airsail said..





Pfizer was approved in Oz on the 25 Jan 2021, it has been approved for much longer overseas. So just taking Oz for instance, that's almost 7 months ago. You might want to edit your post as we are now past your long term.

Even I had my first AZ 4 months ago so I guess I'm part of the experiment too, oh, and no side effects at all long term.

Kamikuza said..





No, it's not.
They're touted as being HIGHLY EFFECTIVE at preventing severe illness and death, not preventing all transmission -- the CDC acknowledges this.
Full vaccination in California is 53% (#21), Florida is 49% (#27); there are almost half as many states less vaccinated than Florida. Vermont has the highest number of vaccinated people, but leads the 14-day number of hospitalized, and is fourth for new cases.
As Florida has almost double the population of over 60s than California, and we know this disease is much worse the older you get, it would be surprising if hospitalizations weren't high.
...play with the State Trends: www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html

In favor of... what?
If you're talking about potential benefit vs risk of adverse reaction, then you need to understand that people have different risk adversity profiles that influences their decisions. It seems that a lot of the "very pro-vaccine whatever the costs" people have a strange calculus that boils the options down to a binary of "get infected with, or without, being vaccinated", like 90% of the population haven't managed to avoid it altogether.
Assessing the odds: we just had IFR on the previous pages -- 1 in 2000 chance of death to COVID for me, versus 1 in 520 death by vaccine (0.0005% vs 0.0019% according to CDC/VAERS). www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
You can see how people might struggle with the numbers.

Yes, that's what the media is saying but look at recent trends in the interactive map: it's all over the place. I'm remaining agnostic on that too.

Is it? To me it doesn't seem as simple as the media is making it out to be. Perhaps I'm missing something.

sun fisher said..




A simple way to work out the numbers is to divide the total doses by the number of deaths 346million / 6490 = 53312
So there was 1 death per 53312 doses, including unrelated deaths as you say.

Mr Milk said..



But can you reliably predict the integrity of a waste storage vessel? A problem that gets caused by a dose of vaccine will be pretty reliably limited to the person who gets it.

Kamikuza said..






Thanks. Then both my ratios are out by a factor of 100, but still correct relative to each other.

That's your case fatality ratio, which is of course going to be higher than the infection fatality ratio I used from the CDC.

As far as CFR goes, we've seen just recently that even those figures are susceptible to errors...

sun fisher said..







I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I want you to be aware of what the numbers actually mean.

You said you had a 1 in 2000 chance of dying from covid, which is equivalent to a 0.05% chance of death.
www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/percentage.php

So not correct in relative terms, yes the numbers were both out by a factor of 100 but in opposite directions.

If we compare a 1 in 2000 chance of death (from COVID) vs a 1 in 53000 chance of death (from the vaccine and other unrelated issues combined)
It means you have 26.5 times (2650%) higher chance of death from COVID than from the vaccine, plus any unrelated issues which happen in the time period after you had the vaccine.

sun fisher said..

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I want you to be aware of what the numbers actually mean.

You said you had a 1 in 2000 chance of dying from covid, which is equivalent to a 0.05% chance of death.
www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/percentage.php

So not correct in relative terms, yes the numbers were both out by a factor of 100 but in opposite directions.

If we compare a 1 in 2000 chance of death (from COVID) vs a 1 in 53000 chance of death (from the vaccine and other unrelated issues combined)
It means you have 26.5 times (2650%) higher chance of death from COVID than from the vaccine, plus any unrelated issues which happen in the time period after you had the vaccine.

Emeboy said..
Kami.... I thought you were normally more accurate in your responses....

Your addition of all to Pandas comment has changed the context altogether.... From my limited understanding I believe it is correct that being vaccinated does greatly reduce the potential of transmission.... but I would also agree that it is a bit too early to say that with absolute certainty.... need more time to confirm data on that. No one is saying it will prevent all transmission or that every person will be equally protected by the vaccine.... its an impossible statement.

Also,.... from the link you provided.... the chance of death from the vaccine is not even close to the number you quoted. That number is how many people who have died from any cause and had also had the vaccine.....

More than 346 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 2, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause.

FormulaNova said..
I know of someone that outright made up a lie about having caught and recovered from Covid on this very forum, somehow thinking that this was a valid way to respond to people's first hand experience with being vaccinated.

I am not sure what reality makes this an acceptable form of information, but I guess we each have our own perceptions.

cwamit said..
looking at it as a treatment for parasites for its historical long term effects is not the same as an anti viral drug, or viral supresion drug . The reason being is the dosages and how often is required as a treatment. After a third infection of covid will your liver throw it in because of the levels in ivermectin from past historic usage? Lab tests showed promise at high dosage rates not safe for humans, just like paracetamol can kill if the label isn't being followed.

PBS price of ivermectin is $22.99 , pension benefits it comes down to $5.99 , so there money in them hills for a pharmacy company to have it labelled as usage against covid if it indeed seemed a suitable and realistic alternative. Isn't astravenca vax about $4.50 a dose?

Ivermectin still has patents too, so there's that also for a company to make money from if it indeed works as suitable virus suppression.

cwamit said..
Ivermectin has 12 patents still registered, patents are associated with labels listed for usage, so a company can patent ivermectin as an anti viral drug and make money if they have approval from a countries health system for a label licence to be used as such. . another example of the labeling is glysophate labels, one company has label approval to use as a spray on crops, but if the end user uses a competing brand it could result in jail time for not following the registered label of that brand which is generic for most glysophate brands, So the registered label company sells it at a premium because that did the research , trials and testing for its to obtain registered approval.

cwamit said..
Ivermectin has 12 patents still registered, patents are associated with labels listed for usage, so a company can patent ivermectin as an anti viral drug and make money if they have approval from a countries health system for a label licence to be used as such. . another example of the labeling is glysophate labels, one company has label approval to use as a spray on crops, but if the end user uses a competing brand it could result in jail time for not following the registered label of that brand which is generic for most glysophate brands, So the registered label company sells it at a premium because that did the research , trials and testing for its to obtain registered approval.