Zero CONFIRMED deaths from taking the vaccine! The MSM is deliberately hiding all the vaxx deaths you sheeple!
Yeah, thatās just horrible writing. Seems like a lot of stories on the web get no editorial scrutiny prior to publishing. He never says āone was vaccinatedā, so weāre left to wonder what he was trying to say.
Though LOTRing someoneās sacrifice isnāt far behind.
(Sorry for meme-ing up this very important thread)
According to some comments on reddit 3 were unvaccinated and vaccination status of the 4th was unknown at time of press.
Odds are that all of them were unvaccinated.
Itās also āif you pull a gun on me you really should pull the triggerā. Seriously.
Too many people are conflict avoidant to the point where itās hugely hugely exploitable.
I do generally warn people that theyāre about to initiate conflict with me at least once, but if they proceedā¦ well that was a choice they made. Generally speaking 90%+ of the the time people back off with the warning for me at least. Probably pretty obvious Iām not bluffing if youāre an experienced bully.
I kind of like desantis for this one. Basically telling deplorables that even if they get really sick thereās a miracle cure. Leaving out that it might not be available or if it is, will bankrupt them.
We really need a broad social movement to teach people to be firm but polite in their dealings, with a willingness to combat assholes with some aggression. We bizarrely seem to have coached individuals to be either an obnoxious asshole (because it works) or a pushover (because then you can feel good about not being one of the assholes). This is a catastrophic dynamic because the worst people get the most power.
Youāre never going to get beyond reasonable doubt in these cases. For example, with the kid who was positive who went to school, there is no way of knowing for sure you caught it from him. There is a chance you could have caught it from another asymptomatic person at the school. Or someone else that you interacted with elsewhere. Given how widespread the disease is and the ubiquity of asymptomatic spreaders, itās is very tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you caught COVID from a specific person in most cases. Itās an entirely different situation from HIV.
I mean you could just make sending your kid to school knowing they have covid very illegal regardless of outcome.
The real problem here is the same with the HIV laws, if it became illegal to go somewhere with covid, or send your kid anywhere, people would just not get tested for covid and have plausible deniability.
Thatās true, but making a new law like that is not what was suggested in the post I responded to. Any such law could not include any sort of āif you infect someoneā type of language if you want criminal charges to stick.
My brother and his wife are finally getting their shots today. I would like to say he was vax hesitant and I heroically changed his mind but right off the bat he was like āI donāt know about the shot, but all these different companies are making their employers get it so mineās probably going to soon so I might as well get itā.
Sorry, I just gotta nitpick that second tweet. Every single study of vaccine effectiveness, even ones we didnāt like that much like the Israeli study, has published a 95% CI. It stands for 95% confidence interval, which means that the next numbers that follow are the error bars straddling the main value that preceded the ā95% CIā text. So here, the measured effectiveness was 88%, and statistically, if we repeated this study 100 times, weād expect to measure something between 85.3% effectiveness and 90.1% effectiveness 95% of the time, and 5% of the time weād get something outside of those values. The third tweet is correct, that these error bars are remarkably tight compared with just about every study of vaccine effectiveness to date, perhaps even including the original Pfizer study with tens of thousands of people. But that second tweet, thereās nothing remarkable about publishing a 95% CI. To not do so would be statistical malpractice.
I donāt think there has ever been a study showing 42% effectiveness for Pfizer and 88% for Moderna in the same study. Those two vaccines are very similar, and it would indeed be freaky if they produced such disparate results, but unless you have a citation handy, I think youāre just misremembering (which is understandable, given the barrage of information and the myriad minutiae youāre no doubt trying to keep straight). But for why so many studies get different results, the first is random chance. We expect variability, because a few extra cases of covid in the vaccinated or unvaccinated column can change the answer a fair bit. The second, as we saw with the Israeli study that had the low effectiveness number for the Pfizer vaccine, is that an accurate estimate of the effectiveness requires that the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations be roughly equivalent. The Israeli study dropped the ball here, because the vaccinated portion of their study was much older and thus more susceptible, making the vaccine look less effective than it actually is.
Whatever it takes. Totally fine to be results oriented when it comes to vaccines.
Cliffs on problem with the Israel study?
It seemed like the person who tweeted that and the person who replied both know what a confidence interval is.
I think their point is that a study with 95% CI that shows 91% effectiveness wouldnāt make the news (not that it wouldnāt be published) because itās not saying anything new. But a study with huge error bars that shows say 60% effectiveness would make the news because itās scary.
Here:
Thanks for breaking that down. I was referencing the Mayo Clinic Heath systems study. 42% Pfizer and 86% against infection. Iām sure Iām misinterpreting what the study actually says. The frustration is itās just blasted all over Twitter and every headline says āPfizer only 42% effective against delta.ā https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1
The Israeli study also looked at vaccine waning, hence the sample was mainly vaxxed December to April, hence the older age profile.
The report has also reflected the decreasing potency of the vaccination, showing a mere 16 percent effectiveness against transmission among those vaccinated in January, compared to 44 percent of those vaccinated in February, 67 percent of those who received their shots in March, and 75 percent for those vaccinated in April
Like the people were older or like the study was older or they had their vaccine awhile ago?