COVID-19 >> New Drug Activity & VACCINE TRACKING!!

[Bricktop]

OK.



What is it about this plague that incites you folks to take a position about its various characteristics, impact, remedies and solutions and then fight about it.



Not one of you is going to change anything. Over 400 pages of "black is white" with each disputant desperate to convince the other that they've got the wrong colour. I don't care of you're vaxxed or not, and I'm damn sure you don't give a fuck if I am.



I have a beef over the measures governments are implementing, which affects all our lives.



But you all have access to the same information and data and so are perfectly capable of deciding for yourself what's injected into your body. Yet you seem hell bent on convincing others that yours is the only correct interpretation.



All you seem to be doing is feeding cc's obsession with this crap.

[deadskinmask]

i'm only against the mandates.... thats all i'm against.... i couldn't care less whos loaded with mystery juice....

[Bricktop]

Ditto.

[Anonymous]

A couple of anti-vax assholes from CP posted this on facebook. This is waht grinds my gears the most about anti-=vaxxers. They will take something like this that does not come close to having the conclusion they say it does and twist it to suit their agenda.

Fact Check-Why Relative Risk Reduction, not Absolute Risk Reduction, is most often used in calculating vaccine efficacy



Referring to a "peer reviewed study" published in medical journal The Lancet, users on social media have erroneously claimed that the reported efficacy rates for the available COVID-19 vaccines are "deceiving" and that the real rate of protection from immunization is much lower. This stems from a misinterpretation of two different measurements, the relative risk reduction (RRR) and the absolute risk reduction (ARR).



The posts feature a tweet that reads, "@TheLancet peer reviewed study confirms vaccine efficacy, not as 95% stated by the vaccine companies, but as: Astra Zeneca 1.3%, Moderna 1.2%, J&J 1.2% and Pfizer 0.84%. They deceived everyone by reporting Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) rather than Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)."



The posts erroneously claim the article was a "peer reviewed study", when it was actually a commentary by Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant on April 20, featured in the Lancet Microbe here .



When asked about the claim, Olliaro, professor of poverty related infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health of Oxford University ( here ) told Reuters via email it was "extremely disappointing to see how information can be twisted." He also said, "Bottom line: these vaccines are good public health interventions," and added that in the commentary, "We do not say vaccines do not work."



WHY RRR IS USED FOR VACCINE EFFICACY

Natalie E. Dean, assistant professor of Biostatistics at the University of Florida, understood why the ARR numbers might have confused users on social media and explained why the RRR is the "usual scale" considered by the medical community when talking about vaccine efficacy.



"Because (the ARR) is a much lower number, it feels like it is saying that the other number (RRR) isn't true," but this is not accurate, "they are both capturing some aspect of reality, just measuring it in a different way," she told Reuters via telephone.



Vaccine efficacy, expressed as the RRR means the vaccine will reduce the risk of infection by that reported percentage irrespective of the transmission setting. "It is more meaningful," she said.



WHAT STUDIES SAY

Real world studies have already shown how the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, for example, are highly effective.



Paul Offit, an infectious disease expert at the University of Pennsylvania who is also a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's vaccine advisory panel, pointed to two studies. A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that found the risk of infection fell 90% two weeks after full vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines ( here)



The other piece of real-world evidence highlighted by Offit was a Cleveland Clinic study, released in mid-May that showed 99.75% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Jan 1 and April 13, 2021 were not fully vaccinated, reported by Axios here. "You significantly decrease the chances of hospitalization by being vaccinated. That's a better way to look at it," Offit noted.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction-idUSL2N2NK1XA">https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL2N2NK1XA">https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction-idUSL2N2NK1XA

[cc]

OK.



What is it about this plague that incites you folks to take a position about its various characteristics, impact, remedies and solutions and then fight about it.



Not one of you is going to change anything. Over 400 pages of "black is white" with each disputant desperate to convince the other that they've got the wrong colour. I don't care of you're vaxxed or not, and I'm damn sure you don't give a fuck if I am.



I have a beef over the measures governments are implementing, which affects all our lives.



But you all have access to the same information and data and so are perfectly capable of deciding for yourself what's injected into your body. Yet you seem hell bent on convincing others that yours is the only correct interpretation.



All you seem to be doing is feeding cc's obsession with this crap.

And on & on & on & on



https://c.tenor.com/IWvNoJ-lHzQAAAAC/here-we-go-again-ohmy-god.gif">

[Bricktop]

users on social media have erroneously claimed that the reported efficacy rates for the available COVID-19 vaccines are "deceiving"

THIS is the problem.



WE are "users on social media". And we are just as clueless. We're arguing from our own perspective about an issue we are NOT authorities on.



Take the vax, or don't.



The important thing is you should have that choice based on the evidence received DIRECTLY from your medical professional. Any of the bullshit posted in here is waffle and irrelevant. But you wouldn't think that given the ardour that some people are showing.



I cannot help but wonder, other than myself, who took the time and trouble to visit their doctor and seek their advice on the best course of action for their specific personal circumstances?

[deadskinmask]

heres my point.... i do not feel obligated to take a mystery juice that offers a mere .84% ARR just to combat a virus that only has a 2% chance of hospitalization and a less than 1% chance of killing me.... especially when the mystery juice itself is killing ppl.... not to mention the additional 'adverse effects' it has to offer.... and NOBODY knows what long term damage it does.... if yall want it, thats awesome.... if yall want me to have it, go get fucked....

[Bricktop]

Mandating the administration of a drug to every citizen is wrong. Plain wrong.



I would be delighted if ALL citizens lines up for the vaxxine voluntarily. But that's never going to happen. Humans aren't like that.



So, I hope that you never catch the plague and fall victim to it...a highly unlikely event.



I still submit that based on the data we have, mandating drugs is unacceptable at any level.

[Anonymous]

A couple of anti-vax assholes from CP posted this on facebook. This is waht grinds my gears the most about anti-=vaxxers. They will take something like this that does not come close to having the conclusion they say it does and twist it to suit their agenda.

Fact Check-Why Relative Risk Reduction, not Absolute Risk Reduction, is most often used in calculating vaccine efficacy



Referring to a "peer reviewed study" published in medical journal The Lancet, users on social media have erroneously claimed that the reported efficacy rates for the available COVID-19 vaccines are "deceiving" and that the real rate of protection from immunization is much lower. This stems from a misinterpretation of two different measurements, the relative risk reduction (RRR) and the absolute risk reduction (ARR).



The posts feature a tweet that reads, "@TheLancet peer reviewed study confirms vaccine efficacy, not as 95% stated by the vaccine companies, but as: Astra Zeneca 1.3%, Moderna 1.2%, J&J 1.2% and Pfizer 0.84%. They deceived everyone by reporting Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) rather than Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)."



The posts erroneously claim the article was a "peer reviewed study", when it was actually a commentary by Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant on April 20, featured in the Lancet Microbe here .



When asked about the claim, Olliaro, professor of poverty related infectious diseases at the Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health of Oxford University ( here ) told Reuters via email it was "extremely disappointing to see how information can be twisted." He also said, "Bottom line: these vaccines are good public health interventions," and added that in the commentary, "We do not say vaccines do not work."



WHY RRR IS USED FOR VACCINE EFFICACY

Natalie E. Dean, assistant professor of Biostatistics at the University of Florida, understood why the ARR numbers might have confused users on social media and explained why the RRR is the "usual scale" considered by the medical community when talking about vaccine efficacy.



"Because (the ARR) is a much lower number, it feels like it is saying that the other number (RRR) isn't true," but this is not accurate, "they are both capturing some aspect of reality, just measuring it in a different way," she told Reuters via telephone.



Vaccine efficacy, expressed as the RRR means the vaccine will reduce the risk of infection by that reported percentage irrespective of the transmission setting. "It is more meaningful," she said.



WHAT STUDIES SAY

Real world studies have already shown how the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, for example, are highly effective.



Paul Offit, an infectious disease expert at the University of Pennsylvania who is also a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's vaccine advisory panel, pointed to two studies. A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that found the risk of infection fell 90% two weeks after full vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines ( here)



The other piece of real-world evidence highlighted by Offit was a Cleveland Clinic study, released in mid-May that showed 99.75% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Jan 1 and April 13, 2021 were not fully vaccinated, reported by Axios here. "You significantly decrease the chances of hospitalization by being vaccinated. That's a better way to look at it," Offit noted.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction-idUSL2N2NK1XA">https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL2N2NK1XA">https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thelancet-riskreduction-idUSL2N2NK1XA

Whenever the IPCC releases a report, alarmists grab tidbits out of it and distort the fuck out it. If such and such were to occur, then our computer models predict such and such could happen.  Anti-vaxxers play the same misrepresentation game.

[Anonymous]

Mandating the administration of a drug to every citizen is wrong. Plain wrong.



I would be delighted if ALL citizens lines up for the vaxxine voluntarily. But that's never going to happen. Humans aren't like that.



So, I hope that you never catch the plague and fall victim to it...a highly unlikely event.



I still submit that based on the data we have, mandating drugs is unacceptable at any level.

If it's a plague and some people will never get vaccinated than we need restrictions.

[Bricktop]

What, in your opinion, would be fair and just restrictions?

[Anonymous]

What, in your opinion, would be fair and just restrictions?

You're the first person on the forum or in real life to ask me that..



I'm sorry, I don't have an answer..



I'd need to know cost-benefit of restrictions..



I don't support shutting down schools long term like many American states have done..



Most medical professionals say that causes more harm than good.

[deadskinmask]

Most medical professionals say that causes more harm than good.

theres no 'precautionary mandate' that everyone is gonna agree with so theres no need to bother.... this is and should be about assessing and mitigating your own risk.... take alabama for example.... we're somewhat prone to hurricanes.... if you live here, you accept the fact that you're gonna experience a hurricane.... you can board all your windows, you can tie all your stuff down, you can even evacuate.... but theres no rule that says you have too.... i stay home and watch em come through and thats my right.... if you are scared of hurricanes, don't come here.... your safety is a matter of personal responsibility.... your safety is NEVER my responsibility.... nor mine yours.... you ppl really need to learn about what 'freedom' actually is....

[cc]

Your OCD was also clearly demonstrated when you yapped on and on about muslims. .....

Off Track, but you brought it up out of the blue  ... so fair game





It's no surprise that a continuous woman-hate poster who constantly pontificates ad infinitum that  women are the root of all evil would be on board  with  Mass Misogyny Inc.



You do make a cute couple





Does serve as a reminder that I've been pretty slack of late. Need to get off my ass and get back to work

[Blazor]

Just an update on RN Jummai Nache, the nurse that was forced to vax, and had both legs amputated due to blood clots. Well now she is having a hand amputated.





https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/095/419/453/original/a4d15783c2ced29c.jpeg">