Trump says …. Get Vaxxed!!!!!

[bmw]

That vaccine is working real great in Rhode Island. Second-most vaccinated state in the country with 76% of the population fully vaxxed while also having BY FAR the highest daily case rate per 100k at 120 (next highest is 90).

Anybody care to explain this one?

I said my personal experience would cause me to re-assess my views on Covid. One thing that has NOT changed is my opinion that the truth lies within the data.

Given that the Omicron variant has with lightning speed become the dominant strain at 73% of new infections in the past 7 days, it is probably safe to assume that the sudden spike in Rhode Island is mostly attributable to Omicron. My conclusion? Vaccine ain't doing DIDDLY SQUAT to stop the spread of Omicron. And in fact, while we need probably one more week of data to verify this, I think we're going to find that Omicron spreads faster among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, and I don't think it is going to be even close. Reason being, natural immunity provides more protection against getting infected than does vaccination.

[bmw]

Ok. Here is the updated chart. The data is STRIKING!

Daily case rate per 100k in the highest-vaccinated states? 75% vaccinated, 65 cases
Daily case rate per 100k in the lowest-vaccinated states? 46% vaccinated, 23 cases

How long can the staunch pro-vaccine crowd keep the blinders on? Covid is literally spreading THREE TIMES FASTER in the highest vaccinated states. This trend continues to move more and more in this direction with the passage of time with every chart I post.

How can anyone look at this data and conclude that the vaccine is even slowing (let alone stopping) the spread?

[Honeyman]

This just in:

First confirmed US Omicron death had been infected before, was unvaxxed.


https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/omi ... 52a4dd27f0

[bmw]

Hey if you want to look at a single case to try to make a point, go ahead. I'm looking at the entirety of the data we have available. And the data isn't even close. With each passing week and month, the slope of the trend line keeps getting steeper relative to correlation with vaccination rate.

[Honeyman]

Hey if you want to look at a single case to try to make a point, go ahead. I'm looking at the entirety of the data we have available. And the data isn't even close. With each passing week and month, the slope of the trend line keeps getting steeper relative to correlation with vaccination rate.

FACT: If you are unvaxxed, you have a much better chance of DYING from Covid.

Most of us know this. Any idiot who doesn't acknowledge that...let the chips fall as they may.

[FakeAndyStuart]

Ok. Here is the updated chart. The data is STRIKING!

State borders are random, this is data without actual correlation. Look at the real numbers - cases in vaccinated vs. cases in unvaccinated. And that clearly shows that unvaccinated persons are contracting the disease at 5 x the rate (and dying at 13 x the rate) of those who've been jabbed. (If you can use The NY Times for your evidence so can I)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cases.html

[bmw]

Ok. Here is the updated chart. The data is STRIKING!

State borders are random, this is data without actual correlation. Look at the real numbers - cases in vaccinated vs. cases in unvaccinated. And that clearly shows that unvaccinated persons are contracting the disease at 5 x the rate (and dying at 13 x the rate) of those who've been jabbed. (If you can use The NY Times for your evidence so can I)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... cases.html

That vaxxed vs unvaxxed data is over a month old. A month ago, the state-level data was much closer to a flat line.

And besides, that math as you describe it simply doesn't make sense. If you have a state with a 76% vaccination rate vs a state with a 46% vaccination rate, that is equal to 24% unvaccinated vs. 54% unvaccinated. If the case rates are 3x higher in the 24% unvaxxed state than in the 54% unvaxxed state, and if it was mostly unvaccinated people getting the virus, that equals a ratio of 8:54, or 6.75x. That would mean that for SOME reason, unvaccinated people in one state are getting sick at a rate 6.75x faster than unvaccinated people in another state. Comparing unvaccainted people in different states should be something at least closet to an apples-to-apples comparison. But a 6.75x rate difference, at least in the world of statistical analysis, is so far outside the bounds of acceptable standard deviation that something else MUST be going on here.

[bmw]

FACT: If you are unvaxxed, you have a much better chance of DYING from Covid.

That claim begins to fall apart in a scenario where vaccinated people are getting sick at a higher rate than unvaccinated people. In other words, even if it is correct that once you're sick that the vaccine reduces your odds of death, if your odds of even getting sick in the first place are higher, that partially cancels out that effect. And what I'm suggesting is that while we're not there yet, we may well be on the road to approaching that place. Specifically, that vaccinated people will be getting sick at a high enough rate to cancel out the effect entirely.

[Honeyman]

FACT: If you are unvaxxed, you have a much better chance of DYING from Covid.

That claim begins to fall apart in a scenario where vaccinated people are getting sick at a higher rate than unvaccinated people. In other words, even if it is correct that once you're sick that the vaccine reduces your odds of death, if your odds of even getting sick in the first place are higher, that partially cancels out that effect. And what I'm suggesting is that while we're not there yet, we may well be on the road to approaching that place. Specifically, that vaccinated people will be getting sick at a high enough rate to cancel out the effect entirely.

So now you're back to just relying on various charts and numbers to attempt to prove your point, as opposed to the honest emotion you portrayed on the thread about you and your family earlier. I guess that scare wasn't enough to sway you.

[bmw]

There are things I would have done differently in hindsight. Getting vaccinated is not one of them.

[Matt]

There are things I would have done differently in hindsight. Getting vaccinated is not one of them.

Natural infection does not equal natural immunity. Also, standing by your original anti-vaxx opinion seems to be more about pride than the actual facts on the ground. Infection counts mean very little - what matters is severe infections and deaths. That largely isn't happening to fully vaxxed unless they have other underlying conditions. I suspect infection counts are up in unvaccinated because people smart enough to get vaccinated are also smart enough to get tested around holiday travel, going back to Thanksgiving. I suspect a disproportionate amount of fully-vaxxed infections are asymptomatic. It would be nice if that data was available.

[Bryce]

So now you're back to just relying on various charts and numbers to attempt to prove your point, as opposed to the honest emotion you portrayed on the thread about you and your family earlier. I guess that scare wasn't enough to sway you.

This statement somewhat confuses me. Are you suggesting that decisions be made on "honest emotion" rather than facts and data?

[Matt]

So now you're back to just relying on various charts and numbers to attempt to prove your point, as opposed to the honest emotion you portrayed on the thread about you and your family earlier. I guess that scare wasn't enough to sway you.

This statement somewhat confuses me. Are you suggesting that decisions be made on "honest emotion" rather than facts and data?

Misrepresented data is dishonest emotion masquerading as fact. It is what leftists call "your truth."

[FakeAndyStuart]

that math as you describe it simply doesn't make sense. If you have a state with a 76% vaccination rate vs a state with a 46% vaccination rate, that is equal to 24% unvaccinated vs. 54% unvaccinated. If the case rates are 3x higher in the 24% unvaxxed state than in the 54% unvaxxed state, and if it was mostly unvaccinated people getting the virus, that equals a ratio of 8:54, or 6.75x. That would mean that for SOME reason, unvaccinated people in one state are getting sick at a rate 6.75x faster than unvaccinated people in another state. Comparing unvaccainted people in different states should be something at least closet to an apples-to-apples comparison. But a 6.75x rate difference, at least in the world of statistical analysis, is so far outside the bounds of acceptable standard deviation that something else MUST be going on here.

This is why you should have paid attention when you took Statistics 101 in junior college. And you should also pay attention as to what people have said. Please note that I did NOT say the underlined statement above, which makes the rest of your calculations wrong.

What I posted (and what the data shows) is that in 26 states and NYCity, unvaccinated people are 5 x more likely to get infected and 13 x more likely to die from COVID. That's a pretty big sample size of over half the country, varied geographies and age groups.

“The No. 1 take-home message is that these vaccines are still working,” said Dr. David Dowdy, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “If you saw these data for any disease other than Covid, what everyone’s eyes would be drawn to is the difference between the unvaccinated and fully vaccinated lines.”

Splitting up this data by state doesn't make sense.

The CDC says the actual number since December of 2020 is 10,483, but those lives don’t matter, right?

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html

Nice try Sparky, but if you would actually read the page you referenced you could see that is the number of people reported to have died after getting the COVID vaccine. It clearly states, in BIG BOLD letters -

Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.

I'm so glad you guys weren't around back in the 50's when vaccines virtually eliminated Polio.

[Rate This]

So now you're back to just relying on various charts and numbers to attempt to prove your point, as opposed to the honest emotion you portrayed on the thread about you and your family earlier. I guess that scare wasn't enough to sway you.

This statement somewhat confuses me. Are you suggesting that decisions be made on "honest emotion" rather than facts and data?

Misrepresented data is dishonest emotion masquerading as fact. It is what leftists call "your truth."

I’m gonna have to use that one.