And in the end it is merely guesswork, because one person is not the other, we are all different. Statistics are merely mathematic constructions. Still, I like the outcome LOL
They are using aggregate statistics without considering that the hospitalized and infected populations maybe different cohorts. The hospitalized cohort can have 70% less hospitalization simply by increasing the spread of the virus in a group that was previously unlikely to be infected such as younger fitter people. Vaccinate them, get them infected and use their lack of hospitalization to prove efficacy for hospitalization for someone who had cancer, got vaccinated, ended up hospitalized after Catching Delta which replicates faster (just like omicron) in cancerous lung cells and kills them faster.
Then pretend that the hospitalization aggregate is better.
No. your vaccine made those who were susceptible to severe disease but not susceptible to infection, catch the worst form of the illness, and then they died due to compromised underlying health.
In this way, the vaccine promotes infection and erodes sterilizing immunity in those who had sterilizing immunity. Then when many of these new susceptibles don't end up in hospital, the aggregate is touted as "saving hospitalization". Of course, give the virus enough chances and it will start putting kids in hospitals. And it's started. This is because of the "vaccine stops severe disease" mantra that allowed them to roll out vaccines that actually increases severe disease but just increases infections at much faster rate making a lagging denominator (of evolving virulence) always look efficacious.
"These stories are part of the “it would have been worse…” series of media articles that have, deservedly, become a right-wing meme."
I think calling it "right wing" is unfair. I wouldn't describe myself as being right wing in the slightest (my political compass test tells me I'm a centrist progressive liberal, whatever that means!).
I think political orientation is quite meaningless for people on our side, we care about the loss of freedom and governments pushing dangerous medical products. I do of course recognize that our opponents tend to be Guardian/NYT reading champagne socialists, but we've probably got a few of them on our side as well. :)
True. I tend to avoid political shorthand for this very reason. I have been politically homeless for a long time, mostly because I view politics as smoke and mirrors. In this case, I traded some clarity for concision. That said, I suspect it would be difficult to find widespread use of that meme on any side that trends leftward.
I'm politically homeless too. I like freedom and good policies that actually improve things, rather than ideology or, quite frankly politics.
The best example surely is Biden. "Never taking the Trump vaccine!" he proclaimed. Surely he must be a right-wing conspiracy theorist antivaxxer chud?
Now look at the mess we are in...
I think you would be surprised. I would suggest that Off-Guardian is quite lefty. I'm sure there are plenty of other websites on our side like it. The problem isn't so much "Leftists" per se, it's the "new Left". I have tremendous respect for principled people on the Left who are trying to protect their side from the lunatics they are surrounded by.
But with that said, I do take your point.
Also, the Left can't meme and that is incontrovertible. :)
Perfect. I first noticed this when @tlowdon (on twitter) showed Dallas county statistics early on in July/August that had higher Hospitalization fatality rate for "Fully" vaccinated. That could be many things, but one of which is that infection is far higher and if symptomatic illness is not being tracked or hospitalized in advance due to assumption that they have protection, many will either come at a late stage or die at home such as this New Zealand man dying alone during home quarantine. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/new-zealand-covid-positive-person-dies-alone-at-home-during-isolation
This is another way to show that either the case fatality rates are much higher, or the vaccine promoted epidemic is much bigger as shown by this researcher using Virginia statistics.
I faintly recall the "stops severe disease" narrative coming along after the "stops infection" narrative fell apart. Funny enough, for them to claim it stops severe disease in any real sense, they would have to admit that it causes infections. Otherwise, most of the numbers I have seen imply that it causes the disease to be more severe as the vaccinated usually have higher CFRs... I assume that is because of the perverse incentives put in place meant to disincentives the vaccinated from testing (and thus making their numbers look better).
Not saying this is a rule, but I assuming the vaccinated are dying at equal numbers to the unvaccinated that are diagnosed with a case is extremely fair (and hard to push back against for the vaccine enthusiasts) when using adjusted VE's.
I was hoping for the vaccinee's sake that the situation you described is the reason for higher Hospitalization death rates. But then I realized that it could easily be the impact of lower care providing behavior on part of healthcare professionals thinking that vaccinated are not at risk based on officially handed down estimated risk profiles. What if the vaccinated were being neglected because their risk was erroneously downplayed and therefore reached hospital in worse stage of disease without any treatment?
In any case, if it's that the vaccine caused severe disease promotion in susceptible or promoted high infection rates in the community, both are totally unacceptable.
I imagine that is fully offset by healthcare professionals behavior in treating unvaccinated patients. At least in Canada, there is a strong push to offer worse treatment options or no options to the unvaccinated. I know at least three people that were denied care based on their vaccination status. A local "top doctor" said (in a radio interview) many of his colleagues have openly said the unvaccinated should be denied care. He said he is sympathetic to that view. It might be different in other countries or regions, but they are open about their disdain up here.
No, no, your are right. That's happening now, I was thinking about Northern hemisphere Summer Delta wave initially had higher Hospitalization case fatality rates in fully vaccinated in both India and UK. One of the reasons could have been the belief earlier than they were protected.
I agree, now it's more than offset by completely discriminatory behavior and treatment with unvaccinated. In fact, the biggest reason why we now know that infections rates are so high in the fully vaccinated is precisely because people who were fully vaccinated no longer believe they are protected and are on average more willing to check if they are infected because they are afraid of bad outcomes despite intervention.
This should in fact, reverse the likelihood of catching disease late and actually work in their favor. Once again, the vaccine failure caused them to take better precautions and the vaccine took the credit if good outcomes happened, the unvaccinated took the blame if bad outcomes happened.
This is end now, when fully boosted start blaming the underboosted or not yet recognized boosted despite actually being boosted!
Misuse of statistics like that appears to be the new normal they were talking about as it seems to be happening everywhere, but I actually cannot think of a more egregious case than the one you are describing. Even Pfizer decided it was better not to test 3/4 of the suspected cases rather than lumping them all in with the unvaccinated cohort
And in the end it is merely guesswork, because one person is not the other, we are all different. Statistics are merely mathematic constructions. Still, I like the outcome LOL
They are using aggregate statistics without considering that the hospitalized and infected populations maybe different cohorts. The hospitalized cohort can have 70% less hospitalization simply by increasing the spread of the virus in a group that was previously unlikely to be infected such as younger fitter people. Vaccinate them, get them infected and use their lack of hospitalization to prove efficacy for hospitalization for someone who had cancer, got vaccinated, ended up hospitalized after Catching Delta which replicates faster (just like omicron) in cancerous lung cells and kills them faster.
Then pretend that the hospitalization aggregate is better.
No. your vaccine made those who were susceptible to severe disease but not susceptible to infection, catch the worst form of the illness, and then they died due to compromised underlying health.
In this way, the vaccine promotes infection and erodes sterilizing immunity in those who had sterilizing immunity. Then when many of these new susceptibles don't end up in hospital, the aggregate is touted as "saving hospitalization". Of course, give the virus enough chances and it will start putting kids in hospitals. And it's started. This is because of the "vaccine stops severe disease" mantra that allowed them to roll out vaccines that actually increases severe disease but just increases infections at much faster rate making a lagging denominator (of evolving virulence) always look efficacious.
"These stories are part of the “it would have been worse…” series of media articles that have, deservedly, become a right-wing meme."
I think calling it "right wing" is unfair. I wouldn't describe myself as being right wing in the slightest (my political compass test tells me I'm a centrist progressive liberal, whatever that means!).
I think political orientation is quite meaningless for people on our side, we care about the loss of freedom and governments pushing dangerous medical products. I do of course recognize that our opponents tend to be Guardian/NYT reading champagne socialists, but we've probably got a few of them on our side as well. :)
True. I tend to avoid political shorthand for this very reason. I have been politically homeless for a long time, mostly because I view politics as smoke and mirrors. In this case, I traded some clarity for concision. That said, I suspect it would be difficult to find widespread use of that meme on any side that trends leftward.
I'm politically homeless too. I like freedom and good policies that actually improve things, rather than ideology or, quite frankly politics.
The best example surely is Biden. "Never taking the Trump vaccine!" he proclaimed. Surely he must be a right-wing conspiracy theorist antivaxxer chud?
Now look at the mess we are in...
I think you would be surprised. I would suggest that Off-Guardian is quite lefty. I'm sure there are plenty of other websites on our side like it. The problem isn't so much "Leftists" per se, it's the "new Left". I have tremendous respect for principled people on the Left who are trying to protect their side from the lunatics they are surrounded by.
But with that said, I do take your point.
Also, the Left can't meme and that is incontrovertible. :)
Perfect. I first noticed this when @tlowdon (on twitter) showed Dallas county statistics early on in July/August that had higher Hospitalization fatality rate for "Fully" vaccinated. That could be many things, but one of which is that infection is far higher and if symptomatic illness is not being tracked or hospitalized in advance due to assumption that they have protection, many will either come at a late stage or die at home such as this New Zealand man dying alone during home quarantine. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/new-zealand-covid-positive-person-dies-alone-at-home-during-isolation
This is another way to show that either the case fatality rates are much higher, or the vaccine promoted epidemic is much bigger as shown by this researcher using Virginia statistics.
https://twitter.com/mahmudme01/status/1446287364809273345?s=20
I faintly recall the "stops severe disease" narrative coming along after the "stops infection" narrative fell apart. Funny enough, for them to claim it stops severe disease in any real sense, they would have to admit that it causes infections. Otherwise, most of the numbers I have seen imply that it causes the disease to be more severe as the vaccinated usually have higher CFRs... I assume that is because of the perverse incentives put in place meant to disincentives the vaccinated from testing (and thus making their numbers look better).
Not saying this is a rule, but I assuming the vaccinated are dying at equal numbers to the unvaccinated that are diagnosed with a case is extremely fair (and hard to push back against for the vaccine enthusiasts) when using adjusted VE's.
I was hoping for the vaccinee's sake that the situation you described is the reason for higher Hospitalization death rates. But then I realized that it could easily be the impact of lower care providing behavior on part of healthcare professionals thinking that vaccinated are not at risk based on officially handed down estimated risk profiles. What if the vaccinated were being neglected because their risk was erroneously downplayed and therefore reached hospital in worse stage of disease without any treatment?
In any case, if it's that the vaccine caused severe disease promotion in susceptible or promoted high infection rates in the community, both are totally unacceptable.
I imagine that is fully offset by healthcare professionals behavior in treating unvaccinated patients. At least in Canada, there is a strong push to offer worse treatment options or no options to the unvaccinated. I know at least three people that were denied care based on their vaccination status. A local "top doctor" said (in a radio interview) many of his colleagues have openly said the unvaccinated should be denied care. He said he is sympathetic to that view. It might be different in other countries or regions, but they are open about their disdain up here.
No, no, your are right. That's happening now, I was thinking about Northern hemisphere Summer Delta wave initially had higher Hospitalization case fatality rates in fully vaccinated in both India and UK. One of the reasons could have been the belief earlier than they were protected.
I agree, now it's more than offset by completely discriminatory behavior and treatment with unvaccinated. In fact, the biggest reason why we now know that infections rates are so high in the fully vaccinated is precisely because people who were fully vaccinated no longer believe they are protected and are on average more willing to check if they are infected because they are afraid of bad outcomes despite intervention.
This should in fact, reverse the likelihood of catching disease late and actually work in their favor. Once again, the vaccine failure caused them to take better precautions and the vaccine took the credit if good outcomes happened, the unvaccinated took the blame if bad outcomes happened.
This is end now, when fully boosted start blaming the underboosted or not yet recognized boosted despite actually being boosted!
tangentially regarding option 2:
we just had a bit of a scandal in Germany where the authorities (in Hamburg) had to release some data about the vax status of those newly infected.
Turns out a whopping 63.2% were actually N/A; vs. 22.5% vaxxed and 14,3% unvaxed.
Authorities had routinely claimed 80 or 90 % unvaxed.
They just lumped n/a and unvaxed together.
- No info yet how big this issue is down the line (hospitalizations, ICU, deaths)
-could be better (higher fidelity) in countries with a more unified system like the UK
-but I'm very skeptical that this isn't routinely hidden to some degree; even where the individual dose status is released this could be a big issue.
Misuse of statistics like that appears to be the new normal they were talking about as it seems to be happening everywhere, but I actually cannot think of a more egregious case than the one you are describing. Even Pfizer decided it was better not to test 3/4 of the suspected cases rather than lumping them all in with the unvaccinated cohort