Behind the Birth of an Anti-Vaccine Story

[Opti]

Dec 26, 2023 17:54:12 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 26, 2023 15:21:26 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

No, you are not. You have a political agenda. Don't like that study. Try this one. I will summarize it for you. "Estimated effectiveness against symptomtomatic infection was 31% in those partially vaccinated, and 50% in those fully vaccinated." I am sure you will bring up asymptomatic infections. Those patients test positive. Nobody really knows how contagious they are. And nobody knows the significance in asymptomatic infections in other respiratory diseases, such as influenza.

JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(10):e2336854. Epub 2023 Oct 2.

I don't know where you say I have a political agenda I haven't brought politics up at all in this. So what you are saying is there is a 19% difference in spreading the virus from vaccinated to unvaccinated. 

Things change. Covid and its variants have been far from static. To keep track of the current variants in the mix you need a scorecard. What was true in 2020 may night hold in 2021. Same with 2022 and now. We are in the endemic phase so overall the virus is less deadly but more easily spread.

www.who.int/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants

One study is just a drop in the bucket. Even four studies over four different baskets of variants i far from a complete picture.

[azucena]

Dec 26, 2023 17:54:12 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 26, 2023 15:21:26 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

No, you are not. You have a political agenda. Don't like that study. Try this one. I will summarize it for you. "Estimated effectiveness against symptomtomatic infection was 31% in those partially vaccinated, and 50% in those fully vaccinated." I am sure you will bring up asymptomatic infections. Those patients test positive. Nobody really knows how contagious they are. And nobody knows the significance in asymptomatic infections in other respiratory diseases, such as influenza.

JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(10):e2336854. Epub 2023 Oct 2.

I don't know where you say I have a political agenda I haven't brought politics up at all in this. So what you are saying is there is a 19% difference in spreading the virus from vaccinated to unvaccinated. 

And herein lies the problem. That's not at all what that statistic says.

[pulmonarymd]

Dec 26, 2023 17:54:12 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 26, 2023 15:21:26 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

No, you are not. You have a political agenda. Don't like that study. Try this one. I will summarize it for you. "Estimated effectiveness against symptomtomatic infection was 31% in those partially vaccinated, and 50% in those fully vaccinated." I am sure you will bring up asymptomatic infections. Those patients test positive. Nobody really knows how contagious they are. And nobody knows the significance in asymptomatic infections in other respiratory diseases, such as influenza.

JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(10):e2336854. Epub 2023 Oct 2.

I don't know where you say I have a political agenda I haven't brought politics up at all in this. So what you are saying is there is a 19% difference in spreading the virus from vaccinated to unvaccinated. 

That is the difference between partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated. They did not look at unvaccinated individuals. That difference is undoubtedly larger. Does that meet your standards?

Forgot to add- developing a symptomatic infection

[djAdvocate]

Dec 26, 2023 17:54:12 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 26, 2023 15:21:26 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

No, you are not. You have a political agenda. Don't like that study. Try this one. I will summarize it for you. "Estimated effectiveness against symptomtomatic infection was 31% in those partially vaccinated, and 50% in those fully vaccinated." I am sure you will bring up asymptomatic infections. Those patients test positive. Nobody really knows how contagious they are. And nobody knows the significance in asymptomatic infections in other respiratory diseases, such as influenza.

JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(10):e2336854. Epub 2023 Oct 2.

I don't know where you say I have a political agenda I haven't brought politics up at all in this. So what you are saying is there is a 19% difference in spreading the virus from vaccinated to unvaccinated. 

unvaccinated was not mentioned in the study.
one might presume that basically 100% of those exposed without vaccine would be come infected.  so, it is more like 31% prophylactic for partial vaccination, and 50/50 if you are fully vaccinated.

if i am reading it correctly, that is.

edit: that is not why i got vaccinated, though.  i got vaccinated to avoid dying, and to avoid spreading the disease.  it is VASTLY better at those two things than preventing infection.  VASTLY.

[pulmonarymd]

Dec 27, 2023 23:46:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 26, 2023 17:54:12 GMT -5 scgal said:

I don't know where you say I have a political agenda I haven't brought politics up at all in this. So what you are saying is there is a 19% difference in spreading the virus from vaccinated to unvaccinated. 

unvaccinated was not mentioned in the study.
one might presume that basically 100% of those exposed without vaccine would be come infected.  so, it is more like 31% prophylactic for partial vaccination, and 50/50 if you are fully vaccinated.

if i am reading it correctly, that is.

edit: that is not why i got vaccinated, though.  i got vaccinated to avoid dying, and to avoid spreading the disease.  it is VASTLY better at those two things than preventing infection.  VASTLY.

You are correct. The statistics show a significant chance of catching the disease, which is what scgal was denying it did. The Lancet study showed the benefits of preventing hospitalizations and deaths, at which the vaccine was even more effective, but she didn’t, in her educated, medical opinion, think was good enough. Hence, my second posting the second study

[Spellbound454]

That's the thing about statistics, you can get them to say whatever you want

but not including unvaccinated in the study ... looks a bit contrived.

Took the vaccines with a skip in my step...... and the hope that we were seeing a way out of the nightmare.


Some people went absolutely bonkers. It was like the rise and rise of the cranks.

Why anyone would give them the time of day is beyond me.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Honestly for the COVID vaccine the real time data should have been enough to convince people.   I was at the bottom of the list for getting the shots given I was in my 30s.  If it was going to kill vast numbers of people or cause massive side effects for numerous people I would have heard about it by the time it was my turn.

Could something happen 5, 10, 15 years down the road?  Sure I cannot prove or disprove that.  BUT given the immediate possibility of me leaving my husband a widower and my children motherless AND I really like being alive myself I am good with taking the chance something might catch up with me in 5,10, 15 years.

And let's be honest 100% of people who are going to get the vaccine will die.  Because we ALL die eventually.  The question in regards to vaccines is how do you want to do it and how many people do you want to take down with you? 

I didn't want to die of a massive brain bleed/suffocation while my husband and children weren't allowed to be by my bedside.  So COVID vaccine it is.   I don't want to expose a pregnant woman to rubella and cause birth defects for her child so MMR it is.  I REALLY don't want polio .. so vaccination it is.   

I'm too old and had chicken pox before the vaccine came out but knowing what it did to my mom and how severe it was when my brother got it as a 2 year old .. I vaccinate the kids.  It would be likely they'd take after me and my father but what if they don't?  What about other kids they could give it to?   

As my grandmother put it if there is an alternative to getting it the old fashioned way with all the risks that come with it WHY would I deliberately choose the old fashioned way? 

[pulmonarymd]

Dec 28, 2023 9:04:48 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

That's the thing about statistics, you can get them to say whatever you want

but not including unvaccinated in the study ... looks a bit contrived.

Took the vaccines with a skip in my step...... and the hope that we were seeing a way out of the nightmare.


Some people went absolutely bonkers. It was like the rise and rise of the cranks.

Why anyone would give them the time of day is beyond me.

That is why you do not look at one study. Every study shows similar findings, a decrease in the infection rate, the hospitalization rate, and the mortality rate. When every study shows findings in the same direction, the conclusion is easy. Studies are done in different ways. Most of these studies are either observational or retrospective, because it is unethical to expose people to a disease we have no cure for to see if the vaccine works. And do you really think that unvaccinated individuals are less likely to have an acute infection than vaccinated individuals? These studies are done in a wat that many other studies are done, and the conclusions are scrutinized in a way that they are for other studies. The problem lies in the politics and not the science.

[pulmonarymd]

Dec 28, 2023 9:44:25 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Honestly for the COVID vaccine the real time data should have been enough to convince people.   I was at the bottom of the list for getting the shots given I was in my 30s.  If it was going to kill vast numbers of people or cause massive side effects for numerous people I would have heard about it by the time it was my turn.

Could something happen 5, 10, 15 years down the road?  Sure I cannot prove or disprove that.  BUT given the immediate possibility of me leaving my husband a widower and my children motherless AND I really like being alive myself I am good with taking the chance something might catch up with me in 5,10, 15 years.

And let's be honest 100% of people who are going to get the vaccine will die.  Because we ALL die eventually.  The question in regards to vaccines is how do you want to do it and how many people do you want to take down with you? 

I didn't want to die of a massive brain bleed/suffocation while my husband and children weren't allowed to be by my bedside.  So COVID vaccine it is.   I don't want to expose a pregnant woman to rubella and cause side effects so MMR it is.  I REALLY don't want polio .. so vaccination it is.

Not only that, hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, most with no or only mild side effects. The testing has been done. The vaccine works, The rest is nonsense.

No one knows the effect of the vaccine 10 years done the line, just like every single new medical intervention. Many of the same people criticizing the COVID vaccine are lining up for semaglutide so they can lose weight, regardless of the fact that the long term side effects are unknown. And we do not know the long term consequences of COVID are unknown too. But many of the same people who won't take then vaccine because of unknown future side effects, refuse to acknowledge the same fact about covid.

[scgal]

Dec 28, 2023 7:13:31 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Dec 27, 2023 23:46:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

unvaccinated was not mentioned in the study.
one might presume that basically 100% of those exposed without vaccine would be come infected.  so, it is more like 31% prophylactic for partial vaccination, and 50/50 if you are fully vaccinated.

if i am reading it correctly, that is.

edit: that is not why i got vaccinated, though.  i got vaccinated to avoid dying, and to avoid spreading the disease.  it is VASTLY better at those two things than preventing infection.  VASTLY.

You are correct. The statistics show a significant chance of catching the disease, which is what scgal was denying it did. The Lancet study showed the benefits of preventing hospitalizations and deaths, at which the vaccine was even more effective, but she didn’t, in her educated, medical opinion, think was good enough. Hence, my second posting the second study

No that is not what I said. I said you can still infect others if you are still vaccinated. The study you provided just shows how effective the vaccine is on the person who gets the vaccine. I want to know. How vaccine prevent catching the disease from someone who is vaccinated to unvaccinated. I still haven't seen that study. 

case 1. what are the chances of infection for a person being fully vaccinated in a room with a person who is unvaccinated but has the disease
Case 2. What are the chances of infection for a person being fully vaccinated in a room with a person who is vaccinated but has the diesase.

From the study you shown a person who is fully vaccinated has a 50/50 chance of catching the disease which by itself is a poor outcome. Let alone any potential risk the vaccine carries. 

[scgal]

Dec 28, 2023 9:52:33 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Dec 28, 2023 9:44:25 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Honestly for the COVID vaccine the real time data should have been enough to convince people.   I was at the bottom of the list for getting the shots given I was in my 30s.  If it was going to kill vast numbers of people or cause massive side effects for numerous people I would have heard about it by the time it was my turn.

Could something happen 5, 10, 15 years down the road?  Sure I cannot prove or disprove that.  BUT given the immediate possibility of me leaving my husband a widower and my children motherless AND I really like being alive myself I am good with taking the chance something might catch up with me in 5,10, 15 years.

And let's be honest 100% of people who are going to get the vaccine will die.  Because we ALL die eventually.  The question in regards to vaccines is how do you want to do it and how many people do you want to take down with you? 

I didn't want to die of a massive brain bleed/suffocation while my husband and children weren't allowed to be by my bedside.  So COVID vaccine it is.   I don't want to expose a pregnant woman to rubella and cause side effects so MMR it is.  I REALLY don't want polio .. so vaccination it is.

Not only that, hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, most with no or only mild side effects. The testing has been done. The vaccine works, The rest is nonsense.

No one knows the effect of the vaccine 10 years done the line, just like every single new medical intervention. Many of the same people criticizing the COVID vaccine are lining up for semaglutide so they can lose weight, regardless of the fact that the long term side effects are unknown. And we do not know the long term consequences of COVID are unknown too. But many of the same people who won't take then vaccine because of unknown future side effects, refuse to acknowledge the same fact about covid.

I will confess I am guilty on this particular medicine you mentioned. I take ozempic for diabetes. I was offered it when it first came out and I turned it down being it was so new. After much discussions with my husband and given my family poor history of diabetes I decided to take it. I am still very concerned with the outcome 10 yrs down the road.

[pulmonarymd]

Dec 28, 2023 9:58:02 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 28, 2023 7:13:31 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

You are correct. The statistics show a significant chance of catching the disease, which is what scgal was denying it did. The Lancet study showed the benefits of preventing hospitalizations and deaths, at which the vaccine was even more effective, but she didn’t, in her educated, medical opinion, think was good enough. Hence, my second posting the second study

No that is not what I said. I said you can still infect others if you are still vaccinated. The study you provided just shows how effective the vaccine is on the person who gets the vaccine. I want to know. How vaccine prevent catching the disease from someone who is vaccinated to unvaccinated. I still haven't seen that study. 

case 1. what are the chances of infection for a person being fully vaccinated in a room with a person who is unvaccinated but has the disease
Case 2. What are the chances of infection for a person being fully vaccinated in a room with a person who is vaccinated but has the diesase.

From the study you shown a person who is fully vaccinated has a 50/50 chance of catching the disease which by itself is a poor outcome. Let alone any potential risk the vaccine carries. 

That study is almost impossible to do. So, because it will not be done, you refuse to accept science. The fact remains, for ALL other infectious diseases, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the disease prevalence. Does that prove that vaccines prevent transmission, now, but it is highly suggestive. But asking for data about the rate of transmission in asymptomatic infections; how the hell would you even design that study. It wasn't until COVID that we found out how significant asymptomatic transmission could be. It hadn't been noted with other diseases.

So, your contention is because we do not know, or cannot prove your question, even though science knows vaccination slows the spread of disease, we cannot require vaccination. So no longer can we have school mandates? Or again, is it just this vaccine?

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Dec 28, 2023 9:52:33 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Dec 28, 2023 9:44:25 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Honestly for the COVID vaccine the real time data should have been enough to convince people.   I was at the bottom of the list for getting the shots given I was in my 30s.  If it was going to kill vast numbers of people or cause massive side effects for numerous people I would have heard about it by the time it was my turn.

Could something happen 5, 10, 15 years down the road?  Sure I cannot prove or disprove that.  BUT given the immediate possibility of me leaving my husband a widower and my children motherless AND I really like being alive myself I am good with taking the chance something might catch up with me in 5,10, 15 years.

And let's be honest 100% of people who are going to get the vaccine will die.  Because we ALL die eventually.  The question in regards to vaccines is how do you want to do it and how many people do you want to take down with you? 

I didn't want to die of a massive brain bleed/suffocation while my husband and children weren't allowed to be by my bedside.  So COVID vaccine it is.   I don't want to expose a pregnant woman to rubella and cause side effects so MMR it is.  I REALLY don't want polio .. so vaccination it is.

Not only that, hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, most with no or only mild side effects. The testing has been done. The vaccine works, The rest is nonsense.

No one knows the effect of the vaccine 10 years done the line, just like every single new medical intervention. Many of the same people criticizing the COVID vaccine are lining up for semaglutide so they can lose weight, regardless of the fact that the long term side effects are unknown. And we do not know the long term consequences of COVID are unknown too. But many of the same people who won't take then vaccine because of unknown future side effects, refuse to acknowledge the same fact about covid.

I wish I could remember her name but I attended an excellent lecture about this very topic at UNMC.   I was reading about the swallowing/digestive issue with the weight loss drugs and that it could very well be for life even if you go off it.

In the name of weight loss?  No I am not taking that drug thank you.

To control diabetes?  I would be willing to risk it because I've seen what unchecked diabetes can do and I am freaking TERRIFIED of diabetes after my grandmother died in part from complications of it.  I watch my blood sugar like a hawk.

Her discussion was about HIV vs acid reflux. 

Omprezaole and lansoprazole can cause dementia and there is, as I am currently aware, no data on what dosage and for how long you are on it before it causes damage.

We know ART therapy can cause congestive heart failure.  

And that information is important to make an informed decision now that we know.  The thing is you can't always know up front because you need enough people on it long enough to learn about the consequences. 

In regards to dementia it's also always been assumed that the blood brain barrier was impenetrable.  Science and technology finally caught up to where we now know that is not the case. We couldn't know before that because we didn't have any way to measure it.

It's also long been held in medicine that one treatment, one body part/organ/system.  We now know that it's true either as people live long enough that we can measure long term conseqences of certain drugs.  

In the case of HIV/AIDs it's an absolute no brainer.  It is a freaking miracle that people are now living with HIV into their 60s/70s/80s to where they develop congestive heart failure considering in my life time it was previously a death sentence if you contracted it.  That is considered a fair trade off.

For heartburn?  Maybe not so much and you should be presented with those facts before deciding to take it.   You may decide you would rather try other alternatives than risk dementia.  Or your heartburn may be bad enough you choose to risk it.

It was a really cool lecture and provided a lot of food for thought especially when COVID hit and all the vaccine hysteria popped up.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 28, 2023 9:04:48 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

That's the thing about statistics, you can get them to say whatever you want

false.

statistics say what they say.  the data is the data.  either it is good data or bad data.

PEOPLE can say whatever they want about the data, and can argue about what it means.  but the actual data NEVER lies if it is collected in a scientific way.  and yes, stupid people will misinterpret data.  which is why we need smart people looking at it, and telling us what it means.  professional, unbiased evaluation should be a centerpiece of everything we do.  unfortunately, we are about a light year away from that right now.

i really HATE people dismissing data.  data is all we have Spellbound454 .  if we cease believing it, we might as well live in the dark ages.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 28, 2023 10:06:03 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 28, 2023 9:52:33 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Not only that, hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, most with no or only mild side effects. The testing has been done. The vaccine works, The rest is nonsense.

No one knows the effect of the vaccine 10 years done the line, just like every single new medical intervention. Many of the same people criticizing the COVID vaccine are lining up for semaglutide so they can lose weight, regardless of the fact that the long term side effects are unknown. And we do not know the long term consequences of COVID are unknown too. But many of the same people who won't take then vaccine because of unknown future side effects, refuse to acknowledge the same fact about covid.

I will confess I am guilty on this particular medicine you mentioned. I take ozempic for diabetes. I was offered it when it first came out and I turned it down being it was so new. After much discussions with my husband and given my family poor history of diabetes I decided to take it. I am still very concerned with the outcome 10 yrs down the road.

i am sure that if the medication gave you any reason for concern, you would report it.

you should be (and probably are) more concerned about the disease itself.

[Spellbound454]

Dec 28, 2023 13:24:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 28, 2023 9:04:48 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

That's the thing about statistics, you can get them to say whatever you want

false.

statistics say what they say.  the data is the data.  either it is good data or bad data.

PEOPLE can say whatever they want about the data, and can argue about what it means.  but the actual data NEVER lies if it is collected in a scientific way.  and yes, stupid people will misinterpret data.  which is why we need smart people looking at it, and telling us what it means.  professional, unbiased evaluation should be a centerpiece of everything we do.  unfortunately, we are about a light year away from that right now.

i really HATE people dismissing data.  data is all we have Spellbound454 .  if we cease believing it, we might as well live in the dark ages.

Its the interpretation which can be manipulated.

simple example

30% favoured A,... 40% favoured B,... 30% don't know.

B is the largest percentage but

but team A, will say 60% didn't want B (they'll include the don't knows)

Happens all the time' especially in politics.

Also, having examined a statistical analysis of a survey (which I was part of)
The conclusion included a positive answer to everything, including topics we weren't even asked.....

and when speaking to my boss and asking to see the data (I'm pretty good at math) ..... I got a pat on the head,.... and a "All you need to know is that everything is just fine"

So, excuse the scepticism. I think this sort of thing happens a lot.

[scgal]

Dec 28, 2023 10:18:30 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Dec 28, 2023 9:58:02 GMT -5 scgal said:

No that is not what I said. I said you can still infect others if you are still vaccinated. The study you provided just shows how effective the vaccine is on the person who gets the vaccine. I want to know. How vaccine prevent catching the disease from someone who is vaccinated to unvaccinated. I still haven't seen that study. 

case 1. what are the chances of infection for a person being fully vaccinated in a room with a person who is unvaccinated but has the disease
Case 2. What are the chances of infection for a person being fully vaccinated in a room with a person who is vaccinated but has the diesase.

From the study you shown a person who is fully vaccinated has a 50/50 chance of catching the disease which by itself is a poor outcome. Let alone any potential risk the vaccine carries. 

That study is almost impossible to do. So, because it will not be done, you refuse to accept science. The fact remains, for ALL other infectious diseases, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the disease prevalence. Does that prove that vaccines prevent transmission, now, but it is highly suggestive. But asking for data about the rate of transmission in asymptomatic infections; how the hell would you even design that study. It wasn't until COVID that we found out how significant asymptomatic transmission could be. It hadn't been noted with other diseases.

So, your contention is because we do not know, or cannot prove your question, even though science knows vaccination slows the spread of disease, we cannot require vaccination. So no longer can we have school mandates? Or again, is it just this vaccine?

I accept the science, I accept the science community wants me to take a vaccine based on very little information. You yourself said that covid is not like other diseases but for some reason you will accept the vaccines that are like the ones for other diseases. There should be no mandate only volunteer. The medical community is full of itself "They know best". Most of it is guess work they hide behind oh this is different we didn't know. They don't like hard questions they cannot answer. They like to play god, just look at so many who think they are superheros becasue they went to work during the outbreak. 

[pulmonarymd]

Dec 29, 2023 10:50:29 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 28, 2023 10:18:30 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

That study is almost impossible to do. So, because it will not be done, you refuse to accept science. The fact remains, for ALL other infectious diseases, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the disease prevalence. Does that prove that vaccines prevent transmission, now, but it is highly suggestive. But asking for data about the rate of transmission in asymptomatic infections; how the hell would you even design that study. It wasn't until COVID that we found out how significant asymptomatic transmission could be. It hadn't been noted with other diseases.

So, your contention is because we do not know, or cannot prove your question, even though science knows vaccination slows the spread of disease, we cannot require vaccination. So no longer can we have school mandates? Or again, is it just this vaccine?

I accept the science, I accept the science community wants me to take a vaccine based on very little information. You yourself said that covid is not like other diseases but for some reason you will accept the vaccines that are like the ones for other diseases. There should be no mandate only volunteer. The medical community is full of itself "They know best". Most of it is guess work they hide behind oh this is different we didn't know. They don't like hard questions they cannot answer. They like to play god, just look at so many who think they are superheros becasue they went to work during the outbreak. 

Hundreds of millions of people have now received the vaccine. It is the most studied vaccine in the world. All the rest you post is just ignorant.

Medicine makes mistakes. But if you believe that we do not ask ourselves hard questions, you are an idiot. Medical studies are done all the time. Treatments change and advance because of it. But because you don’t understand it, it doesn’t happen.

And finally, we get to the real reason for all that you are posting. Can’t wait to attack medical professionals. It is your go to move. If we are so bad, who is treating your diabetes? Might as well go to a naturopath given your animosity towards the medical profession

[djAdvocate]

Dec 28, 2023 19:35:22 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Dec 28, 2023 13:24:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

false.

statistics say what they say.  the data is the data.  either it is good data or bad data.

PEOPLE can say whatever they want about the data, and can argue about what it means.  but the actual data NEVER lies if it is collected in a scientific way.  and yes, stupid people will misinterpret data.  which is why we need smart people looking at it, and telling us what it means.  professional, unbiased evaluation should be a centerpiece of everything we do.  unfortunately, we are about a light year away from that right now.

i really HATE people dismissing data.  data is all we have Spellbound454 .  if we cease believing it, we might as well live in the dark ages.

Its the interpretation which can be manipulated.

simple example

30% favoured A,... 40% favoured B,... 30% don't know.

B is the largest percentage but

but team A, will say 60% didn't want B (they'll include the don't knows)

Happens all the time' especially in politics.

Also, having examined a statistical analysis of a survey (which I was part of)
The conclusion included a positive answer to everything, including topics we weren't even asked.....

and when speaking to my boss and asking to see the data (I'm pretty good at math) ..... I got a pat on the head,.... and a "All you need to know is that everything is just fine"

So, excuse the scepticism. I think this sort of thing happens a lot.

it happens a lot because it CAN.
i think people need to do one of three things:

1) read the details, and ignore the opinions until you do.
2) go to a trusted source and take THEIR opinion.
3) learn basic statistics and then you will know what you are looking at.

otherwise, stats, like anything else, will be used to manipulate us.

here is my favourite:

60% don't like the ACA.

that (was) true at one time.  30% thought it did not go far enough, and 30% thought it went too far.  so, if you ask the question THIS way:

do you think that the ACA is either acceptable, good, or needs improvement?  that question had 70% support.

[Opti]

Dec 29, 2023 10:50:29 GMT -5 scgal said:

Dec 28, 2023 10:18:30 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

That study is almost impossible to do. So, because it will not be done, you refuse to accept science. The fact remains, for ALL other infectious diseases, the higher the vaccination rate, the lower the disease prevalence. Does that prove that vaccines prevent transmission, now, but it is highly suggestive. But asking for data about the rate of transmission in asymptomatic infections; how the hell would you even design that study. It wasn't until COVID that we found out how significant asymptomatic transmission could be. It hadn't been noted with other diseases.

So, your contention is because we do not know, or cannot prove your question, even though science knows vaccination slows the spread of disease, we cannot require vaccination. So no longer can we have school mandates? Or again, is it just this vaccine?

I accept the science, I accept the science community wants me to take a vaccine based on very little information. You yourself said that covid is not like other diseases but for some reason you will accept the vaccines that are like the ones for other diseases. There should be no mandate only volunteer. The medical community is full of itself "They know best". Most of it is guess work they hide behind oh this is different we didn't know. They don't like hard questions they cannot answer. They like to play god, just look at so many who think they are superheros becasue they went to work during the outbreak. 

Please, for the love of reality can you get current? Today is December 30, 2023. A full four years after Covid-19 was found in the US. Please reset whatever clock is in your head. 2020, 2021, 2022 are over. The pandemic has been declared over. A pandemic by the way is pretty much defines what a public health emergency is. Mandates are common during pandemics and different countries handle it differently. Had you been in Russia and not male and in the army, I would guess dying without masking was expected. Whereas China with its very dense population took a more extreme approach and in various areas there was no leaving of your neighborhood, sometimes your house.

Sorry that you have a complex about medical workers and essential workers of that time. Some of us just were doing our low paid not so appreciated jobs that we had to do now in pandemic conditions with unknown and changing risks. Such work and service is certainly more noble than working from home protected and quarterbacking from a safe distance. In the early days, a slip up did not even have to last all that long if the exposure was high. The life expectancy in the US dropped by at least two years because of the pandemic. That is huge and I think unprecedented during my 60+ years of life. 

Infection rates are currently activating mask requirements in hospitals in some states. Don't catch Covid and don't ho to the hospital ... you should be fine.

[Spellbound454]

 , I accept the science community wants me to take a vaccine based on very little information.

The pool for vaccine R& was enormous given that almost all Countries had Covid.
and one of the reasons they could get it through quickly.

There were 321 vaccine candidates in Sept 2020..... of which... 33 went in to clinical trials.

The WHO eventually authorised 10.

www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00151-8'

The fact that we had vaccines at all, was nothing short of miraculous. 
No vaccine has ever been so tested.

The problem when  virus jumps species is that we have absolutely no resistance

Millions died worldwide, probably never know the full amount because a lot of Counties hid their figures ...... but it could have been so much worse.

[Spellbound454]

* R& ... ie research and development.

I'm being plagued by a smiley face........ spooky

[Tennesseer]

Dec 30, 2023 7:52:06 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

* R& ... ie research and development.

I'm being plagued by a smiley face........ spooky

The below in your posts caused the smiley faces. Separating the semicolon from & and the D so it doesn't turn into a smiley face:

R& amp; ; D

The semicolon and the ) together are code for smiley faces.

[Opti]

Thanks Tenn. I get occasional unexpected smiley faces when posting as well.