Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Cornell University - Vaccination not Preventing Infection
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KCfromNC" data-source="post: 76308346" data-attributes="member: 185615"><p>The data for infection is pretty tough to get. There's lots of confounding factors - testing rates, asymptomatic vs. symptomatic infections, plus the new strain hitting in the middle of a vaccine rollout. You've quoted numbers showing the vaccine was 40% to over 80% effective, depending on which research one follows. That's a wide enough range that it makes sense to look to other more reliable data to understand what's going on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No it isn't. I mean, look at this thread where that claim was backed up by an analysis which completely missed the fact that last year a large percentage of classes were remote ... a pretty important change compared to this year. With basic mistakes like that as the supporting "evidence" for claims like this, it is hard to take empty assertions like this seriously. </p><p></p><p>If you have something backing up this claim, feel free to present it. Unfortunately, what we've seen so far is a pretty obvious miss in analyzing what's going on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And how exactly does this back up your claim "that vaccination doesn't seriously mitigate spread"? I mean, no one thinks the vaccines are 100% effective, but how does cherry-picking a case rate in for one specific week in one particular location in isolation tell us anything?</p><p>I also can't help but note the pattern of throwing out data you want us to look at, and then changing the subject when that data is actually addressed. Seems like a bit of a diversion.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If it is what I'm thinking of, my question was more about how the doctor can simultaneously not know how many deaths occurred and at the same time claim that it is statistically unlikely that number of deaths could be caused by anything other than the vaccine. I don't see anything here addressing that question.</p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p>Weird how none of these show up when actual research is done on the topic. Maybe the answer to anecdotes isn't more anecdotes?</p><p>But in any case, that's continuing to move further and further from the topic of the OP - the one where covid case rates were lower when a university had mostly remote classes last year. Perhaps start a new thread if you think that random anecdotes are the next great rationalization for avoiding getting vaccinated.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KCfromNC, post: 76308346, member: 185615"] The data for infection is pretty tough to get. There's lots of confounding factors - testing rates, asymptomatic vs. symptomatic infections, plus the new strain hitting in the middle of a vaccine rollout. You've quoted numbers showing the vaccine was 40% to over 80% effective, depending on which research one follows. That's a wide enough range that it makes sense to look to other more reliable data to understand what's going on. No it isn't. I mean, look at this thread where that claim was backed up by an analysis which completely missed the fact that last year a large percentage of classes were remote ... a pretty important change compared to this year. With basic mistakes like that as the supporting "evidence" for claims like this, it is hard to take empty assertions like this seriously. If you have something backing up this claim, feel free to present it. Unfortunately, what we've seen so far is a pretty obvious miss in analyzing what's going on. [I][/I] And how exactly does this back up your claim "that vaccination doesn't seriously mitigate spread"? I mean, no one thinks the vaccines are 100% effective, but how does cherry-picking a case rate in for one specific week in one particular location in isolation tell us anything? I also can't help but note the pattern of throwing out data you want us to look at, and then changing the subject when that data is actually addressed. Seems like a bit of a diversion. If it is what I'm thinking of, my question was more about how the doctor can simultaneously not know how many deaths occurred and at the same time claim that it is statistically unlikely that number of deaths could be caused by anything other than the vaccine. I don't see anything here addressing that question. [I] [/I] Weird how none of these show up when actual research is done on the topic. Maybe the answer to anecdotes isn't more anecdotes? But in any case, that's continuing to move further and further from the topic of the OP - the one where covid case rates were lower when a university had mostly remote classes last year. Perhaps start a new thread if you think that random anecdotes are the next great rationalization for avoiding getting vaccinated. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Cornell University - Vaccination not Preventing Infection
Top
Bottom