Vaccines and Omicron

[Bud_Spencer]

A recently-concluded Danish study shows that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have limited, short-term positive effects against Omicron, but actually cause a heightened vulnerability to the virus after a relative short time.

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb2045f18-1115-4643-9d9c-5d265d846fb3_1280x660.jpeg

If I'm interpreting the ranges shown properly, the Pfizer vax loses efectiveness after 30 days and its effects are pernicious at 90. Moderna seems to have no statistically significant effect ever in the positive sense, and again, negative at 90.

Why are we getting the job, again?

https://unsafespace.substack.com/p/...nst-omicron?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cta

 

[ll74]

Sounds like this guy knows his stuff on vaccines......

Keith is a writer, critic of overreaching government, engineer, musician, and punk videographer. He spent 30 years in the Military-Industrial Complex designing communications systems for military applications.

As a "journalist", this guy is lazy....he could easily have brought in a virologist or immunologist to verify his assertions or even comment.

Oh ..right....that would ruin the narrative.

 

[ll74]

An overwhelming majority of people in the hospital and/or that have died are unvaccinated.

That's a very real and demonstrative fact

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Sounds like this guy knows his stuff on vaccines......


As a "journalist", this guy is lazy....he could easily have brought in a virologist or immunologist to verify his assertions or even comment.

Oh ..right....that would ruin the narrative.

Are you contending he misrepresented the Danish study results?

 

[ll74]

Are you contending he misrepresented the Danish study results?

I'm contending that this guy interprets data with confirmation bias and his opinion should be weighed with this knowledge. (Specifically his inability to include any analysis by an actual doctor)

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I'm contending that this guy interprets data with confirmation bias and his opinion should be weighed with this knowledge. (Specifically his inability to include any analysis by an actual doctor)

That has the ring of a confession. Just so.

Unless you can point to a specific error in, say, the graph I linked, I'd invite you to sit back and learn something for a change.

Here'sthe actual study...seems like the Substack writer is correct:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10....tHMQQPd4JQdthPQOpBO5jpmdDo_l0GenewrXbvEwA7AKI

 

[ryan8558]

so no peer review

 

[ryan8558]

from Medrxiv

"A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information.”

 

[oggbashan]

From the link to the actual study:


This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

The journalist's opinion based on the study is biased and inaccurate.

The study is interesting but needs to be checked and replicated by experts. It is too soon to see if it means anything.

 

[ll74]

That has the ring of a confession. Just so.

Unless you can point to a specific error in, say, the graph I linked, I'd invite you to sit back and learn something for a change.

Here'sthe actual study...seems like the Substack writer is correct:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10....tHMQQPd4JQdthPQOpBO5jpmdDo_l0GenewrXbvEwA7AKI

I pointed to the error. A person without experience in medicine and with obvious bias towards anti vaccine interpretation is interpreting a scientific study without any review and discussion of a medical professional.

Whether you believe him or not is irrelevant.....the hospitals aren't dominated by the vaccinated.

 

[GeorgeSoros]

Oh for fuck’s sake.

The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

I pointed to the error. A person without experience in medicine and with obvious bias towards anti vaccine interpretation is interpreting a scientific study without any review and discussion of a medical professional.

Whether you believe him or not is irrelevant.....the hospitals aren't dominated by the vaccinated.

That's not an "error."

 

[Bud_Spencer]

That's not an "error."

And it's not as if other studies aren't showing this exact thing, not to mention other data showing huge swaths of vaccinated people coming down with Omicron.

 

[ll74]

That's not an "error."

It is to me. If the data is solid, then.it would be easy to include an immunologist in the discussion.

It's like taking Putin's word that he isn't going to invade or asking Trump for election fraud references.

 

[ll74]

And it's not as if other studies aren't showing this exact thing, not to mention other data showing huge swaths of vaccinated people coming down with Omicron.

People being infected with the virus has been up with Omicron because it is 10 times more infectious than Delta.

Vaccinated people hospitalized and dying from Omicron is minimal.

If you're arguing against vaccination, maybe tell people theyre more likely to die from Covid..

Maybe that will help

 

[Bud_Spencer]

It is to me. If the data is solid, then.it would be easy to include an immunologist in the discussion.

It's like taking Putin's word that he isn't going to invade or asking Trump for election fraud references.

What does an immunologist bring to the discussion? They're skilled in the biology and such of infections. Once the infection is present, anyone can count it. You don't need to be a chicken to know what an egg is.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

People being infected with the virus has been up with Omicron because it is 10 times more infectious than Delta.

Vaccinated people hospitalized and dying from Omicron is minimal.

If you're arguing against vaccination, maybe tell people theyre more likely to die from Covid..

Maybe that will help

And since it's infection rates that are the subject of this study, hospitalization and death rates are outside the scope of the discussion. Though I do understand your zeal to cling to them like a drowning man does a floating branch.

 

[ll74]

And since it's infection rates that are the subject of this study, hospitalization and death rates are outside the scope of the discussion. Though I do understand your zeal to cling to them like a drowning man does a floating branch.

Nobody is disputing the infection rate.

 

[ll74]

What does an immunologist bring to the discussion? They're skilled in the biology and such of infections. Once the infection is present, anyone can count it. You don't need to be a chicken to know what an egg is.

Non biased expertise in the field, moron

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Non biased expertise in the field, moron

That makes no sense. If I, nd engineer, adminster a COVID test to someone and it comes up positive, what additional information wouldthat same test include if it were administered by an immunologist?

And it's the results of those tests that is what is analyzed here. The skill here is understanding statistics, not immunology.

 

[ll74]

That makes no sense. If I, nd engineer, adminster a COVID test to someone and it comes up positive, what additional information wouldthat same test include if it were administered by an immunologist?

And it's the results of those tests that is what is analyzed here. The skill here is understanding statistics, not immunology.

The vaccines are being discussed here, moron. An immunologist has expertise in vaccines.

If you don't understand why having input from an expert would lend credibility to someone who obviously is biased, then you are daft.

 

[Wrong Element]

For all the talk about how Denmark has been hammered by Omicron, they've had fewer deaths during this current wave than they had a year ago during last winter's case surge, even though cases are about 10 times higher now than they were then. But keep on telling us how the vaccines are useless.

 

[ll74]

I will say that the duration of infection has been shown to be much shorter in vaccinated people as well.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

The vaccines are being discussed here, moron. An immunologist has expertise in vaccines.

If you don't understand why having input from an expert would lend credibility to someone who obviously is biased, then you are daft.

If Subject A has been vaccinated and then contracts the virus, that is a failure of the vaccine, no? That datum then is combined with the results of others and analyzed statistically for significance (i.e. rejecting or not the null hypothesis). It doesn't take an immunologist to do that, nor does it take one to administer the test.

And what "bias" did the study authors have?

 

[ll74]

If Subject A has been vaccinated and then contracts the virus, that is a failure of the vaccine, no? That datum then is combined with the results of others and analyzed statistically for significance (i.e. rejecting or not the null hypothesis). It doesn't take an immunologist to do that, nor does it take one to administer the test.

And what "bias" did the study authors have?

No, that is not a failure of the vaccine.

The failure of the vaccine would be demonstrated by a 1 to 1 ratio of vaxxed and unvaxxed severe illness and death.

The primary purpose of a vaccine is to prevent severe illness from a virus. They also do try and reduce the infection rate (which was part of the efficacy against the original strain)

I'm sure that the vaccine being designed specifically towards omicron is properly released that efficacy against infection will increase.

As for bias, I was referring to the author of the substance who you linked to and whose analysis you are relying upon (if you didn't rely on it, then you'd link directly to the study)