Cornell University - Vaccination not Preventing Infection

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your gut instinct is biased by definition. It's nothing more than an emotional affirmation of what you already think, it has nothing to do with being correct, you just think it does because you already believe you are correct in your views.
Lol, circular thinking. We all rely on our instincts to decide if a piece of information is correct.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,602
71
Bondi
✟248,969.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why change what works?

If you don't employ System 2 thinking - that is, a conscious and logical appraisal of all the relevant available information, then you won't know if you are right or wrong. If you just go with System 1 (your 'gut instinct' - as you said you do quite often and as you have in this case) then it will always give you what you will consider to be the right answer. By definition. That's what it's for. You only discover if you are wrong by consciously thinking about it later

I strongly recommend going with your gut instinct if you think someone has just taken a shot at you. Thinking about whether you should duck is a bad idea. Use System 1. If it was a car backfiring then you just look stupid. If it was a gunshot, then you live to fight on. But decisions on what should be and should not be taught in schools? Well, let's say that you've just told everyone you haven't really thought about it.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,706
10,602
71
Bondi
✟248,969.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Lol, circular thinking. We all rely on our instincts to decide if a piece of information is correct.

Tell me if these statements are right or wrong:

Paris is the capital of France.

You knew that instinctively. That was System 1 in operation. It took no conscious thought.

25x17 = 435.

Is that right or not? Now you're using System 2. It takes some thought. Instinct is useless.

Religion should be taught in schools.

System 1 just kicked in immediately. And said yes. But then System 2 steps in and says 'Hang on. I take it we mean Christianity? Not any other religion? Is this teaching that all religions are equal? Is it 'comparative religion'? I need more info before I can give a definite answer'.

The statement in your post was System 1. You went with a preconceived idea which fitted in with your position. A gut reaction to another comment, prompted by bias. Which you have now learnt is wrong. And thinking about whether I am right or not and how you respond is employing System 2.

You should have used that first.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rambot
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Sure, let's look at Israel - Unvaxxed 10% of Israelis are 73% of serious cases, 65% of deaths

Unvaccinated adults now account for the majority of severe COVID-19 cases and fatalities in Israel, with over six of every 10 new severe cases recorded on Tuesday linked to this group.

Around 15 percent of eligible Israelis over the age of 12 (some 1,105,000 people) are still unvaccinated. Of this group, 10 percent (755,000 people) are over the age of 20 and constitute nearly all of the country’s serious cases and deaths.
Yes, a lot of people in Israel are vaccinated. And a good number of people in Israel are getting covid. But those two groups don't seem to have a lot of overlap.

So now that we've looked at Israel and learned this fact, what's the appropriate action to take here in the US?

To be clear, you've moved from talking about spread of infection to hospitalization data from Covid. The argument being made regarding forced vaccinations is that we're protecting others by reducing spread.

It's abundantly clear that vaccination doesn't seriously mitigate spread.

The Cornell community was one example of a highly vaccinated community having significantly higher spread than a similarly unvaccinated community. In of itself, it could simply be an aberration.

Other real-world data, however, shows us that this isn't an aberration.

99.7% of all adults in the county have been fully vaccinated against the virus, but according to figures released by the HSE, Waterford’s 14-day incidence rate per 100,000 of population currently stands at 404.6.

This is topped only by Co. Carlow, with an incidence rate of 405.7 per 100,000 of population.

Co. Waterford has recorded 470 new cases of Covid-19 in the last week, accounting for nearly 5% of the adult population.


Waterford has Ireland's second highest Covid-19 incidence rate despite fact 99.7% of residents are fully vaccinated - Irish America

Yes, there appears to be a correlation between being unvaccinated and having a more serious Covid infection if infected.

If you're going to change the topic from "reducing spread" (i.e. impact external to the individual) to "impact on hospitalization" (i.e. impact internal to the individual), then discussion of adverse effects/risk is directly relevant (risk to benefit assessment is needed to see if reduced Covid hospitalizations offset the negative effects).

I was going to respond yesterday regarding your question about "(what one doctor's testimony) say about vaccine safety specifically?" If it were only one doctor, it wouldn't say much. However, it's not one doctor.

Firstly, Dr. Patricia Lee notes that her other colleagues had similar experiences, but didn't speak up because either a) they were afraid to speak up because of reprisal or b) they didn't want to contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

“What we’re seeing is adverse events from these COVID vaccinations with our patients. And so we’re getting more and more alarmed,” he said. “And we want to just be able to talk about these adverse events that we’re seeing and not be silenced.”

Dr. Wesley Granger soon joined in.

“I have never in my 32-years of practicing medicine seen such a high rate of sudden heart attacks, strokes, neurological issues and patients who’ve never had a problem or risk factors associated with this. And so I just felt that I needed to do something more,” he said.


https://www.wlox.com/2021/09/20/mississippi-doctors-form-group-push-back-against-vaccine-mandates/

“I have practiced pediatric ICU for almost 15 years and I have never taken care of a single patient with a vaccine-related complication until now,” Ross told KHN. “Our standard for safety seems to be different for all the other vaccines we expose children to.”

Not All Experts Are Ready To Vaccinate Kids Against COVID



Opinion | Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?

What is continuing to happen is that doctors are coming forward presenting evidence of vaccine safety being misrepresented by the FDA and CDC and those doctors are being censured and threatened with their livelihoods when they speak out, yet they are still speaking out at great personal cost.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you don't employ System 2 thinking - that is, a conscious and logical appraisal of all the relevant available information, then you won't know if you are right or wrong. If you just go with System 1 (your 'gut instinct' - as you said you do quite often and as you have in this case) then it will always give you what you will consider to be the right answer. By definition. That's what it's for. You only discover if you are wrong by consciously thinking about it later

I strongly recommend going with your gut instinct if you think someone has just taken a shot at you. Thinking about whether you should duck is a bad idea. Use System 1. If it was a car backfiring then you just look stupid. If it was a gunshot, then you live to fight on. But decisions on what should be and should not be taught in schools? Well, let's say that you've just told everyone you haven't really thought about it.
You don't understand what I'm saying then. Thinking about something and then going with intuition has served me well. It's not perfect, but nothing in this world is. If you think it means not thinking, you are incorrect. For everything in life, we choose who to believe. Even if I do something as a trade, I can never live long enough to figure out everything on my own. So I take everyone's ideas into account and end up forming my own opinions on what works. That's the same thing we do with almost any subject if we are honest about it.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
To be clear, you've moved from talking about spread of infection to hospitalization data from Covid.

The data for infection is pretty tough to get. There's lots of confounding factors - testing rates, asymptomatic vs. symptomatic infections, plus the new strain hitting in the middle of a vaccine rollout. You've quoted numbers showing the vaccine was 40% to over 80% effective, depending on which research one follows. That's a wide enough range that it makes sense to look to other more reliable data to understand what's going on.

It's abundantly clear that vaccination doesn't seriously mitigate spread.

No it isn't. I mean, look at this thread where that claim was backed up by an analysis which completely missed the fact that last year a large percentage of classes were remote ... a pretty important change compared to this year. With basic mistakes like that as the supporting "evidence" for claims like this, it is hard to take empty assertions like this seriously.

If you have something backing up this claim, feel free to present it. Unfortunately, what we've seen so far is a pretty obvious miss in analyzing what's going on.

99.7% of all adults in the county have been fully vaccinated against the virus, but according to figures released by the HSE, Waterford’s 14-day incidence rate per 100,000 of population currently stands at 404.6.

This is topped only by Co. Carlow, with an incidence rate of 405.7 per 100,000 of population.

Co. Waterford has recorded 470 new cases of Covid-19 in the last week, accounting for nearly 5% of the adult population.

And how exactly does this back up your claim "that vaccination doesn't seriously mitigate spread"? I mean, no one thinks the vaccines are 100% effective, but how does cherry-picking a case rate in for one specific week in one particular location in isolation tell us anything?
I also can't help but note the pattern of throwing out data you want us to look at, and then changing the subject when that data is actually addressed. Seems like a bit of a diversion.

I was going to respond yesterday regarding your question about "(what one doctor's testimony) say about vaccine safety specifically?"

If it is what I'm thinking of, my question was more about how the doctor can simultaneously not know how many deaths occurred and at the same time claim that it is statistically unlikely that number of deaths could be caused by anything other than the vaccine. I don't see anything here addressing that question.

“I have never in my 32-years of practicing medicine seen such a high rate of sudden heart attacks, strokes, neurological issues and patients who’ve never had a problem or risk factors associated with this. And so I just felt that I needed to do something more,” he said.
Weird how none of these show up when actual research is done on the topic. Maybe the answer to anecdotes isn't more anecdotes?
But in any case, that's continuing to move further and further from the topic of the OP - the one where covid case rates were lower when a university had mostly remote classes last year. Perhaps start a new thread if you think that random anecdotes are the next great rationalization for avoiding getting vaccinated.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It’s not a reliable approach.
So, the reliable approach is to do every experiment on you own to find out what you believe about every subject? Good luck with that. Life isn't long enough. We all look at the data presented and decide for ourselves who and what to believe.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, the reliable approach is to do every experiment on you own to find out what you believe about every subject? Good luck with that. Life isn't long enough. We all look at the data presented and decide for ourselves who and what to believe.

There's a lot of difference between information-driven sources and the kind of emotive claptrap a lot of people seem to prefer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Cornell community was one example of a highly vaccinated community having significantly higher spread than a similarly unvaccinated community.
No, the Cornell community was one example of someone drawing unjustified conclusions from an invalid comparison. You measure the effectiveness of vaccines at preventing infection by comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated people under the same conditions, preferably by comparing them in the same population at the same time. Conditions in September 2020 and September 2021 weren't remotely similar: besides whatever (unknown) differences there were in behavior, the virus was roughly twice as infectious in 2021 and infection rates throughout the country were far higher then. Higher infection rates means more virus coming into Cornell in the later period, and therefore more people exposed.

The Cornell example is meaningless as an attempt to learn anything about the effectiveness of vaccines at preventing infection.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Statements like this? Maybe?

People are skeptical. The more hype some people see, the less interested they are. The media has had to walk back almost everything it has told us / assumed about the virus and the vaccines from day one. A lot of folks simply are not very interested in jumping on board with this.

Some are skeptical of how useful / necessary the vaccines are, some have religious or ethical concerns, some are creeped out by mandates and would like to not even step on the train. Others have had and recovered from covid, and don’t see a need. The reasons are diverse. They should be respected.

Let people make up their own minds about this.

And if there was less hype you people would just say, "If it's so serious why aren't they pushing to get us vaccinated."
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,494
13,119
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
The study demonstrates that. And that is why they state that a plan that relies heavily on vaccination is not going to be sufficient to limit spread.



I indicated that the vaccines were still performing in hospitalization. The issue discussed here was transmission. And you seem to concede that it won't make much difference until you get nearly to 100 percent, which was the point the study was making. Other measures are needed.
Maybe this is the problem: Are we talking about "Transmission" or "spread"? I mean, I'm not even totally sure I'm using them right but to me:
Transmisison: From person to person
Spread: Throughout a population

But has that point ever been argued? I'm pretty sure most vaccinations experts have always said we need a pretty significant portion of the population (like WELL over 90%).



Because real-world populations don't come in vaccinated and unvaccinated. So the strategies have to address mixed populations.
That's true. But hospital populations can be viewed that way; seperated by vaccine status. So why not use that data to address the spread through either population of vaccine COMPARED to unvaccinated?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,788
Pacific Northwest
✟728,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Lol, circular thinking. We all rely on our instincts to decide if a piece of information is correct.

Is that the right way to decide if a piece of information is correct?

I mean, even Scripture tells us that our instincts and feelings aren't reliable. The Prophet Jeremiah wrote "The heart is deceitful above all else, and desperately sick, who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

So why would you trust your own sinful, carnal belly to decide what is and isn't true?

The Apostle says that those who live as enemies of the cross serve their instincts, their appetites, "their god is their belly" (Philippians 3:19).

I pray that you do not take your gut-driven approach to matters of faith, as there are fewer things that will absolutely shipwreck our faith as to trust and rely on our own sinful, carnal, animal feelings and instincts.

"The soulish* person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14

*ψυχικὸς (psychikos), relating to the "soul", "soulish". The animal instincts, the passions and appetites, and ways of thinking in accordance with "the old Adam" as Paul describes it elsewhere.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Statements like this? Maybe?

People are skeptical. The more hype some people see, the less interested they are. The media has had to walk back almost everything it has told us / assumed about the virus and the vaccines from day one. A lot of folks simply are not very interested in jumping on board with this.

Some are skeptical of how useful / necessary the vaccines are, some have religious or ethical concerns, some are creeped out by mandates and would like to not even step on the train. Others have had and recovered from covid, and don’t see a need. The reasons are diverse. They should be respected.

Let people make up their own minds about this.
Sorry, but that is not being skeptical. You should have said: "Some people are science deniers". All of the evidence points towards the safety and efficacy of vaccines. People go out of their way to misunderstand how they work. The right wing sites are openly lying since many of them do understand the math involved.
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is that the right way to decide if a piece of information is correct?

I mean, even Scripture tells us that our instincts and feelings aren't reliable. The Prophet Jeremiah wrote "The heart is deceitful above all else, and desperately sick, who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

So why would you trust your own sinful, carnal belly to decide what is and isn't true?

The Apostle says that those who live as enemies of the cross serve their instincts, their appetites, "their god is their belly" (Philippians 3:19).

I pray that you do not take your gut-driven approach to matters of faith, as there are fewer things that will absolutely shipwreck our faith as to trust and rely on our own sinful, carnal, animal feelings and instincts.

"The soulish* person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14

*ψυχικὸς (psychikos), relating to the "soul", "soulish". The animal instincts, the passions and appetites, and ways of thinking in accordance with "the old Adam" as Paul describes it elsewhere.

-CryptoLutheran
If a person is inhabited by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't his gut instinct be to do what the Spirit nudges him to? Or to believe what the Spirit tells him has merit?
 
Upvote 0

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
Maybe this is the problem: Are we talking about "Transmission" or "spread"? I mean, I'm not even totally sure I'm using them right but to me:
Transmisison: From person to person
Spread: Throughout a population

But has that point ever been argued? I'm pretty sure most vaccinations experts have always said we need a pretty significant portion of the population (like WELL over 90%).

That's true. But hospital populations can be viewed that way; seperated by vaccine status. So why not use that data to address the spread through either population of vaccine COMPARED to unvaccinated?

At least one "vaccine expert" was pushing the concept of 70-75% vaccination would achieve return to normalcy.

MACCALLUM: When do you think we'll reach herd immunity in the United
States? Back to normal life?

FAUCI: You know, it's not necessarily going to be a matter of time, but a
matter of the percentage of people in the country who decide they do want
to get vaccinated.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

FAUCI: You know, after what we just mentioned about the confidence of the
people, the estimate is that you will need about 70 percent, maybe 75
percent of the people in the country vaccinating to get that umbrella of
herd immunity that will get us really on the road very close to being
normal. The sooner we do that, the better.


Fauci: America will reach herd immunity when 70% get COVID vaccine
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course we can when your decisions kill people and get them sick.
They don't, but even if they did, no, you can't make other people's decisions whether they decide to smoke, or drink or eat too many donuts, or drive recklessly. You still don't have that right.
 
Upvote 0