Page 218 of 247 FirstFirst ... 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 ... LastLast
Results 5,426 to 5,450 of 6159
  1. #5426
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,034
    Results give us an idea of who the vaccine hesitant

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tant-1.6024067

    “ The most important factor is populism, which we measure using a scale comprised of four categories: trusting down-to-earth people over experts; preferring strong leadership over debate and deliberation; support for increased use of referendums and plebiscites; and believing politicians soon lose touch with the people after they are elected. “

    ——

    Interesting piece on the data (albeit it from the traditionally conservative/religious oil and gas/farming province of Alberta) on what characteristics are found in the vaccine hesitant.

    Worth the quick read if you like data science and are interested in factors leading to vaccine hesitancy.

  2. #5427
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    I smell poutine!!!
    Posts
    14,306
    Quote Originally Posted by TBS View Post
    A lady who rides MTBs with us is the only one who hasn't, and sez she won't, get the vax.

    As a joke we told her last night she needed to mask up around us, per new CDC "rules".
    Said it was for her safety. Now that we are vaxxed, we can be asymptomatic super-spreaders to the unvaxxed.

    She had said a few weeks ago that vaxxed people can still harbor the virus in our nasal passages - it was her rationale for why the vaccine doesn't work...

    She did not take it well. After her protests we told her she didn't have to mask up but needed to lead the entire ride (she has no sense of direction and regularly misses turnoffs) and we would stay at least 4 bike lengths away from her at all times. She grumbled some more but we kept straight faces. She had (uncharacteristically) little to say at the rest points.

    Will see how long everyone can keep up this ruse.
    I approve of this opportunity to fuck with someone.

  3. #5428
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by TBS View Post
    A lady who rides MTBs with us is the only one who hasn't, and sez she won't, get the vax.

    As a joke we told her last night she needed to mask up around us, per new CDC "rules".
    Said it was for her safety. Now that we are vaxxed, we can be asymptomatic super-spreaders to the unvaxxed.

    She had said a few weeks ago that vaxxed people can still harbor the virus in our nasal passages - it was her rationale for why the vaccine doesn't work...

    She did not take it well. After her protests we told her she didn't have to mask up but needed to lead the entire ride (she has no sense of direction and regularly misses turnoffs) and we would stay at least 4 bike lengths away from her at all times. She grumbled some more but we kept straight faces. She had (uncharacteristically) little to say at the rest points.

    Will see how long everyone can keep up this ruse.
    I like it. We have one unvaxxed in our group. He bailed from last nights ride cause someone pointed out he’s supposed to fill out a contact tracing form. It’s a pay to ride place where we had a pass for him to use for free. He’d rather sit home smoke Marlboros, drink Genny Black, and complain he doesn’t want the vaccine cause “you don’t know what’s in it”.

  4. #5429
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Santiago Chile
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by bennymac View Post
    Results give us an idea of who the vaccine hesitant

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tant-1.6024067
    Makes sense I suppose


  5. #5430
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    7,778
    Can anyone here explain "Relative risk reduction" vs "absolute risk reduction"? I heard about this peer reviewed study on a podcast with the doctor who did it and I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it. Perhaps some of the resident experts here can translate for those of us who didn't go to medical school:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/

  6. #5431
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    30,180
    “Relative Risk Reduction” is sidelining Ted Cruz so he doesn’t run again.
    “Absolute Risk Reduction” is assassinating him.

    HTH
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  7. #5432
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    7,136
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    “Relative Risk Reduction” is sidelining Ted Cruz so he doesn’t run again.
    “Absolute Risk Reduction” is assassinating him.

    HTH
    Heh.

  8. #5433
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    18,884
    Quote Originally Posted by MontuckyFried View Post
    Can anyone here explain "Relative risk reduction" vs "absolute risk reduction"? I heard about this peer reviewed study on a podcast with the doctor who did it and I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it. Perhaps some of the resident experts here can translate for those of us who didn't go to medical school:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/
    Your risk of getting COVID is variable dependent on many things.

    We don't know your individual absolute risk because that is dependent on so many things like your activities (exposure), community transmission control, community prevalence, variants, etc. Absolute risk varies with all of these and varies over time. But you can look at how an intervention reduces risk relatively across a population otherwise experiencing these same independent variables that drive your absolute risk.

    tldr;
    Vaccine reduces your relative risk by say 95%... meaning your (absolute) risk of getting COVID after vaccination is only 5% what your (absolute) risk would have been it was without the vaccine.

    So let's say your absolute risk of getting COVID over last year was 10% (which is roughly the US cumulative incidence for COVID); a 95% relative risk reduction means your absolute risk would be 0.5% down from 10%.

    Note, I didn't read your article other than to note it is a single author pub from a Lithuanian open source that has only been cited once.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  9. #5434
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    “Relative Risk Reduction” is sidelining Ted Cruz so he doesn’t run again.
    “Absolute Risk Reduction” is assassinating him.

    HTH

  10. #5435
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    7,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Your risk of getting COVID is variable dependent on many things.

    We don't know your individual absolute risk because that is dependent on so many things like your activities (exposure), community transmission control, community prevalence, variants, etc. Absolute risk varies with all of these and varies over time. But you can look at how an intervention reduces risk relatively across a population otherwise experiencing these same independent variables that drive your absolute risk.

    tldr;
    Vaccine reduces your relative risk by say 95%... meaning your (absolute) risk of getting COVID after vaccination is only 5% what your (absolute) risk would have been it was without the vaccine.

    So let's say your absolute risk of getting COVID over last year was 10% (which is roughly the US cumulative incidence for COVID); a 95% relative risk reduction means your absolute risk would be 0.5% down from 10%..
    Thank you. That makes sense. Appreciate the response.

  11. #5436
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    17,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Your risk of getting COVID is variable dependent on many things.

    We don't know your individual absolute risk because that is dependent on so many things like your activities (exposure), community transmission control, community prevalence, variants, etc. Absolute risk varies with all of these and varies over time. But you can look at how an intervention reduces risk relatively across a population otherwise experiencing these same independent variables that drive your absolute risk.

    tldr;
    Vaccine reduces your relative risk by say 95%... meaning your (absolute) risk of getting COVID after vaccination is only 5% what your (absolute) risk would have been it was without the vaccine.

    So let's say your absolute risk of getting COVID over last year was 10% (which is roughly the US cumulative incidence for COVID); a 95% relative risk reduction means your absolute risk would be 0.5% down from 10%.

    Note, I didn't read your article other than to note it is a single author pub from a Lithuanian open source that has only been cited once.
    To finish the definition--the absolute risk reduction would be 9.5% (per year presumably). In other words, you vaccinate 100 people to prevent 9.5 of them from getting Covid every year--the difference between 10% infected in the unvaccinated and the 0.5% infected in the vaccinated . (Presumably the chance of the unvaccinated getting covid is going down year by year due to control of the pandemic and immunity from being infected. so it gets complicated if we take it out beyond a year.)


    In general terms relative risk reduction compares the risk with treatment to the risk without treatment, relative to each other. Absolute risk reduction compares the relative risk reduction to the total number in the treatment group.

    In math terms: relative risk reduction= 1--(cases in treated group/cases in untreated group).
    Absolute risk reduction= (cases in untreated group--cases in treated group)/number of people in treated group
    Both these statistics assume equal numbers in treated and untreated group.

    Relative risk reduction is a reasonable way to look at covid vaccines because the risk of the vaccine is close to negligible. Contrary to what the author of the paper says, you don't need to calculate absolute risk in order to determine efficacy, only to calculate risk vs reward. In the case of something like cancer treatment where the treatment has significant risks, the absolute risk reduction is very important because you need to know that to know if the risk of the treatment is justified. MF, I can explain further if you're interested.
    Last edited by old goat; 05-14-2021 at 08:07 PM.

  12. #5437
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Your risk of getting COVID is variable dependent on many things.

    We don't know your individual absolute risk because that is dependent on so many things like your activities (exposure), community transmission control, community prevalence, variants, etc. Absolute risk varies with all of these and varies over time. But you can look at how an intervention reduces risk relatively across a population otherwise experiencing these same independent variables that drive your absolute risk.

    tldr;
    Vaccine reduces your relative risk by say 95%... meaning your (absolute) risk of getting COVID after vaccination is only 5% what your (absolute) risk would have been it was without the vaccine.

    So let's say your absolute risk of getting COVID over last year was 10% (which is roughly the US cumulative incidence for COVID); a 95% relative risk reduction means your absolute risk would be 0.5% down from 10%.

    Note, I didn't read your article other than to note it is a single author pub from a Lithuanian open source that has only been cited once.
    If I'm on the hiring committee, the job is yours, bro.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

  13. #5438
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    23,815
    Quote Originally Posted by bennymac View Post
    Results give us an idea of who the vaccine hesitant

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tant-1.6024067

    “ The most important factor is populism, which we measure using a scale comprised of four categories: trusting down-to-earth people over experts; preferring strong leadership over debate and deliberation; support for increased use of referendums and plebiscites; and believing politicians soon lose touch with the people after they are elected. “

    ——

    Interesting piece on the data (albeit it from the traditionally conservative/religious oil and gas/farming province of Alberta) on what characteristics are found in the vaccine hesitant.

    Worth the quick read if you like data science and are interested in factors leading to vaccine hesitancy.
    A bunch of new pro freedum signs up on the highway today and I see a big fucking tent behind one of the baptist churches, when I thot they werent suposed to meet SO I suspect the local religicons are gona make a statement this sunday
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  14. #5439
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    588
    For all those vaccine hesitant chuckle-fucks out there, just ask them what's worse? Getting limp-dick syndrome as part of the Covid-long haul symptoms or a vaccine?

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-uom051121.php

    The study indicates a possible connection to ED for post-covid sufferers. Basically, the toll the disease takes on the blood vessels leads to potential increased risks of ED.

    Guess the anti-vaxxers won't be reproducing anymore.

  15. #5440
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hyperspace!
    Posts
    1,239
    Quote Originally Posted by tetzen View Post
    Guess the anti-vaxxers won't be reproducing anymore.
    wouldn't that be just.

  16. #5441
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Your risk of getting COVID is variable dependent on many things.

    We don't know your individual absolute risk because that is dependent on so many things like your activities (exposure), community transmission control, community prevalence, variants, etc. Absolute risk varies with all of these and varies over time. But you can look at how an intervention reduces risk relatively across a population otherwise experiencing these same independent variables that drive your absolute risk.

    tldr;
    Vaccine reduces your relative risk by say 95%... meaning your (absolute) risk of getting COVID after vaccination is only 5% what your (absolute) risk would have been it was without the vaccine.

    So let's say your absolute risk of getting COVID over last year was 10% (which is roughly the US cumulative incidence for COVID); a 95% relative risk reduction means your absolute risk would be 0.5% down from 10%.

    Note, I didn't read your article other than to note it is a single author pub from a Lithuanian open source that has only been cited once.
    Remember though that the risk of getting a serious case is orders of magnitude less likely. The vaccine not only lowers your absolute risk of getting a case is the first place it also massively lowers the risk that the case would be serious. So much so that people are having a hard time comparing it accurately to other risks they take every day.

  17. #5442
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,266
    Quote Originally Posted by RoooR View Post
    Remember though that the risk of getting a serious case is orders of magnitude less likely. The vaccine not only lowers your absolute risk of getting a case is the first place it also massively lowers the risk that the case would be serious. So much so that people are having a hard time comparing it accurately to other risks they take every day.
    Have a source for that? Some info posted here suggested no change beyond reduced odds of contracting, but it's obviously changing with time/data.
    A woman came up to me and said "I'd like to poison your mind
    with wrong ideas that appeal to you, though I am not unkind."

  18. #5443
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    30,180
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	77CA702C-9D03-4735-92C6-8B6C69DE5598.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	321.4 KB 
ID:	374647
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  19. #5444
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    closer
    Posts
    3,485
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	77CA702C-9D03-4735-92C6-8B6C69DE5598.jpg 
Views:	106 
Size:	321.4 KB 
ID:	374647
    Heh.
    It's a war of the mind and we're armed to the teeth.

  20. #5445
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sandy by the front
    Posts
    2,210
    I am fully supportive of everyone getting vaccinated, (had ours back in January) its makes no sense we are only at about 50%.

    While it makes for great entertainment to ridicule people who have a different view, call them names, criticize them, say its because they supported Donald Trump etc, how about taking a shot at the NIH seeing as how Dr Fauci this past week said the % of employees vaccinated might be 60%. You would think the scientists would follow the science but apparently not. I don't get it, we have lost (everyone) our collective minds.

    Last December an ER nurse checking me into a hospital for a short stay when I asked if she had received the vaccine said "I am not going to take it, it messes with your DNA". Wonder how many people would take Pfizer or Moderna if it was called fairy dust instead of mRNA?

  21. #5446
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    13,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Your risk of getting COVID is variable dependent on many things.


    tldr;
    Vaccine reduces your relative risk by say 95%... meaning your (absolute) risk of getting COVID after vaccination is only 5% what your (absolute) risk would have been it was without the vaccine.
    .
    I know you know science. But the 95% number, oft repeated, is 95% less likely to get seriously ill or hospitalized.

    When the 95% number hit the press, I actually looked into the studies. It’s not 95% against getting covid at all.

    Not saying there isn’t value there. Just media ignorance.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  22. #5447
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,809
    The vaccine definitely protects against catching COVID. We've already seen in places like San Diego where breakthrough cases for vaccines are less than 0.01%. Making vaccines 99.99% effective in a vaccinated population. Even fewer of the breakthrough cases involved people becoming seriously ill.

    Even among health care workers and first responders who have a higher exposure risk, the relative risk of infection is reduced by 90% and the relative risk of getting sick is reduced by 95%.

    At the time the media accurately reported the data and said it was unknown whether the risk of transmission was also reduced by the vaccines. We now know mRNA COVID-19 vaccines reduce both asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.

  23. #5448
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by tetzen View Post
    For all those vaccine hesitant chuckle-fucks out there, just ask them what's worse? Getting limp-dick syndrome as part of the Covid-long haul symptoms or a vaccine?

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-uom051121.php

    The study indicates a possible connection to ED for post-covid sufferers. Basically, the toll the disease takes on the blood vessels leads to potential increased risks of ED.

    Guess the anti-vaxxers won't be reproducing anymore.
    Bioweapon targeting penises is a recent conspiracy theory lol
    Last edited by AEV; 05-15-2021 at 08:31 AM.

  24. #5449
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2,974
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdude2468 View Post
    I am fully supportive of everyone getting vaccinated, (had ours back in January) its makes no sense we are only at about 50%.

    While it makes for great entertainment to ridicule people who have a different view, call them names, criticize them, say its because they supported Donald Trump etc, how about taking a shot at the NIH seeing as how Dr Fauci this past week said the % of employees vaccinated might be 60%. You would think the scientists would follow the science but apparently not. I don't get it, we have lost (everyone) our collective minds.

    Last December an ER nurse checking me into a hospital for a short stay when I asked if she had received the vaccine said "I am not going to take it, it messes with your DNA". Wonder how many people would take Pfizer or Moderna if it was called fairy dust instead of mRNA?
    “It’s not about politics, says the guys spewing conspiratorial politics”

  25. #5450
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    13,403
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The vaccine definitely protects against catching COVID. We've already seen in places like San Diego where breakthrough cases for vaccines are less than 0.01%. Making vaccines 99.99% effective in a vaccinated population. Even fewer of the breakthrough cases involved people becoming seriously ill.

    Even among health care workers and first responders who have a higher exposure risk, the relative risk of infection is reduced by 90% and the relative risk of getting sick is reduced by 95%.

    At the time the media accurately reported the data and said it was unknown whether the risk of transmission was also reduced by the vaccines. We now know mRNA COVID-19 vaccines reduce both asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.
    Not sure about that 0.01% breakthrough

    It’s more common than you think.
    There’s reasonable points about severity after breakthrough.
    But that number is way too low.
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •