[QUOTE=mtpockets;1645638603][img]https://i.imgur.com/AXUODNO.jpg[/img]
[img]https://imgur.com/qHjxgkh.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
LoL'd
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mtpockets again."
Printable View
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1645638603][img]https://i.imgur.com/AXUODNO.jpg[/img]
[img]https://imgur.com/qHjxgkh.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
LoL'd
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mtpockets again."
[QUOTE=JustTheDad;1645634773]When I think of antibody testing, I think binding vs neutralizing. I don't think a binding antibody test is going to be as specific as a neutralizing one but I'd have to do some reading to see if antibodies from a different corona virus could cause a false positive on a binding assay. We'd also have to look into whether labs were using a binding assay back in early 2020 instead of neutralizing assays.
I know we have antibody tests for both the S and N proteins, so spike and nucleocapsid. Sponsors have actually use the nucleocapsid ab tests to try and detect asymptomatic infection after vaccination on some of the trials. I also think there are two epitopes on the spike protein, which may be why I'm thinking 3 and not 2 antigens. It may be that the vaccines give antibodies to 2 epitopes, while getting the infection adds only the nucleocapsid. I also have absolutely no idea how much exposure to the nucleocapsid would boost your immunity. Since most antibodies that are neutralizing are against proteins/glycoproteins that are involved with cell entry, I'd guess they aren't super helpful, but we'd need to either read or ask an immunologist. If you read this, you'll wonder if they might actually be a bad thing to have more of. [url]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83108-0[/url]
I don't know, but people who survive a SARS CoV2 infection should have plenty of antibodies to the spike protein since they likely had a boat load of it floating around during their infected stage.
On the Novavax, it's just the spike protein and an adjuvant. Pretty much another way of doing the same thing, but nice that it's less scary for a lot of people. They can think of it as comparable to getting a splinter covered in the spike protein stuck in their arm, as opposed to having some biologically active product injected into them. Can't wait for the moth man memes and comics to get started.[/QUOTE]
Don’t fully grasp that study, TBH. Was the higher level of antibodies correlated with death or were they elevated because they were sicker hence their hospitalization.. Looks like ACE inhibitors aren’t helping much in the elderly population either, then again neither does heart disease.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/vlJjxS9.jpg?1[/img]
[b]Delta Air Lines on Wednesday said it will begin charging unvaccinated workers a hefty monthly sum.[/b]
In a memo sent to employees, CEO Ed Bastian said unvaccinated employees who participate in the airline's health care plan will incur an additional $200 monthly fee beginning in November. The impetus for the surcharge is the high cost of hospital stays for COVID-19 patients and the risk they pose to the company's earnings, he said.
"The average hospital stay for COVID-19 has cost Delta $50,000 per person. This surcharge will be necessary to address the financial risk the decision to not vaccinate is creating for our company," Bastian said in the memo.
Bastian indicated that all Delta employees who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 were not fully vaccinated. Starting September 30, only fully vaccinated workers who experience a breakthrough infection and have to miss work will qualify for paid sick leave.
The airline urged employees to get their shots, but stopped short of mandating vaccination against COVID-19. Bastian said individuals who are hesitant to get inoculated should be encouraged by the FDA's full approval this week of the Pfizer vaccine.
[url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-air-lines-unvaccinated-employees-200-dollar-monthly-fee/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=129016204[/url]
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1645696463][b]Delta Air Lines on Wednesday said it will begin charging unvaccinated workers a hefty monthly sum.[/b]
In a memo sent to employees, CEO Ed Bastian said unvaccinated employees who participate in the airline's health care plan will incur an additional $200 monthly fee beginning in November. The impetus for the surcharge is the high cost of hospital stays for COVID-19 patients and the risk they pose to the company's earnings, he said.
"The average hospital stay for COVID-19 has cost Delta $50,000 per person. This surcharge will be necessary to address the financial risk the decision to not vaccinate is creating for our company," Bastian said in the memo.
Bastian indicated that all Delta employees who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 were not fully vaccinated. Starting September 30, only fully vaccinated workers who experience a breakthrough infection and have to miss work will qualify for paid sick leave.
The airline urged employees to get their shots, but stopped short of mandating vaccination against COVID-19. Bastian said individuals who are hesitant to get inoculated should be encouraged by the FDA's full approval this week of the Pfizer vaccine.
[url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/delta-air-lines-unvaccinated-employees-200-dollar-monthly-fee/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=129016204[/url][/QUOTE]
How about the financial risk of being overweight? That kills a lot more people than covid.
[QUOTE=sy2502;1645696983]How about the financial risk of being overweight? That kills a lot more people than covid.[/QUOTE]
It will eventually bankrupt us that's for sure.
[QUOTE=sy2502;1645696983]How about the financial risk of being overweight? That kills a lot more people than covid.[/QUOTE]
There's a too fat to fly joke in here somewhere :D
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1645697173]There's a too fat to fly joke in here somewhere :D[/QUOTE]
"In the event of a water landing, the fatties can be used as floatation devices"
[QUOTE=sy2502;1645697273]"In the event of a water landing, the fatties can be used as floatation devices"[/QUOTE]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/jMUPoKu.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=sy2502;1645696983]How about the financial risk of being overweight? That kills a lot more people than covid.[/QUOTE]
Now is not the time for logical reasoning.
[QUOTE=sy2502;1645696983]How about the financial risk of being overweight? That kills a lot more people than covid.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=_zman;1645697733]Now is not the time for logical reasoning.[/QUOTE]
I mean I am all for just euthanizing fat people TBH but the argument of the anti-vax crowd here doesn't make sense as someone being fat doesn't pose the same risk to people around them that someone being unvaxxed does.
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645704953]I mean I am all for just euthanizing fat people TBH but the argument of the anti-vax crowd here doesn't make sense as someone being fat doesn't pose the same risk to people around them that someone being unvaxxed does.[/QUOTE]
I doubt it. Studies have shown that whales carry a higher viral load, which might be the key to the spread more so than the unvaxxed.
Health insurance claims are costing the company more money than they set aside for health insurance and there's a statistically observable, and causal correlation between a choice made by some employees and the increase in healthcare costs? Sounds like an entirely reasonable response.
[QUOTE=_zman;1645706013]I doubt it. Studies have shown that whales carry a higher viral load, which might be the key to the spread more so than the unvaxxed.[/QUOTE]
Studies have shown that sperm whales carry the biggest load, watch out thar she blows!
what's in a booster that wasn't in the first two?
[QUOTE=_zman;1645706013]I doubt it. Studies have shown that whales carry a higher viral load, which might be the key to the spread more so than the unvaxxed.[/QUOTE]
Please point us to any legitimate data that shows vaxxed fat people are responsible for greater Covid transmission than the unvaxxed.
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645706923]Please point us to any legitimate data that shows vaxxed fat people are responsible for greater Covid transmission than the unvaxxed.[/QUOTE]
Oh now you're changing it to vaxxed fat people? We both know that data isn't available yet, but I think the statement still holds weight.
[QUOTE=modof;1645706793]what's in a booster that wasn't in the first two?[/QUOTE]
Pharmacist told me that the second dose was the same as the first, I am assuming the third is the same as the first 2.. I could be wrong
[QUOTE=_zman;1645707053]Oh now you're changing it to vaxxed fat people? We both know that data isn't available yet, but I think the statement still holds weight.[/QUOTE]
Changing it? I mean how else could we have the conversation in consideration to who poses more risk to those around them and what Delta is doing in terms of the unvaxxed?
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1645707143]Pharmacist told me that the second dose was the same as the first, I am assuming the third is the same as the first 2.. I could be wrong[/QUOTE]
You are right as far as I know, but I too could be wrong.
600 people in a trial, need more data of course, but mixing and matching vaccines might trigger strong immune response
[url]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01359-3[/url]
[QUOTE=mgftp;1645604993]I do think the point in general of politicians stock holdings is an interesting discussion. Should they be unallowed to participate in single stock ownership?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=_zman;1645607293]I have to disclose any individual stock holdings of vendors we do business with. I may some power in the healthcare setting, but it's nothing in comparison to Congress. The fact that we allow them to trade individual stocks is baffling to me.
There's no possible way you could even avoid insider trading with the amount of information they have that the public does not. You would literally know trends before they become trends.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely feel if you are a politician you should have zero investment in stocks. Several members of Congress unloaded a lot of stock prior to the pandemic and made a fair bit of money off of it. That should be an ethics violation.
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1645707143]Pharmacist told me that the second dose was the same as the first, I am assuming the third is the same as the first 2.. I could be wrong[/QUOTE]
Yep, i just asked the Pharmacist at Safeway and that is what she told me.
[QUOTE=_zman;1645707053]Oh now you're changing it to vaxxed fat people? We both know that data isn't available yet, but I think the statement still [B]holds weight[/B].[/QUOTE]
What you did I see :D
[QUOTE=lotusdeva;1645709953]600 people in a trial, need more data of course, but mixing and matching vaccines might trigger strong immune response
[url]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01359-3[/url][/QUOTE]
Are you bi? :)
Vaccines, stop thinking dirty, lol.
[QUOTE=GrouchyUSMC;1645711513]I absolutely feel if you are a politician you should have zero investment in stocks. Several members of Congress unloaded a lot of stock prior to the pandemic and made a fair bit of money off of it. That should be an ethics violation.[/QUOTE]
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=mgftp;1645704953]I mean I am all for just euthanizing fat people TBH but the argument of the anti-vax crowd here doesn't make sense as someone being fat doesn't pose the same risk to people around them that someone being unvaxxed does.[/QUOTE]
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=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]
It’s nuts. I pulled some funds from S&P for a lake house purchase and each week I’m closer to being back to where I was. Eventually there’s gonna be a correction, but it’s anyone’s guess when. As long as they keep free money and the money printer on full throttle it will continue.
[QUOTE=mtpockets;1645707143]Pharmacist told me that the second dose was the same as the first, I am assuming the third is the same as the first 2.. I could be wrong[/QUOTE]
Can confirm the same. I got Pfizer now called some other mumbo jumbo.
Should’ve bough stock and instead I unloaded it all at the bottom fuk this chit nothing makes sense anymore
Two weeks after the annual motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, reported Covid infections in the state have risen nearly sixfold.
South Dakota counted 3,819 new cases in the past two weeks, including seven deaths, up from 644 cases in the 14 days preceding it. That makes it the state with the largest percent increase in Covid cases in the past two weeks.
The state's rate of Covid-19 infections per capita in the past two weeks is in the bottom half of the country, but it's the sharp and sudden increase in case counts that sets it apart.
Meade County, home to Sturgis, has counted 330 new cases in the last two weeks, up from the 20 reported in the two weeks before the rally, according to Johns Hopkins University's case count. The 1,550 percent increase comes after the motorcycle rally, which usually draws around half a million people, possibly had its biggest year ever, according to County Sheriff Ron Merwin.
[QUOTE=Plateauplower;1645715353]It’s nuts. I pulled some funds from S&P for a lake house purchase and each week I’m closer to being back to where I was. Eventually there’s gonna be a correction, but it’s anyone’s guess when. As long as they keep free money and the money printer on full throttle it will continue.[/QUOTE]
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=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.