Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[KCfromNC]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm well aware that your mind is made up.

Uh oh, starting with personal attacks. That's typically a sign a post has nothing of substance to offer. Par for the course, I guess.

Um, which study is that, and what specifically do you believe is contradictory?

The one you linked in post 807. It says

"These findings do not undermine the short-term public health utility of booster vaccination."

Which contradicts the data in your graph.

As does their conclusion

"Primary-series vaccination followed by a primary omicron infection was associated with enhanced immune protection against omicron reinfection compared to primary omicron infection with no prior vaccination."

 

[probinson]

The one you linked in post 807. It says

"These findings do not undermine the short-term public health utility of booster vaccination."

Which contradicts the data in your graph.

Um, no it doesn't, and you have not posted the context of what was actually stated about short-term public health utility. Here's what the study actually says (emphasis added).

These findings, however, do not undermine the utility of booster vaccination, at least in the short-term. Compromised protection was observed after booster effectiveness waned, as follow-up commenced >4 months after the booster, at a time when booster effectiveness is expected to be marginal.13,27 There is no question that the booster dose reduced infection incidence right after its administration, based on evidence from this same population.7,12,13 Nonetheless, findings indicate that short-term effects of boosters may differ from their long-term effects.​

​

...​

​

These findings do not undermine the utility of booster vaccination in the short-term, but may point to potentially significant public health complexities requiring fine-tuning of booster vaccination to those who can best benefit from it, such as those most clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19.​

That is precisely what the chart in the study shows.

What good is a booster that is effective at preventing infection (approximately 30% effective, according to the data in this study) for only 4 months if at the end of that time you become more susceptible to infection? This study is saying that there could be "significant public health complexities" if we don't adjust booster policies to only administer them to people who will actually benefit from them. As I've said all along, the US public health policy of VACCINE GOOD! MORE BETTER! is remarkably foolish, and this study is essentially saying the same thing. Yes, vaccines can be beneficial when they are targeted to the people who need them most, but they could also be harmful if are continually re-dosing people who are at minimal risk.

As does their conclusion

"Primary-series vaccination followed by a primary omicron infection was associated with enhanced immune protection against omicron reinfection compared to primary omicron infection with no prior vaccination."

As I would hope you know, primary-series vaccination is not the same thing as a booster dose. You're comparing apples to oranges. The problem is in repeated dosing, as the chart in the study shows. The more doses you take, the more susceptible to infection you become as time passes and your booster's protection wanes. That's why I said in one of my earlier posts, "All data currently points to the initial 2-dose regimen of the mRNA vaccines being mostly beneficial, particularly in adults who were not already infected. It's only after repeated dosing that we begin to see something odd happening in the immune system."

 

[KCfromNC]

Here's what the study actually says (emphasis added).

These findings, however, do not undermine the utility of booster vaccination, at least in the short-term. Compromised protection was observed after booster effectiveness waned, as follow-up commenced >4 months after the booster​

Which contradicts the graph you posted showing that unvaccinated people were less likely to get covid than boosted people within the first few months of the booster's availability.

 

[probinson]

Which contradicts the graph you posted showing that unvaccinated people were less likely to get covid than boosted people within the first few months of the booster's availability.

It does not.

You do know the chart is from this study, right? While the bivalent booster provided some modest protection immediately after being given, as time progressed, those who took more doses had more infections.

I have no idea why you're trying to pretend this is a "contradiction". The study describes this finding by saying, "The association of increased risk of COVID-19 with higher numbers of prior vaccine doses in our study, was unexpected", and, "In conclusion, this study found an overall modest protective effect of the bivalent vaccine booster against COVID-19, among working-aged adults. The effect of multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses on future risk of COVID-19 needs further study."

Two things are true in this study.

1) A bivalent booster provided an overall modest protective effect among working-age adults.
2) People who received the bivalent booster were MORE LIKELY to be infected as more time passed.

Those statements are not contradictory in any way. And that is why they conclude that that the effect of multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses on future risk of COVI-19 needs further study.

 

[probinson]

Here's some interesting data out of Australia. For the week ending December 31, 2022, there were 1,779 people hospitalized with COVID. The more doses of vaccine one had, the higher the number of people in that group in the hospital.

There were 140 people in the ICU in the same time frame. And again, the more doses of vaccine one had received, the higher the number of people in that group in the ICU.

ZERO unvaccinated people were in the hospital or the ICU during this time.

Of 95 deaths, again, the highest numbers were seen in those that had received more doses.

SIX deaths (6%) were unvaccinated.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/weekly-covid-overview-20221231.pdf

 

[KCfromNC]

It does not.

You do know the chart is from this study, right? While the bivalent booster provided some modest protection immediately after being given, as time progressed, those who took more doses had more infections.

You've got one chart from one paper showing that people with zero doses of the vaccine showing fewer infections, and another paper which says people with two doses of the vaccine show a better immune response than those with 0. And both are supposedly evidence for vaccines being bad.

Both of these might be correct, but it sure seems like a far cry from a slam dunk leading to the predetermined "vaccines bad" conclusion we've been hearing for years now.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here's some interesting data out of Australia. For the week ending December 31, 2022, there were 1,779 people hospitalized with COVID. The more doses of vaccine one had, the higher the number of people in that group in the hospital.

There were 140 people in the ICU in the same time frame. And again, the more doses of vaccine one had received, the higher the number of people in that group in the ICU.

Hmm, I wonder if there's something going on which might explain this other than "vaccines bad". I mean, we know that boosters were authorized based on age, for example, and as age increases the risk goes up for serious covid infections.

It's also kinda weird to be trying to draw conclusions from data where 20% of the population's vaccination status is unknown.

But hey, maybe this is the one piece of data which finally vindicates the "vaccines bad" messaging we've been hearing for years.

 

[probinson]

You've got one chart from one paper showing that people with zero doses of the vaccine showing fewer infections, and another paper which says people with two doses of the vaccine show a better immune response than those with 0. And both are supposedly evidence for vaccines being bad.

Um, no. Both are evidence that more research is needed to understand the long-term effect of multiple booster doses. It's also evidence that a more nuanced approach to recommending boosters is appropriate.

And again, you are intentionally conflating the initial two-dose regimen of the vaccine with repeated booster doses.

 

[probinson]

Hmm, I wonder if there's something going on which might explain this other than "vaccines bad". I mean, we know that boosters were authorized based on age, for example, and as age increases the risk goes up for serious covid infections.

Here are the booster recommendations in Australia.

https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/getting-your-vaccination/booster-doses

Those >=16 can get a booster dose.

Those >=30 can get additional booster doses.

This also seems to be a tacit admission that, perhaps, booster dosing should be more nuanced than the US policy of indiscriminately boosting everyone over and over again. In the US, 10-month old babies can get a booster dose. In Australia, they think it prudent to wait until you're at least 16 (unless you're severely immunocompromised).

And let's not forget the data. There are 8,000% more people with four or more doses in the hospital than those that only had one dose. There are 5,700% more people with four or more doses in the ICU than those that only had one dose. The data clearly shows that increased doses correlate with more hospitalizations and more ICU admissions. You don't find that odd? Shouldn't the people with the most doses have the most protection?

It's also kinda weird to be trying to draw conclusions from data where 20% of the population's vaccination status is unknown.

Better than in the US, where someone with an "unknown" vaccination status is automatically considered "unvaccinated".

 

[KCfromNC]

Um, no. Both are evidence that more research is needed to understand the long-term effect of multiple booster doses. It's also evidence that a more nuanced approach to recommending boosters is appropriate.

If you're willing to come to that conclusion based a pre-print non-peer reviewed paper contradicting another, I can't stop you.

And again, you are intentionally conflating the initial two-dose regimen of the vaccine with repeated booster doses.

No, I'm simply pointed out that you've got one chart from one paper showing that people with zero doses of the vaccine showing fewer infections, and another paper which says people with two doses of the vaccine show a better immune response than those with 0. And both of those are being interpreted through a predetermined conclusion that there must be something bad to find with the vaccine if we just look hard enough.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here are the booster recommendations in Australia.

That's nice. It doesn't really address the question I raised about the ages and other risk factors for covid in the sample you posted. But thanks for sharing.

This also seems to be a tacit admission that, perhaps, booster dosing should be more nuanced than the US policy of indiscriminately boosting everyone over and over again.

No it isn't. It is a question of if this is yet another attempt to ignore obvious confounding variables to spin yet another attempt to confirm the predetermined conclusion that vaccines must somehow be bad if we just keep looking hard enough for some hint that they are.

The data clearly shows that increased doses correlate with more hospitalizations and more ICU admissions. You don't find that odd? Shouldn't the people with the most doses have the most protection?

Yes, but relative to the baseline for that particular group, not against the population as a whole. Ignoring the fact that some people are much more likely to end up with a serious covid case than others can lead to all sorts of false conclusions. For a similar example, see previous failed attempts to use overall data to prove that vaccines are bad which, when corrected for age and other risk factors, actually demonstrate how well the vaccine worked :

Simpson's paradox strikes again: Refuting reports vaxxed have 5x case fatality rate than unvaxxed

I have seen a lot of people obsessing with Table 5 of the August report put out the UK Public Health England focusing on the Delta variant In Table 5 on page 17 of this report, you can see that: There were 402 Covid deaths among 47,008 fully vaccinated for case fatality rate (CFR) of 0.86%...

www.covid-datascience.com

Israeli data: How can efficacy vs. severe disease be strong when 60% of hospitalized are vaccinated?

A surge involving the rapidly-transmitting Delta variant in heavily vaccinated countries has led to much hand-wringing that the vaccines are not effective against Delta, or vaccine effectivenss wanes after 4-6 months. This has fueled anti-vaccine sentiment suggesting the vaccines are not...

www.covid-datascience.com

It's such a common anti-vaxx tactic that it jumped out that a post will still be trying to use it now.

Better than in the US, where someone with an "unknown" vaccination status is automatically considered "unvaccinated".

Hey look, a diversion towards random anti-vaxx talking points.

 

[probinson]

If you're willing to come to that conclusion based a pre-print non-peer reviewed paper contradicting another, I can't stop you.

There is NO contradiction. None. At all. Zero. Nada.

No, I'm simply pointed out that you've got one chart from one paper showing that people with zero doses of the vaccine showing fewer infections, and another paper which says people with two doses of the vaccine show a better immune response than those with 0. And both of those are being interpreted through a predetermined conclusion that there must be something bad to find with the vaccine if we just look hard enough.

You seem horribly, horribly confused. The chart I posted is from the paper I posted. It says, quite clearly, that it is the repeated dosing of the vaccine that is potentially problematic and requires more study to understand its long-term impact on public health. If you weren't trying to interpret that through a predetermined conclusion that the vaccine must be perfect in every way, you might understand it better.

 

[probinson]

That's nice. It doesn't really address the question I raised about the ages and other risk factors for covid in the sample you posted. But thanks for sharing

This is the data from Australia, which shows a very clear correlation between more vaccine doses and increased hospitalization and ICU admissions.

No it isn't. It is a question of if this is yet another attempt to ignore obvious confounding variables to spin yet another attempt to confirm the predetermined conclusion that vaccines must somehow be bad if we just keep looking hard enough for some hint that they are.

No. That's not what it is at all. If repeated doses of vaccines reduce hospitalization, then it is a perfectly logical question to ask why we see the inverse of that in the data that Australia is reporting. Are you conceding that vaccines DO NOT reduce hospitalization in those who are older? That's what your point seems to be here. That the only reason we see a correlation between a larger number of doses and increased hospitalization and ICU admissions is because people are older.

Yes, but relative to the baseline for that particular group, not against the population as a whole. Ignoring the fact that some people are much more likely to end up with a serious covid case than others can lead to all sorts of false conclusions.

Well on that, we agree. Take for example draconian lockdowns and mask advisories based on a wish and a prayer. Horrible policies that failed to age-stratify risks.

For a similar example, see previous failed attempts to use overall data to prove that vaccines are bad which, when corrected for age and other risk factors, actually demonstrate how well the vaccine worked

I'm seriously beginning to question your reading comprehension. Can you please show me where I said "vaccines are bad"? Try listening real close. Maybe get super close to the screen when you read this..... IT IS THE REPEATED DOSING OF VACCINES THAT IS OF CONCERN, NOT THE ORIGINAL TWO-DOSE REGIMEN.

Hey look, a diversion towards random anti-vaxx talking points.

Um, that's not a diversion. It's a fact. Much of the US data classifies "unknown" vaccine status as "unvaccinated". Since you've pretended in the past that this was just an "anti-vaxx talking point", you can imagine my surprise when you suggested it could be problematic in the Australian data.

 

[probinson]

Regarding the efficacy of the bivalent booster (emphasis added).

On October 24, 2022, David Ho and colleagues released the results of a study examining levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.4 and BA.5 after receipt of a monovalent or bivalent booster dose. They found “no significant difference in neutralization of any SARS-CoV-2 variant,” including BA.4 and BA.5, between the two groups.3 One day later, Dan Barouch and colleagues released the results of a similar study, finding that “BA.5 [neutralizing-antibody] titers were comparable following monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters.” Barouch and colleagues also noted no appreciable differences in CD4+ or CD8+ T-cell responses between participants in the monovalent-booster group and those in the bivalent-booster group.4 Neither research group found the bivalent boosters to elicit superior immune responses. The results are now published in the Journal.​

​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780

​

And this article from CNN on the same topic.

FDA vaccine advisers ‘disappointed’ and ‘angry’ that early data about new Covid-19 booster shot wasn’t presented for review last year

What this means is that US taxpayers paid $5 BILLION for the bivalent booster (which only about 15% of the population has received) and it doesn't provide any better protection.

 

[probinson]

"Although boosting with a bivalent vaccine is likely to have a similar effect as boosting with a monovalent vaccine, booster dosing is probably best reserved for the people most likely to need protection against severe disease — specifically, older adults, people with multiple coexisting conditions that put them at high risk for serious illness, and those who are immunocompromised. In the meantime, I believe we should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later."​

​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780

​

​

 

[KCfromNC]

The chart I posted is from the paper I posted. It says, quite clearly, that it is the repeated dosing of the vaccine that is potentially problematic and requires more study to understand its long-term impact on public health.

That doesn't change the fact the chart shows people with 0 doses of the vaccine supposedly have a lower risk of getting covid than those with two. Kinda makes one wonder how they ended up with such a weird result, and one which contradicts the other paper in the same post which also was the the one which was finally going to prove that vaccines are bad.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is the data from Australia, which shows a very clear correlation between more vaccine doses and increased hospitalization and ICU admissions.

Yes, we know. I've already explained a potential problem with drawing conclusions from that, including giving several concrete examples of previous similar failures in anti-vaxx spin. Please, read the articles I linked which explains those in much more detail.

Are you conceding that vaccines DO NOT reduce hospitalization in those who are older?

No. To do so we'd need the data broken down by age groups.

Please, read the articles I linked. They explain quite simply what was going on the last few times anti-vaxx sources tried this sleight of hand.

That's what your point seems to be here. That the only reason we see a correlation between a larger number of doses and increased hospitalization and ICU admissions is because people are older.

When posts fail to understand what I wrote in such a blantantly obvious way, it really makes me question how accurate similar posts trying to understand research papers are. When the stuff I can easily verify is obviously wrong, it really calls the understanding of the more difficult conclusions into question.

Well on that, we agree. Take for example draconian lockdowns and mask advisories based on a wish and a prayer. Horrible policies that failed to age-stratify risks.

I can tell I've made a valid point about the failure of one anti-vaxx talking point when the subject is changed to talking about me (above) and about other random anti-vaxx grievances.

I'm seriously beginning to question your reading comprehension.

The need to resort to personal attacks in lieu of simply addressing the point I made about the dangers of ignoring basic, well known differences in covid risk factors tells me that my efforts are being wasted.

 

[KCfromNC]

Regarding the efficacy of the bivalent booster (emphasis added).

On October 24, 2022, David Ho and colleagues released the results of a study examining levels of neutralizing antibodies against BA.4 and BA.5 after receipt of a monovalent or bivalent booster dose. They found “no significant difference in neutralization of any SARS-CoV-2 variant,” including BA.4 and BA.5, between the two groups.3 One day later, Dan Barouch and colleagues released the results of a similar study, finding that “BA.5 [neutralizing-antibody] titers were comparable following monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters.” Barouch and colleagues also noted no appreciable differences in CD4+ or CD8+ T-cell responses between participants in the monovalent-booster group and those in the bivalent-booster group.4 Neither research group found the bivalent boosters to elicit superior immune responses. The results are now published in the Journal.​

​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780

​

And this article from CNN on the same topic.

FDA vaccine advisers ‘disappointed’ and ‘angry’ that early data about new Covid-19 booster shot wasn’t presented for review last year

What this means is that US taxpayers paid $5 BILLION for the bivalent booster (which only about 15% of the population has received) and it doesn't provide any better protection.

I mean, one could choose to post an opinion piece questioning how effective the boosters may or may not be, or one could post actual research results from the boosters in actual use : New Covid boosters work better against infection than previous shots, CDC finds

The updated booster shots performed better in preventing infections in all adult age groups, with higher vaccine efficacy seen in people who waited longer before getting the updated booster, the CDC found.​

​

I wonder which approach is more likely to give an accurate representation of the reality on the ground?

 

[probinson]

That doesn't change the fact the chart shows people with 0 doses of the vaccine supposedly have a lower risk of getting covid than those with two. Kinda makes one wonder how they ended up with such a weird result, and one which contradicts the other paper in the same post which also was the the one which was finally going to prove that vaccines are bad.

The intent of these posts has never been to prove that "vaccines are bad". Your continued intentional mischaracterization of this after you have been corrected multiple times tells me that you are not interested in honest discourse.

 

[probinson]

Yes, we know. I've already explained a potential problem with drawing conclusions from that, including giving several concrete examples of previous similar failures in anti-vaxx spin. Please, read the articles I linked which explains those in much more detail.

Well OK. If the repeated dosing of vaccines were having a protective effect on hospitalizations as we've been told, one would not expect those who had a higher number of doses to have more hospitalizations.

No. To do so we'd need the data broken down by age groups.

You can't have it both ways. You are saying we can't know that the repeated dosing of vaccines is ineffective because you hypothesize that those who had more doses are likely older people. So therefore, you are saying that a potential reason that the hospitalizations are higher in people with more doses is because they are older. But now you're saying, no, that's not true either. You are spinning and flopping to paint the repeated dosing of vaccines in the best possible light instead of simply "following the science".

Please, read the articles I linked. They explain quite simply what was going on the last few times anti-vaxx sources tried this sleight of hand.

"Sleight of hand" is not what's happening here. The data clearly shows a correlation between increased hospitalizations and more vaccine doses.

When posts fail to understand what I wrote in such a blantantly obvious way, it really makes me question how accurate similar posts trying to understand research papers are. When the stuff I can easily verify is obviously wrong, it really calls the understanding of the more difficult conclusions into question.

This is yammering nonsense.

I can tell I've made a valid point about the failure of one anti-vaxx talking point when the subject is changed to talking about me (above) and about other random anti-vaxx grievances.

And I can tell when you've run out of compelling arguments when you pivot to yammering nonsense.

The need to resort to personal attacks in lieu of simply addressing the point I made about the dangers of ignoring basic, well known differences in covid risk factors tells me that my efforts are being wasted.

It's not a personal attack. I seriously question your ability to understand the difference between the original two-dose vaccine regimen and multiple, repeated booster doses. You seem completely incapable of comprehending that while a two-dose vaccine regimen could be (and likely is) beneficial for people who have never had COVID, repeated dosing of that vaccine every few months could have unintended negative health consequences.