She is a CCP agent sent to us and implanted by the Biden admin.Cobretti said:
Masks are Never Coming Off
198,232 Views |
2981 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by Wangchung
This is interesting.
I'm sure the major increases are due to Putin's War... right?
I'm sure the major increases are due to Putin's War... right?
Its wrong to call something an emergency when it's not an emergency.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?
It's only an emergency if you like having lots of butt sex with lots of different men... so yeah... not an emergency at all.Doc Holliday said:Its wrong to call something an emergency when it's not an emergency.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?
It's like saying there is a very serious virus that affects Kansas Football Season Ticket holders... SUCH an emergency!!
Can we call 2 million illegals annually entering our country an emergency ?Doc Holliday said:Its wrong to call something an emergency when it's not an emergency.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?
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
No, that's a full blown crisis.Canada2017 said:Can we call 2 million illegals annually entering our country an emergency ?Doc Holliday said:Its wrong to call something an emergency when it's not an emergency.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?
What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
AgreedATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Something is horribly wrong .
Have more associates down with Covid than ever before .
The vaccine was clearly a failure in prevention .
Only thing that is saving us is........................the virus mutated into a less lethal form .
Only when they are sent to Washington DC or NYC or... dare I say it... Martha's Vineyard!!! Oh the humanity!!Canada2017 said:Can we call 2 million illegals annually entering our country an emergency ?Doc Holliday said:Its wrong to call something an emergency when it's not an emergency.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?
And yet, they are going to blame ALL of the new cases on the unvaccinated and those who go around without masks, because.... science.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Dude. It's all those MAGA anti-vaxxers. DUH.ShooterTX said:And yet, they are going to blame ALL of the new cases on the unvaccinated and those who go around without masks, because.... science.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
I will give you credit. You won't let go of that bone no matter what the data tells you.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
The gaslighting has begun: Trump closed all the schools while Democrats fought to keep them open because it hurts bleks and gays most.muddybrazos said:She is a CCP agent sent to us and implanted by the Biden admin.Cobretti said:
The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
That's funny. Y'all have tried every conceivable approach except looking at the data. You just can't get around the fact that actual studies (you know, the ones designed to measure vaccine effectiveness and not just generate scary graphics and gotcha posts) continue to show a high level of effectiveness.Harrison Bergeron said:I will give you credit. You won't let go of that bone no matter what the data tells you.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
LOL.Sam Lowry said:That's funny. Y'all have tried every conceivable approach except looking at the data. You just can't get around the fact that actual studies (you know, the ones designed to measure vaccine effectiveness and not just generate scary graphics and gotcha posts) continue to show a high level of effectivenessHarrison Bergeron said:I will give you credit. You won't let go of that bone no matter what the data tells you.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
.
Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless.ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
If you are still saying this statement sarcastically, after what we have seen over the past 2 years... then you are a hopeless fool.
Not to mix topics too much, but these are the same groups who are loudly proclaiming that small children should "transition" if they make certain statements. These people are following an agenda, not science or data or common sense.
Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
They use the same sources, but the CDC and other agencies reach the opposite conclusion to yours almost every time. That's because it's their business to study the data and sort out the information from the noise. If you really want to measure the effect of vaccination, you don't measure it against some imaginary flat-line. You measure it against the spread of disease that would occur in the vaccine's absence. There are ways to do this, like controlled studies, or observational studies with adjusted data.ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
The one thing your graphs prove is that the vaccine hasn't eradicated the disease. If that's your standard, then few vaccines will ever be successful.
Those models aren't working and have been in constant flux Sam. There is a record of the consistent alterations and studies no longer valid a mile long. They don't reaffirm earlier studies, they alter them with new results with an attempt to keep the same postulate. But even that is becoming unscientifically absurd. They've settled in with a reduction in severe outcome, which actually does hold to the real world data, and I don't deny it.Sam Lowry said:They use the same sources, but the CDC and other agencies reach the opposite conclusion to yours almost every time. That's because it's their business to study the data and sort out the information from the noise. If you really want to measure the effect of vaccination, you don't measure it against some imaginary flat-line. You measure it against the spread of disease that would occur in the vaccine's absence. There are ways to do this, like controlled studies, or observational studies with adjusted data.ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
The one thing your graphs prove is that the vaccine hasn't eradicated the disease. If that's your standard, then few vaccines will ever be successful.
We are learning on the fly. That's what's happening here. Not just with COVID, but with the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines . But the real macro data can't be ignored, especially when the virus doesn't operate in a controlled lab environment.
EDIT: And I took you through how since the Ba.4 and Ba.5 strain, Omicron is spreading in an equivalent fashion in both vaccinated and unvaccinated. We now have the population pools in both statuses to assess that, and the data is showing it, including macro data such as above. Your "assumptive projection" models are the ones that keep failing.
I'm not even talking about projection models. I've shown you studies on actual effectiveness, even against the new strains.ATL Bear said:Those models aren't working and have been in constant flux Sam. There is a record of the consistent alterations and studies no longer valid a mile long. They don't reaffirm earlier studies, they alter them with new results with an attempt to keep the same postulate. But even that is becoming unscientifically absurd. They've settled in with a reduction in severe outcome, which actually does hold to the real world data, and I don't deny it.Sam Lowry said:They use the same sources, but the CDC and other agencies reach the opposite conclusion to yours almost every time. That's because it's their business to study the data and sort out the information from the noise. If you really want to measure the effect of vaccination, you don't measure it against some imaginary flat-line. You measure it against the spread of disease that would occur in the vaccine's absence. There are ways to do this, like controlled studies, or observational studies with adjusted data.ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
The one thing your graphs prove is that the vaccine hasn't eradicated the disease. If that's your standard, then few vaccines will ever be successful.
We are learning on the fly. That's what's happening here. Not just with COVID, but with the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines . But the real macro data can't be ignored, especially when the virus doesn't operate in a controlled lab environment.
EDIT: And I took you through how since the Ba.4 and Ba.5 strain, Omicron is spreading in an equivalent fashion in both vaccinated and unvaccinated. We now have the population pools in both statuses to assess that, and the data is showing it, including macro data such as above. Your "assumptive projection" models are the ones that keep failing.
We're living in a time where every entity you listed is bought and paid for. They obey whose paying, not what the facts show. If you think they're above that then you don't understand this world.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Covid-19 is a huge cash cow on many fronts and every narrative I've seen you push helps big pharma.
I'm not saying it's a grand conspiracy. It's as simple as systemically following the money.
This is a common trend in particular parts of the country: ignore what they data shows and listen to what our "expert" says. Sam should remember his bogus mask study he so proudly celebrated as an obvious example that "experts" and "studies" can easily be manipulated reach a particular conclusion. All of Sam's "experts" have been exponentially wrong on covid from human transmission, masks, six feet, plastic panels, lock-downs, vaccine efficacy, children's risk, etc. The reason they lost credibility is because the data is available, and anyone with a basic intellect can understand what is happening. Odd that he and others keep doubling down on the propaganda and denying the data.ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Data are not data, and they do not speak for themselves. Raw case numbers paired with vaccination rates don't actually tell us whether the vaccines are effective or, if they are effective, what they are effective against or for whom they are effective.
"Alternative facts."Harrison Bergeron said:This is a common trend in particular parts of the country: ignore what they data shows and listen to what our "expert" says. Sam should remember his bogus mask study he so proudly celebrated as an obvious example that "experts" and "studies" can easily be manipulated reach a particular conclusion. All of Sam's "experts" have been exponentially wrong on covid from human transmission, masks, six feet, plastic panels, lock-downs, vaccine efficacy, children's risk, etc. The reason they lost credibility is because the data is available, and anyone with a basic intellect can understand what is happening. Odd that he and others keep doubling down on the propaganda and denying the data.ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
We have clear comparative data of infection rates, vaccination percentages, and even ratios of infections within vaccinated and non vaccinated populations. I'd say that's robust enough to assess weather the vaccines are working to contain spread. I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Data are not data, and they do not speak for themselves. Raw case numbers paired with vaccination rates don't actually tell us whether the vaccines are effective or, if they are effective, what they are effective against or for whom they are effective.
ATL Bear said:We have clear comparative data of infection rates, vaccination percentages, and even ratios of infections within vaccinated and non vaccinated populations. I'd say that's robust enough to assess weather the vaccines are working to contain spread. I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Data are not data, and they do not speak for themselves. Raw case numbers paired with vaccination rates don't actually tell us whether the vaccines are effective or, if they are effective, what they are effective against or for whom they are effective.
The data we have being offered in this discussion seem to consist of raw numbers of infections and vaccination rates.
It's simply the accumulation of all state and national reporting agencies. In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:We have clear comparative data of infection rates, vaccination percentages, and even ratios of infections within vaccinated and non vaccinated populations. I'd say that's robust enough to assess weather the vaccines are working to contain spread. I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Data are not data, and they do not speak for themselves. Raw case numbers paired with vaccination rates don't actually tell us whether the vaccines are effective or, if they are effective, what they are effective against or for whom they are effective.
The data we have being offered in this discussion seem to consist of raw numbers of infections and vaccination rates.
ATL Bear said:It's simply the accumulation of all state and national reporting agencies. In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:We have clear comparative data of infection rates, vaccination percentages, and even ratios of infections within vaccinated and non vaccinated populations. I'd say that's robust enough to assess weather the vaccines are working to contain spread. I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Data are not data, and they do not speak for themselves. Raw case numbers paired with vaccination rates don't actually tell us whether the vaccines are effective or, if they are effective, what they are effective against or for whom they are effective.
The data we have being offered in this discussion seem to consist of raw numbers of infections and vaccination rates.
I am not questioning the data on case numbers or vaccination rates. I am saying they aren't sufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccines. In your post above you talk about any number of other kinds of data (like ratios of infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups), but those data haven't been offered in this discussion. We would also have to look at clinical outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated groups to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccines. There are a lot of different levels of evaluation that haven't really been touched on in this discussion.
It was discussed earlier in the thread with more data, specifically from the Texas Dept of health data, just FYI.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:It's simply the accumulation of all state and national reporting agencies. In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:We have clear comparative data of infection rates, vaccination percentages, and even ratios of infections within vaccinated and non vaccinated populations. I'd say that's robust enough to assess weather the vaccines are working to contain spread. I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter.D. C. Bear said:ATL Bear said:Data is data. It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. If you had a challenge to the data that might be something, but ironically it is sourced from places like the CDC, WHO, and national health agencies, which are used by the same sources above. The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. We can't act like this is settled science, because this is a giant human trial that is still bearing out information that has continually changed.Sam Lowry said:The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!ATL Bear said:Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.Sam Lowry said:The first thing that comes to mind is that they were all notably slow to take up vaccines. Maybe they're experiencing a spike as the effect wears off, similar to what other countries did a few months ago. Of course that's speculation, but it's as good as anyone else's.whiterock said:LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issueATL Bear said:LOL.Sam Lowry said:What an incredibly superficial reading of the data, is more like it. As if the graphs alone proved anything without any analysis of the factors specific to these countries.ATL Bear said:
Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.
Data are not data, and they do not speak for themselves. Raw case numbers paired with vaccination rates don't actually tell us whether the vaccines are effective or, if they are effective, what they are effective against or for whom they are effective.
The data we have being offered in this discussion seem to consist of raw numbers of infections and vaccination rates.
I am not questioning the data on case numbers or vaccination rates. I am saying they aren't sufficient to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccines. In your post above you talk about any number of other kinds of data (like ratios of infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups), but those data haven't been offered in this discussion. We would also have to look at clinical outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated groups to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccines. There are a lot of different levels of evaluation that haven't really been touched on in this discussion.
But let's be frank. These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. There's something there even if you think the vax is better than nothing. If you want to say those vaccinated who got infected likely had a better outcome than those unvaxxed who did, you're not going to get an argument from me. But we need to find a better solution to slow spread because I'm not so sure we aren't benefiting from a weaker strain when it comes to outcomes. But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. The big data seems to bear out a flaw. Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do.