Rfk drops ball

[probinson]

Your personal medical history (fascinating as it is), isn’t germane to my “survivor’s bias” (fallacy), that I had mentioned before.
All I was saying is that having had measles, chicken pox and mumps and (thankfully) being able to post about surviving those, discounts the small percentage of people who had died from those causes (and are therefore no longer alive to share how well that they are doing).

For the sake of clarity, that "small percentage" that died from measles was (corrected) .00019% in 1963 before any vaccine was available. That's 1 in 526,315. For comparison, the odds of being struck by lightning at some point in your lifetime are about 1 in 15,300. That means that even if you got the measles before vaccines were available, you were 34x more likely to be struck by lightning than you were to die from disease.

 

[BPPLEE]

Your personal medical history (fascinating as it is), isn’t germane to my “survivor’s bias” (fallacy), that I had mentioned before.
All I was saying is that having had measles, chicken pox and mumps and (thankfully) being able to post about surviving those, discounts the small percentage of people who had died from those causes (and are therefore no longer alive to share how well that they are doing).

I wasn’t attacking you for posting, rather pointing out that the dead cannot post.

I am sorry if my terse post made you feel “attacked”.

No, I didn't feel attacked. No need to apologize.
But I think the death rate from chickenpox, measles and mumps is pretty low.
Still I don't mean to minimize the significance of any death.

 

[probinson]

In the pre vaccine pandemic era the main goal was to slow the spread of the disease, to buy time to get people eventually vaccinated.
That's why people were wearing masks, social distancing etc.

It's always good to carry talismans and take meaningless actions to try to help.

While the vaccine was being rolled out, it takes time to get everyone vaccinated, and there are people in the workplace who go home and maybe take care of mum and dad who might be eighty plus years old.

Um, OK.

The belief was,

The "belief"? Good grief. Does anyone care about science and evidence-based measures at all?

although people can still catch Covid even though you have been vaccinated,

Let's not pretend that this was the original messaging. Fauci told people that they were "dead ends" for the virus. We were told repeatedly that "breakthrough infections" were "rare". We were told, by people who should have known better, that if you got the vaccine, you weren't going to get COVID. That was a lie from the beginning.

you are less likely to then pass it on.

That's not even logical. If you are infected and you're coughing, the vaccine isn't going to magically stop you from transmitting the virus.

The worry was not about you taking a personal risk in not taking the vaccine, but was you endangering others, be that co-workmates or customers.

Yes, that's the line that we were sold with the whole "dead end" lie. But once it became obvious that vaccination did not prevent infections and did not reduce spread, there was no further justification for such inane mandates. Unfortunately, there were enough useful idiots that believed what they were told and the mandates carried on for far too long.

So employees and business owners made decisions to make their workplace and customer places as safe as possible.

Sure. We're going to mandate a vaccine that doesn't stop infections and doesn't stop transmission to make this workplace "safe". That's about as ludicrous as it gets.

 

[stevil]

For the sake of clarity, that "small percentage" that died from measles was .0000019% in 1963 before any vaccine was available. That's 1 in 526,315. For comparison, the odds of being struck by lightning at some point in your lifetime are about 1 in 15,300. That means that even if you got the measles before vaccines were available, you were 34x more likely to be struck by lightning than you were to die from disease.

In the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa, 5,700 people were reported to have caught measles and 83 deaths due to measles.
83/5700 = 1.45% which is 763,157 times higher than your 0.0000019%

Even if we look at the entire population of Samoa, which is 218,944. If everyone caught the measles and if we believed your 0.0000019% you would expect 0.00004 people die in Samoa. Basically you would be very, very, very, very, unlucky even if one person in Samoa died.

However reality is very different than your 0.0000019%

It would be great if people stopped spreading misinformation over the internet, especially when that misinformation leads to the deaths of many many people.

 

[stevil]

That's not even logical. If you are infected and you're coughing, the vaccine isn't going to magically stop you from transmitting the virus.

I do wish people would stop thinking so simplistically.
It's not a binary thing. It's not, you have the disease and so you are infectious and will pass it on at the same rate as everyone else that has the disease.

There is such a thing as an R nought rating. That goes up when the virus is more infectious, and it goes down when the host is less likely to reproduce as much of the virus than otherwise would be the case.

Having the vaccine, allows the host to have a headstart in fighting off the disease, their body produces antibodies at a quicker rate than an unvaccinated person, their body is able to defeat the virus quicker, before it gets to such large numbers of replication. so they have less of the virus and expell less of the virus. and so are less likely to spread it to so many people i.e. have a lower R nought.

 

[probinson]

In the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa, 5,700 people were reported to have caught measles and 83 deaths due to measles.
83/5700 = 1.45% which is 763,157 times higher than your 0.0000019%

it's not "my" (corrected) 0.00019%. It's what the data shows.

Perhaps you missed it when I posted it yesterday. Here it is again.

Even going all the way back to 1919, the death rate from measles in the US was 10 per 100,000, or (corrected) 0.01%.

However reality is very different than your 0.0000019%

It would be great if people stopped spreading misinformation over the internet, especially when that misinformation leads to the deaths of many many people.

I'm sorry that you don't like what the historical data shows.

But I wholeheartedly agree that it would be great if people stopped spreading misinformation over the Internet.

 

[stevil]

it's not "my" 0.0000019%. It's what the data shows.

Perhaps you missed it when I posted it yesterday. Here it is again.

It's utter nonsense, the way you are interpreting it.

How do you explain the 83 deaths in Samoa?

 

[Laodicean60]

Do you guys have ingredients listed on the packet/box? People do need to learn to think for themselves.

Why should we have to read food labels? Shouldn't the FDA mandate corporations to at least get all the crud out of our foods? You know, copy EU standards.

 

[probinson]

I do wish people would stop thinking so simplistically.

You mean logically?

It's not a binary thing. It's not, you have the disease and so you are infectious and will pass it on at the same rate as everyone else that has the disease.

If you have the disease and are "infectious", then by definition you are capable of transmitting the disease.

There is such a thing as an R nought rating. That goes up when the virus is more infectious, and it goes down when the host is less likely to reproduce as much of the virus than otherwise would be the case.

Very good.

Having the vaccine, allows the host to have a headstart in fighting off the disease, their body produces antibodies at a quicker rate than an unvaccinated person,

Except antibody levels are not an accurate correlate of protection. That's why early in the vaccination campaign, people were instructed not to make the decision to be vaccinated based on their antibody levels. Mostly that was just a way to downplay people who had COVID and recovered and now had the same or better immunity as people who were vaccinated.

their body is able to defeat the virus quicker, before it gets to such large numbers of replication. so they have less of the virus and expell less of the virus. and so are less likely to spread it to so many people i.e. have a lower R nought.

One has to wonder what causes you to believe this. There were countless examples of high-profile people that tweeted about their booster and then got COVID which took them down for 2 weeks. One of the most ironic was the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky. She proudly tweeted that she had gotten her COVID booster, and then just a few weeks later she got COVID and experienced the same or worse symptoms as people who had not been vaccinated.

This happened to Fauci, Walensky, Biden, and even Albert Bourla (the CEO of Pfizer). Do you think these high-profile people were the exception and the vaccine was preventing the spread of disease?

I'll point you again to your own country, which you've proudly (and falsely) declared "eradicated" COVID because you were all compliant with all of the mandates. And yet at this point, you've had 519,948 cases per million while the US, who according to you didn't do anything right, has had 302,859 cases per million. It seems your hypothesis that higher vaccination rates results in lower R0 is not borne out by reality.

 

[probinson]

It's utter nonsense, the way you are interpreting it.

It's not an "interpretation". Here it is again. This is the historical death rate from measles in the US since 1919.

In 1963, before there was a measles vaccine, the death rate from measles was 0.19 per 100,000 people. That is (corrected) 0.00019%, or 1 in 526,315 people.

Feel free to "interpret" that correctly.

 

[stevil]

it's not "my" 0.0000019%. It's what the data shows.

Perhaps you missed it when I posted it yesterday. Here it is again.

View attachment 362788

Even going all the way back to 1919, the death rate from measles in the US was 10 per 100,000, or 0.0001%.



I'm sorry that you don't like what the historical data shows.

But I wholeheartedly agree that it would be great if people stopped spreading misinformation over the Internet.

10 per 100,000 is 0.01% which is 100x higher than your 0.0001%
It is weird to try and just work out what the deathrate is of potentially a healthy population that doesn't have a measles outbreak.

It is much better to work out what is the death rate of those that are infected.

Other things to consider:
1. what is the likelihood that an outbreak occurs (note that people travel more now than before)
2. when an outbreak occurs, what is the likelihood that it will spread (is there herd immunity?)
3. when an outbreak occurs, can you quickly get a vaccine, and how long does it take for the vaccine to protect you? (will it be too late by then?)

 

[stevil]

One has to wonder what causes you to believe this. There were countless examples of high-profile people that tweeted about their booster and then got COVID which took them down for 2 weeks.

This means nothing.
People that are vaccinated are less likely to get sick, less likely to need to go to hospital, less likely to die.
This doesn't at all mean that no one that gets vaccinated won't get sick, won't go to hospital and won't die.
Why is it so difficult for some people to understand percentages?

One of the most ironic was the CDC Director, Dr. Walensky. She proudly tweeted that she had gotten her COVID booster, and then just a few weeks later she got COVID and experienced the same or worse symptoms as people who had not been vaccinated.

This means nothing.

I'll point you again to your own country, which you've proudly (and falsely) declared "eradicated" COVID

Stop lying. We did irradicate the disease.

 

[probinson]

10 per 100,000 is 0.01% which is 100x higher than your 0.0001%

Yes, you are correct. I will go back and correct my posts. Likewise, the 0.0000019% I have been posting should be 0.00019%. Basically in my speed of posting, I simply posted the result of 10/100,000 and failed to move the decimal back 2 places for the percentage.

My apologies for the mistake.

 

[stevil]

It's not an "interpretation". Here it is again. This is the historical death rate from measles in the US since 1919.

View attachment 362789

In 1963, before there was a measles vaccine, the death rate from measles was 0.19 per 100,000 people. That is 0.0000019%, or 1 in 526,315 people.

Feel free to "interpret" that correctly.

Again you are off by 100
You do know that 0.1 = 10% don't you?

 

[BPPLEE]

This means nothing.
People that are vaccinated are less likely to get sick, less likely to need to go to hospital, less likely to die.
This doesn't at all mean that no one that gets vaccinated won't get sick, won't go to hospital and won't die.
Why is it so difficult for some people to understand percentages?



This means nothing.

Stop lying. We did irradicate the disease.

I wish I had known it had been eradicated, then I wouldn't have caught it twice

 

[probinson]

This means nothing.

You don't think it's relevant that basically EVERY high-profile person that was telling people that COVID vaccines would stop them from getting infected got infected? Alrighty then.

People that are vaccinated are less likely to get sick, less likely to need to go to hospital, less likely to die.

If you say so. Make sure you sign up for your (checks notes) TENTH dose of the vaccine this year!

This doesn't at all mean that no one that gets vaccinated won't get sick, won't go to hospital and won't die.

Now hang on. You just said a few posts back...

Everyone was going to catch Covid at some stage.

Yes, that was you. So you are basically admitting that the vaccine would fail to prevent infections in 100% of people if "everyone" was going to catch COVID. So let's stop pretending like vaccination makes it less likely that you're going to get infected when you've already stated that "everyone" is going to catch COVID.

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand percentages?

It's not.

Stop lying. We did irradicate the disease.

You absolutely did not.

 

[probinson]

Again you are off by 100
You do know that 0.1 = 10% don't you?

Yes. A regrettable mistake. If you go back and re-read, I have corrected my posts.

 

[Laodicean60]

We did irradicate the disease.

If eradicated, why are you still rolling out COVID-19 vaccines?

 

[probinson]

In other COVID booster news, the UK has decided that only those over the age of 75 will be offered a booster this year. Exceptions will be granted for residents in a care home for older adults and anyone over the age of six months old that has a weakened immune system. But it seems like the blanket recommendation for everyone to get boosters is now gone in the UK.

Who’s eligible for the 2025 COVID-19 vaccine, or ‘Spring Booster’? – UK Health Security Agency

Details of who is eligible to book a free NHS COVID-19 vaccination this spring.

ukhsa.blog.gov.uk

 

[probinson]

A study published on March 15, 2025 found that repeated vaccination with the mRNA COVID vaccines was associated with a GREATER chance of infection.

Repeated COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations increase SARS-CoV-2 IgG4 antibodies, indicating extensive IgG class switching following the first booster dose. This shift in IgG subclasses raises concerns due to the limited ability of IgG4 to mediate Fc-dependent effector functions.​

​

...​

​

Elevated IgG4 levels and higher ratios of non-cytophilic to cytophilic antibodies after booster vaccination were significantly associated with an increased risk of breakthrough infections (IgG4 HR[10-fold increase]=1.8, 95% CI=1.2–2.7; non-cytophilic to cytophilic ratio HR[10-fold increase]=1.5, 95% CI=1.1–1.9). Moreover, an increased non-cytophilic to cytophilic antibody ratio correlated with reduced functionality, including neutralization.​

​

...​

​

These findings suggest a potential association between IgG4 induction by mRNA vaccination and a higher risk of breakthrough infection, warranting further investigation into vaccination strategies to ensure sustained protection.​

​

https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(25)00067-2/fulltext

​

​

Ruh-roh, Shaggy! MORE infections from repeated dosing isn't exactly what we were going for. Whoopsie!

It's not like there weren't early warning signs of this. Anyone remember the Cleveland Clinic study that showed a perfect correlation between increased vaccination doses and increased infections? Let me refresh your memory.

This is what they stated in the study.

The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19.​

Hmm. That's curious. Isn't that the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you would expect to find from an effective vaccine? The study went on to state this in the discussion.

The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with more prior vaccine doses was unexpected. A simplistic explanation might be that those who received more doses were more likely to be individuals at higher risk of COVID-19. A small proportion of individuals may have fit this description. However, the majority of participants in this study were young, and all were eligible to have received ≥3 doses of vaccine by the study start date, which they had every opportunity to do. Therefore, those who received <3 doses (46% of individuals in the study) were not ineligible to receive the vaccine but rather chose not to follow the CDC's recommendations on remaining updated with COVID-19 vaccination, and one could reasonably expect these individuals to have been more likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than that that of participants those who received more prior vaccine doses.​

​

Ours is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. During an Omicron wave in Iceland, individuals who had previously received ≥2 doses were found to have a higher odds of reinfection than those who had received <2 doses, in an unadjusted analysis [21]. A large study found, in an adjusted analysis, that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving 3 doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving 2 doses [22]. Another study found, in multivariable analysis, that receipt of 2 or 3 doses of am mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7]. Immune imprinting from prior exposure to different antigens in a prior vaccine [22, 23] and class switch toward noninflammatory spike-specific immunoglobulin G4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination [24] have been suggested as possible mechanisms whereby prior vaccine may provide less protection than expected. We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to vaccine effectiveness, it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed.​

​

Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Bivalent Vaccine

Among 51 017 working-aged Cleveland Clinic employees, the bivalent coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine was 29% and 20% effective in preventing infection while the

academic.oup.com

​

Of course, the fact-checkers LEAPT into action to tell us why this finding wasn't concerning and didn't demonstrate exactly what it was showing. But alas, now there is yet ANOTHER study showing the same thing, that repeated doses of the mRNA vaccines are associated with an INCREASED risk of infection.