-
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1645718453]Friday might see a pullback from what comes out at Jackson Hole ([url]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/23/business/whats-coming.html[/url]). BUT if there is no change the money printer goes BRRR far into next year.[/QUOTE]
Yep interest rates are scheduled to remain low at least through Q1, despite inflationary pressures. Kind of an unprecedented cluster fuk. I read today that metals are dropping due to a strong dollar, I’m not sure how to process that unless everyone else is printing more money than us.
-
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645715133]How so. Vaccinated people can still be infected, and still spread the virus. I think some of the vaccine caused a mini stroke in some of you vaccine nazis.[/QUOTE]
Vaccinated people are less likely to be infected and less likely to spread.
-
[url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733]Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam[/url]
[quote]We found viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases peaked around 2-3 days before and after the development of symptoms, and were 251 times higher than those of the infected cases detected during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020... we found prolonged PCR positivity was up to 33 days in our study participants. These factors might explain the current rapid expansion of the Delta variant, even in the countries with high vaccination coverage.
In summary, we report the transmission SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among vaccinated health care workers. Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of neutralizing antibodies after vaccination and at diagnosis.[/quote]
-
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645723593]Vaccinated people are less likely to be infected and less likely to spread.[/QUOTE]
By 40 some percent and falling? It doesn’t matter, the vaccine is failing more than it’s working for the intended purpose of being a vaccine, which is to prevent disease. We’ve been over this before. It offers some protection from severe disease, so you are as protected as you are going to get. Get your boosters every six months and mind your own business, because the vaccinated are still spreading the disease. 100% vaccination rate wouldn’t stop it with current efficacy. It will run its coarse and be done.
-
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645728203]By 40 some percent and falling? It doesn’t matter, the vaccine is failing more than it’s working for the intended purpose of being a vaccine, which is to prevent disease. We’ve been over this before. It offers some protection from severe disease, so you are as protected as you are going to get. Get your boosters every six months and mind your own business, because the vaccinated are still spreading the disease. 100% vaccination rate wouldn’t stop it with current efficacy. It will run its coarse and be done.[/QUOTE]
The vaccines are working wonderfully. The mRNA vaccines still offer great protection against severe disease and death. That aspect is holding more constant than effectiveness against infection, which is still between 40-50% all studies combined. Vaccination alone won’t get us to herd immunity, but it can certainly expedite the process. Immunity through natural infection is not some gold standard either, particularly if one was infected with a previous variant.
-
[QUOTE=TolerantLactose;1645726293][url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733]Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam[/url][/QUOTE]
Yup, growing body of evidence that SARSCOV2 has evolved to be more exploitative and virulent since the ancestral variant. Contrary to popular opinion, which I’ve tried to correct repeatedly, pathogens do not always evolve to be more benign. For whatever reason it’s a hard concept for people to grasp.
-
[img]https://i.imgur.com/JJjcZ7p.jpg?1[/img]
-
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645728203]By 40 some percent and falling? It doesn’t matter, the vaccine is failing more than it’s working for the intended purpose of being a vaccine, which is to prevent disease. We’ve been over this before. It offers some protection from severe disease, so you are as protected as you are going to get. Get your boosters every six months and mind your own business, because the vaccinated are still spreading the disease. 100% vaccination rate wouldn’t stop it with current efficacy. It will run its coarse and be done.[/QUOTE]
Look at any credible data source and you will see vaccinated people are still way less like to get Covid than unvaccinated.
You brought up this intended vaccine purpose thing last time and then stopped responding when I asked the question, did clinical trial designs test all individuals all the time or just the symptomatic? This clearly tells you the desired outcome the vaccines were assessed upon.
-
[QUOTE=Reliance012;1645729303]The vaccines are working wonderfully. The mRNA vaccines still offer great protection against severe disease and death. That aspect is holding more constant than effectiveness against infection, which is still between 40-50% all studies combined. Vaccination alone won’t get us to herd immunity, but it can certainly expedite the process. Immunity through natural infection is not some gold standard either, particularly if one was infected with a previous variant.[/QUOTE]
No the vaccines are not working wonderfully, unless the intent is to treat disease rather than prevent it, which they are not. Post infection immunity is what is going to get us through the pandemic, whether people are vaccinated or not. Those who contract the disease after being vaccinated will have a better chance of not dying, but remember the CDC stopped tracking vaccine failures or “breakthrough infections” unless the person ends up in the hospital or dead, why do you think that is?
-
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645743973]Look at any credible data source and you will see vaccinated people are still way less like to get Covid than unvaccinated.
You brought up this intended vaccine purpose thing last time and then stopped responding when I asked the question, did clinical trial designs test all individuals all the time or just the symptomatic? This clearly tells you the desired outcome the vaccines were assessed upon.[/QUOTE]
Where are the credible data sources? The CDC isn’t tracking people who were vaccinated and get a symptomatic infection, unless they end up hospitalized or dead. Credible data is getting hard to find, at least in the US.
I provided you with the definition of vaccine induced immunity from the CDC. The intent of a vaccine is to create immunity, which means you cannot contract the disease. These work 50% of the time for that, at best. Mandates don’t make sense, because it will not stop the disease even with 100% vaccination rate.
-
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645744253]Where are the credible data sources. The CDC isn’t tracking people who were vaccinated and get a symptomatic infection, unless they end up hospitalized or dead? Credible data is getting hard to find, at least in the US.
No the vaccines are not working wonderfully, unless the intent is to treat disease rather than prevent it, which they are not. Post infection immunity is what is going to get us through the pandemic, whether people are vaccinated or not. Those who contract the disease after being vaccinated will have a better chance of not dying, but remember the CDC stopped tracking vaccine failures or “breakthrough infections” unless the person ends up in the hospital or dead, why do you think that is?[/QUOTE]
The one thing I do agree with you on is lack of quality data. The US should have much more invested here. I dunno if JustDad knows otherwise but I haven't seen anything about extension studies from the original vaccine trials which would be a great benefit with robust data points.
Still, with the information we have someone who is vaccinated has much greater protection against Covid than unvaccinated. That is clear, at least to me.
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645744363]I provided you with the definition of vaccine induced immunity from the CDC. The intent of a vaccine is to create immunity, which means you cannot contract the disease. These work 50% of the time for that, at best. Mandates don’t make sense, because it will not stop the disease even with 100% vaccination rate.[/QUOTE]
I must have missed that post then? Either way these vaccines for Covid evaluated the symptomatic. In the most simple terms the clinical trials were designed to evaluate if people who got the vaccine are less likely to get Covid than people without the vaccine. There were no data points that I am aware of that evaluated if someone could get Covid and be asymptomatic while vaccinated or spread Covid while vaccinated. I agree these are important things to know, and we should have better data around this as this point IMO. However it's not how the clinical trials were designed and the intended purpose of the vaccines coming to market, which is to prevent illness.
-
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645745033]The one thing I do agree with you on is lack of quality data. The US should have much more invested here. I dunno if JustDad knows otherwise but I haven't seen anything about extension studies from the original vaccine trials which would be a great benefit with robust data points.
Still, with the information we have someone who is vaccinated has much greater protection against Covid than unvaccinated. That is clear, at least to me.
I must have missed that post then? Either way these vaccines for Covid evaluated the symptomatic. In the most simple terms the clinical trials were designed to evaluate if people who got the vaccine are less likely to get Covid than people without the vaccine. There were no data points that I am aware of that evaluated if someone could get Covid and be asymptomatic while vaccinated or spread Covid while vaccinated. I agree these are important things to know, and we should have better data around this as this point IMO. However it's not how the clinical trials were designed and the intended purpose of the vaccines coming to market, which is to prevent illness.[/QUOTE]
Yes the politicization and other non-disease related influences certainly challenge the data validity. I agree that vaccinated people, for the most part, are better protected than unvaccinated (at least as of now). However, personal freedom to determine injections or medical treatments/experiments supersedes the arguably now marginable benefits of being vaccinated. Yes, some of those people who decline vaccination will die from a disease that they may have not of if they were vaccinated.
Justthedad would be better to comment on study designs. That said the intent of a vaccine is to create immunity, which means you cannot contract the disease. It would be nearly impossible to test all the participants daily, rather than symptomatic. However, as of May, the CDC isn't recording symptomatic vaccinated people unless they end up with severe disease or dead. That is a problem and contradicts logical science. The same could be argued for giving a booster of the same vaccine when it seems that Delta variant changes could be as much or more of a factor in the reduction of efficacy as time since initial vaccination. One of the benefits of mRNA vaccines is how quickly they could be changed to address changes in circulating strains. It's almost as if there is a push to use up the old stock before making another attempt at a successful vaccine.
-
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645744253]No the vaccines are not working wonderfully, unless the intent is to treat disease rather than prevent it, which they are not. Post infection immunity is what is going to get us through the pandemic, whether people are vaccinated or not. Those who contract the disease after being vaccinated will have a better chance of not dying, but remember the CDC stopped tracking vaccine failures or “breakthrough infections” unless the person ends up in the hospital or dead, why do you think that is?[/QUOTE]
Yes they are. A multitude of studies have demonstrated that even against delta, effectiveness against severe disease is ~90% for the mRNA vaccines. That is highly effective, and that aspect has waned little. Post infection immunity is needed to get us to herd immunity — even if temporary — I agree. But even then reinfections occur. Previously infected individuals are less likely to be reinfected after a single vaccine dose.
-
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645746343]Yes the politicization and other non-disease related influences certainly challenge the data validity. I agree that vaccinated people, for the most part, are better protected than unvaccinated (at least as of now). However, personal freedom to determine injections or medical treatments/experiments supersedes the arguably now marginable benefits of being vaccinated. Yes, some of those people who decline vaccination will die from a disease that they may have not of if they were vaccinated.
Justthedad would be better to comment on study designs. That said the intent of a vaccine is to create immunity, which means you cannot contract the disease. It would be nearly impossible to test all the participants daily, rather than symptomatic. However, as of May, the CDC isn't recording symptomatic vaccinated people unless they end up with severe disease or dead. That is a problem and contradicts logical science. The same could be argued for giving a booster of the same vaccine when it seems that Delta variant changes could be as much or more of a factor in the reduction of efficacy as time since initial vaccination. One of the benefits of mRNA vaccines is how quickly they could be changed to address changes in circulating strains. It's almost as if there is a push to use up the old stock before making another attempt at a successful vaccine.[/QUOTE]
Based upon the clinical trial designs, EUA, and recent FDA approval, the intent of the vaccine was to protect people from getting sick.
-
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1645712563]The entire market is fixed and one giant scheme. Covid has been the one of the biggest transfers of wealth ever with our "leaders" reaping most of the benefits. Hell, the S&P hit another market record today. Every week its breaking its old record. Mind blowing.[/QUOTE]
John,
I had to do a double triple take. hahaha..
I was like ,"Dood. That sounds like something I would say." LMAO. Not laughing at you. In fact I agree with you 100000%. Just laughing at the fact that you are now deep in that same rabbit hole I found.
jab versus unjab
left versus right
libs versus cons
black versus white
blahh. it's all noise.
Because broz like you and me.. we will be the next 1%.
We just have to stay healthy so we can at least use that wealth to serve mankind.
-
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645755073]Based upon the clinical trial designs, EUA, and recent FDA approval, the intent of the vaccine was to protect people from getting sick.[/QUOTE]
LMAO @ 'FDA approval'
all three letter gubmint agencies are the same. what makes you think FDA is an honorable organization?
The CDC-FDA 'partnership' is a lot like the gangsta hood pimp and his hoez. The CDC is the pimp and it is telling the customers that his hoe (the FDA) aint got no AIDS.
The only difference is that at least the gangsta pimp and his hoez are conducting bidnet voluntarily and they are not forcing anyone to take their product and service at gunpoint or threat of jail. youfollowwhatimsayin'?
-
Somebody help me make sense of this please:
In my county vaccination rate is 84%.
They claim hospitals are overwhelmed by unvaccinated people.
There are plenty of hospitals in the area and neighboring counties have similar vaccination rates so patients aren't coming from other counties.
Hospitalizations are increasing.
Somebody explain it to me please. I have this example in my head:
I have 10 pairs of socks with holes in them (county population).
I mend 8 pairs (vaccines).
My mom stops by and mends another pair (non vaccinated who had covid and are now immune)
How can I possibly claim my drawer is full of socks with holes?
More importantly how can I claim the number of socks with holes in increasing, unless a)My socks with holes are fornicating and having baby socks with holes or b) Some of the mended socks got new holes (breakthrough cases).
What am I doing wrong here?
-
[QUOTE=sy2502;1645761293]Somebody help me make sense of this please:
In my county vaccination rate is 84%.
They claim hospitals are overwhelmed by unvaccinated people.
There are plenty of hospitals in the area and neighboring counties have similar vaccination rates so patients aren't coming from other counties.
Hospitalizations are increasing.
Somebody explain it to me please. I have this example in my head:
I have 10 pairs of socks with holes in them (county population).
I mend 8 pairs (vaccines).
My mom stops by and mends another pair (non vaccinated who had covid and are now immune)
How can I possibly claim my drawer is full of socks with holes?
More importantly how can I claim the number of socks with holes in increasing, unless a)My socks with holes are fornicating and having baby socks with holes or b) Some of the mended socks got new holes (breakthrough cases).
What am I doing wrong here?[/QUOTE]
The hospital I work for was constantly at capacity, prior to the pandemic. This is in direct relation to baby boomers needing health care, obesity, and treatment related to obesity. Our operations officer stated, today actually, that we were struggling with capacity prior to the pandemic and will continue to struggle until we build more facilities. Simply for the rise in demand for healthcare, in general.
To fear monger the public into thinking the corona virus is the cause of being overwhelmed is both laughable and sad because the general public has no idea the struggles the healthcare industry was already facing.
I wish I had the data about the percentage of people that are in the hospital and what kind of care they require and the cause of being there.
What I do know is that we have room for 550 patients and we have about 530, non-covid icu beds max is 100 and we have 90 patients, covid bed max is 25 and we have 20.
Clearly the ICU is already nearing capacity, like it always is, and covid is not the primary cause. And we're nearing capacity in general. 20/550=3.6% hospitalization related to Covid. But I don't know what % are vaxxed, but we know that it's likely less than 3.6% of patients that are unvaxxed and contributing to being at or over capacity. If I'm doing the math right.
-
[QUOTE=_zman;1645763183]The hospital I work for was constantly at capacity, prior to the pandemic. This is in direct relation to baby boomers needing health care, obesity, and treatment related to obesity. Our operations officer stated, today actually, that we were struggling with capacity prior to the pandemic and will continue to struggle until we build more facilities. Simply for the rise in demand for healthcare, in general.
To fear monger the public into thinking the corona virus is the cause of being overwhelmed is both laughable and sad because the general public has no idea the struggles the healthcare industry was already facing.
I wish I had the data about the percentage of people that are in the hospital and what kind of care they require and the cause of being there.
What I do know is that we have room for 550 patients and we have about 530, non-covid icu beds max is 100 and we have 90 patients, covid bed max is 25 and we have 20.
Clearly the ICU is already nearing capacity, like it always is, and covid is not the primary cause. And we're nearing capacity in general. 20/550=3.6% hospitalization related to Covid. But I don't know what % are vaxxed, but we know that it's likely less than 3.6% of patients that are unvaxxed and contributing to being at or over capacity. If I'm doing the math right.[/QUOTE]
The difference between the people who come in with problems related to age, obesity and chronic conditions, and covid patients is that the 1st group will continue to come in over and over because their problems are chronic while covid patients will get better and leave and that's that, they are immune for however long. So to say the number of covid patients is going up when the number of both vaccinated and people who had covid is going up... well... doesn't add up.
-
[QUOTE=NorwichGrad;1645756183]LMAO @ 'FDA approval'
all three letter gubmint agencies are the same. what makes you think FDA is an honorable organization?
The CDC-FDA 'partnership' is a lot like the gangsta hood pimp and his hoez. The CDC is the pimp and it is telling the customers that his hoe (the FDA) aint got no AIDS.
The only difference is that at least the gangsta pimp and his hoez are conducting bidnet voluntarily and they are not forcing anyone to take their product and service at gunpoint or threat of jail. youfollowwhatimsayin'?[/QUOTE]
Seems legit
[QUOTE=sy2502;1645761293]Somebody help me make sense of this please:
In my county vaccination rate is 84%.
They claim hospitals are overwhelmed by unvaccinated people.
There are plenty of hospitals in the area and neighboring counties have similar vaccination rates so patients aren't coming from other counties.
Hospitalizations are increasing.
Somebody explain it to me please. I have this example in my head:
I have 10 pairs of socks with holes in them (county population).
I mend 8 pairs (vaccines).
My mom stops by and mends another pair (non vaccinated who had covid and are now immune)
How can I possibly claim my drawer is full of socks with holes?
More importantly how can I claim the number of socks with holes in increasing, unless a)My socks with holes are fornicating and having baby socks with holes or b) Some of the mended socks got new holes (breakthrough cases).
What am I doing wrong here?[/QUOTE]
16% of a population is a large number of people and most hospital systems operate near capacity.
-
[QUOTE=Reliance012;1645754793]Yes they are. A multitude of studies have demonstrated that even against delta, effectiveness against severe disease is ~90% for the mRNA vaccines. That is highly effective, and that aspect has waned little. Post infection immunity is needed to get us to herd immunity — even if temporary — I agree. But even then reinfections occur. Previously infected individuals are less likely to be reinfected after a single vaccine dose.[/QUOTE]
Is that your understanding of how vaccines are intended to work? You can still become infected and spread the pathogen, but have a lower risk of dying?
Definition of Terms
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
[url]https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm[/url]
Has the science changed? A vaccine that does not accomplish these definitions is a failure, or at best a prophylactic treatment.
With your PHD in this subject matter, do you find it concerning that the number of "breakthrough cases" (vaccinated people contracting the disease, asymptomatically or otherwise), provides the pathogen an opportunity to further evade the effects of the vaccine induced immunity?
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645755073]Based upon the clinical trial designs, EUA, and recent FDA approval, the intent of the vaccine was to protect people from getting sick.[/QUOTE]
See above.
-
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645765583]
16% of a population is a large number of people and most hospital systems operate near capacity.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is, but not all unvaccinated people have covid all at the same time, nor do they all need the hospital, and if they do they don't all need it at the same time. And I keep stressing that unvaccinated people who have covid develop immunity so it's not like they keep coming back to the hospital every week. So as the pool of possible covid patients decreases it doesn't make sense that hospitalizations should go up... UNLESS... they are breakthrough cases.
-
[QUOTE=NorwichGrad;1645755983]John,
I had to do a double triple take. hahaha..
I was like ,"Dood. That sounds like something I would say." LMAO. Not laughing at you. In fact I agree with you 100000%. Just laughing at the fact that you are now deep in that same rabbit hole I found.
jab versus unjab
left versus right
libs versus cons
black versus white
blahh. it's all noise.
Because broz like you and me.. we will be the next 1%.
We just have to stay healthy so we can at least use that wealth to serve mankind.[/QUOTE]
Joel its maddening man. We have Democrats and Republicans doing it while trying their best to keep the little guy from entering the markets (pattern day trading anyone?) and doing everything they can to keep us fighting between each other. If more people followed the markets closely or gave a shti they'd see how blatant this crap really is.
Did you put some "fuk the gov't" dust on that package you sent me? :D
-
[img]https://i.imgur.com/De4HoLf.jpg?1[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/cTAcZuH.png?1[/img]
-
i love the first one with Dave Chapell and will use that from now on for Paul and others.
-
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645766453]Is that your understanding of how vaccines are intended to work? You can still become infected and spread the pathogen, but have a lower risk of dying?
Definition of Terms
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
[url]https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm[/url]
Has the science changed? A vaccine that does not accomplish these definitions is a failure, or at best a prophylactic treatment.
With your PHD in this subject matter, do you find it concerning that the number of "breakthrough cases" (vaccinated people contracting the disease, asymptomatically or otherwise), provides the pathogen an opportunity to further evade the effects of the vaccine induced immunity?
[/QUOTE]
Plateauplower, that's kind of a straw man, isn't it? Is the flu vaccine not a vaccine even if there are different strains circulating?
Very few vaccines are 100% effective, even when efficacy is measured against their original target strain. Since there's no defined efficacy requirement, you're obviously welcome to choose your own arbitrary number, but if you make it 100% then we've yet to produce an actual vaccine.
And if the flu vaccine can reduce your chances of dying or having a serious illness from other strains, reduce your systemic viral load from other strains to decrease the risks of mutation, and possibly reduce the time you can spread the virus, is it not still useful?
I never get the flu vaccine because I'm worried I'll die from the flu. I get it so I'm less likely to be out of work for days to weeks and so there's a reduced chance I'll spread it to others who could get sick from it.
Yes, I still could get sick, transmit it to others, or even die, but if I have the time, I'll still get a flu shot to reduce the chances of one and two. I'm about 50% on getting my annual flu shot and I was 100% when I didn't work from home and could have shared the joys of influenza more easily.
-
here are some really good workouts that will help you to get better Abs.
adfoc.us/68983880786353
adfoc.us/68983880922739
adfoc.us/68983880922747
-
[QUOTE=sy2502;1645766883]Yes it is, but not all unvaccinated people have covid all at the same time, nor do they all need the hospital, and if they do they don't all need it at the same time. And I keep stressing that unvaccinated people who have covid develop immunity so it's not like they keep coming back to the hospital every week. So as the pool of possible covid patients decreases it doesn't make sense that hospitalizations should go up... UNLESS... they are breakthrough cases.[/QUOTE]
The numbers only really make sense for what you are saying if the population where you are is really low.
Yes there are breakthrough cases, and yes people can get Covid more than once.
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645766453]Is that your understanding of how vaccines are intended to work? You can still become infected and spread the pathogen, but have a lower risk of dying?
Definition of Terms
Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.
Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.
[url]https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm[/url]
Has the science changed? A vaccine that does not accomplish these definitions is a failure, or at best a prophylactic treatment.
With your PHD in this subject matter, do you find it concerning that the number of "breakthrough cases" (vaccinated people contracting the disease, asymptomatically or otherwise), provides the pathogen an opportunity to further evade the effects of the vaccine induced immunity?
See above.[/QUOTE]
See below
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1645771123]Plateauplower, that's kind of a straw man, isn't it? Is the flu vaccine not a vaccine even if there are different strains circulating?
Very few vaccines are 100% effective, even when efficacy is measured against their original target strain. Since there's no defined efficacy requirement, you're obviously welcome to choose your own arbitrary number, but if you make it 100% then we've yet to produce an actual vaccine.
And if the flu vaccine can reduce your chances of dying or having a serious illness from other strains, reduce your systemic viral load from other strains to decrease the risks of mutation, and possibly reduce the time you can spread the virus, is it not still useful?
I never get the flu vaccine because I'm worried I'll die from the flu. I get it so I'm less likely to be out of work for days to weeks and so there's a reduced chance I'll spread it to others who could get sick from it.
Yes, I still could get sick, transmit it to others, or even die, but if I have the time, I'll still get a flu shot to reduce the chances of one and two. I'm about 50% on getting my annual flu shot and I was 100% when I didn't work from home and could have shared the joys of influenza more easily.[/QUOTE]
Perfectly said, as always.
-
[QUOTE=Jtbny;1645768903]Joel its maddening man. We have Democrats and Republicans doing it while trying their best to keep the little guy from entering the markets (pattern day trading anyone?) and doing everything they can to keep us fighting between each other. If more people followed the markets closely or gave a shti they'd see how blatant this crap really is.
Did you put some "fuk the gov't" dust on that package you sent me? :D[/QUOTE]
LMAO. I actually laughed so hard rice came out of my nostrils.
Here's another thing to consider. And I know you understand the significance. Saudi signed a military cooperation with Russia two days ago. Today another OPEC nation signed the same agreement. The petrodollar is officially dead.
Focus on the wealth transfer you spoke of earlier. Everything else is noise. The signs of the death of the dollar as world reserve currency are so clear. We know what we gotta do. I wish many more did the same. :(
-
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1645771123]Plateauplower, that's kind of a straw man, isn't it? Is the flu vaccine not a vaccine even if there are different strains circulating?
Very few vaccines are 100% effective, even when efficacy is measured against their original target strain. Since there's no defined efficacy requirement, you're obviously welcome to choose your own arbitrary number, but if you make it 100% then we've yet to produce an actual vaccine.
And if the flu vaccine can reduce your chances of dying or having a serious illness from other strains, reduce your systemic viral load from other strains to decrease the risks of mutation, and possibly reduce the time you can spread the virus, is it not still useful?
I never get the flu vaccine because I'm worried I'll die from the flu. I get it so I'm less likely to be out of work for days to weeks and so there's a reduced chance I'll spread it to others who could get sick from it.
Yes, I still could get sick, transmit it to others, or even die, but if I have the time, I'll still get a flu shot to reduce the chances of one and two. I'm about 50% on getting my annual flu shot and I was 100% when I didn't work from home and could have shared the joys of influenza more easily.[/QUOTE]
Not a strawman, the definitions are from the CDC.
The efficacy of the flu vaccine varies/ is typically low because the targeted strains are selected nearly a year in advance and if the guess at what strain will be circulating is wrong the vaccine has a low efficacy. There are a lot more flu strains / recombinants so the vaccine is different year to year. When the anticipated strains are guessed correctly, the efficacy of the flu vaccine is pretty high. I agree that no vaccine is 100%, its just not possible. However, the primary difference is the level of coercion from the government to take the vaccine. My issue is primarily with that. It is simply wrong to coerce people to be injected with something, especially for a virus with such low lethality in normally healthy people (this isn't a biblical plague). If the existing vaccine is showing such a high rate of failure why mandate it. Why suggest additional boosters of the same, when it doesn't seem to be settled yet whether it is time since inoculation vs changes in the Delta variant. Of course people are going to see a boost in immune response from a booster, but is that boost specific enough to increase efficacy and for how long? That is not known yet, because FDA approved or not, we are still experimenting....
Edit to add, I enjoy civil debate on this topic.
