The Covid vaccines really do work

[Anaxagoras]

This is so hard:

https://echo360.org/media/df6327b6-1e39 ... f8e/public

– J.D.

Interesting. I was not aware of survivorship bias, and how it could impact an analysis like this.

I'm thinking the question is maybe still up in the air. They show that there could be a bias here (survivorship bias) that is skewing the results but we still don't have a definitive answer as to how effective "natural immunity" is.

There is plenty of evidence though that vaccines increase whatever immunity you have. People who were infected, got better, and then got vaccinated had twice the immunity as those with only "natural immunity".

And in any case, you can only have "natural immunity" if you survive your first encounter with the virus.

[xouper]

It is almost as if someone should have actually read the posted evidence from non-conspiracy theory websites with agenda.

Might ruin someone's agenda, though.

– J.D.

In hindsight, I agree that it would have been better if I had cited a more credible source. My bad. I notice, however, no one has (yet) refuted the data. The only "argument" offered so far against the data is an ad hominem fallacy. Nonetheless, I have not corroborated the data from a more reliable source, so skepticism is warranted, as I already conceded when I first posted it.

In any case, I have no agenda here other than expressing my opinions. My "agenda" does not include trying to convince anyone to adopt my opinions about any of the various topics that seem popular on this forum. I am merely expressing my opinions because that's what people do here on this forum.

[Doctor X]

They show that there could be a bias here (survivorship bias) that is skewing the results but we still don't have a definitive answer as to how effective "natural immunity" is.

The article from Nebraska gives a nice treatment of the issues with natural immunity.

There is plenty of evidence though that vaccines increase whatever immunity you have. People who were infected, got better, and then got vaccinated had twice the immunity as those with only "natural immunity".

Exactly.

And in any case, you can only have "natural immunity" if you survive your first encounter with the virus.

Exactly.

To which I resubmit the question I have resubmitted previously: what is the evidence-based argument against vaccination?

– J.D.

[xouper]

And in any case, you can only have "natural immunity" if you survive your first encounter with the virus.

That might not be strictly true.

See for example:

• https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... -discovery

• https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3563

• https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/health/t ... index.html

[xouper]

And in any case, you can only have "natural immunity" if you survive your first encounter with the virus.

Exactly.

To which I resubmit the question I have resubmitted previously: what is the evidence-based argument against vaccination?

– J.D.

I already posted that evidence based argument. You have not refuted it, but rather merely cited other experts who do not agree.

Both sides of the question have "evidence".

So which argument is correct? I do not know, and neither do you.

I already explained that those got infected before the vaccine was available had no choice in the matter. They could not choose to get vaccinated. But they survived the infection anyway and there are experts who argue that for those who have already been infected, the risk/benefit analysis favors not getting vaccinated.

[Doctor X]

The adults are talking.

– J.D.

[xouper]

The adults are talking.

– J.D.

Yes, and I am one of them.

[Doctor X]

To which I resubmit the question I have resubmitted previously: what is the evidence-based argument against vaccination?

– J.D.

[xouper]

There's no point in repeating a question that has already been answered. Twice.

[Anaxagoras]

I already posted that evidence based argument. You have not refuted it, but rather merely cited other experts who do not agree.

Both sides of the question have "evidence".

I kinda feel like I missed your argument too. And not for lack of reading your posts. If there was an argument there against getting vaccinated in general, I feel like it was a weak one and that I have pointed out where it is weak.

This all started when you said "In many hospitals these days, the majority of covid patients are vaccinated, which renders your argument invalid" in response to ceptimus's assertion that those who choose to not get vaccinated are more likely to end up in a hospital and burden the healthcare system

I concede that the first part of your statement was not incorrect. There were (and perhaps still are) in fact some hospitals where the majority of covid patients are vaccinated. But the second part of that sentence "which renders your argument invalid" is still not true when you look closely at the data.

If 80% of the population is vaccinated, but only 60% of the people in hospitals are vaccinated, it would still be the case that unvaccinated people are more likely to end up in the hospital. Even though you could say that "the majority of the people in the hospital are vaccinated."

As a thought experiment, let's say there's a population of 1,000 people and to make it as simple as possible, let's just assume that they are all the same age, and the same in every other way. 80% of them are vaccinated and 20% are not.

Let's say that out of those 1,000 people, 100 of them are in the hospital and 60 of those are vaccinated while 40 of them are unvaccinated.

In this case, 800/60 = 13.333... and 200/40 = 5. Only one person in 13 of the vaccinated group is in the hospital, whereas 1 person in 5 of the unvaccinated group is in the hospital. The actual risk is over twice as high (2.666 ... times to be precise).

But, in reality of course, not everyone is the same age and (since we know that older people are at much higher risk to begin with) therefore it also matters what age these people are. In the study I posted earlier, they found that the median age for unvaccinated people who were hospitalized for covid was about 15 years younger than that for those hospitalized who had been vaccinated.

[Pyrrho]

Breaking silence because:

https://twitter.com/amillerphd/status/1 ... 5466752002

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/data.htm

This graphic: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/ ... status.htm

Table lower on the page:

https://i.imgur.com/bhwceJx.jpg

[Doctor X]

How easy it is for Pyrrho and Anax to post evidence which he cannot address, let alone rebut, while he provides, still, nothing.

Curious.

– J.D.

[xouper]

How easy it is for Pyrrho and Anax to post evidence which he cannot address, let alone rebut, while he provides, still, nothing.

Curious.

– J.D.

I do not refute the evidence posted by Pyrrho and Anax. It is evidence relating to a claim I did not make, so no need to address it.

And since that evidence does not address the specific claim I made, that evidence does not refute the specific claim I made.

I assume you know the Latin name for that straw man fallacy.

Furthermore, contrary to what you say, I have indeed posted evidence supporting my claim. Just because you don't like the evidence I posted does not mean I provided "nothing".

I assume you also know the Latin name for that fallacy you just committed, also known as bald-face lying.

[robinson]

I assume you also know the Latin name for that fallacy you just committed, also known as bald-face lying.

I don't usually waste time with Dr X, not just because he comes across as an internet warrior with no life (we never hear anything about actual life from the account), but because it's repetitive, insulting and ultimately a boring NPC type account.

This latest round of fruitless arguing is an example of the futility about arguing over "science". Once it turns into insults, it is over. There is literally no reason to spend any time or effort.

[xouper]

I already posted that evidence based argument. You have not refuted it, but rather merely cited other experts who do not agree.

Both sides of the question have "evidence".

I kinda feel like I missed your argument too. And not for lack of reading your posts. If there was an argument there against getting vaccinated in general, I feel like it was a weak one and that I have pointed out where it is weak.

This all started when you said "In many hospitals these days, the majority of covid patients are vaccinated, which renders your argument invalid" in response to ceptimus's assertion that those who choose to not get vaccinated are more likely to end up in a hospital and burden the healthcare system

I concede that the first part of your statement was not incorrect. There were (and perhaps still are) in fact some hospitals where the majority of covid patients are vaccinated. But the second part of that sentence "which renders your argument invalid" is still not true when you look closely at the data.

If 80% of the population is vaccinated, but only 60% of the people in hospitals are vaccinated, it would still be the case that unvaccinated people are more likely to end up in the hospital. Even though you could say that "the majority of the people in the hospital are vaccinated."

. . .

I agree with your points. Except for one. I was addressing the claim that the unvaccinated were more of a burden on the hospitals than the vaccinated.

In many hospitals that is simply not true. It has nothing to do with risk, age groups, rates of infections, or any other factor. It is simply a matter of counting how many covid patients in the hospital were vaccinated.

The simple truth is that when more than half of the covid patients in the hospital are vaccinated, then it cannot be true that the vaccinated are burdening the hospitals less than the unvaccinated.

I understand the other points you are making about age groups, risks, rates of vaccination, etc, and they are good points and speak to the larger context. But none of those points refute the simple fact that in many hospitals the vaccinated are more of a burden than the unvaccinated.

Perhaps Ceptimus could clarify and restate what he intended to mean rather what he actually wrote. I would accept such a clarification without accusing him of moving the goalposts. It's very easy on forums such as this to write things that can be interpreted in a way other than intended. We are not professional writers here.

[xouper]

One more observation to clarify what my claim is (or isn't):

I already posted that evidence based argument. You have not refuted it, but rather merely cited other experts who do not agree.

Both sides of the question have "evidence".

I kinda feel like I missed your argument too. And not for lack of reading your posts. If there was an argument there against getting vaccinated in general, I feel like it was a weak one and that I have pointed out where it is weak.

The argument I cited from some experts is not intended as an argument "in general". It was only an argument for a specific subset of the unvaccinated, not for all of them. I hope that clarifies what I have been saying.

[xouper]

I assume you also know the Latin name for that fallacy you just committed, also known as bald-face lying.

I don't usually waste time with Dr X, not just because he comes across as an internet warrior with no life (we never hear anything about actual life from the account), but because it's repetitive, insulting and ultimately a boring NPC type account.

This latest round of fruitless arguing is an example of the futility about arguing over "science". Once it turns into insults, it is over. There is literally no reason to spend any time or effort.

It is perhaps instructive to compare the posting style of Dr X with the styles of people like Anax, Pyrrho, Ceptimus, Gnome, etc, who do not engage in insults or personal attacks. Which is why I continue to have much respect for them, who I find credible and thoughtful and reasonable, even though on rare occasions, I do not always agree with what they said. They represent a style I aspire to.

I would also add that when Dr X is behaving in a civil manner, he often adds valuable contributions to the conversation. He is clearly knowledgeable about many things. Too bad he ruins that by sometimes behaving childishly. Unfortunately for me, I have a long history of similar uncivil behavior on this forum that I am not proud of and I am sincerely trying to do better (sometimes with less than 100% success).

[Hotarubi]

So...Complains about people being uncivil and holds people to standards

Admits being uncivil and ignoring these standards she holds others to.

Loses temper and calls me a troll for consistently pointing out that he is a hypocrite.


#ultimatewin

[Doctor X]

Well, we have established that he has no interest in evidence or, therefore, reality.

– J.D.

[xouper]

Well, we have established that he has no interest in evidence or, therefore, reality.

– J.D.

That is blatantly false. You have established no such thing.

[Doctor X]

Temper-tantrums?

He has them.

– J.D.

[xouper]

Your insults (especially false ones) do not contribute anything useful to the conversation.

[xouper]

So...Complains about people being uncivil and holds people to standards

Admits being uncivil and ignoring these standards she holds others to.

Loses temper and calls me a troll for consistently pointing out that he is a hypocrite.


#ultimatewin

You have repeatedly and falsely accused me of losing my temper, and thereby lose credibility. And the fact that you do this repeatedly with malice, is prima facie evidence of trolling. You are deliberately trying to push my button and provoke me into posting a hostile response.

I do not demand others live up to any standards. I merely encourage it.

You act as if it's a bad thing to encourage others (and myself) to behave in a civil manner.

Just because I have on occasion acted uncivilly (most of which was in the distant past, and most of which was "treating others as they treat me"), does not make me a hypocrite for encouraging this forum to engage in less uncivil behavior.

On the other hand I congratulate you for being consistent in not holding others to the same high standard of civility routinely demonstrated in your own posts.

[Hotarubi]

Temper-tantrums?

He has them.

– J.D.

Huge pantie-piss on this occasion. Bare faced lair too.

Remember...standards.

[xouper]

Temper-tantrums?

He has them.

– J.D.

Huge pantie-piss on this occasion. Bare faced lair too.

Remember...standards.

Let the record show that both of these posters continue to behave in an uncivil manner by posting unwarranted, unprovoked, and false personal attacks.

[Hotarubi]

Temper-tantrums?

He has them.

– J.D.

Huge pantie-piss on this occasion. Bare faced lair too.

Remember...standards.

Let the record show that both of these posters continue to behave in an uncivil manner by posting unwarranted, unprovoked, and false personal attacks.

Let the record show that the pantie-pisser holds other people to standards she admits she is unable to adhere to herself and loses her temper when this is pointed out.

[xouper]

Temper-tantrums?

He has them.

– J.D.

Huge pantie-piss on this occasion. Bare faced lair too.

Remember...standards.

Let the record show that both of these posters continue to behave in an uncivil manner by posting unwarranted, unprovoked, and false personal attacks.

Let the record show that the pantie-pisser holds other people to standards she admits she is unable to adhere to herself and loses her temper when this is pointed out.

Yet more lies. QED.

[Hotarubi]

Aww.. she's shat herself now.

[ceptimus]

Even if there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated COVID patients in some hospitals, the unvaccinated are still a disproportionate burden on the health services. The evidence shows that taking the vaccine renders you much less likely to be hospitalised due to COVID.

There are plenty of other ways an individual can increase his or her chances of burdening the health services: they can take up smoking, overeating, engage in dangerous activities likely to result in broken bones, and so on.

Most of those other ways at least provide the individual some pleasure in the short term, and maybe for that individual are what makes life worth living. Not taking the vaccine doesn't seem to fall into the same category, but there's no doubt some people consider it very important, and well worth the increased risk of becoming sick, a burden, or dying sooner.

[Doctor X]

I will send Staff with a large hose to clear him off.

Still, should be so easy to provide the evidence; yet he never does.

"How peculiar!"

– J.D.

[Doctor X]

Even if there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated COVID patients in some hospitals, the unvaccinated are still a disproportionate burden on the health services.

I understand you are being charitable, but I have yet to see evidence that that is a significant problem.

I agree with your other points, but allow me to highlight:

Not taking the vaccine doesn't seem to fall into the same category, but there's no doubt some people consider it very important, and well worth the increased risk of becoming sick, a burden, or dying sooner.

Which returneth me to the question ordinary I rose a few times which he could not answer: what is the evidence-based argument against vaccination.

To be "charitable," myself – a RIVER et cetera – I can see questioning the vaccination of pregnant women, for example. Such are limited cases. Another more relevant objection is whether or not those who have been infected need vaccination.

Well, Heavens to Betsy, there is now evidences – thanks – in support of vaccination as posted.

That is sort of how "it" is suppose to "work": decisions are based on evidence. Better evidence changes decisions.

Not terribly complicated, but it appears to be to those who view things through their personal religious agenda which is what we have here.

"Which is the way he wants it."

– J. "And I Don't Like it . . . Anymore than You Men!" D.

[xouper]

Even if there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated COVID patients in some hospitals, the unvaccinated are still a disproportionate burden on the health services.

I understand you are being charitable, but I have yet to see evidence that that is a significant problem.

Maybe it's not a "significant" problem. Yet. I never claimed it was "significant". I claimed only that in many hospitals, the number of covid patients who have been vaccinated is greater than the number of covid patients who have not been vaccinated. And, contrary to your repeated falsehoods, I provided some evidence that supports that claim.

If Ceptimus is now clarifying that his original claim was not intended to be about unvaccinated covid patients taking up more hospital beds than vaccinated covid patients, then I accept that clarification.

An obvious next question is whether the "proportionate burden" from unvaccinated is significant enough to warrant mandatory vaccinations. Norway says no, as do many medical and legal experts.

I agree with your other points, but allow me to highlight:

Not taking the vaccine doesn't seem to fall into the same category, but there's no doubt some people consider it very important, and well worth the increased risk of becoming sick, a burden, or dying sooner.

Which returneth me to the question ordinary I rose a few times which he could not answer: what is the evidence-based argument against vaccination.

I already answered that question and, contrary to your repeated falsehoods, I provided evidence in support of my answer.

To be "charitable," myself – a RIVER et cetera – I can see questioning the vaccination of pregnant women, for example. Such are limited cases. Another more relevant objection is whether or not those who have been infected need vaccination.

THAT was the question I already answered. I provided evidence from experts who say that for those who have already been infected, the risk/benefit assessment favors not getting vaccinated. Other "experts" say the opposite. The question then is, which experts do you choose to believe? Which is what I've been saying all along.

[Doctor X]

Accept the hose.

The adults are talking.

– J.D.

[xouper]

Accept the hose.

The adults are talking.

– J.D.

Let the record show, again, that Dr X continues to behave in an uncivil manner by posting unwarranted, irrelevant, and false personal attacks.

Sorry, but I am one of the adults talking here.

Your personal attacks do not refute or discredit anything I've said in this conversation. You are fooling no one with your attempted insults.

[Hotarubi]

I understand you are being charitable, but I have yet to see evidence that that is a significant problem.

To be honest. It is in the UK. Data here shows that the unvaccinated are , demographically, disproportionately taking up limited ICU beds and resources over cardiac and stroke patients, cancer sufferers and people unfortunate enough to have heard "yellow" by Coldplay.

Or the Welsh. Which is actually the first substantial anti-vac argument I've seen.

[Doctor X]

I understand you are being charitable, but I have yet to see evidence that that is a significant problem.

To be honest. It is in the UK. Data here shows that the unvaccinated are , demographically, disproportionately taking up limited ICU beds

You MASSIVELY UTTERLY COMPLETELYH MISBLEED MY WORDS OF WISDOMEDDEED!!

Evidences:

Even if there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated COVID patients in some hospitals

What I meant was that I have not seen evidence that it is more vaccinated than unvaccinated. I credited Some Limey Git ceptimus with being charitable by even allowing that was a possibility.

I win.

Or the Welsh. Which is actually the first substantial anti-vac argument I've seen.

Given how much sputum expulsion is required to speak Welsh, methinks mandatory extermination would be in order to Protect the Children except it would leave you all with Nicola Sturgeon and "no one wants that!"

Wibble.

– J.D.

[Doctor X]

Meanwhile, in Japan, an observer pondered what is the evidences – thanks – of the relative hospitalizations between the unvaccinated, the partially vaccinated, and the fully vaccinated, even if they have been exposed to Coldplay.

From the State That Brought You No Police Unless They Invade My Neighborhood:

Summary
Unvaccinated 12-34 year-olds in Washington are
• 6 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds.
• 19 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds.
Unvaccinated 35-64 year-olds are
• 5 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds.
• 19 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds.
Unvaccinated 65+ year-olds are
• 4 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds.
• 9 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year- olds.
• 9 times more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds.

Department of Health: No Lives Matter

There are some awesome colored graphs which show the Jews are involved the differences between case rates of the relevant populations.

Since I am Kind, I do not see a good discussion of the raw data that merits "hospitalization" for, particularly, 12-34. That age bracket is so wide Anax's Mom is impressed. I would love to see how those numbers pan out. For example, there could be 0 cases for the 12 – 24. I do not imply that they do, but that is a question that requires answering.

Also requiring clarification is whether or not Covid infection led to hospitalization, or was simply a comorbidity for something else, like exposure to Coldplay. Though, to be ceptimus, pretend that it is: where positivity for Covid = "hospitalization for Covid" this should carry through all of the populations, and I am not certain that diminishes the rather significant differences between the populations.

But then I am still trying to add up mine and DJ's scores.

Moving to the Los Angeles area, which is, of course, affected by Gram:

During May 1–July 25, 2021, among 43,127 SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of Los Angeles County, California, 10,895 (25.3%) were in fully vaccinated persons, 1,431 (3.3%) were in partially vaccinated persons, and 30,801 (71.4%) were in unvaccinated persons. On July 25, infection and hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons were 4.9 and 29.2 times, respectively, those in fully vaccinated persons. In July, when the Delta variant was predominant, cycle threshold values were similar for unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, and vaccinated persons.

Gram's Mom!

This makes a bit clearer the difference between "positive" as in "infected" and "hospitalized." Again, one may wonder whether or not Covid is the proximate cause, but consider the data in the paper:

Among 43,127 reported SARS-CoV-2 infections in Los Angeles County residents aged ≥16 years, 10,895 (25.3%) were in fully vaccinated persons, 1,431 (3.3%) were in partially vaccinated persons, and 30,801 (71.4%) were in unvaccinated persons. Much lower percentages of fully vaccinated persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 were hospitalized (3.2%), were admitted to an intensive care unit (0.5%), and required mechanical ventilation (0.2%) compared with partially vaccinated persons (6.2%, 1.0%, and 0.3%, respectively) and unvaccinated persons (7.6%, 1.5%, and 0.5%, respectively) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). On July 25, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among unvaccinated persons was 4.9 times and the hospitalization rate was 29.2 times the rates among fully vaccinated persons.

Now excuse me, I have people from Texas to beat with an axe handle.

– J.D.

[xouper]

Even if there are more vaccinated than unvaccinated COVID patients in some hospitals

What I meant was that I have not seen evidence that it is more vaccinated than unvaccinated. I credited Some Limey Git ceptimus with being charitable by even allowing that was a possibility.

Ceptimus was replying to evidence I had already posted. It was not a hypothetical.

Here it is again, one of the three sources I cited:

• Covid: 54% of hospital patients with virus are fully vaccinated
  Paul Cullen Health Editor, Sep 10, 2021
  https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ ... -1.4670229
  

  . . . At the end of August, 54 per cent of Covid-19 patients – or 168 patients – were fully vaccinated.

Now you have seen it a second time.

More hospital beds are being occupied by covid patients who were already vaccinated. They attribute that 54 percent to the fact that in the general population, more people are vaccinated than not, which to me is a reasonable and justifiable interpretation.

The fact remains, however, that I did indeed post evidence for my claim that there are hospitals where vaccinated covid patients are taking up more beds than the unvaccinated.

The evidence is also clear that a similar thing is happening on a larger scale in Israel.

And a similar thing is now happening in Vermont.

• Vermont — 76% of September Covid deaths were Fully Vaccinated
  October 6, 2021
  https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/v ... accinated/
  

  Despite having some of the highest vaccination rates in the country, the six New England states are grappling with effects of the delta surge in cases and the strains on the health care system.
  
  Case counts in Vermont, which has continually boasted about high vaccination and low hospitalization and death rates, are the highest during the pandemic.
  
  “Just eight of the 33 Vermonters who died of Covid in September were unvaccinated.”
  
  The head of UMass Memorial Health, the largest health system in central Massachusetts, said recently that regional hospitals were seeing nearly 20 times more Covid patients than in June and there isn’t an ICU bed to spare.

Now you have seen more evidence that the vaccinated are placing a higher burden on the hospitals than the unvaccinated. This is attributed to the higher percentage of vaccinated in the general population, which I agree is a reasonable interpretation.

As others have observed, it is still the case, however, that in many hospitals in the US, more hospital beds are currently occupied by covid patients who are unvaccinated. Nonetheless, the trend seems to be going in the wrong direction, towards a larger percentage of beds occupied by vaccinated.

Regardless, that does not refute the evidence for those hospitals where the burden is higher from the vaccinated than unvaccinated.

[Doctor X]

Back from beating [Himself. – Ed.] Texans!

Let us see how long this takes! :hyper:

– J.D.

[Doctor X]

Unvaccinated COVID-19 hospitalizations cost billions of dollars

Based on our estimates, described below, we find preventable COVID-19 hospitalizations cost $5.7 billion from June to August in 2021.

We used counts of adult hospitalizations with confirmed COVID-19 in recent months reported to HHS to estimate preventable hospitalization costs for unvaccinated adults. We focus on hospitalizations of adults (ages 18+) with COVID-19 because many children are still ineligible for the COVID-19 vaccine, and even those minors who are eligible may need parental consent to get the vaccine. We made assumptions that result in a conservative estimate of costs attributable to preventable, unvaccinated hospitalizations.

Health System Tracker

– J.D.