Coronavirus

[TheCatt]

Article

[Leisher]

Sanjay Gupta talk to Joe Rogan about some of Thib's arguments.

I was not impressed with that article. Maybe he let hubris get the better of him? It honestly doesn't sound like he prepared enough for the questions he knew he would get during the show.

I say that as someone that is vaxed.

[Leisher]

CDC says mixing and matching is fine.

A guy here at work had an infection that came from a bacteria that came from an unknown place. He has weird scarring on his face, neck, and chest. He wasn't in as bad a condition as me, but he was also out the same week. His doctors currently think his J&J shot is the culprit.

My infection was caused by an unknown bacteria (just found out yesterday). I got Pfizer and I'm certain we didn't get shots at the same time, but it's a weird coincidence.

This is not an anti-vax post, but it does make me wonder if perhaps some shortcuts were taken regarding sanitation in getting the vaccines rushed out.

[GORDON]

Maybe that's why some have an adverse reaction to it, and some don't.

[Troy]

J&J vaccine seems wack. In another world where we have more successful vaccines that one doesn’t clear the hurdle.

[Leisher]

Antidepressant might be anti-Covid.

[TheCatt]

Being vaccinated offers better protection than being infected: CDC study

A new study from the CDC finds that people with "natural" immunity through infection were more than five times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 compared to people who were fully vaccinated.

The study reviewed more than 7,000 people across nine states, measuring infections and hospitalization rates three to six months after either vaccination or initial infection. The study -- published in the CDC's weekly journal, the MMWR -- reaffirms prior research indicating that vaccines offer superior protection than natural immunity.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/live-upda ... d=80765039

I'll save Thib the time "Bullshit" - Thib

[thibodeaux]

That's so absurd it's laughable.

I refute it, thus:
https://brownstone.org/articles/79-rese ... nd-quoted/

Even Sanjay Gupta admits that immunity from infection is better than that from being "fully vaccinated" (hey, what even is "fully vaccinated" these days? 3 shots? 4? 1 shot every 6 months until you die of myocarditis?)

[Leisher]

Adult couple that assaulted Sesame Street worker over masks get to vacation in prison.

[thibodeaux]

Ok, ABC says:

A new study from the CDC finds that people with "natural" immunity through infection were more than five times more likely to become infected with COVID-19 compared to people who were fully vaccinated.

Here's the CDC web page:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

What is added by this report?

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations among adults aged ≥18 years whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier, the adjusted odds of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were 5.49-fold higher than the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who had no previous documented infection (95% confidence interval = 2.75–10.99).

That's where ABC get's the "more than 5 times."

This study only contains people who were hospitalized.

a total of 201,269 hospitalizations ...Among these patients, 7,348 (7.8%) had at least one other SARS-CoV-2 test result ≥14 days before hospitalization and met criteria for either of the two exposure categories: 1,020 hospitalizations were among previously infected and unvaccinated persons, and 6,328 were among fully vaccinated and previously uninfected patients (Table 1)

So, of the ~200k people in the hospital, ~7k met the criteria for the study.

Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified among 324 (5.1%) of 6,328 fully vaccinated persons and among 89 of 1,020 (8.7%) unvaccinated, previously infected persons

I don't know how they calculated 5.49, but whatever. I am not sure any of this means you can draw wider conclusions about the immunity of the general population.

[thibodeaux]

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but let me make sure I have grasped this study.

* A bunch of people went to the hospital with "COVID-19–like illness"
* Group A had tested positive for SARS-CoV2 at some point in the past but had NOT been vaccinated (the "natural immunity" group)
* Group B had tested negative for SARS-CoV2 at some point in the past but HAD been vaccinated
* Group C we don't care about because they weren't previously tested

When people from groups A and B were in the hospital for "COVID-19–like illness," they were given a test for SARS-CoV2. Less than 10% of either group actually did test positive, and Group A had a higher proportion test positive. Group B *was* like 6 times bigger but that doesn't prove anything. To prove stuff, you gotta science the shit out of it:

Odds ratios were adjusted for age, geographic region, calendar time (days since January 1, 2021), and local virus circulation (percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive results from testing within the counties surrounding the facility on the date of the hospitalization) and balanced using inverse weights on characteristics that differed between the two groups (calculated separately for each odds ratio model) using facility characteristics, sociodemographic characteristics, and underlying medical conditions. Cardiovascular disease was also adjusted in the main model and in the model for Pfizer-BioNTech. Any likely immunosuppression was also included in the model for Moderna. Neuromuscular and respiratory conditions were also adjusted in the model for adults aged ≥65 years. Number of days since previous infection or completion of vaccination, instead of calendar time, was adjusted in the model within the stated secondary analysis.

And from this, the CDC concludes:

All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

They don't even wave their hands, they just jump right to that. This is SCIENCE.

Edit: it actually says in the discussion "these results might not be generalizable to nonhospitalized patients who have different access to medical care or different health care–seeking behaviors, particularly outside of the nine states covered" but let's not let that affect our conclusion!

[thibodeaux]

Making sure this horse stays dead...

Table 2 at the bottom is interesting bc it examines different variables. The first entry is the "headline" finding:
aOR = 5.49 (2.75–10.99)

But a few rows down, they have the EXACT SAME inputs, only "adjusting for time since previous infection or completion of vaccination in model", and get:
aOR = 3.22 (1.68–6.20)

Ok, fine, whatever. It's SCIENCE, so there's no way to game the numbers to get whatever conclusion you want, I guess.

The last few rows are also interesting:
age 18–64, aOR = 2.57 (1.42–4.65)
age ≥65, aOR = 19.57 (8.34–45.91)

If the conclusion was: Olds should still get vaxxed, I *might* buy that.

[Leisher]

Most people have been exposed to misinformation and don't know what to believe anymore.

[TheCatt]

"People's trusted news sources are correlated with their belief in COVID-19 misinformation," the authors said. "At least a third of those who trust information from CNN, MSNBC, network news, NPR, and local television news do not believe any of the eight false statements, while small shares (between 11% and 16%) believe or are unsure about at least four of the eight false statements."
That's a positive sign -- it suggests that traditional sources are helping people separate real news from noise and nonsense.
Only 11% of those who trusted CNN's coverage believed four or more false statements, the smallest percentage out of any outlet reported on.
But sources like CNN and NPR are deeply distrusted by many Republicans. They gravitate toward Fox News and even-further-right channels like One America News instead. And Kaiser found that "nearly 4 in 10 of those who trust Fox News (36%) and One America News (37%), and nearly half (46%) of those who trust Newsmax, saying they believe or are unsure about at least half of the eight false statements."

AlL MeDIA Is EqUaLly BaD!1!

[Leisher]

AlL MeDIA Is EqUaLly BaD!1!

Considering all the MSM scandals, particularly of late, this is so laughably stupid it can only be bait.

[TheCatt]

AlL MeDIA Is EqUaLly BaD!1!

Considering all the MSM scandals, particularly of late, this is so laughably stupid it can only be bait.

Read the data above.

[Leisher]

AlL MeDIA Is EqUaLly BaD!1!

Considering all the MSM scandals, particularly of late, this is so laughably stupid it can only be bait.

Read the data above.

I did. It's one topic. You seriously are throwing out the mountain range of evidence from every other topic on the planet that the MSM is, at best, manipulating their audience just because on one topic [urlhttps://www.opensecrets.org/orgs//totals?id=D000039180&cycle=A]this organization[/url] decided left leaning outlets were better? The same outlets who in early 2020 said Trump was overreacting to the "China virus" and now pretend they and their preferred politicians never said such things?

CNN got caught on camera a few months back admitting they mislead people on the election and that their next target would be climate change, but that means nothing? I guess if you agree with it, it's fine if they lie to you?

The MSM thread is filled with examples of blatant lies, manipulative headlines, and so on from CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. I, literally, just posted a video today showing how left wing pundits still pushed and believed misinformation about the riots in Kenosha. Stuff that was debunked a year ago.

But sure, only the right wing outlets are the bad ones.

[TheCatt]

But sure, only the right wing outlets are the bad ones.

I've never said that, things are relative.

[Leisher]

But sure, only the right wing outlets are the bad ones.

I've never said that, things are relative.

I don't think things are relative. At least not here. I think there is more than enough verifiable proof that every MSM outlet has intentionally spun stories, manipulated their audience, blatantly lied, etc. So when someone says anything like this:

AlL MeDIA Is EqUaLly BaD!1!

That implies they're not all equally bad, which is incorrect based on the evidence.

They have one job: Report the facts. Once a MSM outlet begins to lie or spin the facts, they have failed at that job. It doesn't matter if one does it more often than another, they have both become equally worthless.

If your wife physically abused you every day, but my wife physically abused me only once a week, that doesn't mean I have the better wife because she's less physically abusive. They would both be pretty shitty. (See how I made that a super woke example!)

And just for clarification, I do separate getting stories wrong from this. That is allowable, but retractions must be made. Preferably not a silent and fast crawl ran during a commercial break...

Maybe I'm an idealist wanting the impossible, but it'd be really cool if we could get a MSM outlet that tells the truth 100% of the time.

Onto the topic of the thread, rich countries want booster shots now.

I'm actually eligible for a booster shot as of 4 days ago thanks to my recent hospital stay.

[TheCatt]

They have one job: Report the facts. Once a MSM outlet begins to lie or spin the facts, they have failed at that job. It doesn't matter if one does it more often than another, they have both become equally worthless.

So you have some objective data that one set of media properties are not reporting the facts, and another set mostly are, but they are all evil?

That's stupid.

If your wife physically abused you every day, but my wife physically abused me only once a week, that doesn't mean I have the better wife because she's less physically abusive. They would both be pretty shitty. (See how I made that a super woke example!)

They both cross a line, but one still crosses it more.

I'm actually eligible for a booster shot as of 4 days ago thanks to my recent hospital stay.

I went ahead this morning and got mine due to the family cancers + I'm going to Vegas in 3 weeks.