"Pandemic of the unvaccinated" CONFIRMED

antivaxxers killing-democracy wrote:

antivaxxers killing-democracy wrote:

[quote|NYC data, now DEEP into the Omicron wave, confirms outstanding vaccine efficacy against hospitalization.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#daily

Joedirty goes home DEVASTATED!

Oh lawd is it over for me? I’m turning into Unkle from being around him so much[/quote]

Keep referring to the CDC and New York, because it is piss poor data. The more you quote data from a source that still believes vaccinations provide 77.8% protection against infection, the more you illustrate the fact that you openly endorse flawed data. You guys sure do love your data from NY and the CDC (that is severely flawed). Which do I trust more? Data from every single person in the UK, Canada or Israel with an easy identifier and a central database that has been setup to track every health procedure (including vaccination) ever done to every person in their health system (that actually acknowledges when it cannot positively verify a person's vaccination status), or the US COVID-NET system that covers a fraction of 14 states, relies on a form being filled out by a nurse that includes a lot of demographic information and evidence of a positive COVID test, but does not include vaccination status (it relies on the vaccination status being linked elsewhere, which is a huge if as there are dozens of databases that could have that information). The truth is the CDC and New York data were never setup to be able to determine breakthrough data (it was primary set up as a way to track demographic data and comorbidities), so it only really has reliable vaccination information maybe on those in the public health system (everyone else is a toss up).

COVID-NET is expected to collect the following data for each case:

age

sex

surveillance site

date of hospital admission

evidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test

demographic information (e.g., race, ethnicity)

clinical (medical) history (underlying health conditions)

clinical course (progression of the illness such as admission to an intensive care unit)

medical interventions (medical care for the illness such as need for mechanical ventilation)

outcomes (e.g., released from the hospital, death)

As far as Harambe's claim that the CDC data includes loads of Omicron data, you can judge for yourself. The CDC data tracks from January to December 25th. New York was one of the first places in the US to get hit with Omicron, tell me when Omicron really started to show up in hospitalizations:

Hospitalizations were one of the last things to show up in the stats. Comparing to data for Ontario, Omicron hospitalizations didn't really hit until 12/23 (that is when vaccinated hospitalizations started to outnumber unvaccinated hospitalizations, by Jan. 7, vaccinated hospitalizations were 76% of the total). Select data from the last three months to see when hospitalizations rise from Omicron. This is just another attempt by the CDC to sell vaccinations to the public. The CDC only releases studies that support their sales pitch to the public for more vaccines (which is why they endorse the flawed data and select intervals that support their narrative).

Want some interesting data on boosters from the UKHSA week 3 release?

For 60-69 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 80% of cases

For 70-79 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 94% of the population and make up 90% of cases

For 80+ year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 84% of cases

2600 bro wrote:

Boosters continue to work very well against Omicron:

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1484573705665540101?s=20

Want some interesting data on boosters from the UKHSA week 3 release?

For 60-69 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 80% of cases

For 70-79 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 94% of the population and make up 90% of cases

For 80+ year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 84% of cases

joed|rrrt wrote:

Want some interesting data on boosters from the UKHSA week 3 release?

For 60-69 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 80% of cases

For 70-79 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 94% of the population and make up 90% of cases

For 80+ year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 84% of cases

What about that data is remotely interesting?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

joed|rrrt wrote:

Want some interesting data on boosters from the UKHSA week 3 release?

For 60-69 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 80% of cases

For 70-79 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 94% of the population and make up 90% of cases

For 80+ year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 84% of cases

What about that data is remotely interesting?

It puts the lie to the claim that the jab works.

Isn't that interesting?

The UKHSA finds booster protection against symptomatic disease to be only 40-70% effective against omicron.

Against hospitalization it is 80-95% effective.

There is insufficient data on mortality, but in the past effective ness vs symptomatic diseas<effectiveness vs hospitalization<effectiveness vs needing icu<effectiveness vs mortality.

2600 bro wrote:

Boosters continue to work very well against Omicron:

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1484573705665540101?s=20

3 shots of experimental mRNA goop to "protect" against Omicron, which has an infection fatality rate lower than the typical seasonal flu.

Where do I sign up ?

trashcan wrote:

The UKHSA finds booster protection against symptomatic disease to be only 40-70% effective against omicron.

Against hospitalization it is 80-95% effective.

There is insufficient data on mortality, but in the past effective ness vs symptomatic diseas<effectiveness vs hospitalization<effectiveness vs needing icu<effectiveness vs mortality.

But wait, the UK data is trustworthy when it says vaccines aren't maximally effective against Omicron infection but the data is MISINFORMATION when it says vaccines are maximally effective against Omicron hospitalization.

I am very smart and consistent.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

joed|rrrt wrote:

Want some interesting data on boosters from the UKHSA week 3 release?

For 60-69 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 80% of cases

For 70-79 year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 94% of the population and make up 90% of cases

For 80+ year age group in the UK, boosted individuals make up 88% of the population and make up 84% of cases

What about that data is remotely interesting?

Everytime someone brings up hospitalization numbers JoeDirt tries to distract with infection rates.

Nobody argues that Omicron breaks through nearly all prior immunity and causes mild infection. Only boosters and hybrid have shown efficacy.

I thought I would pop into this thread to see how things were going...

I read an antivaxer call the vaccine "experimental mRNA Goop" and I think I can leave now.

Good Lord.

Ontario data shows an 80% reduction in hospitalization rate associated with 2+ doses of vaccine and 90% reduction in ICU admission.

46% of all hospital COVID (non ICU) cases right now are for 'incidental' COVID -- admitted for other reasons.

Presumably, the vaccine does not prevent incidental hospital admission, so the 80% rate reduction is likely an underestimate of vaccine efficacy.

(Also no correction for Simpson's paradox, which can have a dramatic effect).

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/

https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations

idiot spotter wrote:

I thought I would pop into this thread to see how things were going...

I read an antivaxer call the vaccine "experimental mRNA Goop" and I think I can leave now.

Good Lord.

Time for you to schedule shot number 4. That's what you had in mind when you got the first jab, right ?

"Your Booster Will Only Protect You for This Long, New Study Shows"

"Protection appears to fall quickly, and by three months, the booster reduces the risk of symptomatic infection by only about 50 percent. A second analysis from the U.K. researchers indicates that the protection is likely to decline even further after this. According to the report, it is estimated that protection will drop to around 40 percent just four months after a booster dose."

“I would do anything for love, but I won’t get vaxxed, no I won’t get vaxxed…”

Harambe is spouting misinformation with “incidental” hospitalizations. I bet he will start talking about dying from covid versus with covid next. His misinformation is downplaying the risk and the Brojos should really curb his message from spreading here.

Harambe wrote:

Ontario data shows an 80% reduction in hospitalization rate associated with 2+ doses of vaccine and 90% reduction in ICU admission.

46% of all hospital COVID (non ICU) cases right now are for 'incidental' COVID -- admitted for other reasons.

Presumably, the vaccine does not prevent incidental hospital admission, so the 80% rate reduction is likely an underestimate of vaccine efficacy.

(Also no correction for Simpson's paradox, which can have a dramatic effect).

https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/hospitalizations

Those numbers are heavily and mysteriously "adjusted", and the Science Table has steadfastly refused to disclose how they reach the calculated values, making their analysis completely unverifiable.

In reality, on January 21 2022 in the province of Ontario (actual raw numbers)

4,114 are in hospital

1,905 (46%) are incidental positives

756 are not vaccinated (works out to 28.4 per 100k)

189 are partially vaccinated (works out to 23.4 per 100k)

2,102 are fully vaccinated (works out to 18.3 per 100k)

1,067 have an unknown vaccination status

So "80% reduction in hospitalization" is pure fantasyland.

BTW, a good discussion of OST shenanigans here for those interested:

I'm not clear on how Canada has a reliable central database that tracks every health procedure including vaccination while having fully a quarter of covid positive hospitalizations with unknown vaccination status. What piece of information from this database is used to distinguish between "not vaccinated" and "unknown vaccination status"? How do these "unknowns" arise in the Canadian health system?

trashcan wrote:

The UKHSA finds booster protection against symptomatic disease to be only 40-70% effective against omicron.

Against hospitalization it is 80-95% effective.

There is insufficient data on mortality, but in the past effective ness vs symptomatic diseas<effectiveness vs hospitalization<effectiveness vs needing icu<effectiveness vs mortality.

Everyone is getting omicron, vaxxed and unvaxxed alike. Thus the booster is 0% effective against omicron.

Omicron is only 10% as virulent as Delta. Thus very few will be hospitalized due to omicron (many who are in the hospital for other reasons will have omicron) -- vaxxed and unvaxxed alike.

Moreover, how many of the unvaxxed or unknown hospitalized are nonconvalescent, & what is the age and/or comorbidity breakdown? Lacking that, this data is pretty meaningless.

Omicron is going to infect everyone. Fauci even admitted it. Best to exercise, lose weight, & boost your immunity at home. For most, this is a big nothing burger and a way to get a natural boost, especially if you are convalescent.

I have seen age breakdowns in the us data previously. That makes the the protection from vaccines look even better. I haven’t seen Conor it’s breakdown. Doing a good job of that would be much more difficult.

If everyone acted purely out of self interest, the oldest and most comorbid folks would be most likely to get vaccinated boosted, so adjusting for those is just likely to make the vaccine look better.

Un data not us