Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Someone doesn't understand the word "significant". Better luck next time.

 

Haha, please do explain your understanding of statistical significance to me. Feel free to use the technical terms, as I have background in graduate-level statistics. *Pulls up chair*

 

Here's an interesting look at New York State. It's a tale of urban versus rural. Rural, upstate New York have almost a 5X hospitalization rate as compared to Manhattan and Long Island. Difference is vaccination rates. All five NYC boroughs have a vaccination rate > 70%. Most of the more rural counties in NY State have vaccination rates in the low 60% or 50% range. The other issue, as brought up in the article, is access to healthcare. NYC residents have plenty of options, and don't wait to get tested and treated. Rural residents generally don't have options, wait to get tested, and often wait too long to get treated. Still, another example that if you want to stay out of the hospital with COVID, your best bet is the vaccine.

 

Jesus man I thought you were better than this. Where did you get the idea that “it doesn’t last long” in terms of effectiveness? The protection against infection wanes but is still significant. The protection against hospitalization is very high - and continues to be high.

 

I explained it in post #31097. Better luck next time.

 

None of which has anything to do with statistical significance. Better luck next time.

 

Nope. I get it, one of these times you will be right. I'm feeling it. But at least you admit natural immunity is vastly superior to just the vaccine. We have some on this board who still refuse to admit that. So you have that going for you. Congrats.

 

As a reminder, you posted a study that showed a statistically significant decrease in infection rates by getting a vaccine after a Covid infection. Then you showed that you don't know what statistical significance is. Maybe if you took a couple of stats classes, things like this wouldn't keep happening to you. Just a suggestion. But I accept your usual tell of when you are wrong. Thanks.

 

Good effort, but nope. A very, very small difference. But hey, you were closer on this than you were with lockdowns, school closures and masks. Keep up the good fight sport.

 

And now we have the idiots from the FDA telling 16-17 year olds to get the booster if they want(i'm sure will be mandated starting soon) without consulting it's independent vaccine advisors. Wonder why...

FDA expands authorization for Pfizer's Covid booster to cover some teens

"The FDA made the decision without consulting its independent vaccine advisers, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, or VRBPAC. In its statement, the agency said the committee had already had extensive deliberations about boosters and “the FDA concluded that the request does not raise questions that would benefit from additional discussion by committee members.”

Likewise, Walensky sidestepped CDC’s independent vaccine experts, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP — an unusual move that is already drawing criticism.

Both advisory committees would likely have asked pointed questions about the risks associated with giving booster shoots to 16- and 17-year-olds, given the fact that the messenger RNA vaccines — like the Pfizer product and Moderna’s vaccine — have been linked to elevated rates of myocarditis and pericarditis, an inflammation of heart muscle or tissue around the heart, respectively."

 

Again, you have no idea what statistical significance is. Continuing to prove that does you no favors. Here is a quick primer on the subject (hint, a small effect size can still be statistically significant):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

 

Nope. Good try though. One of these days you will be right on something. I can't wait!

 

Man, you are really in way over your head. That is the third tell. We get it, you have a 2-7 offsuit.

 

The risk of getting the disease and getting myocarditis is actually higher than vaccination leading to myocarditis. By getting the vaccination you are lowering your risk of myocarditis.

 

I am speaking of it waning which is all that he was saying. I am simply asking what the neg rating was for. Why are you being so dramatic?

And thanks for the education on what we all already know.

 

“it doesn’t last long” is just willfully ignorant. This has been explained a dozen times. It’s the nature of the disease. No vaccine creates massive amounts of antibodies permanently, and thus a disease that incubates in 4 days inevitably will break through. But protection from severe disease from the bodies long term defenses very well may last a long time. That’s how the bodies immune system works.

 

No you don’t. You aren’t taking into account that getting the vaccine only limits your odds of getting covid for a few months. So that risk for a few months? Nope.

 

I get it, yoy are upset and embarrassed about being called out repeatedly on being wrong on all those things and now wrong on this. Textbook deflection. Almost feel bad for you. Almost LOL.

It is quite joyous pointing out everywhere you’ve been wrong in the past 21+ months. Lockdowns, you were wrong. School closures, you were wrong. Mask? You were wrong and are desperately defending one study that wouldn’t release their data for months and also showed no difference in effectiveness under 50 LOL. Man, he’ll of a hot streak sport.

 

Because 9 weeks ago the fda external advisory board voted 16-2 to not recommend boosters for in most situations for healthy people…

 

Thank you doc. No one is disagreeing.
95 is suggesting natural immunity from a bout with COVID may last longer, not that the vaccine doesn't do good work.

The defensiveness on this subject isn't just coming from one side.

But the whole "I thought you were better than that" drama is hyperbolic nonsense.

Frankly I thought YOU were better than THAT. !)