PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: PeterNSteinmetz on November 08, 2021, 04:24:35 PM
-
Substantial drop-off in the ability of the Covid-19 vaccines to prevent infection. Fair protection against adverse outcomes in those under 65 (though the chances of adverse outcome for this age group are rather low to begin with). For those over 65, about a 4X reduction in the chances of death after breakthrough infection for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.abm0620
-
If I understand correctly, the booster shots are exactly the same are the original dose, yes?
So, how does the booster help?
-
If I understand correctly, the booster shots are exactly the same are the original dose, yes?
So, how does the booster help?
Each time your immune system is exposed, it gets a little more alert and a little better prepared.
-
Each time your immune system is exposed, it gets a little more alert and a little better prepared.
so, the more times we are exposed a little bit, the better our immune system gets ...
eh?
-
so, the more times we are exposed a little bit, the better our immune system gets ...
eh?
Yes, that’s why childhood vaccinations are a series of three or four. It’s also how allergies develop. Most allergic reactions are to things you’ve been exposed to already in the past or at least chemically similar to something you’ve been exposed to.
-
Substantial drop-off in the ability of the Covid-19 vaccines to prevent infection. Fair protection against adverse outcomes in those under 65 (though the chances of adverse outcome for this age group are rather low to begin with). For those over 65, about a 4X reduction in the chances of death after breakthrough infection for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.abm0620 (https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.abm0620)
Where is the line of demarcation where the CDC might be persuaded to agree that the risk is greater than the reward?
Do we forget about the suppressed adverse reaction reports? Do we forget about the sample size game?
-
Findings support continued efforts to increase vaccination, booster campaigns, and multiple additional layers against infection
-
I'm shocked!
-
I'm shocked!
That was a quote from the abstract of the very paper that Peter linked.
-
That was a quote from the abstract of the very paper that Peter linked.
I know that. I read the paper.
-
That was a quote from the abstract of the very paper that Peter linked.
As you are likely aware Prof. Weinstein, those kinds of comments are really not the main conclusion or point of the paper. Essentially they are editorial asides by the authors. And often thrown in to address some reviewer comment. I would never rely on those or even cite them in a published article.
-
As you are likely aware Prof. Weinstein, those kinds of comments are really not the main conclusion or point of the paper. Essentially they are editorial asides by the authors. And often thrown in to address some reviewer comment. I would never rely on those or even cite them in a published article.
I'd wager that such comments are included in the document template.... if you know what I mean. Kind of like the phrases like "more research is needed"
-
I'd wager that such comments are included in the document template.... if you know what I mean. Kind of like the phrases like "more research is needed"
I don't exactly since I've never had a template when writing a paper. This kind of statement is normally included in the discussion, along with things like "more research is needed".
One could reasonably interpret the authors here as saying essentially -- look, these vaccines aren't that terribly effective, so we need additional measures to try and help with the pandemic.
Those statements may also have been inserted to counter the inevitable in today’s environment mis-quotation of the paper to say “vaccines don’t work” as many anti-vaxxers do. That statement is just as false as claiming they are incredibly effective and perfectly safe. Both are mis-statements of a more complex reality best described by statements about probabilities.
-
You haven't answered my question about Risk/Reward?
-
Where is the line of demarcation where the CDC might be persuaded to agree that the risk is greater than the reward?
Do we forget about the suppressed adverse reaction reports? Do we forget about the sample size game?
I’m sorry but I don’t know what standards the CDC uses to balance these things in making its recommendations.
In my own view, the tradeoff is close enough, especially for younger people, that this needs to be an individual decision and reasonable people will come to different conclusions.
I agree that the actual risk levels are not as well characterized as they should be. VAERS is totally voluntary reporting and so can’t be used to estimate rates accurately.
-
I’m sorry but I don’t know what standards the CDC uses to balance these things in making its recommendations.
In my own view, the tradeoff is close enough, especially for younger people, that this needs to be an individual decision and reasonable people will come to different conclusions.
I agree that the actual risk levels are not as well characterized as they should be. VAERS is totally voluntary reporting and so can’t be used to estimate rates accurately.
The risks of vaccines are miniscule. The risks of COVID vaccines have been dramatically overstated by those with a political agenda. The risk of COVID is considerable.
-
The risks of vaccines are miniscule. The risks of COVID vaccines have been dramatically overstated by those with a political agenda. The risk of COVID is considerable.
As you may know Prof. Weinstein, applying qualitative descriptions can often lead to mis-understanding and a lot of acrimony.
To be more precise, as I have stated above, the risks of serious adverse events from the Covid-19 vaccines might well be estimated as 1-2 per million and might be more conservatively estimated as 10 per million given the holes in our reporting procedures presently. We really don't have a good handle on this presently and its stratification by age group.
Is that level "miniscule"? Sort of depends on how people are weighing it, but I would not say "miniscule" personally.
At the same time, the risks of dying from Covid-19, if you catch it and are under age 65, are about equal to dying in a car wreck while driving a car to and from work 17 miles each day for a year.
Is that level of risk "considerable"? I don't think most people would say so as most people never even think about that. The risks for younger people, those under 29, are even lower. Actually I would say their risk of having a serious adverse event is "miniscule". The risks for those over 65 rise rapidly and I might describe them as "significant".
But applying these qualitative descriptors in cases where the risks fall into this sort of regime really leads to a lot of misunderstanding. Particularly given the well documented failures of people to adequately assess risk levels. As an academic who can understand these type of risk assessments, I try and avoid this sort of language which can be misleading.
Calman & Royston published a nice paper on this which I try to refer to in serious work, such as describing risks in consent forms. Calman, KC, and GH Royston. 1997. “Risk Language and Dialects.” BMJ 315 (7113): 939–42.
-
The risks of vaccines are miniscule. The risks of COVID vaccines have been dramatically overstated by those with a political agenda. The risk of COVID is considerable.
Without a doubt, the risks of covid have been dramactically overstated by those with a political agenda.
-
The risks of vaccines are miniscule. The risks of COVID vaccines have been dramatically overstated by those with a political agenda. The risk of COVID is considerable.
What’s the acceptable numbers of injury and death due to the experimental vaccines?
-
What’s the acceptable numbers of injury and death due to the experimental vaccines?
If you're michael weinstein, that answer is directly tied to whatever the communist democrat party tells him it is.
-
On this same subject, a link to a preprint of the Swedish study which shows effectiveness of essentially 0 after 6 months.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
-
If you're michael weinstein, that answer is directly tied to whatever the communist democrat party tells him it is.
Actually I wonder if Prof. Weinstein, @steingar, actually is a member of the Communist Party? Some academics are.
-
Actually I wonder if Prof. Weinstein, @steingar, actually is a member of the Communist Party? Some academics are.
He certainly parrots their agenda with glee and a touch of scorn.
-
Without a doubt, the risks of covid have been dramactically overstated by those with a political agenda.
Thank you. The Leftists like Steiny are using Covid to put in unconstitutional restrictions and make them permanent.
-
If the precedent is set with this "mandate", what's next? People are so damned blind...
-
Thank you. The Leftists like Steiny are using Covid to put in unconstitutional restrictions and make them permanent.
Steingar has stated he is against mandates.