Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I haven't had it or, if I did, my symptoms were literally so mild I didn't notice and apparently I didn't spread it to anyone. My brother, sister-in-law and mother haven't had it. I'm aware of three coworkers who have tested positive, though I only started working here in June 2021. About 35 others are either no, or unknown by me.
Thank you for straightening that out.Quite the opposite. Shingles occurs because someone got chickenpox as a child, the virus then remains dormant and it resurfaces much later in life.
A couple is two, you asked three.I find it shocking that there are folks who haven't had COVID.
For those who haven't had it, can I ask a couple questions:
No. I'm childless and if I were on a normal timeline and not pumping out a second batch of kids like a few guys I know, mine would probably all be college aged.1) Do you have children (school aged)?
Except for Dec 20 to Jun 21, I've worked the entire time. That said, I've worked the night shift so my workplace exposure has been very limited.2) Do you work from home?
I didn't eat out at restaurants during 2020, and only got to go a few times, but otherwise my boring lifestyle didn't change. I wasn't going to Cowboys games or Taylor Swift concerts before and wasn't after.3) Do you go out/socialize a lot (or did that change from preCOVID times?
Answering a question with a question reads as evasive, as does the failed attempt at a personal attack.Do you understand what healthy vaccinee bias is?
Answering a question with a question reads as evasive, as does the failed attempt at a personal attack.
Do I have to ask my question yet again, or would I just be wasting my time?
Yeah? So? Who else would write an editorial, the accountant. It's still not a scientific article, just a commentary. As for the Journal. I've never heard of it (or published in it), I'll take your word for it that it is a good journal.
Cough. Cough. Cough. (and a positive test)
They were counting infections with and without the vaccine.
What? Are you denying COVID was serious?
As I recall about 1-2% of cases in the early phases (2020) DIED. That's about 10 times the fatality rate of annual flu (as opposed to the major pandemics like 1919) with 10-20 or so hospitalized per death for the flu. I don't recall the ratio for COVID19.
These studies take months and they couldn't predict where the latest outbreaks would be during the test.
Sounds like a problem with a subset of the data, not the whole study, if accurate.
Because those *are* infections. The uninfected don't transmit.
No models needed. They were literally case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths versus time plots. Once vaccines were wide spread the ratio of deaths and hospitaliztions to cases went way down. The effectiveness of the vaccinations against severe disease for the first few variants was clarly shown.
Now you're on to politics. I'm done with this and you.
I guess making up stuff I never wrote only to dismiss is easier than actually stepping away from the canned talking points and actually showing they applied to the studies I posted and you may or may not have probably read sometime in the past or not.It's cute that you're pretending that I haven't answered any of your questions.
At this point, I'm left to assume that either you genuinely don't understand what healthy vaccinee bias is, or you realize that if you acknowledge what it is it will call into question the veracity of every observational study of the vaccines efficacy.
...and actually showing they applied to the studies I posted...
Even in studies you're not sure you've read, apparently. Weird how when it is convenient we can't know anything about anything which might contradict anti-vaxx talking points.Tell me you don't understand healthy vacinnee bias without telling me you don't understand healthy vaccinee bias.
Healthy vaccinee bias exists in EVERY observational study on vaccine efficacy. That's why randomization is so important, because it can help account for confounders and biases that CANNOT be accounted for accurately in observational studies.
Even in studies you're not sure you've read, apparently. Weird how when it is convenient we can't know anything about anything which might contradict anti-vaxx talking points.
Why you think it is relevant. You seemed to bring it up in response to studies which disproved your assertions about the covid vaccine - studies you still haven't come clean on whether or not you actually read. And instead of explaining why they somehow change the outcome of those studies in a way which salvages your claims, we keep seeing posts trying everything but that.I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here.
Perhaps stories pushing to try and make it seem like the vaccines are ineffective might have something to do with that problem? For example, there are even posts in this very thread claiming that the vaccines are "known to not prevent infection and disease transmission".Let's take a peek at what's happening with COVID vaccines elsewhere in the world.
At least 215 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines purchased by EU countries at the height of the pandemic have since been thrown away at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of €4 billion, an analysis by POLITICO reveals. And that's almost certainly an underestimate.This equates to a €4 billion handout to the pharmaceutical companies on the taxpayers dime... FOR NOTHING.
Why you think it is relevant.
Perhaps stories pushing to try and make it seem like the vaccines are ineffective might have something to do with that problem?
For example, there are even posts in this very thread claiming that the vaccines are "known to not prevent infection and disease transmission".
Several issues:COVID vaccines do a very poor job of preventing infections and they were never even studied for their ability to prevent disease transmission. Pfizer's own data from their original phase 3 trial demonstrated that it takes ~130+ people to be vaccinated to prevent just ONE infection. Moreover, there is a mountain of data that demonstrates that any protective benefit of the COVID vaccines is incredibly transient. There is even data that suggests that multiple dosing could potentially actually make one MORE susceptible to future infections.
There's plenty of legitimate reasons to question the efficacy of the COVID vaccines. That's probably why Pfizer has had to revise their financial forecast down three times in three months due to cratering demand for COVID vaccines.
To me they were sold to be a “good fit” for the coronavirus, to offer some measure of protection without the two-to-ten year waiting time for a “traditional“ vaccine to “come online”.Or, and I know this might be hard for you to grasp, maybe much of the rest of the world has woken up to the fact that the COVID vaccines simply do not do what they were sold to do.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?