ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022

---

Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?

---

Still not true.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/

---

Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.

---

Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.

---

No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.

---

To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.

---

What?

---

It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.

---

Nope. That's horrible math and didn't match the graph.

---

That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.

---

EDIT: Even your primary assertion is incorrect. If you'll review in the gray area under "Rate Calculation" on your link, they did break it into vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022

---

Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?

---

Still not true.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/

---

Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.

---

Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.

---

No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.

---

To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.

---

What?

---

It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.

---

Nope. That's horrible math and didn't match the graph.

---

That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.

---

EDIT: Even your primary assertion is incorrect. If you'll review in the gray area under "Rate Calculation" on your link, they did break it into vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

---

Of course they did, but what you see on the graph are the rates in the overall population. In other words only the numerators are broken down. To calculate the rate ratio they had to break down the denominators too.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022

---

Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?

---

Still not true.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/

---

Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.

---

Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.

---

No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.

---

To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.

---

What?

---

It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.

---

Nope. That's horrible math and didn't match the graph.

---

That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.

---

EDIT: Even your primary assertion is incorrect. If you'll review in the gray area under "Rate Calculation" on your link, they did break it into vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

---

Of course they did, but what you see on the graph are the rates in the overall population. In other words only the numerators are broken down. To calculate the rate ratio they had to break down the denominators too.

---

Wrong. I'm sorry, but you're terribly confused.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022

---

Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry?

---

Still not true.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/

---

Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate.

---

Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.

---

No it doesn't. First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again.

---

To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.

---

What?

---

It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.

---

Nope. That's horrible math and didn't match the graph.

---

That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.

---

EDIT: Even your primary assertion is incorrect. If you'll review in the gray area under "Rate Calculation" on your link, they did break it into vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

---

Of course they did, but what you see on the graph are the rates in the overall population. In other words only the numerators are broken down. To calculate the rate ratio they had to break down the denominators too.

---

Wrong. I'm sorry, but you're terribly confused.

---

So what is your explanation for the graphs not matching the summary on the page? State Health Services is just terrible at math, is that it?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022

---

Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry? %A0

---

Still not true.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/

---

Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. %A0You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate. %A0

---

Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.

---

No it doesn't. %A0First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. %A0Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. %A0Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. %A0As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again. %A0

---

To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.

---

What?

---

It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.

---

Nope. %A0That's horrible math and didn't match the graph. %A0

---

That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.

---

EDIT: %A0Even your primary assertion is incorrect. %A0If you'll review in the gray area under "Rate Calculation" on your link, they did break it into vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

---

Of course they did, but what you see on the graph are the rates in the overall population. In other words only the numerators are broken down. To calculate the rate ratio they had to break down the denominators too.

---

Wrong. I'm sorry, but you're terribly confused. %A0

---

So what is your explanation for the graphs not matching the summary on the page? State Health Services is just terrible at math, is that it?

---

It's obviously flawed. %A0I'm guessing it's just a cumulative average across the entire date range which had periods of 10x+ early and the average settled at 4x. %A0

But just to prove a point, adjust the top graph from deaths to cases. %A0Despite having nearly identical chart paths compared to the unvaxxed, the fully vaccinated chart says it provides 11x better protection against infection while boosters are at 4x. %A0That would mean the booster is 3x LESS effective than just being vaxxed only. %A0 In fact comparing common dates (including last 28 days) vaxxed only outperformed boosted individuals. %A0Not to mention the Unvaxxed case rate is different for the same date in the different graphs. %A0No reason for that not to match.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

Naturally immune perfectly healthy athlete in the prime of peak physical performance struggles to get into a country whose quadruple vaccinated president just recovered from infection and finally got the same natural immunity he's had for a long time
We live in truly stupid times https://t.co/iwQpipcZRw

— Rising serpent 🇺🇸 (@rising_serpent) July 30, 2022

---

Since vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, why would there be any question about his entry? %A0

---

Still not true.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status/

---

Pretty much expresses exactly what I said. %A0You're focused on the top chart obviously that is death rate. %A0

---

Both charts show much higher risk for the unvaccinated. They're at least four times as likely to test positive.

---

No it doesn't. %A0First off, it's a comparison of boosted to unvaccinated. Boosters didn't start until September I believe. %A0Second, other than a period of time pre Omicron and lower overall infection and a low number of boosted population skewed the 4x number because that had ratios of like 290/29 per 100,000 for a short period. %A0Not a real comparative given the recency of boosting. %A0As Omicron exploded and then Stealth Omicron non vaxxed not only had similar performance to boosted individuals, the ratio actually flips at times, and continues that trend as case volume grows again. %A0

---

To the extent that is accurate, none of it has any effect on the incidence rate ratio. The comparison only pertains to the last 28 days.

---

What?

---

It's a 28-day rate comparison. Unvaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days divided by vaccinated incidence rate in the last 28 days.

---

Nope. %A0That's horrible math and didn't match the graph. %A0

---

That's because the graph only shows absolute numbers per total population. It doesn't show incidence rates, which have to be calculated separately for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations based on the number of people in each group.

---

EDIT: %A0Even your primary assertion is incorrect. %A0If you'll review in the gray area under "Rate Calculation" on your link, they did break it into vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

---

Of course they did, but what you see on the graph are the rates in the overall population. In other words only the numerators are broken down. To calculate the rate ratio they had to break down the denominators too.

---

Wrong. I'm sorry, but you're terribly confused. %A0

---

So what is your explanation for the graphs not matching the summary on the page? State Health Services is just terrible at math, is that it?

---

It's obviously flawed. %A0I'm guessing it's just a cumulative average across the entire date range which had periods of 10x+ early and the average settled at 4x. %A0

But just to prove a point, adjust the top graph from deaths to cases. %A0Despite having nearly identical chart paths compared to the unvaxxed, the fully vaccinated chart says it provides 11x better protection against infection while boosters are at 4x. %A0That would mean the booster is 3x LESS effective than just being vaxxed only. %A0 In fact comparing common dates (including last 28 days) vaxxed only outperformed boosted individuals. %A0Not to mention the Unvaxxed case rate is different for the same date in the different graphs. %A0No reason for that not to match.

---

You're guessing it's cumulative across the entire date range, but it specifically says otherwise. The discrepancy between boosted and vaxxed-only has been observed before; it's actually been mentioned on this board a few times. I'll refer you to a report I saw recently from another state that reaches similar conclusions. I haven't really had a chance to study it, but at first glance the information seems a bit easier to read.

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam there isn't one day during the entire 28 day period it "specifically" mentions that even has a 1x difference between the boosted vs unvaxxed case rate. In fact there isn't one in the prior 4-5 months that even reaches a 1x difference. Here is the Boosted/unvaxxed case rates for the 4 latest periods.

July 8: 201.5/252.8
July 2: 280.2/329.6
June 25: 257.5/297.3
June 18: 209.5/229.1
June 11: 194/197.3

There isn't an equation in the world that gets you a 4x difference between those rates.

The problem is you assume that government is good at providing data. It's notoriously poor at it.

---

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam there isn't one day during the entire 28 day period it "specifically" mentions that even has a 1x difference between the boosted vs unvaxxed case rate. In fact there isn't one in the prior 4-5 months that even reaches a 1x difference. Here is the Boosted/unvaxxed case rates for the 4 latest periods.

July 8: 201.5/252.8
July 2: 280.2/329.6
June 25: 257.5/297.3
June 18: 209.5/229.1
June 11: 194/197.3

There isn't an equation in the world that gets you a 4x difference between those rates.

The problem is you assume that government is good at providing data. It's notoriously poor at it.

---

We are not talking about a difference. We're talking about a ratio representing a measure of excess risk.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Have any of you consider that it's just as easy to buy scientists as it is to buy politicians?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Everything I've read says it's still 3 to 4 times higher. Both the state reports l cited were from this month. It's not 13-14, but it's not nothing.

Of course we're judging last year's vaccine based on this year's virus, which is a fairly whimsical exercise if not a bad way to pass the time. It will all be moot when the Omicron vaccine comes out in a few weeks.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Everything I've read says it's still 3 to 4 times higher. Both the state reports l cited were from this month. It's not 13-14, but it's not nothing.

Of course we're judging last year's vaccine based on this year's virus, which is a fairly whimsical exercise if not a bad way to pass the time. It will all be moot when the Omicron vaccine comes out in a few weeks.

---

Be prepared for the same issues. The Omicron vaccines were developed off of and performance being evaluated against the BA.1 strain not the BA.4 and BA.5 strains wreaking havoc today.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Hey Sam, do you think it's odd that there's been no repercussions on US bureaucracy and China for creating Covid-19 and unleashing it on the world?

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Have any of you consider that it's just as easy to buy scientists as it is to buy politicians?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Everything I've read says it's still 3 to 4 times higher. Both the state reports l cited were from this month. It's not 13-14, but it's not nothing.

Of course we're judging last year's vaccine based on this year's virus, which is a fairly whimsical exercise if not a bad way to pass the time. It will all be moot when the Omicron vaccine comes out in a few weeks.

---

Be prepared for the same issues. The Omicron vaccines were developed off of and performance being evaluated against the BA.1 strain not the BA.4 and BA.5 strains wreaking havoc today.

---

I don't know why anyone wouldn't be prepared for it. It's how vaccines work. We'll always be anticipating and reacting to new forms of the pathogen.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Everything I've read says it's still 3 to 4 times higher. Both the state reports l cited were from this month. It's not 13-14, but it's not nothing.

Of course we're judging last year's vaccine based on this year's virus, which is a fairly whimsical exercise if not a bad way to pass the time. It will all be moot when the Omicron vaccine comes out in a few weeks.

---

Be prepared for the same issues. The Omicron vaccines were developed off of and performance being evaluated against the BA.1 strain not the BA.4 and BA.5 strains wreaking havoc today.

---

I don't know why anyone wouldn't be prepared for it. It's how vaccines work. We'll always be anticipating and reacting to new forms of the pathogen.

---

Not necessarily how vaccines work. This is the first mRNA vaccine in broad use. I've mentioned the immuno-disadvantages of the mRNA approach they took. By telling the body to create a small sliver of the Omicron virus using an outdated spike protein variant strain, you're already behind the 8 ball in slowing spread of BA.4 and BA.5.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Everything I've read says it's still 3 to 4 times higher. Both the state reports l cited were from this month. It's not 13-14, but it's not nothing.

Of course we're judging last year's vaccine based on this year's virus, which is a fairly whimsical exercise if not a bad way to pass the time. It will all be moot when the Omicron vaccine comes out in a few weeks.

---

Be prepared for the same issues. The Omicron vaccines were developed off of and performance being evaluated against the BA.1 strain not the BA.4 and BA.5 strains wreaking havoc today.

---

I don't know why anyone wouldn't be prepared for it. It's how vaccines work. We'll always be anticipating and reacting to new forms of the pathogen.

---

Not necessarily how vaccines work. This is the first mRNA vaccine in broad use. I've mentioned the immuno-disadvantages of the mRNA approach they took. By telling the body to create a small sliver of the Omicron virus using an outdated spike protein variant strain, you're already behind the 8 ball in slowing spread of BA.4 and BA.5.

---

The other side of that is that the mRNA was so effective to begin with that it's held up pretty well even through two mutations. It's a new technology with its own issues. All part of progress.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Everything I've read says it's still 3 to 4 times higher. Both the state reports l cited were from this month. It's not 13-14, but it's not nothing.

Of course we're judging last year's vaccine based on this year's virus, which is a fairly whimsical exercise if not a bad way to pass the time. It will all be moot when the Omicron vaccine comes out in a few weeks.

---

Be prepared for the same issues. The Omicron vaccines were developed off of and performance being evaluated against the BA.1 strain not the BA.4 and BA.5 strains wreaking havoc today.

---

I don't know why anyone wouldn't be prepared for it. It's how vaccines work. We'll always be anticipating and reacting to new forms of the pathogen.

---

Not necessarily how vaccines work. This is the first mRNA vaccine in broad use. I've mentioned the immuno-disadvantages of the mRNA approach they took. By telling the body to create a small sliver of the Omicron virus using an outdated spike protein variant strain, you're already behind the 8 ball in slowing spread of BA.4 and BA.5.

---

The other side of that is that the mRNA was so effective to begin with that it's held up pretty well even through two mutations. It's a new technology with its own issues. All part of progress.

---

Every vaccine is effective when your antigen identically matches the viral variant. It's the amazing ability of our T cells to imprint the genetic code. But teaching your cells about a wanted poster that doesn't match what's attacking you relies upon your body to figure it out with little help from the vax. I think the mRNA uses too little of the genetic identifiers to be truly effective. Especially against a highly infectious and thus highly mutational virus.

The flip side is risk. The more viral material you use as antigen, the greater possibility the actual vaccine infects you, or your body over reacts in a cytokine storm.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Hey Sam, do you think it's odd that there's been no repercussions on US bureaucracy and China for creating Covid-19 and unleashing it on the world?

---

Well, first you'd need an administration that's inclined to confront China. Then you'd need to be certain who was responsible for unleashing the virus. Then you'd need an effective strategy. So no, I don't find it odd. Disappointing, for sure.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Everything I've read says it's still 3 to 4 times higher. Both the state reports l cited were from this month. It's not 13-14, but it's not nothing.

Of course we're judging last year's vaccine based on this year's virus, which is a fairly whimsical exercise if not a bad way to pass the time. It will all be moot when the Omicron vaccine comes out in a few weeks.

---

Be prepared for the same issues. The Omicron vaccines were developed off of and performance being evaluated against the BA.1 strain not the BA.4 and BA.5 strains wreaking havoc today.

---

I don't know why anyone wouldn't be prepared for it. It's how vaccines work. We'll always be anticipating and reacting to new forms of the pathogen.

---

Not necessarily how vaccines work. This is the first mRNA vaccine in broad use. I've mentioned the immuno-disadvantages of the mRNA approach they took. By telling the body to create a small sliver of the Omicron virus using an outdated spike protein variant strain, you're already behind the 8 ball in slowing spread of BA.4 and BA.5.

---

The other side of that is that the mRNA was so effective to begin with that it's held up pretty well even through two mutations. It's a new technology with its own issues. All part of progress.

---

Every vaccine is effective when your antigen identically matches the viral variant. It's the amazing ability of our T cells to imprint the genetic code. But teaching your cells about a wanted poster that doesn't match what's attacking you relies upon your body to figure it out with little help from the vax. I think the mRNA uses too little of the genetic identifiers to be truly effective. Especially against a highly infectious and thus highly mutational virus.

The flip side is risk. The more viral material you use as antigen, the greater possibility the actual vaccine infects you, or your body over reacts in a cytokine storm.

---

Yet it's at least 50-60 percent effective against Omicron infection, about as effective as an up-to-date flu vaccine in a good year.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Incidence rate ratios from the CDC during the emergence of Omicron. They declined compared to the Alpha and Delta periods, but the risk was still about three times higher for the unvaccinated.

Quote:

---

The age-standardized IRR for cases in unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons was 13.9 during AprilMay and progressively declined to 8.7 during June, 5.1 during JulyNovember, and 3.1 during December, coinciding with the periods of Delta emergence, Delta predominance, and Omicron emergence, respectively. This decline suggests a change in crude VE for infection from 93% during AprilMay, to 89% during June, 80% during JulyNovember, and to 68% during December. Age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons were relatively stable; crude VE for deaths was 95% during AprilMay, 94% during June, and 94% during JulyNovember.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

---

---

At least the CDC data matches the numbers (math mostly works). However that is pre Omicron giving less than a 30 day Omicron period, but as we've seen in macro data and shows on the graph, Delta period has a lower efficacy against infection than Alpha, and then Omicron was a further drop and trended toward evening out.

---

Everything I've read says it's still 3 to 4 times higher. Both the state reports l cited were from this month. It's not 13-14, but it's not nothing.

Of course we're judging last year's vaccine based on this year's virus, which is a fairly whimsical exercise if not a bad way to pass the time. It will all be moot when the Omicron vaccine comes out in a few weeks.

---

Be prepared for the same issues. The Omicron vaccines were developed off of and performance being evaluated against the BA.1 strain not the BA.4 and BA.5 strains wreaking havoc today.

---

I don't know why anyone wouldn't be prepared for it. It's how vaccines work. We'll always be anticipating and reacting to new forms of the pathogen.

---

Not necessarily how vaccines work. This is the first mRNA vaccine in broad use. I've mentioned the immuno-disadvantages of the mRNA approach they took. By telling the body to create a small sliver of the Omicron virus using an outdated spike protein variant strain, you're already behind the 8 ball in slowing spread of BA.4 and BA.5.

---

The other side of that is that the mRNA was so effective to begin with that it's held up pretty well even through two mutations. It's a new technology with its own issues. All part of progress.

---

Every vaccine is effective when your antigen identically matches the viral variant. It's the amazing ability of our T cells to imprint the genetic code. But teaching your cells about a wanted poster that doesn't match what's attacking you relies upon your body to figure it out with little help from the vax. I think the mRNA uses too little of the genetic identifiers to be truly effective. Especially against a highly infectious and thus highly mutational virus.

The flip side is risk. The more viral material you use as antigen, the greater possibility the actual vaccine infects you, or your body over reacts in a cytokine storm.

---

Yet it's at least 50-60 percent effective against Omicron infection, about as effective as an up-to-date flu vaccine in a good year.

---

We don't know that for sure. The current vaccine certainly isn't. We can hopefully see better results over the next 6-12 months against Omicron infection.

---

BREAKING: Biden administration to declare monkeypox a public health emergency - WaPo

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) August 4, 2022

muddybrazos said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BREAKING: Biden administration to declare monkeypox a public health emergency - WaPo

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) August 4, 2022

---

Public health emergency effecting 1% of the population who cant even be bothered to stop having orgies for a couple of months.

---

Justin Trudeau just landed in Costa Rica with private jet, wearing no mask.

🍁 Climate change is for Canadian peasants, not for him.
🍁 Masks are for Canadian peasants not for him.

Everyone is equal. Some are more equal.pic.twitter.com/2MgqkBV7G2

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) August 5, 2022

Sam Lowry said:

---

Are you saying emergency declarations are always wrong, or are they only wrong when they come from Trump and they're about Covid?

---