Vaccine thread

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

How about an update so they stop spreading misinformation? Look at this page from the BC Center for Disease Control, they state that:

 

"All types of masks help reduce transmission of respiratory infections when they fit comfortably over the mouth and nose with no gaps around the face. "

 

But then under "non-medical masks" they state: "Non-medical disposable masks often look like certified medical masks, but unlike certified medical masks, they have not been tested by national agencies for filtration effectiveness."

 

On their own page they make a sweeping declaration that all masks work, but then admit certain masks have never been tested! Wild!

 

http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/prevention-risks/masks

 

 

Shall I still be accused of "hind sight"?

Forgive me for repeating myself:  How sick someone got was often associated with how much of the virus they were infected with.   If the masks of two parties limited the amount of infection by almost any percentage it can be considered a plus.

 

Repeating myself again with one of the unanswered questions you deny the existence of:  When in the course of history have we ever done anything absolutely perfectly?

 

We stumbled at times, took a misstep or two, but we made it through.  We learned as we went.   Save your to do list for the next one.   This one is just about done.

 

 

[Bob Long]

9 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

How about an update so they stop spreading misinformation? Look at this page from the BC Center for Disease Control, they state that:

 

"All types of masks help reduce transmission of respiratory infections when they fit comfortably over the mouth and nose with no gaps around the face. "

 

But then under "non-medical masks" they state: "Non-medical disposable masks often look like certified medical masks, but unlike certified medical masks, they have not been tested by national agencies for filtration effectiveness."

 

On their own page they make a sweeping declaration that all masks work, but then admit certain masks have never been tested! Wild!

 

http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/prevention-risks/masks

 

 

Shall I still be accused of "hind sight"?

 

what exactly confuses you about the guidance?

 

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

2 hours ago, Xanlet said:

I am thrilled you asked

 

 

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/archive/2022-10-21/cases-following-vaccination.html

 

(It stands to reason that the missing percentage in that graph is those who received a single dose, since that is a category which is omitted and the unvaccinated is less than half)

 

 

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/cases-following-vaccination.html

 

Here we see the statement that they have stopped tracking vaccinated status

I don't follow, doesn't your graph show the unvaccinated accounting for 48% of hospitalizations? You do realize these are total numbers and not per capita right? What percentage of Canadians were fully vaxxed at the time? 

[Xanlet]

Just now, Satchmo said:

Forgive me for repeating myself:  How sick someone got was often associated with how much of the virus they were infected with.   If the masks of two parties limited the amount of infection by almost any percentage it can be considered a plus.

 

Repeating myself again with one of the unanswered questions you deny the existence of:  When in the course of history have we ever done anything absolutely perfectly?

 

We stumbled at times, took a misstep or two, but we made it through.  We learned as we went.   Save your to do list for the next one.   This one is just about done.

 

 

What are you quoting from with your first italics? And again, you are making the assumption that low level masks have some kind of percentage of filtration, which there is good reason to believe is not the case for certain categories of mask, despite the blanket statement by the BCCDC.

[Xanlet]

Just now, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

I don't follow, doesn't your graph show the unvaccinated accounting for 48% of hospitalizations? You do realize these are total numbers and not per capita right? What percentage of Canadians were fully vaxxed at the time? 

The graph shows that the total number of hospitalized people with covid were majority vaccinated, and that shortly after this flipped from "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" to majority vaccinated hospitalizations, they stopped reporting the vaccination status of people hospitalized with covid.

 

In short, 52% of those hospitalized were vaccinated and then they stopped reporting vax status of those hospitalized.

[Xanlet]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

what exactly confuses you about the guidance?

 

They include cloth and non-medical masks in "all types of masks help reduce transmission of respiratory infections when they fit comfortably over the mouth and nose with no gaps around the face. "

 

There are significant amounts of evidence to show this is false.

 

I find it alarming that the BC Center for Disease Control would make such a reckless and sweeping declaration which is almost certainly false.

[Satchmo]

Just now, Xanlet said:

What are you quoting from with your first italics? And again, you are making the assumption that low level masks have some kind of percentage of filtration, which there is good reason to believe is not the case for certain categories of mask, despite the blanket statement by the BCCDC.

I am quoting myself from a post an hour or so ago.   My opinion - fully accepting that's what it is - is based on knowledge gleaned from paying attention to what experts have said.

 

BTW - When in the course of history have we ever done anything absolutely perfectly?

 

And I'm not talking about the easy stuff here.  I asking about the big and complicated stuff we have to deal with as a group,

 

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

They include cloth and non-medical masks in "all types of masks help reduce transmission of respiratory infections when they fit comfortably over the mouth and nose with no gaps around the face. "

 

There are significant amounts of evidence to show this is false.

 

I find it alarming that the BC Center for Disease Control would make such a reckless and sweeping declaration which is almost certainly false.

 

just stop it. Nothing you've said justifies that conclusion. 

 

You are simply trying to confuse people with disinformation, god knows why. Go find something constructive to do. 

[Gurn]

If 90 % of the people took needles, and 10% didn't- does it not make sense that more people that had been vaxxed would end up in the hospital- after all there were 9 times as many vaxxed people?

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

just stop it. Nothing you've said justifies that conclusion. 

 

You are simply trying to confuse people with disinformation, god knows why. Go find something constructive to do. 

We seen to have gotten an influx of these types out of the woodwork.  School get out early this year?

[Xanlet]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

just stop it. Nothing you've said justifies that conclusion. 

 

You are simply trying to confuse people with disinformation, god knows why. Go find something constructive to do. 

I have put forward quite a lot to justify that conclusion. Again I refer you to my earlier post of the Cochrane Review which is quite thorough and comprehensive.

[King Heffy]

Just now, Gurn said:

If 90 % of the people took needles, and 10% didn't- does it not make sense that more people that had been vaxxed would end up in the hospital- after all there were 9 times as many vaxxed people?

It would, but only to those who understand math.

[Bob Long]

Just now, King Heffy said:

We seen to have gotten an influx of these types out of the woodwork.  School get out early this year?

 

yeah I'm wondering 'why now'? does he think enough time has passed that he can just say whatever bs he wants to, as if everyone has forgotten? 

 

I love the apology part tho, its always good to have a dream.

 

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

The graph shows that the total number of hospitalized people with covid were majority vaccinated, and that shortly after this flipped from "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" to majority vaccinated hospitalizations, they stopped reporting the vaccination status of people hospitalized with covid.

 

In short, 52% of those hospitalized were vaccinated and then they stopped reporting vax status of those hospitalized.

85% of us got vaccinated. Do the math. 48% antivaxxers. The antivaxxers filled up the hospital beds. 

[Xanlet]

Just now, Gurn said:

If 90 % of the people took needles, and 10% didn't- does it not make sense that more people that had been vaxxed would end up in the hospital- after all there were 9 times as many vaxxed people?

Why stop reporting the vax status then? It would give us an excellent data point to compare the percentage of cases against the percentage of population vaccinated.

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

We seen to have gotten an influx of these types out of the woodwork.  School get out early this year?

It seems to have taken a huge jump the day Brock got a blood clot.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Xanlet said:

I have put forward quite a lot to justify that conclusion. Again I refer you to my earlier post of the Cochrane Review which is quite thorough and comprehensive.

 

no, you haven't. The Cochrane report doesn't justify your personal view. 

 

Why are you doing this? 

[King Heffy]

Just now, Satchmo said:

It seems to have taken a huge jump the day Brock got a blood clot.

At least they got out of the thread about the blood clot itself.  

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

5 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

The graph shows that the total number of hospitalized people with covid were majority vaccinated, and that shortly after this flipped from "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" to majority vaccinated hospitalizations, they stopped reporting the vaccination status of people hospitalized with covid.

 

In short, 52% of those hospitalized were vaccinated and then they stopped reporting vax status of those hospitalized.

I strongly suggest you rethink your hypothesis, if 20% of the country was unvaccinated but they make up 48% of hospitalizations, then the vaccine is working exactly as intended and you're out of a hobby. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

Why stop reporting the vax status then? It would give us an excellent data point to compare the percentage of cases against the percentage of population vaccinated.

90% of us were vaccinated. Your supposition suggests a conspiracy of some kind. 

Edited June 6 by Alflives

[JIAHN]

4 hours ago, Xanlet said:

This is a very common point of view, however I must disagree.

I ask this with respect....meaning no ill will. But who the heck are you? What type of degree do you have? Are you an expert in virology? Other than voicing your opinion, exactly what is your expertise in this area? Mine...none! I just believe that the vast majority of experts, have agreed with how we responded. I am sorry if this offends you, but picking and choosing your arguing points, but but not using executive thought process, will lead you to extinction.....I will follow the accepted science

4 hours ago, Xanlet said:

 

Corona viruses have been around for a very long time, and although this was a novel corona virus, we knew many things about it right at the beginning. We knew it was an airborne virus which transmitted rapidly and easily. We knew very early that it posed a significantly higher risk to older persons and persons with comorbidities. (The average age of death from covid in 2020 in Canada was 83.8 years old). We knew that 99+% of the world's population would catch it within 5 years and that it would become endemic like the flu based on seroprevalence modeling. These facts made it very different from Ebola, since Ebola is spread through direct contact with contaminated bodily fluids or surfaces contaminated with bodily fluids. It's much easier to contain and suppress that type of disease versus an airborne disease.   

It is not what we knew about it that made scientist afraid, it is what we did not know about it. That took time! Not acting to shut down society, could have ended up being very disruptive, costing millions of additional lives. You must remember, we were getting very scant information from China, where in some cities, it was killing young and old alike, and China had a lock down which makes our pale by comparison. People that bring out statistics like yours, certainly do not care about the elderly, at best. Take in point where in Italy, The Italian government announce that in 24 hours, there would be a lockdown, so what do the young people do? They go out and party in mass. Alot of them lost older relative that have been directly blamed on their actions....but I guess, "Oh well" they were old, so who cares! Secondly, the 83.3 year mortality rate, is an average. I have 2 friends who are RGN's and both were over whelmed.....Imagine if they were to have quit, or suffered from stress burn out. It was real, and if you talked to them, the would shake their head at you. (You may or may not know F - all, but I know what they would think!)

4 hours ago, Xanlet said:

 

Also, I noticed one point in your post in regard to the 6ft which says "it was at least something and better than nothing". I've noticed other posters say something similar which really confuses me and perhaps you can clear it up. If something does not work, and it was enforced on people, I view that as a total failure. I am not interested in governments simply doing things for the sake of doing things, I am interested in governments doing the right things which actually help save lives. You at one point appeal to their expertise in viruses, but at another point claim they were "blind" to this virus. These two statements clash, do they not?

Are you interested in Governments that do nothing? 6 ft was one of the earliest safety measures, and an educated guess. I don't blame him, it was early in the pandemic and was relaxed as information came in. There is no crystal ball, except what you may possess. I doubt anyone else had one!

4 hours ago, Xanlet said:

 

Many of my criticisms were valid at the time of the emergency. Public health experts such as Dr. Vinay Prasad were commenting on these issues as they were happening and pointing out the errors of the official response. Or consider The Great Barrington Declaration, which showed a strong dissenting viewpoint among experts but which was dismissed and marginalized instead of being taken seriously. We knew from the data from China right at the start that the virus posed almost non-existent risk to young people, yet school closures were enacted for absurdly long times.

I can bet you, that those in favor out number those that were not, 100 to 1. For you to selectively pick one or two, and then stand up and say look, look! Is laughable....the majority of science did not know, and I would imagine there are many that had other opinions that were proven wrong, that now feel pretty foolish

4 hours ago, Xanlet said:

 

In regard to lockdowns, what was the exact goal? To lower the peaks of cases so that hospitals were not overwhelmed. Three things are important here, first is that when cases are rising, people voluntarily stay home anyway, making forced lockdowns only marginally more effective. Second, they are only useful at the peaks of cases, and maintaining them for long stretches of time may actually be counterproductive. Third, they are only useful in places of high concentration of population where spread can take place very quickly among a large number of people. In places with lower population density, there is clearly a different calculation to be made. None of these factors were taken into effect and broad, one-size-fits-all mandates were imposed everywhere. Does it make sense to have the same policy in New York City as in Northern B.C.? There was a profound failure of leadership to have this debate.

I find it laughable that you argue all this with no understanding. yes the immediate concern was to slow the virus, so not to be over run, but again, they did not know how to combat it. Why would you allow yourself to be exposed to die, or have your wife die. or your children, or your mother of father, or the truck drivers that brought you food, or the doctors or nurses, etc............

 

Tell, me, if the next virus turns out to kill people age 45 and up at a rate of 50%, are you going to argue this? I doubt it, or if you do, you will either kill someone, or be killed yourself, because of your arrogant thoughts. What if you influence the government to wait longer, next time and it kills your girlfriend, or buddy. You do not seem to fathom the consequences....

4 hours ago, Xanlet said:

 

I think there were broad failures throughout the pandemic and it only looks like Monday morning quarterbacking today because there was such a strain of authoritarianism from leadership that they squashed all debate and dissent at the time.

But you have all the right answers! LOL

Edited June 6 by JIAHN

[Xanlet]

Just now, Alflives said:

85% of us got vaccinated. Do the math. 48% antivaxxers. The antivaxxers filled up the hospital beds. 

That graph is from almost 2 years ago, I would love a current one but, as I mentioned, they stopped reporting the vaccinated status of hospitalizations. Don't you think it would be useful to see that ratio today?

[Satchmo]

Just now, Xanlet said:

Why stop reporting the vax status then? It would give us an excellent data point to compare the percentage of cases against the percentage of population vaccinated.

You and I share a complaint on reporting.  In my opinion it decreased too greatly as we neared the end.   Purely financial IMO.

(That seems to be our only agreement so far and as mentioned I think it was more financial - or allocation of manpower -  than a sign of a great conspiracy)

 

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Xanlet said:

That graph is from almost 2 years ago, I would love a current one but, as I mentioned, they stopped reporting the vaccinated status of hospitalizations. Don't you think it would be useful to see that ratio today?

Again your supposition suggests you believe there to be some conspiracy to hide data. Considering the data already available clearly showed the antivaxxers filled up the hospital when compared to the vaccinated why continue such an expensive thing. We already had enough data to know conclusively the results. Put the money elsewhere. Like in continued boosters to keep people safe? 

Edited June 6 by Alflives

[Xanlet]

Just now, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

I strongly suggest you rethink your hypothesis, if 20% of the country was unvaccinated but they make up 48% of hospitalizations, then the vaccine is working exactly as intended and you're out of a hobby. 

What hypothesis are you referring to? I think the evidence shows the vaccine helped people at risk for a number of months after taking it. However, we have been denied the data on the ratio which unfolded post-vaccine rollout because once the numbers became less favorable to a specific narrative, the numbers stopped being reported.

 

The vast majority of hospitalizations were of elderly people and people with comorbidities. My point of view regards whether it was justified to mandate people at low risk to take it, which I am skeptical of to say the least.