Repeated pattern with admin is understating nature of emerging crisis and then later admitting its scope. https://t.co/hxoz5AlnlL

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) August 10, 2022

Fauci: “When you tell people they need to mask in an indoor congregate setting” it is “looked upon by a lot of people, not everybody, as an encroachment on your freedom.”

pic.twitter.com/P9sCAspp1S

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 10, 2022

Top Biden science advisor Anthony Fauci jokes and laughs about the origins of COVID and gain-of-function research pic.twitter.com/JIKzJpAPeY

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 10, 2022

WHO warns people not to attack monkeys amid monkeypox outbreak. https://t.co/WfYkn5HaQX

— NBC News (@NBCNews) August 11, 2022

Quote:

---

This newspaper obtained a copy of a February 2022 letter signed by doctors from UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine and USC's Keck School of Medicine sent to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, asking the county to end the mask mandate that was in effect this past winter, claiming the policy did not work.

On July 22, some of the same doctors published their views in an op-ed in the Orange County Register, one of the newspapers in the Southern California News Group. At the time in July, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) was strongly considering reimposing an indoor mask mandate but on July 29 decided not to do so.

The letter to the Board of Supervisors, part of a campaign to educate the board, was signed by Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner, clinical professor of medicine, population and public health sciences at USC's Keck School of Medicine; Neeraj Sood, professor of public policy at USC's Sol Price School of Public Policy; James E. Enstrom, retired professor of epidemiology at UCLA; Dr. Noah Kojima, senior resident for internal medicine at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine; Dr. Catherine A. Sarkisian of UCLA's Geffen School; James E. Moore, II, professor at USC's Viterbi School of Engineering; Dr. Gabe Vorobiof, associate professor of medicine and cardiology at UCLA Geffen School of Medicine; and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, professor at UCLA's Anderson School.

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Doctors from USC, UCLA say mask mandates for COVID-19 not effective, as debate goes on

Quote:

---

This newspaper obtained a copy of a February 2022 letter signed by doctors from UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine and USC's Keck School of Medicine sent to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, asking the county to end the mask mandate that was in effect this past winter, claiming the policy did not work.

On July 22, some of the same doctors published their views in an op-ed in the Orange County Register, one of the newspapers in the Southern California News Group. At the time in July, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) was strongly considering reimposing an indoor mask mandate but on July 29 decided not to do so.

The letter to the Board of Supervisors, part of a campaign to educate the board, was signed by Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner, clinical professor of medicine, population and public health sciences at USC's Keck School of Medicine; Neeraj Sood, professor of public policy at USC's Sol Price School of Public Policy; James E. Enstrom, retired professor of epidemiology at UCLA; Dr. Noah Kojima, senior resident for internal medicine at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine; Dr. Catherine A. Sarkisian of UCLA's Geffen School; James E. Moore, II, professor at USC's Viterbi School of Engineering; Dr. Gabe Vorobiof, associate professor of medicine and cardiology at UCLA Geffen School of Medicine; and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, professor at UCLA's Anderson School.

---

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

whiterock said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

Doctors from USC, UCLA say mask mandates for COVID-19 not effective, as debate goes on

Quote:

---

This newspaper obtained a copy of a February 2022 letter signed by doctors from UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine and USC's Keck School of Medicine sent to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, asking the county to end the mask mandate that was in effect this past winter, claiming the policy did not work.

On July 22, some of the same doctors published their views in an op-ed in the Orange County Register, one of the newspapers in the Southern California News Group. At the time in July, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) was strongly considering reimposing an indoor mask mandate but on July 29 decided not to do so.

The letter to the Board of Supervisors, part of a campaign to educate the board, was signed by Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner, clinical professor of medicine, population and public health sciences at USC's Keck School of Medicine; Neeraj Sood, professor of public policy at USC's Sol Price School of Public Policy; James E. Enstrom, retired professor of epidemiology at UCLA; Dr. Noah Kojima, senior resident for internal medicine at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine; Dr. Catherine A. Sarkisian of UCLA's Geffen School; James E. Moore, II, professor at USC's Viterbi School of Engineering; Dr. Gabe Vorobiof, associate professor of medicine and cardiology at UCLA Geffen School of Medicine; and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, professor at UCLA's Anderson School.

---

---

Debunked.

(saving Sam the keystrokes)

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

Slow spread was one of the specific issues you raised. There may be areas of faster spread as new strains emerge, but again that's far from unprecedented. I've never pretended the new vaccine's performance is the same overall. Comparing apples to apples, with the vaccine against the strain it was designed for, it's considerably better. Only after trailing the virus by two or three mutations did it become about the same.

---

Yes, reviewing the ability of the vaccine to "slow spread" is the point. When the data for infection rates are very similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated, you can conclude the vaccine isn't very effective in slowing spread. All viruses mutate constantly. Usually, some level of protection from infection remains, ala the flu virus. We've reached a point where that's been lost in the current vaccine.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

Slow spread was one of the specific issues you raised. There may be areas of faster spread as new strains emerge, but again that's far from unprecedented. I've never pretended the new vaccine's performance is the same overall. Comparing apples to apples, with the vaccine against the strain it was designed for, it's considerably better. Only after trailing the virus by two or three mutations did it become about the same.

---

Yes, reviewing the ability of the vaccine to "slow spread" is the point. When the data for infection rates are very similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated, you can conclude the vaccine isn't very effective in slowing spread. All viruses mutate constantly. Usually, some level of protection from infection remains, ala the flu virus. We've reached a point where that's been lost in the current vaccine.

---

"Similar" meaning three or four times less. The most obvious solution is to reformulate the vaccine like we do with flu, not just declare mRNA a failure.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

Slow spread was one of the specific issues you raised. There may be areas of faster spread as new strains emerge, but again that's far from unprecedented. I've never pretended the new vaccine's performance is the same overall. Comparing apples to apples, with the vaccine against the strain it was designed for, it's considerably better. Only after trailing the virus by two or three mutations did it become about the same.

---

Yes, reviewing the ability of the vaccine to "slow spread" is the point. When the data for infection rates are very similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated, you can conclude the vaccine isn't very effective in slowing spread. All viruses mutate constantly. Usually, some level of protection from infection remains, ala the flu virus. We've reached a point where that's been lost in the current vaccine.

---

"Similar" meaning three or four times less. The most obvious solution is to reformulate the vaccine like we do with flu, not just declare mRNA a failure.

---

Sam math says this is a ratio of "three or four times less".

From earlier post:

Quote:

---

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

---

The flu vaccine and COVID vaccine as currently structured are different in how they work, thus the "reformulation" process is much different. And that's not even considering the behavior differences of the viruses themselves.

---

Cobretti said:

---

---

BREAKING: A new Icelandic study shows COVID reinfection rate rises with number of vaccine doses.

The study shows that for most age groups, those who have received two doses or more are more likely to become reinfected than those who have received no vaccination or one dose.

Wow

— Dr. Simone Gold (@drsimonegold) August 15, 2022

Reminder from July 2021 - Dr. Leana Wen: “We can’t trust the unvaccinated”
Source: https://t.co/XEn2Phfyjb pic.twitter.com/ZJY4RwgShG

— Wittgenstein (@backtolife_2023) August 16, 2022

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

Slow spread was one of the specific issues you raised. There may be areas of faster spread as new strains emerge, but again that's far from unprecedented. I've never pretended the new vaccine's performance is the same overall. Comparing apples to apples, with the vaccine against the strain it was designed for, it's considerably better. Only after trailing the virus by two or three mutations did it become about the same.

---

Yes, reviewing the ability of the vaccine to "slow spread" is the point. When the data for infection rates are very similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated, you can conclude the vaccine isn't very effective in slowing spread. All viruses mutate constantly. Usually, some level of protection from infection remains, ala the flu virus. We've reached a point where that's been lost in the current vaccine.

---

"Similar" meaning three or four times less. The most obvious solution is to reformulate the vaccine like we do with flu, not just declare mRNA a failure.

---

Sam math says this is a ratio of "three or four times less".

From earlier post:

Quote:

---

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

---

The flu vaccine and COVID vaccine as currently structured are different in how they work, thus the "reformulation" process is much different. And that's not even considering the behavior differences of the viruses themselves.

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

---

BREAKING: A new Icelandic study shows COVID reinfection rate rises with number of vaccine doses.

The study shows that for most age groups, those who have received two doses or more are more likely to become reinfected than those who have received no vaccination or one dose.

Wow

— Dr. Simone Gold (@drsimonegold) August 15, 2022

Iceland is just proving what many of us have seen with all the maskers and booster people constantly getting reinfected.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

Slow spread was one of the specific issues you raised. There may be areas of faster spread as new strains emerge, but again that's far from unprecedented. I've never pretended the new vaccine's performance is the same overall. Comparing apples to apples, with the vaccine against the strain it was designed for, it's considerably better. Only after trailing the virus by two or three mutations did it become about the same.

---

Yes, reviewing the ability of the vaccine to "slow spread" is the point. When the data for infection rates are very similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated, you can conclude the vaccine isn't very effective in slowing spread. All viruses mutate constantly. Usually, some level of protection from infection remains, ala the flu virus. We've reached a point where that's been lost in the current vaccine.

---

"Similar" meaning three or four times less. The most obvious solution is to reformulate the vaccine like we do with flu, not just declare mRNA a failure.

---

Sam math says this is a ratio of "three or four times less".

From earlier post:

Quote:

---

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

---

The flu vaccine and COVID vaccine as currently structured are different in how they work, thus the "reformulation" process is much different. And that's not even considering the behavior differences of the viruses themselves.

---

I believe I explained those as raw numbers per 100K total population. You disagreed, but your only alternative explanation was that government is notoriously bad at data. So we're back to you against the gummint. And not just Texas. The CDC and at least 25 state and local governments reported similar numbers.

Something to remember about the behavior of the virus is that it's always been extremely transmissible. Delta even more so, and Omicron still more. Vaccine effectiveness is measured against that baseline, so the results of a 5% failure rate (or 40-50% with Omicron) are going to look bigger in the real world. It may be the best we can do, at least for a while.

---

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:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

Slow spread was one of the specific issues you raised. There may be areas of faster spread as new strains emerge, but again that's far from unprecedented. I've never pretended the new vaccine's performance is the same overall. Comparing apples to apples, with the vaccine against the strain it was designed for, it's considerably better. Only after trailing the virus by two or three mutations did it become about the same.

---

Yes, reviewing the ability of the vaccine to "slow spread" is the point. When the data for infection rates are very similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated, you can conclude the vaccine isn't very effective in slowing spread. All viruses mutate constantly. Usually, some level of protection from infection remains, ala the flu virus. We've reached a point where that's been lost in the current vaccine.

---

"Similar" meaning three or four times less. The most obvious solution is to reformulate the vaccine like we do with flu, not just declare mRNA a failure.

---

Sam math says this is a ratio of "three or four times less".

From earlier post:

Quote:

---

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

---

The flu vaccine and COVID vaccine as currently structured are different in how they work, thus the "reformulation" process is much different. And that's not even considering the behavior differences of the viruses themselves.

---

I believe I explained those as raw numbers per 100K total population. You disagreed, but your only alternative explanation was that government is notoriously bad at data. So we're back to you against the gummint. And not just Texas. The CDC and at least 25 state and local governments reported similar numbers.

Something to remember about the behavior of the virus is that it's always been extremely transmissible. Delta even more so, and Omicron still more. Vaccine effectiveness is measured against that baseline, so the results of a 5% failure rate (or 40-50% with Omicron) are going to look bigger in the real world. It may be the best we can do, at least for a while.

---

The fact that you're saying "total population"'continues to inform me you aren't good at data. It's specifically compared to incidences within vaccinated populations and unvaccinated populations accordingly. It even explains that in the data notes.

---

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:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

Slow spread was one of the specific issues you raised. There may be areas of faster spread as new strains emerge, but again that's far from unprecedented. I've never pretended the new vaccine's performance is the same overall. Comparing apples to apples, with the vaccine against the strain it was designed for, it's considerably better. Only after trailing the virus by two or three mutations did it become about the same.

---

Yes, reviewing the ability of the vaccine to "slow spread" is the point. When the data for infection rates are very similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated, you can conclude the vaccine isn't very effective in slowing spread. All viruses mutate constantly. Usually, some level of protection from infection remains, ala the flu virus. We've reached a point where that's been lost in the current vaccine.

---

"Similar" meaning three or four times less. The most obvious solution is to reformulate the vaccine like we do with flu, not just declare mRNA a failure.

---

Sam math says this is a ratio of "three or four times less".

From earlier post:

Quote:

---

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

---

The flu vaccine and COVID vaccine as currently structured are different in how they work, thus the "reformulation" process is much different. And that's not even considering the behavior differences of the viruses themselves.

---

I believe I explained those as raw numbers per 100K total population. You disagreed, but your only alternative explanation was that government is notoriously bad at data. So we're back to you against the gummint. And not just Texas. The CDC and at least 25 state and local governments reported similar numbers.

Something to remember about the behavior of the virus is that it's always been extremely transmissible. Delta even more so, and Omicron still more. Vaccine effectiveness is measured against that baseline, so the results of a 5% failure rate (or 40-50% with Omicron) are going to look bigger in the real world. It may be the best we can do, at least for a while.

---

The fact that you're saying "total population"'continues to inform me you aren't good at data. It's specifically compared to incidences within vaccinated populations and unvaccinated populations accordingly. It even explains that in the data notes.

---

Since we can't agree on this one, shall we talk about the other two dozen? Or something, anything, that supports your view against that of the CDC?

---

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:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Hopefully these images are visible, but what an incredible graphic of the inefficacy of vaccine spread prevention. %A0These were all "model" countries early on in the pandemic, primarily because they isolated, and were geographically advantageous to do so (islands, isolated peninsula). %A0They also had/have high vaccination rates (80%+) during/prior to these massive infection spikes.

---

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.

---

LOL.

---

LOL heaven forbid we analyze what these countries DO have in common on this issue

---

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.

---

Not the first time the NYT has been wrong, %A0If they are "late to the vaccines" then performance should have been better. Note the case count and fully vaccinated percentages from same/similar date.

---

The NYT, all the mainstream papers, the science and medical journals, the CDC...all clueless. But not you. You've got Worldometer!

---

Data is data. %A0It doesn't have an opinion or perspective like all the other sources you mentioned. %A0If 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. %A0 The fact that these trends don't bother you is alarming. %A0This isn't some outlying aberration, it is showing up consistently around the globe. %A0We 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. %A0

---

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.

---

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. %A0I already took Sam though that and it didn't matter. %A0

---

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. %A0In the case of the foreign countries in this analysis, it is from the national health agencies. %A0If it's "raw numbers", it's the same data reported to WHO. %A0

---

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. %A0

But let's be frank. %A0These aren't subtle changes, but hyper hockey stick adjustments. %A0There'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. %A0But 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. %A0But as long as it continues to spread it could mutate to a deadlier one. %A0I've explained ad nauseum what the flaw is likely in the current mRNA approach. %A0The big data seems to bear out a flaw. %A0Some possible alternatives on the horizon so we'll see how they do. %A0

---

Data which you claimed was unreliable because you disagreed with the state's conclusions, as you did with the Washington state report and the CDC report. You can cite authorities, but it often turns out to be you against them.

No one has ever explained why issues that are commonly known and accepted with other diseases are evidence of failure against covid. We still have slow spread? The virus still mutates? Vaccines need updating? What did you expect? Welcome to the wonderful world of pathogens.

---

I only questioned the math of their conclusions that didn't match the graphs under those conclusions. Didn't even question the actual data. The lines on the graph for 2022 were overlapping and mirrored when comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated. That was the entire point I was agreeing with them about.

We aren't evaluating issues with known diseases, we're evaluating vaccine performance on this disease compared to vaccines for other diseases. Don't pretend it's the same. And if Australia going from 200,000 cases to nearly 20 million in a matter of 6 months with 82% vaccination rates is "slow spread", I'm not sure what to tell you.

---

Slow spread was one of the specific issues you raised. There may be areas of faster spread as new strains emerge, but again that's far from unprecedented. I've never pretended the new vaccine's performance is the same overall. Comparing apples to apples, with the vaccine against the strain it was designed for, it's considerably better. Only after trailing the virus by two or three mutations did it become about the same.

---

Yes, reviewing the ability of the vaccine to "slow spread" is the point. When the data for infection rates are very similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated, you can conclude the vaccine isn't very effective in slowing spread. All viruses mutate constantly. Usually, some level of protection from infection remains, ala the flu virus. We've reached a point where that's been lost in the current vaccine.

---

"Similar" meaning three or four times less. The most obvious solution is to reformulate the vaccine like we do with flu, not just declare mRNA a failure.

---

Sam math says this is a ratio of "three or four times less".

From earlier post:

Quote:

---

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

---

The flu vaccine and COVID vaccine as currently structured are different in how they work, thus the "reformulation" process is much different. And that's not even considering the behavior differences of the viruses themselves.

---

I believe I explained those as raw numbers per 100K total population. You disagreed, but your only alternative explanation was that government is notoriously bad at data. So we're back to you against the gummint. And not just Texas. The CDC and at least 25 state and local governments reported similar numbers.

Something to remember about the behavior of the virus is that it's always been extremely transmissible. Delta even more so, and Omicron still more. Vaccine effectiveness is measured against that baseline, so the results of a 5% failure rate (or 40-50% with Omicron) are going to look bigger in the real world. It may be the best we can do, at least for a while.

---

The fact that you're saying "total population"'continues to inform me you aren't good at data. It's specifically compared to incidences within vaccinated populations and unvaccinated populations accordingly. It even explains that in the data notes.

---

Since we can't agree on this one, shall we talk about the other two dozen? Or something, anything, that supports your view against that of the CDC?

---

The CDC math says the same. The latest Omicron variants have spread similarly in the vaxxed and non vaxxed.

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

---

BREAKING: A new Icelandic study shows COVID reinfection rate rises with number of vaccine doses.

The study shows that for most age groups, those who have received two doses or more are more likely to become reinfected than those who have received no vaccination or one dose.

Wow

— Dr. Simone Gold (@drsimonegold) August 15, 2022

Iceland is just proving what many of us have seen with all the maskers and booster people constantly getting reinfected.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Show me which CDC data you're relying on. I posted the report on the emergence of the BA.2 variant. I haven't seen a full report on BA.5, and I doubt it exists since the variant is so new in the United States.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Show me which CDC data you're relying on. I posted the report on the emergence of the BA.2 variant. I haven't seen a full report on BA.5, and I doubt it exists since the variant is so new in the United States.

---

The CDC information is there if you know how to look.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Show me which CDC data you're relying on. I posted the report on the emergence of the BA.2 variant. I haven't seen a full report on BA.5, and I doubt it exists since the variant is so new in the United States.

---

The CDC information is there if you know how to look.

---

I assume I'm asking someone who knows.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Show me which CDC data you're relying on. I posted the report on the emergence of the BA.2 variant. I haven't seen a full report on BA.5, and I doubt it exists since the variant is so new in the United States.

---

The CDC information is there if you know how to look.

---

I assume I'm asking someone who knows.

---

https://data.cdc.gov/Public-Health-Surveillance/Rates-of-COVID-19-Cases-or-Deaths-by-Age-Group-and/3rge-nu2a

Dig in.

---