RFK - Make America Healthy? again?
I believe this guy is going to need his own thread.
Not necessarily. If vaccinated people on average have lower viral loads and if transmissibility is a function among other things of viral loads, then vaccination can decrease trasmission rates for a time even if infections are the same.
Agreed that only describes efficacy of those who are infected. Testing negative for asymptomatic infection during the trial period means they never had an active infection to begin with, ie zero viral load.
But otoh if being vaccinated modifies people behavior, for example reducing their willingness to take other precautions , the opposite effect is at play.
Double-blinding the RCT prevents this bias.
And then you have the time decay of protections. If protections decay fairly rapidly but the behaviour adjustment doesn't change, you basically have a lot of vaccinated people who would have distanced and taken other precautions which don't anymore, who after a while are as capable as anyone else of getting infected and trasmitting the virus, so you increased trasmission a lot
All valid points but not answerable in the timeframe of a given RCT. Also, even if a vaccine efficacy has limited temporal efficacy, it can still reduce transmission to the point of eliminating the virus for the period it is effective, which itself would've been useful to get the population through the most virulent phases of the epidemic, not to mention lessen the load on the medical system. Going back to my original point which started this sub-discussion, it would've been enough to justify a mandate IMO.
Gorgonian - I hope you receive this post in the way it was intended.
In this entire back-and-forth with pocket_z, you seem to assume he is asking questions in an antagonistic/confrontational way, or may to get some kind of "gotcha" out of one of your answers. It seemed to me he was asking to find out information. I could be wrong, but I don't automatically lump him in with the forum clowns like BJ or bahaha. In this entire discussion, do you know who has come off as more informative and helpful than you? Luciom. Think about that. Of course, if the method you use to derive entertainment from this forum is to take on the persona of an arrogant ahole, then congratulations. You have achieved success.
Will do. It was a good start using my actual name. Thank you. Your condescending bs from before was returned in kind.
In this entire back-and-forth with pocket_z, you seem to assume he is asking questions in an antagonistic/confrontational way, or may to get some kind of "gotcha" out of one of your answers. It seemed to me he was asking to find out information.
You will notice my first replies to his line were very respectful and fully formed. I took all of his questions as genuine at first. I even kept my promise and returned hours later (after work) to follow-up with links to studies that he requested. Admittedly, I only felt like finding a couple, and mentioned that, but I was not dismissive, rude, or condescending at all.
I could be wrong, but I don't automatically lump him in with the forum clowns like BJ or bahaha.
I also do not automatically do so. I did so here for very good reason.
In this entire discussion, do you know who has come off as more informative and helpful than you? Luciom. Think about that.
I don't need to think about that. At a certain point, I stopped attempting to be helpful to him. If I were trying to be helpful, that would matter to me. It would be like telling you that Luciom was wearing longer pants than you. I'm sure your reply would be something like "cool, I wasn't really competing with Luciom for longest pants, but that's a great stat for you to track." Or whatever. BTW, I have Luciom permanently blocked and do not choose to read his posts. I literally do not care what he says or does.
Of course, if the method you use to derive entertainment from this forum is to take on the persona of an arrogant ahole, then congratulations. You have achieved success.
You might stop to ask yourself what caused me to go from being extremely respectful to quite the opposite. I'll give you a hint - it was when I got the vibe he was being dishonest with me. And it turns out I was exactly right (I don't really think he can't read - he was just being intentionally dishonest over and over again).
If you go back and read the interaction, I point out exactly when I had my suspicion of his intentions. You will see my concerns were valid. You will also see me turn out to be exactly right.
Now, if you don't go back and see then I can understand how you would take the view you have. If you do and still disagree with how I've handled this, then you are welcome to your opinion.
I can tell you this, though. I wouldn't change anything about how I've handled it. His behavior deserves exactly what it got: ridicule and derision.
edit: to assist the genesis of the discussion was here:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
You can see that for the first part of the discussion, everything is fine. It only goes south when he begins ignoring my answers and misquoting me (the infamous straw man).
Not when the vaccine has a very high chance of being "felt" differently (very small side effects like localized temporary pain or numbness) when injected than the placebo , especially for the second dose, which is the case for the covid vaccine, especially the moderna one (which at this point we can confidently claim was "overdosed").
This was a letter to BMJ by two experts fromthe university of Brussells addressing that problem at the time
Not when the vaccine has a very high chance of being "felt" differently (very small side effects like localized temporary pain or numbness) when injected than the placebo , especially for the second dose, which is the case for the covid vaccine, especially the moderna one (which at this point we can confidently claim was "overdosed").This was a letter to BMJ by two experts from
Not for the children cohort we've been discussing.
Will do. It was a good start using my actual name. Thank you. Your condescending bs from before was returned in kind.You will notice my first replies to his line were very respectful and fully formed. I took all of his questions as genuine at first. I even kept my promise and returned hours later (after work) to follow-up with links to studies that he requested. Admittedly, I o
It seems to have gone south when I disagreed with you, which you seem to believe is only possible if I misunderstood or misquoted you, neither of which you've demonstrated despite repeating that claim multiple times.
It seems to have gone south when I disagreed with you, which you seem to believe is only possible if I misunderstood or misquoted you, neither of which you've demonstrated despite repeating that claim multiple times.
Your agreement or disagreement could not be less relevant to me. I was answering your questions, not seeking your approval.
Two pages of replies clearly demonstrate your repeated straw man and lying. I honestly don't know how you can bring yourself to keep posting. How is it not embarrassing to continue to act like you didn't just lie when it's in plain text for everyone to see?
Let me demonstrate it again for you.
Quote where I ever said observational studies and real world data are conclusive WITHOUT saying together with the trial data. Show us one time.
But EVERY TIME you've attacked my position, you've claimed I said "the real world data and observational studies are conclusive" DESPITE being repeatedly told I only said with trial data.
You lied repeatedly and you'll lie again right here (or disappear or deflect - what you won't do is demonstrate where I ever said that). Sad to watch.
Here was my claim:
"this" in the above refers to the real world data from the studies I linked to.
And for the record, here are all the times you repeated the straw man AFTER that claim, DESPITE me telling you over and over again that it was in combination with the trial data (and that it was mostly the trial data, which I wrote an entire post explaining why).
You said the observational studies leave no doubt. How can they leave no doubt if they're not conclusive?
you responded that follow-up studies did prove that, and provided a link to those studies today, which I responded that observational studies aren't conclusive in demonstrating a reduction in transmission, to which you responded the studies left no doubt
So if you agree the real world data or observational studies are not conclusive in preventing transmission, either individually or collectively, how do they together lead to your conclusion that there's no doubt that together they prevent transmission?
your claim of having no doubts that vaccines reduce transmission, which you stated are based on the combination of real-world data and observation studies,
There's other obviously dishonest nonsense sprinkled in there, but this will do. So, care to explain?
Now, if you had acknowledged this difference in your claim and mine, I would have said the reason I believe that TOGETHER they leave no room for doubt is because 99% of that work was done by the trial data. There is essentially no way for the trial data to be what it was and for the real world data to be so consistent with it and for it to not be true.
It's fine for you to not agree with that. I don't care. I know what the experts believe, and I agree with them on this subject. Your agreement is not required and for the life of me I have no idea why you think I would care if you agreed. As far as I knew, you were simply asking questions of someone that has a little knowledge in this area. I didn't know you were going to develop such a hardon for scoring an internet point against me that you were going to repeatedly embarrass yourself like this.
The guys who don't like to be forced also hate all of the rule-breakers and want to give the enForcement guys tons of support--while wearing clothes w/o even thinking about it.
Guess who made mrna?
Spoiler
God--the guy with the rules trying to force you into Heaven 😀
Here was my claim:"this" in the above refers to the real world data from the studies I linked to.And for the record, here are all the times you repeated the straw man AFTER that claim, DESPITE me telling you over and over again that it was in combination with the trial data (and that it was mostly the trial data, which I wrote an entire post explaining why).There's other obviou
I interpreted your "zero doubt" remark as meaning the real-world data and studies were conclusive. That seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. But you said my interpretation was wrong, so I immediately stopped using it and moved onto to asking why you believe two inconclusive data sources combined lead to "zero doubt" in your mind. And ever since you've been saying I've been repeatedly misquoting you, which completely puzzles me.
I'm also puzzled why you believe it's hard for me to understand how someone can have zero doubt about something that's based on what that person agrees is inconclusive real-world data and studies.
When I'm puzzled I ask questions, under the presumption I'm overlooking something and not seeing the matter as the other person does. Perhaps my persistence looks like acting in bad faith, but if you see my post history here even with participants I almost never agree with I think it's fair to say that's not me, and especially true for a poster like you who I almost always agree with.
I interpreted your "zero doubt" remark as meaning the real-world data and studies were conclusive.
Despite me clearly saying "between the trial data and this," you still read that as only the latter. OK. I can buy that if only the next thing you said was true.
I immediately stopped using it and moved onto to asking why you believe two inconclusive data sources combined lead to "zero doubt" in your mind. And ever since you've been saying I've been repeatedly misquoting you, which completely puzzles me.
You did not. I'm begging you to please read the next part closely if you are truly puzzled. As I have shown above, you REPEATEDLY referred only to the "observational studies and real world data" (which is the same thing - the observational studies are based on the real world data). As I told you REPEATEDLY, it was those COMBINED with the essentially conclusive on its own PHASE 3 TRIAL DATA. You will see, reading back through your comments above that you REPEATEDLY and INTENTIONALLY (or you are illiterate, since I pointed out to you OVER and OVER again) left out the ESSENTIAL part of my claim.
I will make this is as simple as I can (again). I do not think the observational studies are conclusive on their own. This includes the real world data since that is what the observational studies are based upon.
They are a supplement to the NEARLY CONCLUSIVE ON THEIR OWN Phase 3 trial data. This data would be conclusive on its own if not for the very slim possibility that the vaccine reduces infection severity (sometimes to 0) but not the transmissibility (ever to 0). This is nearly impossible, but very slightly possible. The fact that the real world data shows a pretty clear correlation between vaccine rate and lower transmission is enough CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE for me (and most experts) to conclude that this tiny sliver of probability is too unlikely to be realistic anymore, making it conclusively true that vaccination reduces transmissions.
It is ok with me if you do not agree with that conclusion. It is not ok with me to continue to insinuate that I think the real world data/observational studies are conclusive.
If you are truly puzzled and don't understand why I am frustrated, I really don't know what to tell you. I have tried my hardest to be clear. If there's a genuine misunderstanding and your intentions were never dishonest, I guess I apologize, though at this point, I just don't see how.
Despite me clearly saying "between the trial data and this," you still read that as only the latter. OK. I can buy that if only the next thing you said was true.You did not. I'm begging you to please read the next part closely if you are truly puzzled. As I have shown above, you REPEATEDLY referred only to the "observational studies and real world data" (
Ok, I followed your request and just went back and reread all the posts.
It started with you posting two links to my previous inquiry about support for the vaccine stopping transmission. Your post is (post link). The first link in your post was to an observational study. The second link was to a systematic review of trial results.
I replied to that post with this post, where I asked why you believe those two links are conclusive.
You replied with with this post, where you stated:
As I said, the data made it pretty clear. I didn't mention an RCT, I said the real world data. There really isn't a way to do a proper RCT on this, ethically, during a pandemic.
Between the trial results and this, there really is zero doubt.
I interpreted your "trial results" as referring to the trial results summarized in the systematic review. I see now that was wrong. When you replied that I was misquoting you, I asked for clarification on what "this" you were referring to then (post link):
You: Between the trial results and this, there really is zero doubt."
Me: What "real world data" for the "this" are you referring to that was collected and analyzed outside of a study?
That was my attempt to have clarified what you meant by "this", which if done would've cleared up the confusion about which trials you were referring to. And your reply to that was that you are going to stop responding to me, that I was still misquoting you.
So it seems the root of the disconnect is that you were referring to the phase 3 trial data, whereas I thought the trial data you were referring to were the trials mentioned in the systematic review.
If I understand what you're telling me in your latest post, you believe the nearly-conclusive phase 3 mRNA trial data showing the reduction in symptomatic disease, in combination with inconclusive results from the observational study and systematic review of other trials translate to lower transmission of disease, a view you believe leaves "zero doubt".
If my summary of what you're telling me is correct, then yes, I disagree with you. Combining nearly-conclusive results about reduction in symptomatic disease of the mRNA vaccines with inconclusive results about reduction in asymptomatic spread from those vaccines from real-world data (observational studies) and systematic review of other trials do not translate into a "zero doubt" view about the vaccine reducing transmission.
If I understand what you're telling me in your latest post, you believe the nearly-conclusive phase 3 mRNA trial data showing the reduction in symptomatic disease, in combination with inconclusive results from the observational study and systematic review of other trials translate to lower transmission of disease, a view you believe leaves "zero doubt".
I'm fine with you disagreeing, as I said, but I don't think you can say the results were "inconclusive." Sure, you can say they weren't 100%, but inconclusive means there cannot be a conclusion drawn. There is definitely a conclusion drawn, but it's just not 100%.
I guess I see why you were confused, and I apologize for being harsh if you were truly puzzled. Your actions seemed genuinely dishonest to me (though I have to say, they still do when taken with some of the other dishonest-ish things you've said along the way, but I'm willing to let that go - I was definitely puzzled by your continuous apparent straw manning given your history of what I thought was rational behavior, so I will take the L here).
"in which pocket 0s understands that gorgo is a truly bottom of the Barrell bad faith poster with no intellectual integrity"
and btw, this doesn't make gorgo incampable of making correct claims. he does at times.
still a ver very bad faith poster every step of the way
So, the parents of the 6 year old that died of measles gave an on camera interview to rfks sham children's organization. I don't think I can get my jaw off of the floor.
These people are breathtakingly stupid.
“Don’t do the shots,” the girl’s mother said. Measles, she added, is “not as bad as they’re making it out to be.” She noted that her four other children all recovered after having received alternative treatments from an anti-vaccine doctor, including cod liver oil, a source of vitamin A, and budesonide, an inhaled steroid usually used for asthma.
“Also, the measles are good for the body,” the girl’s father said, adding through an interpreter of Low German that measles boosts the immune system and wards against cancer — an untrue supposition often offered by anti-vaccine groups and repeated recently by Kennedy.
So, the parents of the 6 year old that died of measles gave an on camera interview to rfks sham children's organization. I don't think I can get my jaw off of the floor.
These people are breathtakingly stupid.
Reminds me of the anti-vaxx British guy during COVID who said he wanted to catch the virus so that he would develop antibodies against it.
Reminds me of the anti-vaxx British guy during COVID who said he wanted to catch the virus so that he would develop antibodies against it.
I could always just stab myself in the chest just in case anyone ever tries to stab me in the chest. There will already be a hole. It's the perfect plan.
Reminds me of the anti-vaxx British guy during COVID who said he wanted to catch the virus so that he would develop antibodies against it.
There is a model where it makes perfect sense to do so, and it is a model in which the virus is currently very weak and/or you are not at risk from it very much (true for COVID for normal people in 2020), yet you get convinced that it has a high enough mutation rate that it could theoretically become much more lethal for your own demographic group as well, yet previous exposure would be protective against it.
It all makes perfect sense if you know the lethality of sarscov1 for example.
In that case you aggressively and almost desperately want to get infected asap with with the currently weak variant.
Makes sense?
Measles instead as discussed is in an evolutionary Cul de sac so it's totally different.
See how a little difference can radically and logically alter behavior completely?
There is a model where it makes perfect sense to do so, and it is a model in which the virus is currently very weak and/or you are not at risk from it very much (true for COVID for normal people in 2020), yet you get convinced that it has a high enough mutation rate that it could theoretically become much more lethal for your own demographic group as well, yet previous exposure
I agree - if reality was completely different than what it is then his actions could have made perfect sense.
I agree - if reality was completely different than what it is then his actions could have made perfect sense.
LOLOL today Luciom discovers the whole idea behind vaccination.
"It might be smart to expose yourself to a really weak version of the virus to stimulate your body to produce antibodies."
YOU DON'T ^&*#$@ SAY
Yeah, man the times that you might choose to get infected over getting vaccinated are when getting infected is most like getting vaccinated (but it's still not better because you can't control the dosage you're exposed to, and it's not going to be as weak as the vaccine version). BUT AWESOME TRY!!
You can't make this stuff up.
Super awesome source for your anecdote bro.
I agree - if reality was completely different than what it is then his actions could have made perfect sense.
? we couldn't know how the virus would have variated later on in 2020 so if you weren't at risk right then, it would have made perfect sense to try actively to get infected asap, as insurance against later more lethal variants.
In hindsight it would have been fairly useless but given it was a close to 0 risk choice anyway, why not doing it?
there was also a decent chance for a while than having a previous infection would have granted freedom to live normally (and in a few countries like Switzerland, it worked as an alternative to vaccination when they introduced vax passes)
