Rfk drops ball

[iluvatar5150]

It sure did. By a metric ton.

But apparently the researchers called it a "conservative estimate", meaning they thought it was even worse than their absurd model showed.



Let's presume that your counterfactual of things being "far, far worse" were true.

In 2020, there were 352,004 deaths between March 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020.

In 2021, there were 295,019 deaths between March 2, 2021 and December 30, 2021.

But remember, in the counterfactual assessment that 3.26 MILLION deaths had been averted, that means that an ADDITIONAL 4,460 deaths would have happened every day without vaccination. There are 303 days between March 2 and December 30, which means that there would have been an ADDITIONAL 1,351,380 deaths in that time period, for a TOTAL death count of 1,646,398 between March 2, 2021 and December 30, 2021.

That is an increase of over 367% from the same time period in 2020. Are you telling me that you think that's a plausible scenario? Is that what you mean by "far, far worse"?

Am I incredulous? You bet I am. The numbers simply do not add up.



I accounted for that in my calculations above by including the same number of days from each year.



That is precisely what their estimate claims. There's no way to "avert" 3.26 million deaths in 2 years without averting an average of 4,460 deaths every single day.

Why don't the numbers add up? They estimated that, by the end of 2022, there would have been an additional 120 million infections. According to Worldometer, by the end of 2022, we'd recorded about 103 million cases. These guys are proposing that, absent the vaccine, we'd have had a little more than double that. That doesn't strike me as implausible. For one thing, we know the number of reported cases is lower than the number of real cases, because some people were infected but asymptomatic and others were infected but went unreported. Lots of us took at-home tests that showed up as positive and just stayed home until whatever criteria was in place at the time said we were clear. Absent a vaccine, the disease would have spread more widely and would've caused more severe symptoms, which would've likely led to a higher rate of reporting among those who were positive.

Among their excess deaths, they predicted a mortality rate of 2.7%. While that's quite a bit higher than what the national numbers settled out at through 2021, it's well within the range (actually on the low side) of mortality rates seen by coastal urban states (e.g. MA, NY, CA) in early-mid 2020. I don't know if their predicted mortality rate is reasonable or not, but according to worldometer stats, the nationwide mortality rate in early 2021 was sitting somewhere around 1.85%. If their predicted number of cases was correct, but they stuck with the observed mortality rate of early 2021, then we'd still have wound up with something like 2.2 million more deaths.

 

[probinson]

Why don't the numbers add up? They estimated that, by the end of 2022, there would have been an additional 120 million infections. According to Worldometer, by the end of 2022, we'd recorded about 103 million cases. These guys are proposing that, absent the vaccine, we'd have had a little more than double that. That doesn't strike me as implausible.

Their model is stating that an average of 4,460 MORE people would have died every day for 2 years. Does that strike you as implausible?

For one thing, we know the number of reported cases is lower than the number of real cases, because some people were infected but asymptomatic and others were infected but went unreported.

Perhaps. But if they were infected with no symptoms, it's probably safe to say they wouldn't have died either.

Lots of us took at-home tests that showed up as positive and just stayed home until whatever criteria was in place at the time said we were clear. Absent a vaccine, the disease would have spread more widely and would've caused more severe symptoms, which would've likely led to a higher rate of reporting among those who were positive.

That's a lot of unproven assumptions.

The Pfizer clinical trial showed a relative risk reduction on around 95% but an absolute risk reduction of less than 1%. Of the ~40,000 people in the clinical trial 39,830 (99.57%) of them did not get COVID regardless of vaccination status. Further, the vaccine trials were never intended to test the prevention of infection. So I'm left wondering why you think it would have spread any more widely given that the vaccines did not prevent infections.

While this is all very interesting, at the end of the day it all boils down to whether you believe that 4,460 MORE people would have died every single day for two years straight. I find that to be quite implausible given the actual number of daily deaths. There's no logical reason to believe there would have been such a precipitous increase in deaths absent vaccination.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Their model is stating that an average of 4,460 MORE people would have died every day for 2 years. Does that strike you as implausible?

Their model doesn't predict that they would have been spread out evenly. I explained what their numbers described and why they weren't as outlandish as you've claimed.

That's a lot of unproven assumptions.

No, it really isn't, unless your contention is that the vaccines were entirely ineffective. My assumption is merely that the vaccines were effective by some amount. Removing the vaccines would mean that cases (reported or not) would go up, more people would get sick, more cases would get reported, and more people would die.

What would be an assumption is the magnitude of that increase, but I don't make any claims about that.

The Pfizer clinical trial showed a relative risk reduction on around 95% but an absolute risk reduction of less than 1%. Of the ~40,000 people in the clinical trial 39,830 (99.57%) of them did not get COVID regardless of vaccination status.

A reduction of 95% of relative risk means that infection rates without the vaccine would be 20x higher than with it. The article you're complaining about predicted an infection rate ~1.2x higher than what we saw.

Further, the vaccine trials were never intended to test the prevention of infection. So I'm left wondering why you think it would have spread any more widely given that the vaccines did not prevent infections.

Wow, there's a shifting of the goalposts. Even if the trials weren't intended to test the prevention of infection (I don't blindly accept your contention that that's true, but at the same time, I'm not going to investigate or argue it), that doesn't mean that 1.) the vaccines don't reduce infections or 2.) that subsequent studies haven't done those analyses. Plenty of studies have looked at that. Here are a few:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X23003766

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission to household contacts during dominance of Delta variant (B.1.617.2), the Netherlands, August to September 2021 - PMC

We estimated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against onward transmission by comparing secondary attack rates among household members for vaccinated and unvaccinated index cases, based on source and contact tracing data collected when the Delta ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination on Transmission: A Systematic Review

Vaccination against infectious disease affords direct protection from vaccine-induced immunity and additional indirect protection for unvaccinated persons. A systematic review was conducted to estimate the indirect effect of COVID-19 vaccination. From PubMed and Embase, 31 studies were included...

www.mdpi.com

While this is all very interesting, at the end of the day it all boils down to whether you believe that 4,460 MORE people would have died every single day for two years straight. I find that to be quite implausible given the actual number of daily deaths. There's no logical reason to believe there would have been such a precipitous increase in deaths absent vaccination.

You keep saying that, but you don't offer any explanation why aside from your own incredulity. Do you think their estimates of extra infections was too high? If so, why? Do you think their estimate of mortality rate was too high? If so, why? Where exactly do you think they went wrong?

If I were to guess, I'd think their mortality rate was too high - even before the vaccines rolled out, doctors got better at treating severe symptoms. and brought the mortality rates down even while infections were still going up. Those high mortality rates only existed at the beginning of the pandemic before doctors got a handle on things. But even if you go with a death rate of 1% (which was roughly the general average in 2021), you're still talking about well over a million people.

 

[probinson]

Their model doesn't predict that they would have been spread out evenly. I explained what their numbers described and why they weren't as outlandish as you've claimed.

That's true. But their model does predict 3.36 MILLION more deaths over 2 years. So if they are not spread out evenly, that means there would be days with EVEN MORE daily deaths.

Consider a single day that has only 500 more deaths. That means that there would have to be another day with 8,420 deaths to average out to 4,460. It's simple math.

You keep saying that, but you don't offer any explanation why aside from your own incredulity. Do you think their estimates of extra infections was too high? If so, why? Do you think their estimate of mortality rate was too high? If so, why? Where exactly do you think they went wrong?

Perhaps the better question is, why do you believe them? At no point BEFORE vaccination when the virus was truly novel did daily deaths even come close to the numbers that would be required to avert 3.36 million deaths. Why do you think there would have been a sudden and unexplained precipitous increase in the number of daily deaths without vaccination?

If I were to guess, I'd think their mortality rate was too high - even before the vaccines rolled out, doctors got better at treating severe symptoms. and brought the mortality rates down even while infections were still going up. Those high mortality rates only existed at the beginning of the pandemic before doctors got a handle on things. But even if you go with a death rate of 1% (which was roughly the general average in 2021), you're still talking about well over a million people.

So you think they were only off by over 2 million deaths over 2 years? If that's the case, you could throw spaghetti at the wall and come up with a more accurate guess.

 

[probinson]

Here's an interesting juxtaposition of Fauci's comments in 2021 and Birx's comments in 2022. You want to know why trust has been destroyed? Just listen to these two completely contrarian positions from two of the top people in charge of the US COVID-19 response.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The part that raised my eyebrow was:

(a) study the scope of the childhood chronic disease crisis and any potential contributing causes, including the American diet, ... electromagnetic radiation ...

I mean, yes, we should protect kids from sunburn, but I doubt that's what these yahoos are thinking.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

View attachment 362632

That's why I got rid of my land line years ago.

 

[BPPLEE]

View attachment 362632

Yes, cell phones emit radiation, specifically radiofrequency (RF) radiation, which is a form of non-ionizing radiation, like that used in FM radio waves and microwaves. While this radiation is present, current scientific evidence suggests that it does not pose a significant health risk, and there is no consistent evidence that it increases cancer risk in humans.

Sure it doesn't. At one time spraying kids with DDT didn't pose any significant health risks either

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's why I got rid of my land line years ago.

It’s why I work out of my windowless basement.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yes, cell phones emit radiation, specifically radiofrequency (RF) radiation, which is a form of non-ionizing radiation, like that used in FM radio waves and microwaves. While this radiation is present, current scientific evidence suggests that it does not pose a significant health risk, and there is no consistent evidence that it increases cancer risk in humans.

Sure it doesn't. At one time spraying kids with DDT didn't pose any significant health risks either

Well, we’ve been spewing RF into the air for over a century. If there’s a problem with it, surely it’d be detectable by now.

 

[BPPLEE]

Well, we’ve been spewing RF into the air for over a century. If there’s a problem with it, surely it’d be detectable by now.

Holding it against your head and carrying it in your pocket may be different from spewing it into the air

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk

For decades, there’s been a debate about whether radiation from cell phones could raise your risk of cancer. Find out what the research says, and learn some safer ways to use your phone.

www.webmd.com

In the case of cell phones and tumor risk, the fact that there have been studies that have landed on both sides of the fence on that one means it's not entirely crazy for someone to have concerns about it.


So, in terms of the various RFK theories, the cell phone one is by no means the craziest.


I'm still of the mindset that RFK is a "net good" in terms of his stances toward public health.

While I don't like his positions on the measles vaccines and truly feel he's wrong about that. The things he's absolutely right about are bigger public health threats to the US population.


The way I'd describe my feelings about RFK Jr is best demonstrated by a Frasier reference. (not sure who else was a fan of that show)

Frasier is torn about whether or not to continue supporting "Phil Patterson" (a point of conflict between him and his father Martin, who is supporting a right-wing candidate). While Frasier thinks Patterson is the guy who has the best ideas for Seattle, he finds out that Patterson believes he was abducted by aliens and feels conflicted about the guy's sanity, on account of Frasier being a psychologist, but ultimately ends up supporting Patterson.

That's how I feel about RFK Jr.

While I truly feel he's wrong about the MMR vaccines, I feel he's right about the sugar content, food additives, and stances on chronic conditions. And I feel that obesity and diabetes are a far bigger threat to the US population than measles. (even prior to a measles vaccine existing, measles in the US didn't even come close to racking up the kind of body count that obesity related conditions do)

In the time that people have been clutching pearls about the 2 recent measles deaths, 5,000 people have died from conditions relating to their obesity and poor diet. (two realms where RFK Jr. is scientifically sound, he's 100% right about the sugar content in foods, and he's 100% right about the fact that our foods are loaded up with crap that's not even allowed in many parts of the world)

 

[Laodicean60]

While I truly feel he's wrong about the MMR vaccines

Was he against MMR in the past? I just heard that he said those people in Texas should get the shot.

 

[stevil]

Was he against MMR in the past? I just heard that he said those people in Texas should get the shot.

He said he doesn't believe that there are any vaccines that are safe and effective.

 

[Laodicean60]

He said he doesn't believe that there are any vaccines that are safe and effective.

I guess he changed his tune.

RFK Jr. Says Measles Vaccine Is 'Most Effective Way' to Prevent Spread

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. reversed his anti-vaccination stance amid a growing measles outbreak in western Texas and the U.S. Kennedy supports the MMR vaccine and has said parents should to talk with healthcare professionals about getting the shot for their children.

www.healthline.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Was he against MMR in the past? I just heard that he said those people in Texas should get the shot.

Yes, he was a known advocate for the "MMR jabs cause autism" claims. (which have been solidly debunked with several longitudinal studies)

That being said, I'd gladly trade a 30% increase in measles cases for a big reduction in rates of diabetes and obesity.

Like I noted, even before the measles vaccine was even available, measles didn't even scratch the surface of the deaths and hospitalizations caused by metabolic issues we currently deal with.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

As long as the fat acceptance movement and healthy at any size are "a thing" that even has a tepid level of acceptance among the left, they're in no position to bash RFK Jr. as a "unique risk to public health".

 

[Laodicean60]

That being said, I'd gladly trade a 30% increase in measles cases for a big reduction in rates of diabetes and obesity.

I just learned about RFK Jr.'s last election. So true about diabetes and obesity and just think what would happen to healthcare costs if we started getting healthy.

 

[stevil]

I guess he changed his tune.

RFK Jr. Says Measles Vaccine Is 'Most Effective Way' to Prevent Spread

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. reversed his anti-vaccination stance amid a growing measles outbreak in western Texas and the U.S. Kennedy supports the MMR vaccine and has said parents should to talk with healthcare professionals about getting the shot for their children.

www.healthline.com

Thankfully being in a position of authority, he now realises his "opinions" can cause deaths which can be directly attributed to him. Now he has to take things seriously rather than being an armchair critic who throws out conspiracies willy nilly.

 

[Laodicean60]

Thankfully being in a position of authority, he now realises his "opinions" can cause deaths which can be directly attributed to him

I'm not going to try to read his mind. I'll wait till he gets asked and I hope he does because I want to now.

Now he has to take things seriously rather than being an armchair critic who throws out conspiracies willy nilly.

You'd figure since he's an environmental lawyer he could see through this.

 

[probinson]

He said he doesn't believe that there are any vaccines that are safe and effective.

Source?