Q: How does this make logical sense?

Note: I placed this in General Chit Chat as this is just my personal musings on this subject. I have no links or source material to provide.

The claim by many vaccine supporters is that although the COVID vaccines don't prevent infection or spread of the disease, it does lessen the severity of symptoms and lower the rates of hospitalization and deaths from later infection.

However, this reasoning seems impossible to prove in any way IMO.

How can there be a comparison made with a vaccinated person who became infected to the same person who was infected but not vaccinated? It is impossible because you are either one or the other and cannot be both.

Everyone's body is different, therefore nobody experiences the same symptoms of infection with or without a vaccine. Any individual's body will have an unknown reaction to a live virus, vaccinated or not, and in either case, no one can undo an infection or a vaccination, so how is it possible to compare one with the other in regards to the individual?

I cannot make the claim or even assume that if I get vaccinated that my reaction to infection will bet greater, lessor, or the same. Once vaccinated I can't go back and try it over again as an unvaccinated individual and compare the results. One makes such a comparison impossible with the other.

You can claim or assume that because your body has developed an immune reaction to the vaccine that in all probability it will lessen the symptoms, keep you from the hospital and prevent your death, but you could never prove such a claim, even with serious scientific studies after the fact, it would be conjecture not proof it works that way in your particular case.

If I got the vax, then got COVID, there is no way to prove I would have reacted any differently to the infection without the jab. I can only assume that I did, but could never actually prove it.

How does this make logical sense to claim I'll have less severe COVID symptoms and avoid death if I get infected after getting the vaccine? It is impossible to prove on an individual basis, although statistics may make it appear that way in an over all population.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Thanks SwampBuck! Something didn’t sit right with me about that argument, either. Couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Looks like you did though! I’m definitely going to use this the next time I hear it—though sadly, I don’t think it’ll make a damn.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

It's been floating around in my subconscious for a while and the question finally came to the surface. It wasn't really even a complete thought until I made the post. It seems like a valid point now that I made it, but I'll like to see if someone can make sense of this claim. Phage, where are you?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

You are thinking logically. This does not compute with many that have been ‘vaxed’ because you must join them. The MSM told them so.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Its almost as if the argument is engineered based on fear of losing ones life therefore just take the jab and you will be less sick.

It has nothing to do with Covid-19, it is about control and compliance to government mandates and now that there are sufficient poorly educated read-the-headlines-only oxygen thieves doing the bidding of government, the fight to retain a 'my body, my choice' ethos is all but lost on these twerps - unless its about abortion - then its her choice and you just butt-out mkay.

It is an overall anti-human mandate, someone or something wants everyone hating everyone else and/or dead.

Strip away the rhetoric and the message is simple, in every country - COMPLY OR DIE.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Studies with control groups.

That's how they'll say they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm curious to see what Phage say's too (should be good).

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Thoughtcrime
but I'll like to see if some can make sense of this claim. Phage, where are you?

Waste of time, his ability to articulate a mind-changing degree of common sense and logic left the building the day Trump descended the elevator, those of us paying attention to the once-sage-like-individual saw his slow descent down the leftist emotional garbage chute.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Studies with control groups.

That's how they'll say they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm curious to see what Phage say's too (should be good).

What control groups are those? From what I read, the vaccine control groups were given the jab right after the EUA was enacted. Not much to go on now that they did that. I figured the Amish might make a good control group, but some folks here had tried to debunk that idea.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

You errrr every read an actual medical journal?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

You errrr every read an actual medical journal?

Some, when I find an article I want to read. I've actually waded through some peer reviewed studies, the original documents. Not for this particular subject though.

So do you have some links or anything to add? Even you own conjecture would be welcome.

The only health Fauci cares about is the economic well being of the pharmaceutical and medical research industries. With what I am hearing about areas with high vaccination rates, illness and death is on the rise.

Logically, they cannot make the claim the vax works as it is too easy to see vaxxed people getting sick and dying. A lot of fudging and misdiagnosis is going on to cover up the full implications, but it is too hard to cover it all up. So making some claim that cannot be as easily proved or denied helps with the sales pitch and those that have fallen for the scam live with it.

Covid 19 is a disease caused by the improper reaction of the immune system to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Most times the immune system overreacts and destroys the organs and the lungs are the ones that people notice the most, but are not the only organs effected.

Now when a person is on immune system suppressants, the virus is not dealt with properly to begin with so the person keeps having more and more viral replication then it throws everything at the virus which tears apart the organs. Another problem with immune system suppressants is that the virus does not get dealt with and that person becomes a super spreader exhaling lots of viral particles. The same thing happen when people get real old, their immune system isn't working correctly anymore. Note that some meds that are given to people do have a secondary method of action that does block the immune system somewhat even though it is not the intended action.

The vaccine does suppress the immune system, the phosphocholine has that effect, but is not powerful enough to cause the suppression of immune system overresponse that the mRNA vaccines are creating. The people creating these vaccines know how to combine things to dampen the immune response. I am not convinced that this vaccine is working as it should, it not only is dampening the immune system against this virus, it is also lowering the effect towards other pathogens and may possibly increase other disease risks including cancer if I am digesting the information correctly.

I do not see where they actually researched what I am talking about...but of course if they did not think it was an issue and had no proof it was going to happen, they are held harmless by the rules of the FDA. No evidence of a medication causing harm is not something that the phamacutical companies can be held accountable for under the present and past and present regulations. I doubt if anyone tested anything outside of the required testing by the FDA because if they did then they could be liable for withholding the side effects from people....never ever test for anything but what is required to test for is a requirement of all employees of these corporations. When the side effects do show up, then they have to list them after thorough research that eliminates coincidences but not before. The pharmaceutical industry is not that concerned about hurting people, they want to make profits and enough to pay their researchers and manufacturers.

That is the way it is here in America and in some other countries. There is nothing we can do about it presently because these pharma companies make some good medicines and we need them....these mRNA vaccines are not necessary, the disease now can be controlled by multiple ways. Suramin and related compounds can help with this disease too, White pine needle tea has that type of compound along with Oseltamivir in it that fights other viruses.

This does not answer the OP question much though.

a reply to: rickymouse

Well, long winded to be sure, but it seems to support the idea that everyone's personal reaction to viral infection with or without the vaccine will be different. With all the factors you introduced, it seems even more impossible to make an affirmative statement that what is claimed about the vaccines is actually true in regards to individual health. Throw all those factors into the mix, and it would be impossible to make a judgement that a vaccine will work as advertised in most cases.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
.... Once vaccinated I can't go back and try it over again as an unvaccinated individual and compare the results. One makes such a comparison impossible with the other.

You can claim or assume that because your body has developed an immune reaction to the vaccine that in all probability it will lessen the symptoms, keep you from the hospital and prevent your death, but you could never prove such a claim, even with serious scientific studies after the fact, it would be conjecture not proof it works that way in your particular case.

If I got the vax, then got COVID, there is no way to prove I would have reacted any differently to the infection without the jab. I can only assume that I did, but could never actually prove it.

How does this make logical sense to claim I'll have less severe COVID symptoms and avoid death if I get infected after getting the vaccine? It is impossible to prove on an individual basis, although statistics may make it appear that way in an over all population.

It depends on what you mean by "proof".

You're setting up the hypothetical situation of two distinct states, A and B. State A is getting the infection for the first time without having been vaccinated and state B is getting the infection for the first time after having been vaccinated.

You're asking whether it is possible to prove whether A < B, A > B, or A = B. I believe you are correct that that is not possible if you are using the word "proof" to mean a logically formal proof. That's because none of A < B, A > B, or A = B are well formed sentences in formal logic. A and B cannot exist simultaneously, so none of those statements have any meaning.

Since none of those 3 statements is formally decidable with 100% certainty, it looks like you'll have to make your decisions in the face of uncertainty. That's a pretty common condition of life, in case you hadn't noticed. Some options that come to mind to resolve this dilemma are: flip a coin, pray for guidance from the mythical creature of your choice, go with your gut feeling, or accept a probabilistic scientific argument.

If you're willing to accept the premise that the system consisting of people, viruses, and vaccines is basically a stochastic ensemble and you are not a special snowflake, then it is very easy to prove statistically that E[A] < E[B], where E[A] is the expectation value of the outcome if you choose state A, and E[B] is the expectation value of the outcome if you choose state B. That's basically what clinical trials demonstrate.

a reply to: 1947boomer

So this is about probability, like shooting dice then? That makes sense if I'm getting that right.

With that last paragraph, I just felt a breeze blow past the top of my head! But thanks, this is the type of answer I was seeking, if even I'd have to take the course to fully understand those last equations.

Odds are that this, that, or the other will occur is what I'm getting from this. It can't be equal across the board though, if all available factors are considered, but ultimately there are only three possibilities given the parameters of my example.

Actually there should be four out comes in either case. You live and have no symptoms, live and have mild symptoms, live and have extreme symptoms, or you die.

Hell, it seemed so simple the first go around, sort of. Outside of calculating the probability of all factors, both known and unknown, I cannot know with any certainty the out come of either A or B.

My head hurts a little (not really).

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Studies with control groups.

That's how they'll say they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm curious to see what Phage say's too (should be good).

What control groups are those? From what I read, the vaccine control groups were given the jab right after the EUA was enacted. Not much to go on now that they did that. I figured the Amish might make a good control group, but some folks here had tried to debunk that idea.

Just saying that that's how those who tried to answer this would respond, if they respond.

I don't think they actually have the data to prove that.

So, they just go with statistics.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Studies with control groups.

That's how they'll say they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm curious to see what Phage say's too (should be good).

What control groups are those? From what I read, the vaccine control groups were given the jab right after the EUA was enacted. Not much to go on now that they did that. I figured the Amish might make a good control group, but some folks here had tried to debunk that idea.

Just saying that that's how those who tried to answer this would respond, if they respond.

I don't think they actually have the data to prove that.

So, they just go with statistics.

I thought that was what you were saying after I made my post. Thanks for clarifying.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Studies with control groups.

That's how they'll say they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm curious to see what Phage say's too (should be good).

What control groups are those? From what I read, the vaccine control groups were given the jab right after the EUA was enacted. Not much to go on now that they did that. I figured the Amish might make a good control group, but some folks here had tried to debunk that idea.

Just saying that that's how those who tried to answer this would respond, if they respond.

I don't think they actually have the data to prove that.

So, they just go with statistics.

I thought that was what you were saying after I made my post. Thanks for clarifying.

After you and 1947boomer, I think I'm thoroughly confused.

J/K, He did a good job of showing the math reasons.

A and B cannot exist simultaneously, so none of those statements have any meaning.

Apparently once one occurs, A or B, then only one will have meaning, the other being eliminated by the existence of the one that was realized. However, it seems to me, until one or the other happens, they can both exist in some potential reality outside of the present (the elsewhere).

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Studies with control groups.

That's how they'll say they arrived at that conclusion.

I'm curious to see what Phage say's too (should be good).

What control groups are those? From what I read, the vaccine control groups were given the jab right after the EUA was enacted. Not much to go on now that they did that. I figured the Amish might make a good control group, but some folks here had tried to debunk that idea.

Just saying that that's how those who tried to answer this would respond, if they respond.

I don't think they actually have the data to prove that.

So, they just go with statistics.

I thought that was what you were saying after I made my post. Thanks for clarifying.

After you and 1947boomer, I think I'm thoroughly confused.

J/K, He did a good job of showing the math reasons.

Yes, confusing because I hated math in school, but he did very well in my opinion.