Breaking: Australian mom denied heart transplant due to her COVID-19 vaccination status

a reply to: chr0naut

Excellent figures and great work correcting that misunderstanding of the facts.

Additionally, The article also ignores the conclusions that were in the paper, which concludes that the overall efficacy of the vaccine is 95% (with an error margin of plus or minus 3.85%), across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions.

Well that is 5% of scary big-bad unknown. WHY is that 1.15% at such grave risk of grave peril in an unknowable, unstatable, but surely something-bad-about-to-happen way?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Do you brush your teeth?

Big pharma and the CDC both say brushing your teeth is important to maintaining your health. Official sources tell you to do it, so do you?

Or do you selectively choose when that official source is full of it?
How do you know? Is it similar to divination or just a flip of the coin?

a reply to: SourGrapes

Nor have I.

But I have friends who've been jabbed, at least twice, who've had Covid multiple times since...

I'm one of the unclean who've not been jabbed--and it's a hill I'm willing to die on--and I've not caught it, despite being heavily exposed...

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Do you brush your teeth?

Big pharma and the CDC both say brushing your teeth is important to maintaining your health. Official sources tell you to do it, so do you?

Or do you selectively choose when that official source is full of it?
How do you know? Is it similar to divination or just a flip of the coin?

So you are admitting personally that you can't discern truth from lies or know the difference unless some source you trust tells you it's ok, and if they tell a commonly known truth about brushing your teeth then everything else they tell you must also be true? Even things your dentist would tell you since childhood.

Everyone and I mean everyone with a soul should be condemning any medical decision made by anyone who would banish children from medical treatment because they refused an experimental medication, but you seem to support virtual Leper colonies which would be a dark version of phony hospice care without the care for the unjabbed, which is what this case in Australia is like. Pitiful.

That's a pretty sad admission, and I pity you for that.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Do you brush your teeth?

Big pharma and the CDC both say brushing your teeth is important to maintaining your health. Official sources tell you to do it, so do you?

Or do you selectively choose when that official source is full of it?
How do you know? Is it similar to divination or just a flip of the coin?

What nonsensical argument is this one? I don't need the CDC to tell me to brush my teeth...

The rest of your argument is nonsensical as I said above.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: chr0naut

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints

A relative value of 95% effective does translate into an increase of all cause mortality rate.

No, there is no direct mathematical or causal link between the two things. They are two different things.

The effectiveness value is a measure of how the vaccine is expected to perform in a preventative manner in an ideal situation and is a mathematical construct.

All cause mortality is the numbers of people who die from all sorts of identified causes (one of which is COVID-19).

You got this far in science, yet relative and absolute values is still a bit of a mud pit to play in?

I got quite far in science, and did quite well in the subject of relativistic physics. I am fairly sure I know what the term "relative" means.

LOL.

You, however, have still not yet even explained what the relative values are relative to. And additionally you have totally confused argument about relativism with a misinterpretation of all cause mortality.

To give you an idea about the effectiveness calculations there is this fairly good article from the New York Times, which includes some actual calculations with values from the Pfizer effectiveness study, which you can verify mathematically and from which you should be able to understand what is going on.

I have a short video which I believe illustrates well the regard which I give to your previous post:

You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent 1 infection with the product from Pfizer. Almost zero effectiveness in preventing infection.

I didn't know you were a physicist too!

I tried to find out where you sourced those numbers, and it appears to be an online misinterpretation of this New England Journal of Medicine study.

In the study out of 21,720 who received the vaccine, only 8 became infected with COVID-19 and this was compared against 21,728 in the study who received a placebo, a group which had 162 cases of COVID-19 by the end of the study.

This means that 0.0368% were not protected by the vaccine, compared to 0.7456% who were not protected by the placebo (i.e: any resistance to the disease assumes either natural immunity, or quite different levels of exposure).

Notice that this is not a measurement of who were protected, but it is a measurement of those who were clearly not protected in either case.

In a comparison between the two percentages, there were 19.316 times more percentage points that were not protected by the placebo, as compared to the vaccine.

This website that purports to comment on the paper.

Not only does the website get its math fairly wrong (probably by successive rounding errors), it also speaks of a comparison between percentage values (comparing the relationship of one direct value to another would be a relative value) as if it were an absolute value. They subtracted one percentage value from the other and called that an "absolute value"!

Nowhere in the article do they ever seem to discuss that the values that they are using for their calculations are not the efficacy values in either situation, but are examples of where the vaccines or otherwise have failed to prevent disease.

Additionally, The article also ignores the conclusions that were in the paper, which concludes that the overall efficacy of the vaccine is 95% (with an error margin of plus or minus 3.85%), across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions.

When a website or commentator draws conclusions from a paper that are different than those expressed in the paper, you can be fairly sure that someone, either the paper's authors or the external commentators, are drastically wrong. In this case, the credibility of the paper far exceeds that of the commentators.

I am also not tenured, having left academia decades ago. So I have a background in university level astrophysics, but I am hardly that by occupation. I have other degrees and certificates too. Just means I misspent my youth prostrate to the higher mind. LOL. Lots of people do.

You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent 1 infection with the product from Pfizer. Almost zero effectiveness in preventing infection.

You need to try harder to get the right results which are available online. Everyone knows this by now. Try harder please.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer Andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

Hence infections cannot be prevented in the real world which is a fact given the new emerging variants and the number of daily infections worldwide.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: chr0naut

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints

A relative value of 95% effective does translate into an increase of all cause mortality rate.

No, there is no direct mathematical or causal link between the two things. They are two different things.

The effectiveness value is a measure of how the vaccine is expected to perform in a preventative manner in an ideal situation and is a mathematical construct.

All cause mortality is the numbers of people who die from all sorts of identified causes (one of which is COVID-19).

You got this far in science, yet relative and absolute values is still a bit of a mud pit to play in?

I got quite far in science, and did quite well in the subject of relativistic physics. I am fairly sure I know what the term "relative" means.

LOL.

You, however, have still not yet even explained what the relative values are relative to. And additionally you have totally confused argument about relativism with a misinterpretation of all cause mortality.

To give you an idea about the effectiveness calculations there is this fairly good article from the New York Times, which includes some actual calculations with values from the Pfizer effectiveness study, which you can verify mathematically and from which you should be able to understand what is going on.

I have a short video which I believe illustrates well the regard which I give to your previous post:

You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent 1 infection with the product from Pfizer. Almost zero effectiveness in preventing infection.

I didn't know you were a physicist too!

I tried to find out where you sourced those numbers, and it appears to be an online misinterpretation of this New England Journal of Medicine study.

In the study out of 21,720 who received the vaccine, only 8 became infected with COVID-19 and this was compared against 21,728 in the study who received a placebo, a group which had 162 cases of COVID-19 by the end of the study.

This means that 0.0368% were not protected by the vaccine, compared to 0.7456% who were not protected by the placebo (i.e: any resistance to the disease assumes either natural immunity, or quite different levels of exposure).

Notice that this is not a measurement of who were protected, but it is a measurement of those who were clearly not protected in either case.

In a comparison between the two percentages, there were 19.316 times more percentage points that were not protected by the placebo, as compared to the vaccine.

This website that purports to comment on the paper.

Not only does the website get its math fairly wrong (probably by successive rounding errors), it also speaks of a comparison between percentage values (comparing the relationship of one direct value to another would be a relative value) as if it were an absolute value. They subtracted one percentage value from the other and called that an "absolute value"!

Nowhere in the article do they ever seem to discuss that the values that they are using for their calculations are not the efficacy values in either situation, but are examples of where the vaccines or otherwise have failed to prevent disease.

Additionally, The article also ignores the conclusions that were in the paper, which concludes that the overall efficacy of the vaccine is 95% (with an error margin of plus or minus 3.85%), across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions.

When a website or commentator draws conclusions from a paper that are different than those expressed in the paper, you can be fairly sure that someone, either the paper's authors or the external commentators, are drastically wrong. In this case, the credibility of the paper far exceeds that of the commentators.

I am also not tenured, having left academia decades ago. So I have a background in university level astrophysics, but I am hardly that by occupation. I have other degrees and certificates too. Just means I misspent my youth prostrate to the higher mind. LOL. Lots of people do.

You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent 1 infection with the product from Pfizer. Almost zero effectiveness in preventing infection.

You keep repeating that. But it is incorrect.

You need to try harder to get the right results which are available online. Everyone knows this by now. Try harder please.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly.

The paper I linked to, makes no mention of the words 'absolute' nor 'relative'.

It is the commentary website that mentions these words and in the process makes a total mess-up in trying to reinterpret the paper.

To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer Andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

I pointed out the values that were noted in the results section of the abstract of the paper. The paper only refers to the Pfizer vaccine, and also it makes no mention of the number '119' anywhere.

Hence infections cannot be prevented in the real world which is a fact given the new emerging variants and the number of daily infections worldwide.

You keep repeating the same thing. It doesn't make it true.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: chr0naut

And you still haven't answered what the 'relative' values are relative to.

Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints

A relative value of 95% effective does translate into an increase of all cause mortality rate.

No, there is no direct mathematical or causal link between the two things. They are two different things.

The effectiveness value is a measure of how the vaccine is expected to perform in a preventative manner in an ideal situation and is a mathematical construct.

All cause mortality is the numbers of people who die from all sorts of identified causes (one of which is COVID-19).

You got this far in science, yet relative and absolute values is still a bit of a mud pit to play in?

I got quite far in science, and did quite well in the subject of relativistic physics. I am fairly sure I know what the term "relative" means.

LOL.

You, however, have still not yet even explained what the relative values are relative to. And additionally you have totally confused argument about relativism with a misinterpretation of all cause mortality.

To give you an idea about the effectiveness calculations there is this fairly good article from the New York Times, which includes some actual calculations with values from the Pfizer effectiveness study, which you can verify mathematically and from which you should be able to understand what is going on.

I have a short video which I believe illustrates well the regard which I give to your previous post:

You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent 1 infection with the product from Pfizer. Almost zero effectiveness in preventing infection.

I didn't know you were a physicist too!

I tried to find out where you sourced those numbers, and it appears to be an online misinterpretation of this New England Journal of Medicine study.

In the study out of 21,720 who received the vaccine, only 8 became infected with COVID-19 and this was compared against 21,728 in the study who received a placebo, a group which had 162 cases of COVID-19 by the end of the study.

This means that 0.0368% were not protected by the vaccine, compared to 0.7456% who were not protected by the placebo (i.e: any resistance to the disease assumes either natural immunity, or quite different levels of exposure).

Notice that this is not a measurement of who were protected, but it is a measurement of those who were clearly not protected in either case.

In a comparison between the two percentages, there were 19.316 times more percentage points that were not protected by the placebo, as compared to the vaccine.

This website that purports to comment on the paper.

Not only does the website get its math fairly wrong (probably by successive rounding errors), it also speaks of a comparison between percentage values (comparing the relationship of one direct value to another would be a relative value) as if it were an absolute value. They subtracted one percentage value from the other and called that an "absolute value"!

Nowhere in the article do they ever seem to discuss that the values that they are using for their calculations are not the efficacy values in either situation, but are examples of where the vaccines or otherwise have failed to prevent disease.

Additionally, The article also ignores the conclusions that were in the paper, which concludes that the overall efficacy of the vaccine is 95% (with an error margin of plus or minus 3.85%), across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions.

When a website or commentator draws conclusions from a paper that are different than those expressed in the paper, you can be fairly sure that someone, either the paper's authors or the external commentators, are drastically wrong. In this case, the credibility of the paper far exceeds that of the commentators.

I am also not tenured, having left academia decades ago. So I have a background in university level astrophysics, but I am hardly that by occupation. I have other degrees and certificates too. Just means I misspent my youth prostrate to the higher mind. LOL. Lots of people do.

You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent 1 infection with the product from Pfizer. Almost zero effectiveness in preventing infection.

You keep repeating that. But it is incorrect.

You need to try harder to get the right results which are available online. Everyone knows this by now. Try harder please.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly.

The paper I linked to, makes no mention of the words 'absolute' nor 'relative'.

It is the commentary website that mentions these words and in the process makes a total mess-up in trying to reinterpret the paper.

To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer Andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

I pointed out the values that were noted in the results section of the abstract of the paper. The paper only refers to the Pfizer vaccine, and also it makes no mention of the number '119' anywhere.

Hence infections cannot be prevented in the real world which is a fact given the new emerging variants and the number of daily infections worldwide.

You keep repeating the same thing. It doesn't make it true.

No it is correct. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

This is precisely the reason why these products don't prevent infection.

I may remind you of your previous arguments that were incorrect regarding herd immunity. Herd immunity is a debunked claim given the nature of the virus and the crippled vaccines that cannot prevent infection or transmission.

You need to read more carefully I am afraid.

The vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

All sorts of vaccinations are required to be in civilization. I don't support forcing them on anyone.

I also don't support forcing medical providers who know better to give an organ to someone with a higher risk. Organs are a precious gift from a donor and there are far more on waiting lists than in receipt.

If they don't want to follow the rules...drug abusers and smokers and people who live sedentary lifestyles are included too...the risk is too high that a precious organ will go to waste.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Al sorts of vaccinations are required to be in civilization. I don't support forcing them on anyone.

I also don't support forcing medical providers who know better to give an organ to someone with a higher risk. Organs are a precious gift from a donor and there are far more on waiting lists than in receipt.

If they don't want to follow the rules...drug abusers and smokers and people who live sedentary lifestyles are included too...the risk is too high that a precious organ will go to waste.

This.

I had a cousin who was on a heart transplant list, but he kept getting dropped back down to the bottom, because he couldn't give up smoking and drinking (he did try a few times). Eventually, he was dropped from the list and decided he would enjoy whatever time he had to the fullest possible. He wasn't even mad, and understood why. Sadly, he died at 40, back in 2004. These rules have been in place a lot longer than COVID has been an issue. Usable, compatible organs are in short supply compared to the demand. Thus, they should go to the people with the highest chance of survival.

People should have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies. But medical providers also have the right to to make the wisest decisions when deciding how to distribute a limited and precious resource.

originally posted by: JBurns
Sounds like she is too much of a risk. There are plenty of others in need for a transplant that don't have comorbidities, such as unneeded risk from viral exposure.

It is no different than someone lacking any other important vaccine.

FACT: The COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccines teach your immune system to recognize and fight the virus that causes COVID-19. Sometimes this process can cause symptoms, such as fever and chills. These symptoms are normal and are signs that the body is building protection against the virus that causes COVID-19.

^Always good to inject some fact into these conversations

Your facts is pretty much irrelevant with the conversation and the text fails completely to discuss that the 'vaccines' can make you sick with a range of debilitating conditions such as myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, autoimmune disorders, allergies, strokes and hearts attacks, etc. You can also die from getting injected with the junk by Pfizer and Moderna.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You still won't get a transplant unless you follow the rules. They know the risk of serious side effects is far less than the risk of losing the organ due to the transplant recipient catching COVID-19. Especially being that having major surgery is one of the highest risk groups there are for COVID-19 infection.

You aren't owed an organ. Most who need them will never get them - most due to availability, others because they choose not to follow the rules. Those rules include being fully vaccinated (which prevent various illnesses). They also forbid engaging in other risky behaviors that could jeopardize the organ.

Why would they take the gamble when there are thousands lined up willing to follow the rules? Medical science doesn't have to make allowances for your beliefs and opinions.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They can eat up all the vaccine misinformation they want, but if they want an organ they are getting a shot.

'vaccines' can make you sick with a range of debilitating conditions such as myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, autoimmune disorders, allergies, strokes and hearts attacks

You have a better chance of hitting the lottery than experiencing one of those severe side effects.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You still won't get a transplant unless you follow the rules. They know the risk of serious side effects is far less than the risk of losing the organ due to the transplant recipient catching COVID-19. Especially being that having major surgery is one of the highest risk groups there are for COVID-19 infection.

You aren't owed an organ. Most who need them will never get them - most due to availability, others because they choose not to follow the rules. Those rules include being fully vaccinated (which prevent various illnesses). They also forbid engaging in other risky behaviors that could jeopardize the organ.

Why would they take the gamble when there are thousands lined up willing to follow the rules? Medical science doesn't have to make allowances for your beliefs and opinions.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They can eat up all the vaccine misinformation they want, but if they want an organ they are getting a shot.

'vaccines' can make you sick with a range of debilitating conditions such as myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, autoimmune disorders, allergies, strokes and hearts attacks

You have a better chance of hitting the lottery than experiencing one of those severe side effects.

Your evaluation of the chance of getting adverse reactions is wrong just as it has been proven so far from your very wrong estimations when you tried to divide the adverse reactions reported in Florida over the total number of shots given worldwide... Then you concluded the rate of adverse reactions is 1 in every 100,000+ vaccinees.

In reality the rate of serious adverse reactions is at least 1 in 800 from the original clinical phase trials of Pfizer and Moderna.

Vaccinations encouraged but are not mandatory for those who want to have a transplant. So your analysis here is still...wrong. The family could find another hospital that is willing to perform the surgery or even a hospital abroad.

The rest is the usual vaccine apologetics and peddling of the official narratives.

Wrong thread.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

No it is correct. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

The 0.84% value does not describe the risk reduction.

It also is a relative value, based as it was upon a subtraction between two ratios, the subtracted difference is relative to the initial ratios and does not start from an absolute reference point.

The 0.84% describes a percentage based upon the subtraction of two ratios of numbers of people who caught COVID-19 in the study under different conditions (placebo vs vaccine). It is more like the number of people who the vaccine, or placebo, failed to protect, rather than the rate it protected. ( 1 / 119 ) * 100 = 0.84034%

This is precisely the reason why these products don't prevent infection.

I may remind you of your previous arguments that were incorrect regarding herd immunity. Herd immunity is a debunked claim given the nature of the virus and the crippled vaccines that cannot prevent infection or transmission.

Remind me all you want. I did also respond to you about them back then, but you keep bringing them up, like you have no comprehension or recollection of my replies. You also keep repeating the same BS, even when the explanation of why those values you allege are wrong has been presented several times.

You need to read more carefully I am afraid.

The vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.

No, but they do reduce the severity and duration of infection, and reduce transmission.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

The paper made no mention of the word "absolute", or the word "relative", or of the number 119. Of course it doesn't say there was a miscalculation in an article produced well after the paper was published.

The 'one in 119' in the commentary article was related to the number the vaccine did not protect, not how many it protected. And you keep repeating it!

Derp.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

No it is correct. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

The 0.84% value does not describe the risk reduction.

It also is a relative value, based as it was upon a subtraction between two ratios, the subtracted difference is relative to the initial ratios and does not start from an absolute reference point.

The 0.84% describes a percentage based upon the subtraction of two ratios of numbers of people who caught COVID-19 in the study under different conditions (placebo vs vaccine). It is more like the number of people who the vaccine, or placebo, failed to protect, rather than the rate it protected. ( 1 / 119 ) * 100 = 0.84034%

This is precisely the reason why these products don't prevent infection.

I may remind you of your previous arguments that were incorrect regarding herd immunity. Herd immunity is a debunked claim given the nature of the virus and the crippled vaccines that cannot prevent infection or transmission.

Remind me all you want. I did also respond to you about them back then, but you keep bringing them up, like you have no comprehension or recollection of my replies. You also keep repeating the same BS, even when the explanation of why those values you allege are wrong has been presented several times.

You need to read more carefully I am afraid.

The vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.

No, but they do reduce the severity and duration of infection, and reduce transmission.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

The paper made no mention of the word "absolute", or the word "relative", or of the number 119. Of course it doesn't say there was a miscalculation in an article produced well after the paper was published.

The 'one in 119' in the commentary article was related to the number the vaccine did not protect, not how many it protected. And you keep repeating it!

Derp.

You are mistaken just as you were mistaken about herd immunity and when you were claiming that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution. If you remember these conversations.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

These products have almost zero effectiveness in preventing infections and that's why most if not all vaccinated individuals getting infected again and again and keep getting their boosters again and again...

0.84% is the absolute risk reduction from the Pfizer product in preventing infection. You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. This is well known for a long period of time. Long before you have come across this information.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

No it is correct. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

The 0.84% value does not describe the risk reduction.

It also is a relative value, based as it was upon a subtraction between two ratios, the subtracted difference is relative to the initial ratios and does not start from an absolute reference point.

The 0.84% describes a percentage based upon the subtraction of two ratios of numbers of people who caught COVID-19 in the study under different conditions (placebo vs vaccine). It is more like the number of people who the vaccine, or placebo, failed to protect, rather than the rate it protected. ( 1 / 119 ) * 100 = 0.84034%

This is precisely the reason why these products don't prevent infection.

I may remind you of your previous arguments that were incorrect regarding herd immunity. Herd immunity is a debunked claim given the nature of the virus and the crippled vaccines that cannot prevent infection or transmission.

Remind me all you want. I did also respond to you about them back then, but you keep bringing them up, like you have no comprehension or recollection of my replies. You also keep repeating the same BS, even when the explanation of why those values you allege are wrong has been presented several times.

You need to read more carefully I am afraid.

The vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.

No, but they do reduce the severity and duration of infection, and reduce transmission.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

The paper made no mention of the word "absolute", or the word "relative", or of the number 119. Of course it doesn't say there was a miscalculation in an article produced well after the paper was published.

The 'one in 119' in the commentary article was related to the number the vaccine did not protect, not how many it protected. And you keep repeating it!

Derp.

You are mistaken just as you were mistaken about herd immunity and when you were claiming that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution. If you remember these conversations.

I do remember that I never claimed that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution. I claimed that evolutionary theory alone cannot account for the rates of diversification of the Cambrian Explosion. I also remember that I have explained this to you a couple of times before, but you continually lie, anyway.

Similarly, what you seem to think I posted about herd immunity, was your misunderstanding.

The extinction of the Alpha strain is a function of its normal hosts having resistance to it both via vaccination, and by immunity granted by recovery from infection of less virulent but more infectious strains.

Several of the newer descendent strains co-habit in the same hosts at the same time (a situation which has allowed for recombinance to occur), and yet the Alpha strain is now extinct, as far as anyone knows.

This shows that new strains arising do not 'compete' for the same resources and exclude other strains and extinct them by natural selection in the short term. The extinction of the Alpha strain occurred in just one or two 'seasons' of the disease, and so was very rapid.

There are no other explanations for the extinction of the strain, except by the action of herd immunity. But, I have said that before to you, too.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see.

But I can and have done so. It is you who don't seem to understand the terms and are repeating, by rote, and without comprehension, what you have read in some erroneous anti-vax website.

The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

So, that would make the Pfizer's vaccine less effective than Moderna's vaccine. Yet the Pfizer vaccine was given an effectiveness of 95% and the Moderna vaccine an efficiency of 94% by the respective companies. Yet your values are not only minute, they are inverted compared to the 'official' ratings. This is how you know that the figures you supply are absolute rubbish.

These products have almost zero effectiveness in preventing infections and that's why most if not all vaccinated individuals getting infected again and again and keep getting their boosters again and again...

The Cleveland Clinic study of the effectiveness of the bivalent Pfizer vaccine gave it 30% effectiveness against infection in the largest real world clinical study done to date.

0.84% is the absolute risk reduction from the Pfizer product in preventing infection. You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. This is well known for a long period of time. Long before you have come across this information.

The paper I have quoted above gives the Pfizer vaccine an effectiveness rating of 95%. It says nothing about an effectiveness of 0.84% nor '1 in 119', nor does it even mention the words "absolute" or "relative".

Your 0.84% and 'one in 119' numbers are BS - total garbage - nonsense.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: chr0naut

No it is correct. The absolute risk reduction is 0.84%

The 0.84% value does not describe the risk reduction.

It also is a relative value, based as it was upon a subtraction between two ratios, the subtracted difference is relative to the initial ratios and does not start from an absolute reference point.

The 0.84% describes a percentage based upon the subtraction of two ratios of numbers of people who caught COVID-19 in the study under different conditions (placebo vs vaccine). It is more like the number of people who the vaccine, or placebo, failed to protect, rather than the rate it protected. ( 1 / 119 ) * 100 = 0.84034%

This is precisely the reason why these products don't prevent infection.

I may remind you of your previous arguments that were incorrect regarding herd immunity. Herd immunity is a debunked claim given the nature of the virus and the crippled vaccines that cannot prevent infection or transmission.

Remind me all you want. I did also respond to you about them back then, but you keep bringing them up, like you have no comprehension or recollection of my replies. You also keep repeating the same BS, even when the explanation of why those values you allege are wrong has been presented several times.

You need to read more carefully I am afraid.

The vaccines don't prevent infection or transmission.

No, but they do reduce the severity and duration of infection, and reduce transmission.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

The paper made no mention of the word "absolute", or the word "relative", or of the number 119. Of course it doesn't say there was a miscalculation in an article produced well after the paper was published.

The 'one in 119' in the commentary article was related to the number the vaccine did not protect, not how many it protected. And you keep repeating it!

Derp.

You are mistaken just as you were mistaken about herd immunity and when you were claiming that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution. If you remember these conversations.

I do remember that I never claimed that the Cambrian Explosion disproves evolution. I claimed that evolutionary theory alone cannot account for the rates of diversification of the Cambrian Explosion. I also remember that I have explained this to you a couple of times before, but you continually lie, anyway.

Similarly, what you seem to think I posted about herd immunity, was your misunderstanding.

The extinction of the Alpha strain is a function of its normal hosts having resistance to it both via vaccination, and by immunity granted by recovery from infection of less virulent but more infectious strains.

Several of the newer descendent strains co-habit in the same hosts at the same time (a situation which has allowed for recombinance to occur), and yet the Alpha strain is now extinct, as far as anyone knows.

This shows that new strains arising do not 'compete' for the same resources and exclude other strains and extinct them by natural selection in the short term. The extinction of the Alpha strain occurred in just one or two 'seasons' of the disease, and so was very rapid.

There are no other explanations for the extinction of the strain, except by the action of herd immunity. But, I have said that before to you, too.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see.

But I can and have done so. It is you who don't seem to understand the terms and are repeating, by rote, and without comprehension, what you have read in some erroneous anti-vax website.

The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna.

So, that would make the Pfizer's vaccine less effective than Moderna's vaccine. Yet the Pfizer vaccine was given an effectiveness of 95% and the Moderna vaccine an efficiency of 94% by the respective companies. Yet your values are not only minute, they are inverted compared to the 'official' ratings. This is how you know that the figures you supply are absolute rubbish.

These products have almost zero effectiveness in preventing infections and that's why most if not all vaccinated individuals getting infected again and again and keep getting their boosters again and again...

The Cleveland Clinic study of the effectiveness of the bivalent Pfizer vaccine gave it 30% effectiveness against infection in the largest real world clinical study done to date.

0.84% is the absolute risk reduction from the Pfizer product in preventing infection. You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. This is well known for a long period of time. Long before you have come across this information.

The paper I have quoted above gives the Pfizer vaccine an effectiveness rating of 95%. It says nothing about an effectiveness of 0.84% nor '1 in 119', nor does it even mention the words "absolute" or "relative".

Your 0.84% and 'one in 119' numbers are BS - total garbage - nonsense.

From the arguments you have presented you still seem not to understand what herd immunity is and how it is achieved. Still the same misconceptions and misunderstandings which is the real issue when you try to argue about matters you don't understand well or don't understand at all.

This is a basic definition from Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org...

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that applies only to contagious diseases. It occurs when a sufficient percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, whether through previous infections or vaccination, thereby reducing the likelihood of infection for individuals who lack immunity.

Have we become immune to infection by SARS-CoV-2? The answer is a clear NO! The new variants are even more infectious and transmissible and hence herd immunity cannot be achieved either via vaccinations or via infections or from both infections and vaccinations.

You are applying the concept of herd immunity to a particular variant of the virus which is wrong and you don't take into account that the variant disappears over time after having been replaced by another variant that is keep infecting humans.

From my thread: The myth of herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: chr0naut

Continuing from the post above.

www.infectioncontroltoday.com...

January 27, 2022
Kevin Kavanagh, MD

Those Who Believe in Herd Immunity Cannot Do the Math.

COVID-19 mutations are evading our immunity and at the same time our immunity is waning. Herd immunity to disease and the eradication of SARS-CoV-2 is no longer possible.

www.businessinsider.com...

The developer of the AstraZeneca shot says the Delta variant has made herd immunity impossible because vaccinated people can still transmit the virus

www.theguardian.com...

Prof Devi Sridhar-chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh


Herd immunity now seems impossible. Welcome to the age of Covid reinfection

The virus is now embedded in our world. But there are steps we can take to keep it at bay while we continue to live our lives

www.nature.com...

Herd immunity, where a pathogen can no longer efficiently spread in a population, is achieved when a large proportion of the population becomes immune, making the spread of infection from person to person unlikely and protecting those without immunity. Despite the global spread of SARS-CoV-2, the failure of virus- and vaccine-induced immunity to prevent transmission, combined with the emergence of antigenically distinct variants, has made herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 unachievable thus far.

It is clear that herd immunity is unachievable for a virus where natural infections or vaccines fail to induce sterilizing immunity and where antigenically novel variants evade immunity.

It is clear that herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is impossible given the nature of the virus and the inability of vaccines to prevent infection and transmission. Although natural immunity is superior to vaccinations once infected you can be re-infected in the future.

It's obvious you are struggling when it comes to these concepts and clearly you haven't understood yet what herd immunity is and how it is achieved.

In terms of the other argument you have made about the Cambrian Explosion not being compatible with evolution and that it disproves evolution I think you have a short term memory and you don't remember what you were saying. The Cambrian Explosion does not disprove evolution and evolutionary theory alone can account for the rates of diversification of the Cambrian Explosion. Contrary to your claim which is as false as the other one you made about herd immunity.

a reply to: chr0naut


The same thing is true about your other misunderstandings in relation to the relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. You seem to be struggling with the concepts just as you are struggling with the concept of herd immunity and everything else in biology and infectious diseases.

You should be able to differentiate between absolute risk reduction and relative risk reduction and still you can't do it as far as I see. The paper you have provided above nowhere it says that absolute risk reduction was calculated wrongly. To prevent one infection you need to vaccinate 119 people with the products by Pfizer andi think 81 with the product by Moderna

0.84% is the absolute risk reduction from the Pfizer product in preventing infection. You need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one infection. This is well known for a long period of time. Long before you have come across this information.