Cornell University - Vaccination not Preventing Infection

renniks said:

What is smart and useful according to you may be nonsense to someone else.

Click to expand...

Making decisions based on data as opposed to a feeling is logical.

rambot said:

Making decisions based on data as opposed to a feeling is logical.

Click to expand...

I've found my gut instinct is usually correct more often than someone's biased " study."

renniks said:

I've found my gut instinct is usually correct more often than someone's biased " study."

Click to expand...

Sounds like the very definition of confirmation bias.

renniks said:

I've found my gut instinct is usually correct more often than someone's biased " study."

Click to expand...

Funny because that is not what I've seen from you on Christian Forums here, but I don't know how you live your life....

rambot said:

Funny because that is not what I've seen from you on Christian Forums here, but I don't know how you live your life....

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by that.

stevil said:

These excuses reek of SPITE.
As if, yeah maybe it's all good for me and all good for society, but I don't like the way you are trying to convince me to take the vaccine so I'm not going to take it. So THERE!!!

Click to expand...

I have a friend, we've been friends since we were kids but fell out of communication for a number of years in our late 20's and early 30's; and so have only started to speak more regularly now.

He quit his job to seek employment elsewhere because his job was mandating vaccination.

The school district is also mandating vaccinations, and he is upset by this for his kids.

He uses words like "draconian" to refer to these mandates. I have tried to gently nudge--not forcefully--explain why I was vaccinated (and how I'm totally fine). He frequently brings up random "doctors" who say "X, Y, Z"--without mentioning names so I can't verify what they're saying myself. But I always try to respond by asking things like "Is the source credible? Is what is being said by this doctor backed by the evidence?" What does the consensus of the scientific and medical community say?

He is never pushing back with claims of evidence to back up his hesitancy. Rather it always comes down to the "draconian" measure of mandating vaccines.

So I think you're quite right.

This isn't about data-driven facts; it's about not liking other people telling you what to do.

It's conflating "You're not the boss of me!" with "personal freedom". I don't get it, I thought we were grown ups, we're supposed to have grown up, matured, and accepted that I'm not the center of the universe. There are things I have to do, even if I don't like it. I need to work a job to make money to pay bills and keep a roof over my head and to have food on the table. I mean, I'd totally love the freedom to just do nothing but live responsibility-free sipping refreshing drinks on a beach somewhere forever. But that's not how life works.

A pandemic is not the time to be throwing a tantrum.

It's time that we, as grown ups, as adults, put on our big boy and big girl pants and be responsible for one another.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

It's conflating "You're not the boss of me!" with "personal freedom". I don't get it, I thought we were grown ups, we're supposed to have grown up, matured, and accepted that I'm not the center of the universe. There are things I have to do, even if I don't like it. I need to work a job to make money to pay bills and keep a roof over my head and to have food on the table. I mean, I'd totally love the freedom to just do nothing but live responsibility-free sipping refreshing drinks on a beach somewhere forever. But that's not how life works.

Click to expand...

You say that 'I'd totally love the freedom to just do nothing but live responsibility-free sipping refreshing drinks on a beach somewhere forever'. But where is the responsibility for the vaccine manufacturers? As far as I'm aware, they get to make $Billions, but they don't have to shoulder any responsibility for injuries or deaths.

It's all very well banging on about responsibility, but if you ignore the fact that this responsibility is very one sided, then I'm afraid that you may be a hypocrite. If these vaccines are so safe, where is the manufacturer's liability? Grown up, mature people of sound mind, would not buy a car from a salesman that says 'it's nothing to do with me if the brakes fail a few miles down the road'.

JustSomeBloke said:

You say that 'I'd totally love the freedom to just do nothing but live responsibility-free sipping refreshing drinks on a beach somewhere forever'. But where is the responsibility for the vaccine manufacturers? As far as I'm aware, they get to make $Billions, but they don't have to shoulder any responsibility for injuries or deaths.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, it's just those evul pharma demons that engage in this.

AMFEST ADULT TICKETS - Turning Point USA

Waiver & Release


In consideration of the risk of injury while participating in AmericaFest 2021 (the "Activity"), and as consideration for the right to participate in the Activity, I hereby, for myself, my heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, or personal representatives, knowingly and voluntarily enter into this waiver and release of liability and hereby waive any and all rights, claims or causes of action of any kind whatsoever arising out of my participation in the Activity, and do hereby release and forever discharge Turning Point USA, located at 4940 E Beverly Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85044, their affiliates, managers, members, agents, attorneys, staff, volunteers, heirs, representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns, for any physical or psychological injury, including but not limited to illness, paralysis, death, damages, economical or emotional loss, that I may suffer as a direct result of my participation in the aforementioned Activity, including traveling to and from an event related to this Activity.
I am voluntarily participating in the aforementioned Activity and I am participating in the Activity entirely at my own risk. I am aware of the risks associated with traveling to and from as well as participating in this Activity, which may include, but are not limited to, physical or psychological injury, pain, suffering, illness, disfigurement, temporary or permanent disability, economic or emotional loss, and death. I understand that these injuries or outcomes may arise from my own or others' negligence, conditions related to travel, or the condition of the Activity location(s). Nonetheless, I assume all related risks, both known or unknown to me, of my participation in this Activity, including travel to, from and during this Activity.

KCfromNC said:

Figure 2 in this paper shows a pretty clear relationship between increased vaccination rates and decreased case counts. As does the supplemental info linked from the end of their Methods section.

Click to expand...

I agree it shows a relationship. I think the reason they stated

Across the US counties too, the median new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days is largely similar across the categories of percent population fully vaccinated (Fig. 2).

is that you would expect more of a relationship. I ran a line to make it a bit easier to see, but I don' think they would predict 0-5 percent being the same as 45-50 percent, for instance.

rambot said:

[my highlight...at the end]
This article was put up previously and I don't think it was used appropriately that time either.

The "levels of vaccination" across countries aren't going to affect COVID unless those numbers are really closer to 100%.

Click to expand...

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.

EG: In the US there is still an unvaccinated population of 10s of millions so of course COVID is able to spread through those populations. So long as there are large populations of unvaccinated people, why would the rates significantly change?

Look at the populations in the hospitalizations, this is where you can see the impact of vaccinations.

Click to expand...

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.

The reason why I highlighted that piece at the start is that you are suggesting there is no difference in spread between "vaccinated and nonvaccinated population". To do a proper comparison for THAT you would need to compare vaccinated populations with nonvaccinated populations. This study compares MIXED populations in different countries with different vaccination rates.

Click to expand...

Because real-world populations don't come in vaccinated and unvaccinated. So the strategies have to address mixed populations.

In my province we have 78% fully vaxed but up until recently, our province was a disaster (then we locked down and things improved).

Click to expand...

Which again underscores the point the study was making. You needed measures beyond vaccination to control the spread.

If you look at who was in our hospitals, it was 80-90% unvaccinated people....DESPITE them only being about 12% of the population.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and that again is back to hospitalization, rather than spread. The data still shows good numbers on hospitalization. But not as good on spread.

anna ~ grace said:

The more hype some people see, the less interested they are.

Click to expand...

That can’t be the reason. If it were, you wouldn’t all be so eager to swallow the anti-vax hype whole. There is zero difference between the scare tactics and dissembling of anti-vaxxers now and those who opposed smallpox and polio vaccinations, same pseudo-science, putting up of straw men and primal hysteria. Whatever drives it all, it has nothing to do with scepticism, or reality for that matter.

This is relevant. It's a comment by Ted Cruz about mandates for vaccinations in the Northern Territories in Australia. This from 9News (NT Chief Minister Michael Gunner fires back at US Senator Ted Cruz over Twitter post):

'A week ago Mr Gunner announced a sweeping vaccine mandate that would require a mandatory jab for most hospitality workers, bankers, receptionists, hairdressers, barbers, beauty therapists and more.
A video of Mr Gunner announcing the policy became the subject of intense interest by far-right American politicians on social media, who used it as an example of "COVID tyranny".

Cruz tweeted this:

'I love the Aussies. Their history of rugged independence is legendary; I’ve always said Australia is the Texas of the Pacific. The Covid tyranny of their current government is disgraceful & sad. Individual liberty matters. I stand with the people of #Australia'

And Gunner come down like a ton of bricks on him:

'Thanks for your interest in the Territory. I’m the Chief Minister. Below are a few facts about COVID down here. We don't need your lectures, thanks mate.

Nearly 70,000 Texans have tragically died from COVID. There have been zero deaths in the Territory. Did you know that?

Vaccination is so important here because we have vulnerable communities and the oldest continuous living culture on the planet on the planet to protect.
Did you know that?

We've done whatever it takes to protect the Territory. That's kept us safe and free. We have been in lock down for just eight days in 18 months. Our businesses and school are all open.
Did you know that?

We don't need your lectures, thanks mate. You know nothing about us. And if you stand against a life-saving vaccine, then you sure as hell don't stand with Australia.

I love Texas (go the Longhorns!) but when it comes to Covid, I'm glad we are nothing like you.'

Good onya, Gunner! Seems Cruz knows more about Cancun than he does about Australia. And hey, Ted - I love Texas and Texans as well. Can't wait to get back. But not until you've got yourself sorted out, mate. Your idea of personal freedom should come second to the freedom of your citizens.

And people consider Texas to be the Australia of the US. Except we wouldn't have voted for someone like you in a blue fit (and your beer is quite possibly the worst I have ever forced myself to drink).

renniks said:

I've found my gut instinct is usually correct more often than someone's biased " study."

Click to expand...

You should read 'Thinking Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman. He explains that you are using System 1 thinking over System 2.

System 1 is often referred to as the automatic, gut-driven instinctive calls we make in any given situation. It's normally buzzing away unconsciously in the background making sure we don't drive into a tree or walk into the coffee table. When presented with a problem, it jumps to an immediate conclusion because System 2 thinking takes a lot longer and uses up a lot more resources. It takes effort for System 2 to operate.

So go with System 1 if you like. Just be aware that it doesn't make any conscious determination and often responds to existing bias. It's quite suitable if there is no information available which you can study and weight to come to an 'educated' decision. But that's not the case here.

And you normally find that people use post hoc arguments to justify their initial 'gut instinct' calls and will not admit to how they came to their decision. Even to themselves.

It's quite unusual to have you admit it to everyone.

tall73 said:

I agree it shows a relationship. I think the reason they stated

Across the US counties too, the median new COVID-19 cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days is largely similar across the categories of percent population fully vaccinated (Fig. 2).

is that you would expect more of a relationship. I ran a line to make it a bit easier to see, but I don' think they would predict 0-5 percent being the same as 45-50 percent, for instance.

View attachment 307440

Click to expand...

Given how large the error bars are, I don't know how much I'd expect a perfectly clear pattern in the lower % vaccinated groups. But the trend is definitely there.

Bradskii said:

And you normally find that people use post hoc arguments to justify their initial 'gut instinct' calls and will not admit to how they came to their decision. Even to themselves.

Click to expand...

Refer to the 1st post in this thread for an example of this in practice.

whatbogsends said:

If you don't like the Cornell comparison, look at the UK. Look at the Spain. Look at Israel. They are all highly vaccinated countries and their highest rates of infection in the pandemic were after a high percentage of their population was vaccinated.

United Kingdom COVID: 8,497,868 Cases and 138,629 Deaths - Worldometer

There's been little correlation between vaccination rates and infection rates.

Click to expand...

I believe that there's a reason for the UK figures. And it's psychological. And a warning for us all.

We have a tendency to mentally adjust to any given situation. So if you move from a temperate country to a really cold one, your idea of what is cold changes drastically. And if you've been living on bread and water for a month, then a boiled potato and a warm glass of flat pepsi will be a feast.

So when we're told that ten people have died in any given week from Covid, it's terrible. We're all concerned. Then it gets to 20. Then 30. And builds up to hundreds and then over a thousand. But we've used up our quota of sympathy. We can't feel any worse about 1,000 then we did about 500. We just get sympathetically numb (as Stalin said: One death is a tragedy but a million is a statistic).

But what happens when the figures start dropping? On the way down, 500 is a hell of a lot better than 1,000. We can see the figures getting a lot better. And then it drops again to maybe 100. And we really get excited. Maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel. But we thought that 20 was terrible. And now 100 is good news.

So all the precautions we took when the figures were going up are abandoned. Not because the figures are better than they were. They're a lot worse than they were when we started. But they feel better. 100 is now acceptable whereas it would have been unthinkable when we started at 10.

I think that's what's happening in the UK. Weekly death figures are becoming normal. Becoming part of the background noise to everyday lives. Let's face it, we all have a figure knocking around inside each of us as to how many deaths will be acceptable to get back to a completely normal life.

whatbogsends said:

If you don't like the Cornell comparison, look at the UK. Look at the Spain. Look at Israel.

Click to expand...

Sure, let's look at Israel - Unvaxxed 10% of Israelis are 73% of serious cases, 65% of 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?

whatbogsends said:

Cornell University - Vaccination not Preventing Infection

Click to expand...

Fortunately, the vaccines ARE preventing most COVID hospitalizations and deaths ...

renniks said:

I've found my gut instinct is usually correct more often than someone's biased " study."

Click to expand...

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.

Bradskii said:

It's quite unusual to have you admit it to everyone.

Click to expand...

Why change what works?
Of course my actual source for wisdom is God... but it ends up feeling like it's coming from the gut. It's a Spirit thing.