Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[LeafByNiggle]

If your vaccine provides fleeting protection in the months of July and August but you get infected in September, then it failed to protect you from infection.

No, it just failed to protect you from infection in September. But it succeeded in protecting you from infection earlier. That is a good thing. It is not a total failure. If the rate of reproduction of the virus falls below 1.00, then the virus will eventually die out in the population. But currently the rate of reproduction is somewhat higher than 1.00, which means that for every person infection, that person on average will infect somewhat more that 1 other person, which leads to exponential spread. When enough people have been vaccinated, or have survived a recent infection, or just plain old died without infecting anyone, then the exponential spread will be reversed and the virus will decline to a low level, which is probably the best we can hope, for total removal from the wild has only happened with one other virus in human history, and that was small pox. We came close to eradicating polio world-wide, but it remained in just three countries. And now, after decades of not needing the polio vaccine in the US, the virus has just turned up detected in the waste water in New York City. No actual victim has been found yet, but since most of the US population is no longer vaccinated against polio, it would be really bad if it once again got a foothold here. So the covid vaccines are keeping people alive and are helping to reduce infections. They are not as big a success as we would have liked, but they are definitely not a failure.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not really. Public health agencies have been working overtime to discredit themselves.

No, certain right-wing extremists have been working overtime to discredit public health agencies, because it is an element of their faith to discredit all forms of authority.

How? If everyone is going to get COVID as the White House said after Biden got it, what does it matter if it prevents an infection in July but does not prevent an infection in August?

The more people that get it, the more people will die, and the more they will miss work, and the more they will suffer long term consequences.

Or, people getting infections have developed protection from their prior infection.

Surviving an infection does provide a limited period of partial immunity, just like the vaccine, but to a much less uniform degree and with much more risk. It is a dangerous way to achieve brief immunity.

The CDC (finally) this is the case in their new guidance out last week. This is, in fact, how every pandemic has come to an end.

"The pandemic has come to an end" is a statement about public policy, and only tangentially about a medical reality. The reality is that covid is still killing people at a rate that is 6 to 7 as many as a typical flu season. The 1918-1920 flu pandemic reduced the world population by over 2% because we did not have any vaccines. We can do better to get through this pandemic without losing so many people.

Unfortunately, COVID vaccines have become a new kind of ideologic religion, where you just have to "believe" in them hard enough.

No, that's what certain right-wing extremists have been saying to try to deflect from the fact that it is their own ideological religion that requires the demolition of all authority.

Of course, this ignores millions of unvaccinated people who got COVID and also had a very mild disease.

Just saying "millions got COVID with mild symptoms" without quantifying it and comparing to the numbers for vaccinated people, and the number of hospitalized is an unscientific appeal to intuition, because science is too authoritative by that religion.

 

[Estrid]

I'm glad to see at least you admit that COVID vaccines will completely fail to prevent infections.

Check your facts. I reluctantly confessed no such thing.
I don't do relevant confessions.
You cannot show a fact to support your obviously
absurd claim about complete failure.

 

[Estrid]

Can you name the three endpoints in the original Pfizer clinical trial?


How do you account for unvaccinated people who also had a low fever for a day? If you believe the cause of your low fever for a day was the vaccine, it seems to call into question that hypothesis when unvaccinated people have the same results.

You name the commercial claims.
I think it very probable the shots provided me with a
greatly enhanced ability to quickly fight off the disease.
You don't?
Maybe check some facts re outcomes for vaccinatted v unvaccinated.

Diseases are mysterious. They appear, disappear,
strike one and not another. Nobody has all the
answers.
Mom had two siblings who got measles, which is
of course super contagious in a small HK flat.
She didn't get it.
You tell me why. I am not the one pretending
to know more about disease prevention than
any specialist.

 

[probinson]

Check your facts. I reluctantly confessed no such thing.
I don't do relevant confessions.
You cannot show a fact to support your obviously
absurd claim about complete failure.

I said that vaccines have completely failed to prevent infections, which is the only explanation for how EVERYONE will get COVID. They will ultimately fail to protect EVERYONE from infection.

Do you believe EVERYONE is going to get COVID? If you do, then you believe there will be a 100% breakthrough infection rate, or a complete failure to prevent infection.

 

[Estrid]

Not really. Public health agencies have been working overtime to discredit themselves.


How? If everyone is going to get COVID as the White House said after Biden got it, what does it matter if it prevents an infection in July but does not prevent an infection in August?



Or, people getting infections have developed protection from their prior infection. The CDC (finally) this is the case in their new guidance out last week. This is, in fact, how every pandemic has come to an end.



Yeah, we don't see that at all. In fact, annual flu vaccine uptake is a very poor predictor of the burden of a flu season.

Unfortunately, COVID vaccines have become a new kind of ideologic religion, where you just have to "believe" in them hard enough. That's why people who get COVID have a prepared script that says, "I'm so thankful for my COVID vaccine because my infection would have been so much worse without it." Of course, this ignores millions of unvaccinated people who got COVID and also had a very mild disease. Heck, some disease is so mild, you need a test to tell you that you're sick. But graciously, all of this completely useless asymptomatic testing is coming to an end, much to the chagrin of the testing companies I'm sure.

July / August?

What nonsense.

It reduces the severity of the infection. If that ain't good enuf
for ya, then it's not.

 

[probinson]

July / August?

What nonsense.

Indeed. Yet the study posted showing that vaccines prevented infections was limited to just a few months over a year ago. Not exactly compelling stuff.

 

[Estrid]

I said that vaccines have completely failed to prevent infections, which is the only explanation for how EVERYONE will get COVID. They will ultimately fail to protect EVERYONE from infection.

Do you believe EVERYONE is going to get COVID? If you do, then you believe there will be a 100% breakthrough infection rate, or a complete failure to prevent infection.

I relectantly confessed to nothing.
This is a falsehood of yours which you here sidestep
and try to throw back at me.
You have zero ( 0 ) facts for your impossible to
prove claim of "complete / 100% failure".

Deal honestly with those and then we can see if
your gotcha attempt has any speck of merit.

Indeed. Yet the study posted showing that vaccines prevented infections was limited to just a few months over a year ago. Not exactly compelling stuff.

Nobody knows for how long the vaccines will work.
Time will tell to some extent.
Your opinion from one unidentified
study is a good example
of why we have the word " facile".



How Long Will Your Coronavirus Vaccination Last?.

 

[probinson]

You name the commercial claims.

So you don't know? Here you are arguing that the vaccines were never intended to prevent infection, yet you don't even know that one of the endpoints of the study was number of infections prevented?

Out of ~40,000 people, 170 got COVID. 162 in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccinated group.
Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints | Pfizer

Odd that the vaccine was approved on its ability to prevent infections if it was never intended to prevent infections.

I think it very probable the shots provided me with a
greatly enhanced ability to quickly fight off the disease.
You don't?
Maybe check some facts re outcomes for vaccinatted v unvaccinated.

Well, I know multiple unvaccinated people who had COVID that also quickly fought off the disease and would describe it as a "mild cold". They can't credit the vaccine for their mild infections because they never had a vaccine. So while yes, it's plausible that the vaccine provided you with protection from a more severe infection, it's also quite plausible that it did absolutely nothing to reduce the severity of the disease.

Diseases are mysterious. They appear, disappear,
strike one and not another. Nobody has all the
answers.

On that we can agree, which is why blanket recommendations in healthcare are usually foolish.

Here's a great article calling for some nuance;
Zealotry and fundamentalism are a problem

 

[probinson]

I relectantly confessed to nothing.
This is a falsehood of yours which you here sidestep
and try to throw back at me.
You have zero ( 0 ) facts for your impossible to
prove claim of "complete / 100% failure".

Deal honestly with those and then we can see if
your gotcha attempt has any speck of merit.

It's a simple question; Do you believe EVERYONE is going to get COVID? If your answer is "yes", then the vaccines will fail to prevent infection in EVERYONE. It's really not that complicated. "Experts" have told us that everyone is going to get COVID, regardless of their vaccination status. The CDC's new guidelines don't even distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated any more.

I understand why you can't just answer this question honestly. To actually hear yourself say that the vaccine will completely fail to prevent infection in everyone, you have to overcome an immense amount of cognitive dissonance in your beliefs concerning the vaccine.

Nobody knows for how long the vaccines will work.
Time will tell to some extent.
Your opinion from one unidentified
study is a good example
of why we have the word " facile".

How Long Will Your Coronavirus Vaccination Last?.

Well, it doesn't last that long. We're already discussing dose 4 (or 5) in less than 2 years. Needing "boosted" just 5 months after you finish your initial 2-dose course is a great way to tacitly admit that the protection you received from the vaccine is remarkably fleeting. Pfizer's stockholders absolutely agree that the protection is fleeting and you need more and more and more doses.

 

[Estrid]

So you don't know? Here you are arguing that the vaccines were never intended to prevent infection, yet you don't even know that one of the endpoints of the study was number of infections prevented?

Out of ~40,000 people, 170 got COVID. 162 in the placebo group and 8 in the vaccinated group.
Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints | Pfizer

Odd that the vaccine was approved on its ability to prevent infections if it was never intended to prevent infections.



Well, I know multiple unvaccinated people who had COVID that also quickly fought off the disease and would describe it as a "mild cold". They can't credit the vaccine for their mild infections because they never had a vaccine. So while yes, it's plausible that the vaccine provided you with protection from a more severe infection, it's also quite plausible that it did absolutely nothing to reduce the severity of the disease.



On that we can agree, which is why blanket recommendations in healthcare are usually foolish.

Here's a great article calling for some nuance;
Zealotry and fundamentalism are a problem

Show me where it was ever proposed that
the vaccine was supposed to prevent infection.

Careful with how you define infection.

And how exactly anyone on gods green earth
is going to know whether the vaccine prevented any infection,
or simply stopped the virus so quickly that it was wholly
unsymptomatic.

The behaviour of bureaucrats and politicians
in this connectionis of no interest to me

 

[probinson]

Show me where it was ever proposed that
the vaccine was supposed to prevent infection.

That was the endpoint of the trial.

~20,000 people were in the placebo group and there were 162 infections.
~20,000 people in the vaccine group and there were 8 infections.

For those of you keeping score at home, that means that ~39,830 out of ~40,000, or approximately 99.6% of EVERYONE in the trial, DID NOT get COVID, regardless of their vaccination status.

Nevertheless, Pfizer could claim a 95% efficacy because 162/40,000 = .00405 and 8/40,000 = .0002, and there is ~95% decrease from .00405 to .0002. Astute readers will not that the absolute risk reduction is 0.00385, but that doesn't sound nearly as impressive as 95%! Math!

Let's look at a different example. If you have 1 penny and I have 1 dime, I can use relative increase to try to convince people I am so much wealthier than you by stating that I have 900% more money than you! It's absolutely true! Of course, that claim loses some of its luster when people realize that the actual amount I have is only 9 cents more than you.

Careful with how you define infection.

I didn't design the study. But infections were confirmed with testing.

And how exactly anyone on gods green earth
is going to know whether the vaccine prevented,
or stopped the virus so quickly that it was wholly
unsymptomatic.

Irrelevant! Pfizer could claim 95% efficacy, and that's all that really mattered. Interestingly enough, your statements above are just a few of a myriad of reasons that typical vaccine development and approval takes 5-10 years.

The behaviour of bureaucrats and politicians
in this connectionis of no interest to me

Well OK, but Pfizer has an immense financial incentive to keep people needing vaccines. It absolutely should interest you. If not, you're incredibly naive at the glaring conflict of interest.

 

[Estrid]

It's a simple question; Do you believe EVERYONE is going to get COVID? If your answer is "yes", then the vaccines will fail to prevent infection in EVERYONE. It's really not that complicated. "Experts" have told us that everyone is going to get COVID, regardless of their vaccination status. The CDC's new guidelines don't even distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated any more.

I understand why you can't just answer this question honestly. To actually hear yourself say that the vaccine will completely fail to prevent infection in everyone, you have to overcome an immense amount of cognitive dissonance in your beliefs concerning the vaccine.



Well, it doesn't last that long. We're already discussing dose 4 (or 5) in less than 2 years. Needing "boosted" just 5 months after you finish your initial 2-dose course is a great way to tacitly admit that the protection you received from the vaccine is remarkably fleeting. Pfizer's stockholders absolutely agree that the protection is fleeting and you need more and more and more doses.

You understand very little re your " gotcha"
attempt with my saying " everyone".
I am quite honestly aware that hermits or
others utterly cut off from others won't get it.
Etc.
Maybe you figure "I love you a thousand ways"
is dishonest.
Common usage of " everyone" and such is not intended
to be an absolute. If I wasn't precise enough for you,
bite me. YOU otoh won't even uance your 100 percent
complete nonsense.

But I understand why you keep trying to flip things back
on me when I call out your whoppers.


Why repeat similar nonsense about expected
time the vaccines will work ( didn't you say they don't work?)
See cog dis!

As the article I linked to said, effectiveness decreases at
variable rates. It's too early to know.

Your smallpox vaccination would no longer work if
you were exposed.

Big surprise that covid shots perform in a way similar to
other shots?

 

[Estrid]

That was the endpoint of the trial.

~20,000 people were in the placebo group and there were 162 infections.
~20,000 people in the vaccine group and there were 8 infections.

For those of you keeping score at home, that means that ~39,830 out of ~40,000, or approximately 99.6% of EVERYONE in the trial, DID NOT get COVID, regardless of their vaccination status.

Nevertheless, Pfizer could claim a 95% efficacy because 162/40,000 = .00405 and 8/40,000 = .0002, and there is ~95% decrease from .00405 to .0002. Astute readers will not that the absolute risk reduction is 0.00385, but that doesn't sound nearly as impressive as 95%! Math!

Let's look at a different example. If you have 1 penny and I have 1 dime, I can use relative increase to try to convince people I am so much wealthier than you by stating that I have 900% more money than you! It's absolutely true! Of course, that claim loses some of its luster when people realize that the actual amount I have is only 9 cents more than you.



I didn't design the study. But infections were confirmed with testing.



Irrelevant! Pfizer could claim 95% efficacy, and that's all that really mattered. Interestingly enough, your statements above are just a few of a myriad of reasons that typical vaccine development and approval takes 5-10 years.


Well OK, but Pfizer has an immense financial incentive to keep people needing vaccines. It absolutely should interest you. If not, you're incredibly naive at the glaring conflict of interest.

So much smokescreen.
Just admit it that you can't produce what I asked
for because it does not exist.

 

[probinson]

You understand very little re your " gotcha"
attempt with my saying " everyone".

I am quite honestly aware that hermits or
others utterly cut off from others won't get it.
Etc.
Maybe you figure "I love you a thousand ways"
is dishonest.
Common usage of " everyone" and such is not intended
to be an absolute. If I wasn't precise enough for you,
bite me. YOU otoh won't even uance your 100 percent
complete nonsense.

But I understand why you keep trying to flip things back
on me when I call out your whoppers.

Spin. It's what you do.

Dr. Fauci said, "Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody." This isn't intended to be a "gotcha" moment. It's an admission that the vaccines prevent infections. The only reason you're having such a hard time admitting it is because vaccines have become like a sacred cow.

I realize that "just about everybody" isn't quite the same as "everyone", and I have no doubt that you'll spend an entire post spinning away from the obvious fact that even Dr. Fauci admits, that COVID vaccines do not prevent infections.

Why repeat similar nonsense about expected
time the vaccines will work ( didn't you say they don't work?)

I said they don't work to prevent infections. Because they don't.

As the article I linked to said, effectiveness decreases at
variable rates. It's too early to know.

Your smallpox vaccination would no longer work if
you were exposed.

Wow. That's quite an (unverified) claim.

Big surprise that covid shots perform in a way similar to
other shots?

That's simply not true. You mentioned you had family members with measles. Let's take a look at what happened to measles infections after the introduction of the measles vaccines;

You can see a clear correlation and causative effect after the introduction of the measles vaccines and the almost complete elimination of measles infections. No such correlation exists anywhere in the world with COVID vaccines.

These COVID vaccines behave nothing like an effective vaccine. This idea that vaccines don't prevent you from getting the disease but just protect you from severe outcomes is a relatively new assertion. It has always been understood that vaccines prevent infections, until the COVID vaccines came along and it became undeniable that they didn't do that.

 

[probinson]

So much smokescreen.
Just admit it that you can't produce what I asked
for because it does not exist.

What are you talking about? I just showed you that the endpoint of the clinical trial for the COVID vaccines was prevented infections, which you say no one ever claimed the COVID vaccines would do. But your attempt at historical revisionism simply doesn't measure up to reality.

What do you want to see? I linked you DIRECTLY to Pfizer to show you that their claims were around prevented infections, not in reduction of severe disease or death. That was a pivot later when it became undeniable that the vaccines DID NOT prevent infections.

 

[probinson]

Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, has tweeted this morning that he has COVID. He's taken four (Pfizer) vaccines and is now going to start a course of (Pfizer) Paxlovid. And of course, he's very thankful that he has the four vaccines, that didn't prevent him from becoming symptomatically ill, and is especially thankful for Paxlovid, which may well cause him to experience symptoms longer if he's one of the (not so) rare people who experience a rebound infection.

Can't make it up.

 

[probinson]

Just look at all these people that are so thankful that their vaccine didn't prevent them from being infected!

 

[Estrid]

What are you talking about? I just showed you that the endpoint of the clinical trial for the COVID vaccines was prevented infections, which you say no one ever claimed the COVID vaccines would do. But your attempt at historical revisionism simply doesn't measure up to reality.

What do you want to see? I linked you DIRECTLY to Pfizer to show you that their claims were around prevented infections, not in reduction of severe disease or death. That was a pivot later when it became undeniable that the vaccines DID NOT prevent infections.

Quote the line that backs your story.
Makes sure you include where it says that
vaccinated people who recover quickly are just
as likely as the unprotected to spread the disease.

 

[Estrid]

Spin. It's what you do.

Dr. Fauci said, "Omicron, with its extraordinary, unprecedented degree of efficiency of transmissibility, will ultimately find just about everybody." This isn't intended to be a "gotcha" moment. It's an admission that the vaccines prevent infections. The only reason you're having such a hard time admitting it is because vaccines have become like a sacred cow.

I realize that "just about everybody" isn't quite the same as "everyone", and I have no doubt that you'll spend an entire post spinning away from the obvious fact that even Dr. Fauci admits, that COVID vaccines do not prevent infections.



I said they don't work to prevent infections. Because they don't.



Wow. That's quite an (unverified) claim.



That's simply not true. You mentioned you had family members with measles. Let's take a look at what happened to measles infections after the introduction of the measles vaccines;

View attachment 319740

You can see a clear correlation and causative effect after the introduction of the measles vaccines and the almost complete elimination of measles infections. No such correlation exists anywhere in the world with COVID vaccines.

These COVID vaccines behave nothing like an effective vaccine. This idea that vaccines don't prevent you from getting the disease but just protect you from severe outcomes is a relatively new assertion. It has always been understood that vaccines prevent infections, until the COVID vaccines came along and it became undeniable that they didn't do that.

" It has always been underwood" , has it?
That is your misunderstanding.
Vaccines FAQ - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

It's nicely highlighted in purple.

Care to admit you were wrong?

Or will the actual spinmeister stop projecting and
commence to rotate.