Jump to content
advertisement_alt
rebelfd

New Virus Discovered in China

Recommended Posts

On 9/25/2021 at 3:31 PM, Preston__Luv said:

So if we get to a 80% vaccination rate will the new cases be spread more by the 80% of vaccinated people or the 20% of unvaccinated?

 

im simply saying there is a threshold where the vaccinated will end up spreading it more than the unvaccinated. 

yes I'm not even saying I'm definitely correct. I'm saying there are reasons it could be true and probably is. Guys like neek can't handle hearing something may be true that their leaders haven't told them yet.  Even though I'm arguing for concepts that he would agree with (since his heroes told him they are true).

We both know this. All of OT knows this. But we like to have fun with these people. They like to tell us what we are saying and then argue against that b/c they know they have no argument against what we say.  Or at least what I say.  He's probably been yelling at his wife all day b/c he got so frustrated on the interwebs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 3:59 PM, Ozzie said:

Is that a less meaningful statement? 

When the conversation is about vaccination vs unvaccinated spreading than absolutely. 
 

I guess you have a point.  It doesn’t matter who is spreading.  Let’s just get more vaccinated so the hospitals don’t get overrun 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/25/2021 at 3:31 PM, Preston__Luv said:

So if we get to a 80% vaccination rate will the new cases be spread more by the 80% of vaccinated people or the 20% of unvaccinated?

im simply saying there is a threshold where the vaccinated will end up spreading it more than the unvaccinated. 

The premise is just completely flawed, and irrelevant to any important real world application.  

The more people that get vaccinated, the less cases there will be overall.   The most powerful population effect of vaccination is to break the chain of transmission.  If there are no new hosts for an infected person to pass on a virus, then the infection dies with the host.  If everyone is surrounded by immunity, then everyone is breaking the chain.  So you might get some scattered ongoing cases like we do with most other vaccine-preventable diseases, but not waves of pandemic.  

Like yes, I'm sure if you get to like 99% vaccination rates, there may be more vaccinated people getting infection than unvaccinated by sheer numbers.  But there also won't be very many total cases, and no massive spikes of infection, hospitalization, and ICU death.    So like the point has no meaning, particularly when talking about who is driving ongoing  community spread (the current scenario). 

The ongoing spikes and crisis scenarios are driven by unvaccinated individuals.  This is a pretty obvious fact for anyone with teeth.

Edited by Neeek
Link to post
Share on other sites

neek is talking like this vaccine has an efficiency far, far greater than what all current studies show.  

 

Think about if Neek is actually a doctor and this person was in charge of your loved one.  It's sad.  There might even be people in charge of your loved ones who are dumber than neek (doubtful, but possible).  He still thinks vaccines have a 97% efficiency rate.  They are just giving boosters out for the fuck of it I guess.  Even the numbers he gave earlier disprove what he's saying.

I'll lay 10-1 I have equal or more teeth than Neek.  QTB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 12:59 PM, Preston__Luv said:

my conclusion is as more people get vaccinated the rates of vaccinated people spreading the virus increase. 
 

NO.  Not this at all.  I think I glossed over this line.

The rates of vaccinated people spreading the virus do NOT increase.  The rates decrease, but sure the relative percentage increases.

Instead of 650k unvaccinated and 60k vaccinated positive tests we might have 10k unvaccinated and 15k vaccinated tests.  The rates are decidedly lower overall, because there are less available hosts for a given case.

 

 

Measles is like the most infectious thing we know of.  The vaccine is 99% effective.  If someone is positive at school, predictably 1% of the kids there will be positive if everyone is vaccinated.  they will then take it home to their families who are all vaccinated.  And there might be a few breakthrough cases.  And with some basic public health protocols, the outbreak dies out very quickly.

If the same school is 50% vaccinated, then 50% of kids will become infected.  If their homes are not vaccinated, then they will transmit it to 100% of their family members.  If their communities are not vaccinated, the family members will transmit it to 100% of their coworkers.  Now we have an explosion of new cases.

 

In the first scenario, the percentage of vaccinated people is higher.  But who gives a fuck?  there are almost no infections, and no outbreak to contend with.   So talking about any real world example of an outbreak being driven by more vaccinated people is a flawed premise.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 9:58 PM, truesyalose said:

neek is talking like this vaccine has an efficiency far, far greater than what all current studies show.  

 

Think about if Neek is actually a doctor and this person was in charge of your loved one.  It's sad.  There might even be people in charge of your loved ones who are dumber than neek (doubtful, but possible).  He still thinks vaccines have a 97% efficiency rate.  They are just giving boosters out for the fuck of it I guess.  Even the numbers he gave earlier disprove what he's saying.

I'll lay 10-1 I have equal or more teeth than Neek.  QTB

What is an efficiency rate?  Never heard of it.  How are they calculated.  Is it similar to efficacy?

You think boosters are because of problems with "efficiency" and not concerns about waning immunity?

God you are a dumb bitch.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 9:58 PM, Neeek said:

 

The vaccine is 99% effective. 

In the first scenario, the percentage of vaccinated people is higher.  But who gives a fuck?  there are almost no infections, and no outbreak to contend with.   So talking about any real world example of an outbreak being driven by more vaccinated people is a flawed premise.  

you mock analogies you don't understand then use one about a 99% effective vaccine.

Are you claiming these vaccines are anywhere close to 99% effective against the vaccine?  I thought the hospitals were overrun.. Don't you need to get some rest? It's past midnight and you are losing your mind on the internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 10:01 PM, Neeek said:

What is an efficiency rate?  Never heard of it.  How are they calculated.  Is it similar to efficacy?

You think boosters are because of problems with "efficiency" and not concerns about waning immunity?

God you are a dumb bitch.  

looooooooooooooool are you ok?  

Is there a reason you keep calling me a bitch and  a pussy but won't post your own picture?  We all know but I'd like to hear it from you, dweeb.  Go to sleep, you have some patients to harm tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 9:58 PM, Neeek said:

NO.  Not this at all.  I think I glossed over this line.

The rates of vaccinated people spreading the virus do NOT increase.  The rates decrease, but sure the relative percentage increases.

Instead of 650k unvaccinated and 60k vaccinated positive tests we might have 10k unvaccinated and 15k vaccinated tests.  The rates are decidedly lower overall, because there are less available hosts for a given case.

 

 

Measles is like the most infectious thing we know of.  The vaccine is 99% effective.  If someone is positive at school, predictably 1% of the kids there will be positive if everyone is vaccinated.  they will then take it home to their families who are all vaccinated.  And there might be a few breakthrough cases.  And with some basic public health protocols, the outbreak dies out very quickly.

If the same school is 50% vaccinated, then 50% of kids will become infected.  If their homes are not vaccinated, then they will transmit it to 100% of their family members.  If their communities are not vaccinated, the family members will transmit it to 100% of their coworkers.  Now we have an explosion of new cases.

 

In the first scenario, the percentage of vaccinated people is higher.  But who gives a fuck?  there are almost no infections, and no outbreak to contend with.   So talking about any real world example of an outbreak being driven by more vaccinated people is a flawed premise.  

I agree and understand that cases will go down as more get vaccinated. 

im just saying vaccinated people can spread it to other vaccinated people.  Yes the cases will decrease but it will still exist until all people are either vaccinated or infected.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 10:32 PM, truesyalose said:

you mock analogies you don't understand then use one about a 99% effective vaccine.

Are you claiming these vaccines are anywhere close to 99% effective against the vaccine?  I thought the hospitals were overrun.. Don't you need to get some rest? It's past midnight and you are losing your mind on the internet.

Wait?  He said 99% effective?  You mean 99% effective at stoping hospitalizations but not infections. 
 

the vaccine isn’t a vaccine for everyone, if it were than breakthrough cases would not exist. 

are we even certain that the vaccine is even a vaccine for those with no symptoms at all or is it merely a treatment  

A true vaccine provides immunity and therefore the person cannot be infected with the viral loads and therefore not potentially spread 

are we certain that the efficiency rating of the vaccine is for protection against systematic infection or does it provide true immunity?

Everything I have read is that the viral loads are carried by the vaccinated but they don’t have any symptoms.  The breakthrough cases are the one where the efficiency doesn’t apply at all. 
 

maybe I have read it wrong   Maybe the 90% efficiency of the Moderna for example means tha 90% are truly immune and can’t carry viral loads to potentially spread.   It’s only the 10% where it doesn’t provide true immunity

I say all this because if all the vaccinated can still carry viral loads than we are just dealing with a treatment here. 
the virus will still be spread and there will still be breakthrough cases until everyone is infected.

Infection will Give true immunity, however long that may last.  But it’s clear that infection provides much better protection than the vaccine/treatment.  27x better according to Israel study.  

 
vac·cine
/vakˈsēn/
 
noun
  1. a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases,
     
     
    im·mu·ni·ty
    /iˈmyo͞onədē/
     
    noun
    1. the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin by the action of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells.
      "immunity to typhoid seems to have increased spontaneously
Edited by Preston__Luv
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2021 at 10:55 PM, Preston__Luv said:

Wait?  He said 99% effective?  You mean 99% effective at stoping hospitalizations but not infections. 
 

Obviously not.  i was trying to explain the concept by using an example with simpler math. 

 

On 9/25/2021 at 10:55 PM, Preston__Luv said:

maybe I have read it wrong   Maybe the 90% efficiency of the Moderna for example means tha 90% are truly immune and can’t carry viral loads to potentially spread.   It’s only the 10% where it doesn’t provide true immunity

You have read it wrong.  Neither are completely correct.  The meaning of efficacy is much more abstract/hard to grasp.

Efficacy is a measure of the % reduction in disease cases when comparing two groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated).  A vaccine that has a 90% efficacy rate means the vaccinated group had 90% less infections relative the unvaccinated group in the study.   The studies obviously control to make the groups as identical as possible, and hopefully loooks at a lot of people over a lot of time to make the data better. 

that does NOT mean 90% are immune, or that 90% were infected, or that you have a 90% chance of not getting infected, etc. etc. etc.   Efficacy only tells you about the performance of the vaccine.   

 

An example:

I tried to use measles to make it more simple, but lets just use a theoretical virus and study.  The virus infects 100% of people that come in contact with it.  A study is done where 100% of the participants came in contact.  If the vaccine had 99% efficacy:

100/100 unvaccinated people become infected (real rate 100%)                                                                                   1/100 vaccinated people become infected (real rate 1%)

So in a study looking at a 100% exposed group, the vaccine is incredible.

 

However, say in another area there is much less community spread another study is done.  In this study the virus still infects 100% of people, but only 10% of the participants are exposed.  

100/1000 unvaccinated people become infected (real rate is 10%)                                                                                         1/1000 vaccinated people become infected (real rate of .1%).

Same vaccine, same efficacy results - both of the above examples would calculate out to a 90% efficacy.   But the absolute risk of infection of the unvaccinated people in the second study (10%) is closer to the vaccinated people in the first study(1%) than it is the unvaccinated people in the first study (100%).   And the absolute risk reduction is 99% in the first study and 9.9% in the second study.    Other things matter.

 

 

Pre detal variant, Moderna had 91% efficacy for infection (including asymptomatic) based on the study I posted.  But only 175/4137 unvaccinated people were infected compared to 10/2875 fully vaccinated people.   

The absolute risk in both groups was low, but the group (frontline workers) does not reflect the general population.  I used this study just to point out that we do know that vaccinated people have less symptomatic infections - looking at the approval trials is more helpful when thinking about the peformance of the vaccine generally.   There are even more limitations in the date for delta variant, but the trends suggest is is less good.

 

Basically just  take away what doctors/public health officials are saying - its a pretty good vaccine and the risks far outweigh the benefits. 

Edited by Neeek
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the vaccine is literally 100% effective (none of them are), the question everybody really wants to know the answer to isn't "what is the efficacy of the vaccine" but "how well will the vaccine protect me."

That depends on a lot of factors, and is basically impossible to calculate your exact risk over a given time period.  Its better to thnk about it relatively.

You are more likely to have a good immune reponse if you aren't immunsuppressed, if you got your vaccine more recently, if you are in good overall health, and if your individual genetics make it so.  

If you have an imperfect immune response or waning immunity, you are less likely to end up infected if your community has less cases and your behavior limits your exposure.

You can't possibly just extrapolate to obtain a single number for yourself - its too complext.  You can only think about how well the vaccine works, and what factors increase or decrease your likelihood in comparson to the study - whether you are more or less likely to be exposed, and if you think you are more or less likely to have a good immune response.  

Its hella complicated is the point.  This is why I make fun of y'alls logic proofs.

 

Edited by Neeek
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2021 at 3:01 AM, Neeek said:

Obviously not.  i was trying to explain the concept by using an example with simpler math. 

 

You have read it wrong.  Neither are completely correct.  The meaning of efficacy is much more abstract/hard to grasp.

Efficacy is a measure of the % reduction in disease cases when comparing two groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated).  A vaccine that has a 90% efficacy rate means the vaccinated group had 90% less infections relative the unvaccinated group in the study.   The studies obviously control to make the groups as identical as possible, and hopefully loooks at a lot of people over a lot of time to make the data better. 

that does NOT mean 90% are immune, or that 90% were infected, or that you have a 90% chance of not getting infected, etc. etc. etc.   Efficacy only tells you about the performance of the vaccine.   

 

An example:

I tried to use measles to make it more simple, but lets just use a theoretical virus and study.  The virus infects 100% of people that come in contact with it.  A study is done where 100% of the participants came in contact.  If the vaccine had 99% efficacy:

100/100 unvaccinated people become infected (real rate 100%)                                                                                   1/100 vaccinated people become infected (real rate 1%)

So in a study looking at a 100% exposed group, the vaccine is incredible.

 

However, say in another area there is much less community spread another study is done.  In this study the virus still infects 100% of people, but only 10% of the participants are exposed.  

100/1000 unvaccinated people become infected (real rate is 10%)                                                                                         1/1000 vaccinated people become infected (real rate of .1%).

Same vaccine, same efficacy results - both of the above examples would calculate out to a 90% efficacy.   But the absolute risk of infection of the unvaccinated people in the second study (10%) is closer to the vaccinated people in the first study(1%) than it is the unvaccinated people in the first study (100%).   And the absolute risk reduction is 99% in the first study and 9.9% in the second study.    Other things matter.

 

 

Pre detal variant, Moderna had 91% efficacy for infection (including asymptomatic) based on the study I posted.  But only 175/4137 unvaccinated people were infected compared to 10/2875 fully vaccinated people.   

The absolute risk in both groups was low, but the group (frontline workers) does not reflect the general population.  I used this study just to point out that we do know that vaccinated people have less symptomatic infections - looking at the approval trials is more helpful when thinking about the peformance of the vaccine generally.   There are even more limitations in the date for delta variant, but the trends suggest is is less good.

 

Basically just  take away what doctors/public health officials are saying - its a pretty good vaccine and the risks far outweigh the benefits. 

???? lol. The what variant? This guy pretending to know what he’s talking about doesn’t even know what it’s called. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2021 at 6:52 AM, Tiger Woods said:

Correct. “Pathetic” is the correct word to best describe Trues

Yet u wish u were me. 

neek ranting in middle of the night is priceless. Even better than he tried to mock me for giving simpler numbers and tried to do the same to PLuv while apparently arguing the same point he blasted me for. Dude is unhinged.  Oh and he was using pre delta numbers for “efficacy” when those numbers mean absolutely nothing in the current situation and studies have all shown the vaccine protection is weaker over time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2021 at 1:01 AM, Neeek said:

Obviously not.  i was trying to explain the concept by using an example with simpler math. 

 

You have read it wrong.  Neither are completely correct.  The meaning of efficacy is much more abstract/hard to grasp.

Efficacy is a measure of the % reduction in disease cases when comparing two groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated).  A vaccine that has a 90% efficacy rate means the vaccinated group had 90% less infections relative the unvaccinated group in the study.   The studies obviously control to make the groups as identical as possible, and hopefully loooks at a lot of people over a lot of time to make the data better. 

that does NOT mean 90% are immune, or that 90% were infected, or that you have a 90% chance of not getting infected, etc. etc. etc.   Efficacy only tells you about the performance of the vaccine.   

 

An example:

I tried to use measles to make it more simple, but lets just use a theoretical virus and study.  The virus infects 100% of people that come in contact with it.  A study is done where 100% of the participants came in contact.  If the vaccine had 99% efficacy:

100/100 unvaccinated people become infected (real rate 100%)                                                                                   1/100 vaccinated people become infected (real rate 1%)

So in a study looking at a 100% exposed group, the vaccine is incredible.

 

However, say in another area there is much less community spread another study is done.  In this study the virus still infects 100% of people, but only 10% of the participants are exposed.  

100/1000 unvaccinated people become infected (real rate is 10%)                                                                                         1/1000 vaccinated people become infected (real rate of .1%).

Same vaccine, same efficacy results - both of the above examples would calculate out to a 90% efficacy.   But the absolute risk of infection of the unvaccinated people in the second study (10%) is closer to the vaccinated people in the first study(1%) than it is the unvaccinated people in the first study (100%).   And the absolute risk reduction is 99% in the first study and 9.9% in the second study.    Other things matter.

 

 

Pre detal variant, Moderna had 91% efficacy for infection (including asymptomatic) based on the study I posted.  But only 175/4137 unvaccinated people were infected compared to 10/2875 fully vaccinated people.   

The absolute risk in both groups was low, but the group (frontline workers) does not reflect the general population.  I used this study just to point out that we do know that vaccinated people have less symptomatic infections - looking at the approval trials is more helpful when thinking about the peformance of the vaccine generally.   There are even more limitations in the date for delta variant, but the trends suggest is is less good.

 

Basically just  take away what doctors/public health officials are saying - its a pretty good vaccine and the risks far outweigh the benefits. 

 

On 9/26/2021 at 1:22 AM, Neeek said:

Unless the vaccine is literally 100% effective (none of them are), the question everybody really wants to know the answer to isn't "what is the efficacy of the vaccine" but "how well will the vaccine protect me."

That depends on a lot of factors, and is basically impossible to calculate your exact risk over a given time period.  Its better to thnk about it relatively.

You are more likely to have a good immune reponse if you aren't immunsuppressed, if you got your vaccine more recently, if you are in good overall health, and if your individual genetics make it so.  

If you have an imperfect immune response or waning immunity, you are less likely to end up infected if your community has less cases and your behavior limits your exposure.

You can't possibly just extrapolate to obtain a single number for yourself - its too complext.  You can only think about how well the vaccine works, and what factors increase or decrease your likelihood in comparson to the study - whether you are more or less likely to be exposed, and if you think you are more or less likely to have a good immune response.  

Its hella complicated is the point.  This is why I make fun of y'alls logic proofs.

 

Thank you for the in depth response. 
 

it makes more sense now.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2021 at 3:35 PM, truesyalose said:

ACP we need a discussion of Donda.  Most of my favorite songs are the ones with the least plays on Spotify.  Blows CLB out of the water.

I’m too sexy to listen to drake...

My favs are,

off the grid, no child left behind, hurricane, and Jesus Lord.

“Earthquakes will strike this nation for what Bush did to Rwanda (Facts)
What the Clintons did to Haiti and Downing Street did to Ghana
 (Jesus)”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.