Coronavirus Outbreak

[ken_sylvania]

Middlebury College has reached a pandemic high of 50 active coronavirus cases on campus, even as 99 percent of student body is fully vaccinated.
Middlebury College, in Vermont, announced on Thursday night that it would move to remote instruction for the remainder of the semester as an outbreak grows. The college will hold final exams remotely.
Administrators announced 34 new cases, bringing the total number of active cases reported to 50, the most on campus since the start of the pandemic.

Sounds like they are completely over-reacting. Are any of those cases actually sick, or just positive tests. They don't say. But I guess there is only about one week left in the semester anyway. Most schools are just doing finals next week and ending the semester by Friday Dec. 17. My daughter's finals are all remote except one so she is coming home tomorrow even though her semester officially ends next Friday. Her classes are all in-person but all the professors are apparently just giving online finals rather than making them sit for them in person. So she'll do them at home instead of staying an extra week in the dorms.

Yea, no kidding. They aren't the only folks who have been completely over-reacting.

[Soloist]

Let's keep it simple. What are the rates of Covid-19 infection in the country as a whole for vaccinated people? For unvaccinated people? This page answers that question:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/me ... .pdf?la=en
See Table 1 but looks like 63,000 total breakthrough cases, with almost 22,000 after "fully protected" Total cases in Ontario looks like 629,000. The problem is that the total cases was from prior to the vaccine being available. To properly compare you would need parallel data with set points.

Israel has done this and generally their data has been pretty good. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... .full-text Comparing data sets from equal dates of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated.

Meanwhile the CDC says "we are not tracking covid positives for vaccinated" Our data sucks due to things like this. Regardless of if hospitals are covering things up or not, if we don't know the actual rates of positive vaccinated we don't know the breakthrough rates. If we don't compare unvaccinated to vaccinated by same time of date through same period, we don't know accurate protection that the vaccine gives.
There is enough smoke going around that there is a high probability of some coverup. How much? who knows and I doubt we will ever know. I trust the data coming out of Israel but I don't trust ours.

I've never claimed the vaccine does not provide protection but lets be honest about the data and the flaws found in it.

[silentreader]

Let's keep it simple. What are the rates of Covid-19 infection in the country as a whole for vaccinated people? For unvaccinated people? This page answers that question:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/me ... .pdf?la=en
See Table 1 but looks like 63,000 total breakthrough cases, with almost 22,000 after "fully protected" Total cases in Ontario looks like 629,000. The problem is that the total cases was from prior to the vaccine being available. To properly compare you would need parallel data with set points.

Israel has done this and generally their data has been pretty good. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... .full-text Comparing data sets from equal dates of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated.

Meanwhile the CDC says "we are not tracking covid positives for vaccinated" Our data sucks due to things like this. Regardless of if hospitals are covering things up or not, if we don't know the actual rates of positive vaccinated we don't know the breakthrough rates. If we don't compare unvaccinated to vaccinated by same time of date through same period, we don't know accurate protection that the vaccine gives.
There is enough smoke going around that there is a high probability of some coverup. How much? who knows and I doubt we will ever know. I trust the data coming out of Israel but I don't trust ours.

I've never claimed the vaccine does not provide protection but lets be honest about the data and the flaws found in it.

In Ontario, the differential on Nov. 4th for instance, which was when I first started tracking it personally, was 4.67, that is an unvaccinated person was 4.67 times more likely to become infected than a vaccinated person.
There has been a steady continuing decline in that differential, and yesterday it stood at 3.31. It has been consistently under 4 for 6 days straight. In 4 of the last 6 days the number of new infections has been higher among fully vaccinated then among un-vaccinated.
The differential for hospitalizations is at 13.3 as of Dec. 3, a week ago. I'm guessing that has dropped as well because hospitalization and ICU numbers have been stable or declining among unvaccinated and rising slowly among vaccinated. I think the change is faster than can be accounted for by rising vaccination rates.
Interestingly enough the daily new infections have risen to the same numbers as late May. Roughly 10.5 million people have been fully vaccinated between then and now.

[nett]

Let's keep it simple. What are the rates of Covid-19 infection in the country as a whole for vaccinated people? For unvaccinated people? This page answers that question:

Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 ... ion status

Screen Shot 2021-12-10 at 22.07.33.png

I'd rather face the odds of the vaccinated people on the green line, not the odds of the unvaccinated people on the blue line. For all adults aged 18 years and older, the cumulative COVID-19-associated hospitalization rate was about 8 times higher in unvaccinated persons. In my age group, it was about 11 times higher.

That graph is meaningless to me. As I've explained over and over, I am educated in the process or making statistics say whatever I want them to. All of the honest analysis I've done recently has shown the opposite of the pro-vaccine authors. I've explained why I think this is, but you (and Ken) are both in love with institutions, do not believe an angelic company like Pfizer could ever lie for profit, and no amount of analysis or data will change your mind until you experience a paradigm shift. You're both vaccinated anyways, and I can't change that.

The pro-vaccine side of this argument is driven by misinformation, and fear. a majority of democrats think COVID is 20-50x more deadly than it is. Fauci actually admitted that he thought Americans need to be more fearful.

The devil works to make people more fearful than they should be. I fell into this trap myself, and only the grace of God brought me out of it. I regret almost every precaution I took during COVID, as most of them had long term effects on relationships.

This whole pandemic has nothing to do with personal health, if you were that worried about people's health, you would be advocating for outlawing HFCS and mandating exercise. but you don't, you shill for vaccines that have an absolute risk reduction that approaches 0 after 6 months, and that has FAR FAR FAR more likelihood of causing harm than saving lives (as I proved in the post that you ignored)

There is a simple fact. COVID deaths and hospitalizations this year exceed last year, despite our magical vaccines. This indicates something is VERY VERY VERY VERY. Due to the forces of natural selection, coronaviruses mutate to be less virulent naturally.

Over half the country is vaccinated, which means if your graph is correct, that means that unvaccinated people are many times worse off than they were last year, right? We have this large population of supposedly protected people, but the hospitalizations and deaths are up, that means the unprotected population must be getting HAMMERED. That's not how viruses are supposed to work. Ken of course didn't bother to answer, but even the bought and paid for researchers are scratching their heads and admitting something is wrong.

Protection against infection after two doses is not looking very good. “Omicron was a huge jump in evolution,” says Jesse Bloom, an evolutionary virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, in Seattle. In what seems to be just a few months, the virus has changed as much as Bloom says he and many researchers expected it to change “over the span of four or five years.”

You both refuse to look at empirical data, and instead want to focus on narrow slices, which obscure obvious statistical shifts. It's a shame both you and Ken are caught in this system of fear, I think you're both essentially suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

[nett]

Let's keep it simple. What are the rates of Covid-19 infection in the country as a whole for vaccinated people? For unvaccinated people? This page answers that question:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/me ... .pdf?la=en
See Table 1 but looks like 63,000 total breakthrough cases, with almost 22,000 after "fully protected" Total cases in Ontario looks like 629,000. The problem is that the total cases was from prior to the vaccine being available. To properly compare you would need parallel data with set points.

Israel has done this and generally their data has been pretty good. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... .full-text Comparing data sets from equal dates of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated.

Meanwhile the CDC says "we are not tracking covid positives for vaccinated" Our data sucks due to things like this. Regardless of if hospitals are covering things up or not, if we don't know the actual rates of positive vaccinated we don't know the breakthrough rates. If we don't compare unvaccinated to vaccinated by same time of date through same period, we don't know accurate protection that the vaccine gives.
There is enough smoke going around that there is a high probability of some coverup. How much? who knows and I doubt we will ever know. I trust the data coming out of Israel but I don't trust ours.

I've never claimed the vaccine does not provide protection but lets be honest about the data and the flaws found in it.

Israel was caught retroactively changing their dashboard data, so I don't trust that data implicitly, but it's better than the US.

I never claimed the vaccine doesn't provide protection either. I think it provides short term immunity that is quite protective. This protection starts around 2-4 weeks after 3nd dose, and seems to stay strong until 6 months. After that it starts to drop off. This necessarily means boosters at least twice a year indefinitely. The compounding risk of adverse effects starts to become a factor at that point, and things are not looking good there.

[nett]

No, I’m not saying that

What are you saying then?

That I appreciated you sharing the story again for my benefit and that I don’t trust the source to be more than one anecdote from a biased platform. Thanks! You won’t find me to have the energy to debate beyond that. Thanks again

this one has nothing to do with Bigtree, and it even more disturbing.

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/one-br ... -reporting

The story most of these physicians tell is like that of Maddie de Garay who, despite being in a wheelchair and needing a feeding tube through her nose, was told it was psychological. These physicians were, incredibly, almost all initially told the same. Only after seeking treatment from physicians that they knew from work or medical school, were many of them believed. If physicians are dismissed as “making it up,” imagine what the average individual without medical knowledge and access must deal with after a Covid-19 vaccine injury.

[silentreader]

Let's keep it simple. What are the rates of Covid-19 infection in the country as a whole for vaccinated people? For unvaccinated people? This page answers that question:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/me ... .pdf?la=en
See Table 1 but looks like 63,000 total breakthrough cases, with almost 22,000 after "fully protected" Total cases in Ontario looks like 629,000. The problem is that the total cases was from prior to the vaccine being available. To properly compare you would need parallel data with set points.

Israel has done this and generally their data has been pretty good. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... .full-text Comparing data sets from equal dates of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated.

Meanwhile the CDC says "we are not tracking covid positives for vaccinated" Our data sucks due to things like this. Regardless of if hospitals are covering things up or not, if we don't know the actual rates of positive vaccinated we don't know the breakthrough rates. If we don't compare unvaccinated to vaccinated by same time of date through same period, we don't know accurate protection that the vaccine gives.
There is enough smoke going around that there is a high probability of some coverup. How much? who knows and I doubt we will ever know. I trust the data coming out of Israel but I don't trust ours.

I've never claimed the vaccine does not provide protection but lets be honest about the data and the flaws found in it.

In Ontario, the differential on Nov. 4th for instance, which was when I first started tracking it personally, was 4.67, that is an unvaccinated person was 4.67 times more likely to become infected than a vaccinated person.
There has been a steady continuing decline in that differential, and yesterday it stood at 3.31. It has been consistently under 4 for 6 days straight. In 4 of the last 6 days the number of new infections has been higher among fully vaccinated then among un-vaccinated.
The differential for hospitalizations is at 13.3 as of Dec. 3, a week ago. I'm guessing that has dropped as well because hospitalization and ICU numbers have been stable or declining among unvaccinated and rising slowly among vaccinated. I think the change is faster than can be accounted for by rising vaccination rates.
Interestingly enough the daily new infections have risen to the same numbers as late May. Roughly 10.5 million people have been fully vaccinated between then and now.

3.17 today

[nett]

Let's keep it simple. What are the rates of Covid-19 infection in the country as a whole for vaccinated people? For unvaccinated people? This page answers that question:

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/me ... .pdf?la=en
See Table 1 but looks like 63,000 total breakthrough cases, with almost 22,000 after "fully protected" Total cases in Ontario looks like 629,000. The problem is that the total cases was from prior to the vaccine being available. To properly compare you would need parallel data with set points.

Israel has done this and generally their data has been pretty good. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... .full-text Comparing data sets from equal dates of unvaccinated compared to vaccinated.

Meanwhile the CDC says "we are not tracking covid positives for vaccinated" Our data sucks due to things like this. Regardless of if hospitals are covering things up or not, if we don't know the actual rates of positive vaccinated we don't know the breakthrough rates. If we don't compare unvaccinated to vaccinated by same time of date through same period, we don't know accurate protection that the vaccine gives.
There is enough smoke going around that there is a high probability of some coverup. How much? who knows and I doubt we will ever know. I trust the data coming out of Israel but I don't trust ours.

I've never claimed the vaccine does not provide protection but lets be honest about the data and the flaws found in it.

In Ontario, the differential on Nov. 4th for instance, which was when I first started tracking it personally, was 4.67, that is an unvaccinated person was 4.67 times more likely to become infected than a vaccinated person.
There has been a steady continuing decline in that differential, and yesterday it stood at 3.31. It has been consistently under 4 for 6 days straight. In 4 of the last 6 days the number of new infections has been higher among fully vaccinated then among un-vaccinated.
The differential for hospitalizations is at 13.3 as of Dec. 3, a week ago. I'm guessing that has dropped as well because hospitalization and ICU numbers have been stable or declining among unvaccinated and rising slowly among vaccinated. I think the change is faster than can be accounted for by rising vaccination rates.
Interestingly enough the daily new infections have risen to the same numbers as late May. Roughly 10.5 million people have been fully vaccinated between then and now.

The decline in hospitalization, might just due to the natural cycles in mutated virulence. So far COVID is following cyclical models pretty precisely when you take into account the leakiness of the vaccines.

[Soloist]

I never claimed the vaccine doesn't provide protection either. I think it provides short term immunity that is quite protective. This protection starts around 2-4 weeks after 3nd dose, and seems to stay strong until 6 months. After that it starts to drop off. This necessarily means boosters at least twice a year indefinitely. The compounding risk of adverse effects starts to become a factor at that point, and things are not looking good there.

I don't agree. The data so far indicates a booster, it does not indicate yet a need for boosters twice a year. We might see that data in the coming months but so far we don't have that proof yet that the wane is repeated after a booster to the same level as the 2 shots or if it maintains a higher level of protection. The other side of this which complicates it is the variants which bring up the problem of vaccines for rapidly mutating viruses...
What I'm saying is that a booster may provide lasting protection from the original variant but not protection against new variants. I'm still maintaining that a variant booster will eventually be demanded. If the general populous continues to accept vaccinating for a mutating virus is yet to be seen. Less then 50% of USA does it for the Flu vaccines which are in response to a mutating virus. I would hazard a guess that it might become a combo flu and covid vaccine yearly required for predicted mutations.

[AnthonyMartin]

I never claimed the vaccine doesn't provide protection either. I think it provides short term immunity that is quite protective. This protection starts around 2-4 weeks after 3nd dose, and seems to stay strong until 6 months. After that it starts to drop off. This necessarily means boosters at least twice a year indefinitely. The compounding risk of adverse effects starts to become a factor at that point, and things are not looking good there.

I don't agree. The data so far indicates a booster, it does not indicate yet a need for boosters twice a year. We might see that data in the coming months but so far we don't have that proof yet that the wane is repeated after a booster to the same level as the 2 shots or if it maintains a higher level of protection. The other side of this which complicates it is the variants which bring up the problem of vaccines for rapidly mutating viruses...
What I'm saying is that a booster may provide lasting protection from the original variant but not protection against new variants. I'm still maintaining that a variant booster will eventually be demanded. If the general populous continues to accept vaccinating for a mutating virus is yet to be seen. Less then 50% of USA does it for the Flu vaccines which are in response to a mutating virus. I would hazard a guess that it might become a combo flu and covid vaccine yearly required for predicted mutations.

I suspect Soloist is right about a combo flu COVID shot.