Magical thinking, or based in hard data?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
Printable View
Magical thinking, or based in hard data?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
CDC early estimate for newest booster was 49% (confidence interval 19-68%) against symptomatic infections at 7 weeks post vax. They recommend updated vax for ages >6 mos. At time of study booster uptake was only 22% of US population over age 18.
Per CDC available data only 48% US over age 65 has received bivalent (old) booster. 94% of those over 65 have received initial two dose series.
As of December 2022 95% of the US population was sero-positive for Covid antibodies either from vax, infection, or both.
How do we differentiate true benefits of latest booster against clinically significant disease burden in a population who is already > 95% sero-positive?
All data above available on CDC.
I’ve given up arguing about vaccines. These two images from the NYT tell the story pretty clearly. Those living in areas with lower vaccination rates are dying at a higher rate. I’ve become OK with that, the lord helps those who help themselves.
Attachment 487666
Attachment 487667
Those maps mirror obesity/diabetes and other comorbidities very closely especially on Native reservations (Navajo). They also don’t capture/isolate efficacy of boosters.
I don't know how widespread but its that Dr Campbell guy. It looks like every time he comes up in my you tube feed he's on about it. Haven't seen a rebuttal from others as maybe they have moved on so won't give him any time. but Campbell does cite papers so was wondering if just taking out of content or what.Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles
There are a bunch of places on your maps that do not line up with your narrative. I'm not going to spend all day looking at it, at least today, although its worth some time, I can see very quickly large parts of arizona are highly vaccinated and high mortality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder
Also, this is just WAY easier to see on a nation state basis, and everyone knows countries with high vac rartes and high death rates, as well as the inverse.
Israel took an extra dose of the vax thatphizer actually told them not to, and they've had high mortality. Africa largley has low vax rates and low mortality.
Although, yes, there are some areas that support your narrative, if you chery pick them, so I'm not saying the data supports the direct opposite of what you're saying, that the highest mortality overlaps perfectly with the highest vax rates, just that it does not support your narrative and thats pretty clear with a quick glance.
How do we differentiate all sorts of data related to this? we just don't. The controls got fucked up. The mass human trials will never have good data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
The initial data that got fucked up would have been the foundation to base a lot of the rest of the data off of, or at least, inform educated guesses that are now largely just wishful thinking and pharma company press releases basically.
But just like, medical stuff in general, don't we typically choose to do no harm rather than roll the dice on treatments we don't properly understand the effects of? Like, in general, medicine tries to test things obviously, but also, be cautious with the application of medicines and treatments that have been approved.
Maybe I'm just a dumb dumb or conspiracy theorist nut, but isn't the whole scientific basis for SSRI use undermined? Aren't we as a society basically just, selling them to people because it makes money and because hey they sure seem to do something right?
Interesting too the recent data fraud scandals at Harvard. Like I'm really not any sort of a right wing nut job, I "believe in science!!!" but objectively it seems there are problems with modern medicine and science and examples of that are not isolated but somewhat endemic to these industries. These things, or like the opium fraud cases, do not seem to me to be whataboutism, because there are so many examples, it seems more like business as usual, and yea, its not my fault the data about covid is forever fucked because it was deliberately mishandled, and this fact doesn't make me trust these people any more. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, obviously, but this is even more the case when it comes to medicine, and there are plenty of red flags that should give a reasonable person pause.
For a second there I was wishing I could find that from a reliable source and restore a little of my faith in humanity. But reading it again, "many" is pretty nebulous. Could be only 20% of people claim not to misremeber the past and that might seem like a lot to you. But it wouldn't really help me.Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
Based on wastewater data and understanding of the virus, the modeler, James Weiland, predicted currently in the US: 778,000 new infections/day, 1 in 430 people became infected yesterday, and 1 in 43 people are currently infected.
Pretty sure it's a load of bollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by DougW
Quick search: https://www.google.com/search?q=excess+mortality+meme
They are "sold" because American's believe in a pill for every emotional nuance they may encounter in their lives or througout their day.Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
We need to make placebo prescriptions ethical, and maybe covid boosters, too. Placebo antibiotics would be great for all the people we see daily with covid who are absolutely convinced that Zithromax will cure their viral sinusitis, because "I get this every year and Zithromax always works".
Attachment 487695
I wouldn't mind seeing this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
I have ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by skaredshtles
Placebomax/Placebomycin is the replacement for Zithromax/Azithromycin
Placebocontin is the replacement for Oxycontin
And so on......tasty little red pill with some sugar and artificial flavoring, five day dose pack, everyone wins, nobody has any adverse side effects, antibiotic resistance, or clostridium difficile.
Before covid vaccines were available the death rates were comparable across all states.
Once the vaccine was released the deaths rates were 38% lower in states with high vaccine uptake.
That can’t be explained by higher rates of chronic illness. That can’t be explained by excess deaths in the vaccinated.
you typically seem like a smart guy, but is this graph supposed to prove something? Cus we all know the reality of these drugs is far more complicated. Really, you postinf this graph kind of proves my point. Were you trying to? Its basically pharma company propoganda saying look see they help! While ignoring that they do have adverse reactions, especially in the long run, people who are on SSRIs often experience some form of pretty alarming side effects over the course of the years they are on them. Also, the whole situation with getting off of them being so hard and almost sure to cause severe side effects is a pretty huge thing that is often glossed over by the people peddling this shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
Besides, it says, like multiple studies, butok, funded by who, and Im also guessing the majority are self reported experience of symptoms over a short time frame, when most peoples experience is initially positive then becomes either negative or just dependent with enough time, with people either reporting negative side effects, or noticing that the positive improvements have leveled off and now they need the drugs just to maintain.
Also, this is a graph showing, see look they work right? Its not showing any scientific basis for why they do and just how they do and how we understand that entire process. We don't. The research for the scientific basis they are built on has since been undermined, namely, the serotonin deficiency hypothesis. No?
huh? out of everything I said this is the salient point to you? A fixation on the word many for a minor offhand side point? And 20 percent of all people actively gaslighting the rest of us wouldn't be a lot to you? Strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by jono
You clearly only trust things that support your preconceived notions and ideas. And then you inflate the significance and incidence of the negatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by leroy jenkins
Basically your mind is set and there is zero that could ever change it. You’ll argue that’s not true though so that you can cosplay as a critical thinker with an open mind. Go on then.
uh no his point was up to 66% of the effect the SSRI's on self reported mood improvement was matched by a placebo pill. But medicine being what it is, the 33% above placebo is seen as effective.
It still baffles me how anti science anti medicine morons like LJ are still out there on vaccines, especially COVID-19
The reason AZ has both high vax rates and mortality is because they're fucking old and have commodities
Talking to the far right about facts is like talking to a 5 year old about Santa Clause
Yup early on vax was super impressive through delta wave. After that either seroprevalence or lower virulence changed everything. When Omicron came around suddenly doing lung POCUS exams looked entirely different than initial Wuhan/Alpha/Delta waves. Pulmonary burden was hugely diminished. It was like night/day difference when Delta faded out.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac
Leroy,
Calm down. I posted that graph supporting your notion that SSRI efficacy is probably overly optimistic in the public sector. I think the public is similarly overly optimistic about efficacy of boosters, but there’s only my anecdotal experiences to support that claim.
Do know that I gain nothing from prescribe SSRIs. No clinician does. We are only “peddling” shit the public wants or thinks they need. Americans are lazy as fuck and want literally a prescription for everything to fix everything NOW.
Primary care sucks ass because of this, and also because patients think they know everything because they read it on the internet so it must be true.
It’s why people bail and work ER or Urgent care. Less bullshit.
The vaccine worked to reduce death and disease burden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
We can debate who still needs boosters - that’s a different question. The graph of covid admissions that you didn’t respond to suggests there is a significant population of people who would benefit from the protection of boosters - these boosters again being the vaccine that has been proven to work.
Then you get scholars like Leroy who say “I'm really not aware of any good data on efficacy for the vax” - and then moments later responds to a mag by saying “Why don't you just do the math yourself?”
And to say prescribers “only” give SSRIs because that’s what patients want is incredibly simplistic and reductionist and wrong.
This may be true, but the FACT is the data does not support the narrative it was posted with. Like I already stated I wasn't saying the maps prove high vax equals high mortality, just that it doesn't show the inverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by k2skier112
It's cynicisms and this is TGR. That is reductionist, and I'm rolling with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennymac