Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   Coronavirus/COVID19 Temp Forum (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=441)
-   -   Israeli Study: Fully Vaxxed are 27x more likely to get Covid and 8x more likely to... (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1745024)

HHGT 09-14-2021 11:29 AM

Israeli Study: Fully Vaxxed are 27x more likely to get Covid and 8x more likely to...
 
Quote:

Israeli Study: Fully Vaccinated Are 27 Times More Likely To Get The Virus, And 8 Times More Likely To Require Hospitalization, Compared To Those With Natural Immunity

A new study from Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, claims that “fully vaccinated” people are significantly more likely to get infected with COVID-19 and develop symptoms requiring hospitalization than those who are unvaccinated and have the natural immunity that comes from catching the virus and recovering.

The study, Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections, examined medical records of tens of thousands of people between the dates of June 1 and August 14 and is currently the largest real-world observational study to date on coronavirus immunity with respects to both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

The study found that “fully vaccinated” people are 27 times more likely to be infected and develop COVID-19 symptoms than unvaccinated people with natural immunity. The study also found that “fully vaccinated” people are 8 times more likely to be hospitalized from a “breakthrough” infection.


https://nationalfile.com/israeli-stu...ural-immunity/

the_tunaman 09-14-2021 11:54 AM

In before some jackwagon comes along and says that can’t be so…

Dan_Eastvale 09-14-2021 11:56 AM

Yet Isreal continues to ignore it's OWN research.
Our country won't even look at it.

the_tunaman 09-14-2021 11:58 AM

While this study is yet to be peer reviewed, as I’m sure will be pointed out, this factoid is pretty compelling presuming the study is legitimate:

“… examined medical records of tens of thousands of people between the dates of June 1 and August 14 and is currently the largest real-world observational study to date on coronavirus immunity with respects to both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.”

That would be just too logical - take recent data to compare apples to apples, rather than many of the ‘studies’ which include metrics from pre-vaxx times.

alpha_romeo_XV 09-14-2021 12:03 PM

I was in grade school and watched the news of the "6 day war" when Israel's arab neighbors attempted to gang bang her and got their arses kicked. I thought those jews are tough and smart. Now with their Covid respose i've lost that feeling.

sd_shooter 09-14-2021 12:05 PM

Israel
https://www.evidencebasedmentoring.o...9-1024x683.jpg

USA
https://i.imgflip.com/51jgrt.jpg

nitrofc 09-14-2021 12:09 PM

not surprised.

five.five-six 09-14-2021 12:47 PM

OP, if you were on FB or twitter, you’d have been banned by now with dangerous misinformation like that.

Misterclick 09-14-2021 12:49 PM

^ Ha ha ha!!!!

71MUSTY 09-14-2021 12:52 PM

Wow this looks a lot like peer review.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/po...severe-disease

five.five-six 09-14-2021 12:53 PM

Would bang her like a broken screen door in a windstorm.


Quote:

Originally Posted by sd_shooter (Post 26160430)


frankm 09-14-2021 12:59 PM

Those who've had it and lived have better immunity. It doesn't address those who have never had it and never been vaccinated vs. the vaccinated.

sd_shooter 09-14-2021 1:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by five.five-six (Post 26160588)
Would bang her like a broken screen door in a windstorm.

Israel is the place to be sick, for sure

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/D3l_jboIKEE/maxresdefault.jpg

the_tunaman 09-14-2021 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankm (Post 26160611)
Those who've had it and lived have better immunity. It doesn't address those who have never had it and never been vaccinated vs. the vaccinated.

True… that’s why there should be choices

nn21 09-14-2021 1:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71MUSTY (Post 26160586)
Wow this looks a lot like peer review.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/po...severe-disease

Weird. Your "peer review" link that has absolutely nothing to do with the study in the OP even has a link in it to a previous article by the same author that seems to agree with the finding in the OP study that natural immunity protects better than the vaccine.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/po...st-reinfection

Rottentofu 09-14-2021 1:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn21 (Post 26160656)
Weird. Your "peer review" link that has absolutely nothing to do with the study in the OP even has a link in it to a previous article by the same author that seems to agree with the finding in the OP study.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/po...st-reinfection

I seriously doubt he even reads through his own sources aside from the headlines. He is just desperate to post some sort of rebuttal.

nn21 09-14-2021 1:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rottentofu (Post 26160662)
I seriously doubt he even reads through his own sources aside from the headlines. He is just desperate to post some sort of rebuttal.

The interesting part is that his rebuttal is almost exactly the same impression that people in the comments section have towards that study; that somehow a study that evaluates the relative difference between reinfection of previous covid cases vs breakthrough cases in vaccinated people is an argument for or against the absolute effectiveness of vaccinating people who have never been infected. Bizarre

Rottentofu 09-14-2021 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn21 (Post 26160671)
The interesting part is that his rebuttal is almost exactly the same impression that people in the comments section have towards that study; that somehow a study that evaluates the relative difference between reinfection of previous covid cases vs breakthrough cases in vaccinated people is an argument for or against the absolute effectiveness of vaccinating people who have never been infected. Bizarre

More and more news like this is popping up across the world with substantial proof. Its no longer "he said she said" kind of thing. It is understandable for the pro COVID vax community to panic, because the sky is literally crashing and falling around them as they already have the vaccine inside them and there is no way to reverse the process.

norcalAF 09-14-2021 1:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by five.five-six (Post 26160588)
Would bang her like a broken screen door in a windstorm.

hand is too veiney, hard pass.

theduracellbigd 09-14-2021 1:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norcalAF (Post 26160687)
hand is too veiney, hard pass.

Boy's , boy's ,boy's, can we focus, this is a COVID forum. And honestly the hands are the last place I would be looking at.

norcalAF 09-14-2021 2:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theduracellbigd (Post 26160775)
Boy's , boy's ,boy's, can we focus, this is a COVID forum. And honestly the hands are the last place I would be looking at.

hands are a dead giveaway if the individual is biologically male, but you go ahead and focus elsewhere :D

CaliforniaCowboy 09-14-2021 2:11 PM

Something to keep in mind on all these covid (# Times more likely) studies, that they want you to focus on the Number "Times" because it sounds so impressive. But consider they are often compairing 2 numbers that are far less than 1% difference yet can say, 25 times or 11 times etc.

It is much more likely to get someone to get vaxed if you say they are 25X more likely to die from covid than a vaxed person than to just put up the percentages of for instance.
Chance to survive if vaccinated.... 99.999%
Chance to survive if Unvaccinated.. 99.975%

So you have a 0.001% chance of dying if vaccinated with covid but a 00.026% chance of dying of covid if unvaccinated. To say you are 00.025% more likely to die of covid than a vaccinated person does not put the fear into the hearts of your readers as does putting it in terms of TIMES,
so saying you are 25X more likely to die if unvaccinated makes it sound like you are defidently probably going to die if you get covid and are not vaccinated.

So saying 11 times this or 8 times that means nothing without showing the actuall numbers or percentages. It could be such a tiny number that it does not mean anything or is far under even the margin of error.

theduracellbigd 09-14-2021 2:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norcalAF (Post 26160810)
hands are a dead giveaway if the individual is biologically male, but you go ahead and focus elsewhere :D

Probably good advice with the transgender thing these days, I am old school T and A and a pretty face is all I care about.

norcalAF 09-14-2021 2:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theduracellbigd (Post 26160834)
Probably good advice with the transgender thing these days, I am old school T and A and a pretty face is all I care about.

I care about not fooling around with dudes, and there are plenty of pretty dudes with boobs out there :D

Libertarian777 09-14-2021 2:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy (Post 26160812)
Something to keep in mind on all these covid (# Times more likely) studies, that they want you to focus on the Number "Times" because it sounds so impressive. But consider they are often compairing 2 numbers that are far less than 1% difference yet can say, 25 times or 11 times etc.

It is much more likely to get someone to get vaxed if you say they are 25X more likely to die from covid than a vaxed person than to just put up the percentages of for instance.
Chance to survive if vaccinated.... 99.999%
Chance to survive if Unvaccinated.. 99.975%

So you have a 0.001% chance of dying if vaccinated with covid but a 00.026% chance of dying of covid if unvaccinated. To say you are 00.025% more likely to die of covid than a vaccinated person does not put the fear into the hearts of your readers as does putting it in terms of TIMES,
so saying you are 25X more likely to die if unvaccinated makes it sound like you are defidently probably going to die if you get covid and are not vaccinated.

So saying 11 times this or 8 times that means nothing without showing the actuall numbers or percentages. It could be such a tiny number that it does not mean anything or is far under even the margin of error.

Exactly right.
Looking at UK data from instance, the 40-49 age group (1 before the 50 cutoff) shows risk of death goes from 0.04% to 0.003%. whole this is a 90% reduction, in practical terms people 40-49 are more likely to die from everything else other than covid even if unvaccinated.

Thalidomide effects were ignored for 5 years,. FIVE.

71MUSTY 09-14-2021 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn21 (Post 26160656)
Weird. Your "peer review" link that has absolutely nothing to do with the study in the OP even has a link in it to a previous article by the same author that seems to agree with the finding in the OP study that natural immunity protects better than the vaccine.

https://www.covid-datascience.com/po...st-reinfection

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rottentofu (Post 26160662)
I seriously doubt he even reads through his own sources aside from the headlines. He is just desperate to post some sort of rebuttal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn21 (Post 26160671)
The interesting part is that his rebuttal is almost exactly the same impression that people in the comments section have towards that study; that somehow a study that evaluates the relative difference between reinfection of previous covid cases vs breakthrough cases in vaccinated people is an argument for or against the absolute effectiveness of vaccinating people who have never been infected. Bizarre

Actually I made no assumptions about the article what so ever, just wondered if it was a peer review. You two did all the assuming all by yourselves. Good job.

gimebakmybulits 09-14-2021 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71MUSTY (Post 26161144)
Actually I made no assumptions about the article what so ever, just wondered if it was a peer review. You two did all the assuming all by yourselves. Good job.

Aren't you cute.....mama must be proud

nn21 09-14-2021 4:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71MUSTY (Post 26161144)
Actually I made no assumptions about the article what so ever, just wondered if it was a peer review. You two did all the assuming all by yourselves.

Out of curiosity, if you showed 100 people your response to the op, how many of them do you think would say "Someone saying 'This looks a lot like peer review' followed by a link to a discussion on the same general topic is really them asking whether or not the original article is peer reviewed. They must have just not asked it as a question, directed their statement towards a new piece of information, and included that random link for absolutely no reason."?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71MUSTY (Post 26161144)
just wondered if it was a peer review.

A peer review of what? I'm not aware of the study being run to serve as a peer review of anything else. Is there something the OPs study is serving as a peer review for that we don't know about?

the_tunaman 09-14-2021 4:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_tunaman (Post 26160414)
While this study is yet to be peer reviewed, as I’m sure will be pointed out, <snip>

Called it a mile away…

cleonard 09-14-2021 4:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HHGT (Post 26160330)

This is a very poor synopsis of the study. All it is saying is that immunity from getting the disease is better than the vax. That is not surprising.

To get natural immunity means that 100% had the virus. How can someone with the vax be more than 100% likely to get an infection. That makes zero sense. It's not possible to have a 2700 percent chance.

Look we are all getting covid at some point. The left does not get his unfortunate fact. Whole countries like Australia and New Zealand are in denial. Vax or no vax it is just a matter of time. Even in Israel the vaxed have less chance of the bad endpoints of death and organ damage that is life long. The evidence that I have seen still points that the vax gives you at least a 10 to 1 survival and serious illness advantage

elSquid 09-14-2021 5:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleonard (Post 26161391)
Look we are all getting covid at some point. The left does not get his unfortunate fact. Whole countries like Australia and New Zealand are in denial. Vax or no vax it is just a matter of time.

Yup.

There was a very prescient nature article from the beginning of this year…

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-00493-9

…and it made a bunch of predictions ( that appear to be coming true ) about vaccine efficiency, the need for boosters, and the like.

The punchline is that sars-cov2 is likely to be another source of the common cold a few years down the line. It will be endemic and, uh, common.

The “trick” for people at risk is surviving the transition from potentially lethal novel virus to common virus ( that infects people when they are young and periodically reinfects asymptomatically throughout life. )

The “joke” is that this isn’t a bad flu, but a cold, and one that will probably be very benign 7-10 years down the line.

I will make a prediction: 20 years from now, all the people who are currently downplaying the virus and covid will be triply sure that they were right all along.

;)

— Michael

Rottentofu 09-14-2021 6:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71MUSTY (Post 26161144)
Actually I made no assumptions about the article what so ever, just wondered if it was a peer review. You two did all the assuming all by yourselves. Good job.

Wait...so you linked an article in a thread that everyone knows you are biased against and then tried to claim neutrality? C'mon man...thats just embarrassing...

Also, we don't need to make any assumptions...we know.

ibanezfoo 09-14-2021 7:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliforniaCowboy (Post 26160812)
Something to keep in mind on all these covid (# Times more likely) studies, that they want you to focus on the Number "Times" because it sounds so impressive. But consider they are often compairing 2 numbers that are far less than 1% difference yet can say, 25 times or 11 times etc.

It is much more likely to get someone to get vaxed if you say they are 25X more likely to die from covid than a vaxed person than to just put up the percentages of for instance.
Chance to survive if vaccinated.... 99.999%
Chance to survive if Unvaccinated.. 99.975%

So you have a 0.001% chance of dying if vaccinated with covid but a 00.026% chance of dying of covid if unvaccinated. To say you are 00.025% more likely to die of covid than a vaccinated person does not put the fear into the hearts of your readers as does putting it in terms of TIMES,
so saying you are 25X more likely to die if unvaccinated makes it sound like you are defidently probably going to die if you get covid and are not vaccinated.

So saying 11 times this or 8 times that means nothing without showing the actuall numbers or percentages. It could be such a tiny number that it does not mean anything or is far under even the margin of error.

Solid point and the lack of that information could be seen as deception…

el chivo 09-15-2021 8:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norcalAF (Post 26160810)
hands are a dead giveaway if the individual is biologically male, but you go ahead and focus elsewhere :D

what are ya, Super Straight?

Misterclick 09-15-2021 8:56 PM

I’m surprised more vaxholes haven’t preached in this thread.

71MUSTY 09-15-2021 9:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn21 (Post 26161328)
Out of curiosity, if you showed 100 people your response to the op, how many of them do you think would say "Someone saying 'This looks a lot like peer review' followed by a link to a discussion on the same general topic is really them asking whether or not the original article is peer reviewed. They must have just not asked it as a question, directed their statement towards a new piece of information, and included that random link for absolutely no reason."?



A peer review of what? I'm not aware of the study being run to serve as a peer review of anything else. Is there something the OPs study is serving as a peer review for that we don't know about?

I couldn't have made my point any better thanks. You assumed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rottentofu (Post 26161647)
Wait...so you linked an article in a thread that everyone knows you are biased against and then tried to claim neutrality? C'mon man...thats just embarrassing...

Also, we don't need to make any assumptions...we know.

Double down with more assumptions. Got to love it.

stonefly-2 09-15-2021 9:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleonard (Post 26161391)
This is a very poor synopsis of the study. All it is saying is that immunity from getting the disease is better than the vax. That is not surprising.

To get natural immunity means that 100% had the virus. How can someone with the vax be more than 100% likely to get an infection. That makes zero sense. It's not possible to have a 2700 percent chance.

Look we are all getting covid at some point. The left does not get his unfortunate fact. Whole countries like Australia and New Zealand are in denial. Vax or no vax it is just a matter of time. Even in Israel the vaxed have less chance of the bad endpoints of death and organ damage that is life long. The evidence that I have seen still points that the vax gives you at least a 10 to 1 survival and serious illness advantage


What doesn't make sense is the idea that the "vaccine" could somehow lead to herd immunity when it wipes out the immunity come naturally from someone previously infected and leaves no "immunity" itself.
(word salad about "less likely to" or "not as bad"...hospitalized...etc. aside)

nn21 09-16-2021 8:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 71MUSTY (Post 26165727)
I couldn't have made my point any better thanks

This seems like the perfect opportunity for you!

https://outschool.com/classes/writin...SHx#abktn5kfvu

Libertarian777 09-16-2021 7:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonefly-2 (Post 26165757)
What doesn't make sense is the idea that the "vaccine" could somehow lead to herd immunity when it wipes out the immunity come naturally from someone previously infected and leaves no "immunity" itself.
(word salad about "less likely to" or "not as bad"...hospitalized...etc. aside)

Very very nuanced discussion need here.
It's patently obvious that covid survivors will have stronger natural immunity.
Because those that didn't... Are dead.
This is survivorship bias.

So the issue is how can u get natural immunity and not die along the way.

The authorities (lazy) answer is vaccines.

The correct answer is find out who has already recovered, and sample for unvaccinated, immune folks who had no symptoms. Compare that proportion of the population with the total population to adjust risk by age category.
Vaccinate those (optional) with greater than 0.4% chance of death.
Have therapeutics available for everyone else.
Early treat those presenting symptoms.

But that takes work and Biden can't remember that many steps, so they'll continue to say "vaccinate Uber alles"

stonefly-2 09-16-2021 8:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertarian777 (Post 26168703)
Very very nuanced discussion need here.
It's patently obvious that covid survivors will have stronger natural immunity.
Because those that didn't... Are dead.
This is survivorship bias.

So the issue is how can u get natural immunity and not die along the way.

The authorities (lazy) answer is vaccines.

The correct answer is find out who has already recovered, and sample for unvaccinated, immune folks who had no symptoms. Compare that proportion of the population with the total population to adjust risk by age category.
Vaccinate those (optional) with greater than 0.4% chance of death.
Have therapeutics available for everyone else.
Early treat those presenting symptoms.

But that takes work and Biden can't remember that many steps, so they'll continue to say "vaccinate Uber alles"


I would have been happy with an actual vaccine and this all would have been last years news.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.