the word of medical bureaucrats and of scientists who are not as smart as they think they are.  Some of these guys have never actually produced any science of merit - such as Ferguson's infamous computer models that have *never* been correct - whether for covid or climate change.

Those of us who have experience with complex system-of-systems problems and an understanding of probablistic risk assessment are seeing this thing play out as pretty much anticipated. You'll never get rid of COVID-19 because nob-sterilizing vaccines and an animal reservoir(s) make ideal conditions for mutations that make it easier for the virus to become endemic.  Omicron, if the initial data pans out, is the endemic form of the virus - infecting vaxed and unvaxed but not causing serious symptoms.

[3catcircus]

I don't necessarily know that those conclusions are correct.  In countries with high vaccination rates, if the vaccines don't prevent infection to begin with, you'd expect to see a larger percentage of infected who were previously vaccinated simply because of a larger percentage of the total population having been vaccinated.  One also can't discount that the vaccinated may be "riskier" in their behavior, leading to more of them being infected then those who aren't vaccinated and still hiding in their basements.

It's data, not a conclusion. There's undoubtedly confounders.
The real point is simply to emphasize that so much of the madness we see (e.g. demonization of outgroup, mandatory injections, social credit passports, concentration camps) are based on completely nonscientific indeed contrary-to-all-evidence assumptions about who is infected and spreading Sars-Cov-2.

Fair enough, but we also need to recognize that anti-vaxxers may draw the wrong conclusion that being vaccinated will lead to being more susceptible to getting infected.

If the data supports that conclusion, how exactly can you label it "wrong"?

Because it doesn't.  The data does not show that you'll be more likely to catch covid as a result of being vaccinated.

What it does show is that if most of your population is vaccinated and most of the infected are vaccinated, then:

1. The expected ratio of vaxed to unvaxed who got covid correlates to the ratio of vaxed to  unvaxed of the overall population.

2. Vaccines aren't stopping infections from happening.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any data in your post that justifies your conclusions and eliminates other potential conclusions.  Just your assertions that your conclusions are the correct ones.  Do you hate science?

That I'm questioning the data and the conclusions and putting out there a different potential set of conclusions *is* science...

[Kiero]

That's the issue - taking the clotshot isn't what is driving them to be more likely to be infected except the public has been led to believe it will.  It's the alteration of behavior resulting from the incorrect belief that they're now not going to be infected - less masks, less social distancing, more risk.  We know (some of us will before others) that this is a non-sterilizing vaccine, so it's not going to prevent transmission - it'll only moderate symptoms.

Er, no. Taking the clotshot suppresses at least temporarily and possibly causes permanent damage to the immune system.

Covid zealots are much more likely to abide by all the theatre of masking and distancing than people who don't give a shit about the jabs.

This entire thing is a shit-show caused by scientifically illiterate government officials taking the word of medical bureaucrats and of scientists who are not as smart as they think they are.  Some of these guys have never actually produced any science of merit - such as Ferguson's infamous computer models that have *never* been correct - whether for covid or climate change.

Those of us who have experience with complex system-of-systems problems and an understanding of probablistic risk assessment are seeing this thing play out as pretty much anticipated. You'll never get rid of COVID-19 because nob-sterilizing vaccines and an animal reservoir(s) make ideal conditions for mutations that make it easier for the virus to become endemic.  Omicron, if the initial data pans out, is the endemic form of the virus - infecting vaxed and unvaxed but not causing serious symptoms.

The issue isn't that the medical bureaucrats and scientists aren't as smart as they think they are. It's that they're corrupt as fuck and in the pockets of Big Pharma.

We'll never "get rid of COVID-19" because coronaviruses have always been endemic. You can't get rid of something that's always been there and always will be.

[Mistwell]

Kiero is not going to like this one, though it's accurate:

[Kiero]

Kiero is not going to like this one, though it's accurate:

Source would be nice, there's no attribution on there.

It looks like total bollocks to me, given the actual results in the real world, whereby the jabbed die more frequently than the unjabbed:



That's based on UK government official statistics as of last week, not a curated "study" paid for by a jab manufacturer.

[Zelen]

That's the issue - taking the clotshot isn't what is driving them to be more likely to be infected except the public has been led to believe it will.  It's the alteration of behavior resulting from the incorrect belief that they're now not going to be infected - less masks, less social distancing, more risk.  We know (some of us will before others) that this is a non-sterilizing vaccine, so it's not going to prevent transmission - it'll only moderate symptoms.

That's a hypothesis, but it's a weak one IMO. There's little evidence that any NPIs had any meaningful impact on transmission rates. The evidence is pretty clear at this point that masks are ineffective. They have failed in every RCT to demonstrate any statistically-significant positive impact (even the Bangladesh study), and the real-world data actually suggests that masks have a negative impact.

Social distancing and hygiene behaviors may have a positive impact, but I think it's unlikely that a higher infection rate among the injected is accounted for by these behavioral factors. In UK HSA all age groups over 30 have between 25% to 130% higher infection rates. I'm not aware of any data that would suggest we could expect this degree of difference based on behavior, especially since (IMO) the injection-free cohort is much more likely to not care about social distancing or masking or other aspects of pandemic theater.