serious question

[chrisw]

Mr. as_rocketman,

Do know where one can find proof of this?

Unvaccinated people will be at greater risk of several things, including:

• Catching the disease in the first place,
• Transmitting the disease to other unvaccinated people, and
• Transmitting the disease to vaccinated people.

Let's assume we're talking about top-tier vaccines, not any Chinese garbage. Recall that even these vaccines are not 100%, and this is true in several dimensions. Not everyone vaccinated will develop any protective response at all, but this number is thought to be < 1%. Our best estimates are that vaccinated individuals are infected at less than 10% the rate of unvaccinated, and among those, about 5% develop severe symptoms. Likewise, vaccinated individuals who are infected appear to be about 80% less likely to transmit the disease.

[71MUSTY]

And yet the question, and answers continue to skip over a small but not insignificant group of us who have had and recovered from the kung flu. I am technically unvaccinated, but I am far from vulnerable or a threat.

You have already developed Immunity. Nothing wrong with that, you just don't fit the current narritive.

Thanks for nothing.

Ask a worthless question get a worthless answer. I have never mat a vaccinated person who was afraid of catching COVID (even if we catch it the symptoms will be mild). Highly more likely you will give it to someone else who is not Vaxed like you. Most of us were never really worried about catching COVID, we took the jab to help protect those at risk. You just created a new group of at risk people the unvaxed. Personally that is between you and them and the media.

[as_rocketman]

Mr. as_rocketman,

Do know one can find proof of this?

There are many studies underway, and the statistics vary in quality. The very best controlled studies are whole-nation studies and the extended Phase III trails -- basically everyone who participated in the Phase III is still being monitored, and over time the number of exposures, infections, and hospitalizations is increasing which gives us better numbers to work with.

A few examples:

Post-Vaccination results in Israel (Nature)

Vaccination and transmission study in England (preprint)

Extended Phase III results: Survey of both Pfizer and Moderna (CDC report; feel free to go to sources at bottom if you want to see the original studies, but you'll have to synthesize results of both vaccines for yourself in that case)

We are still learning and the actual performance will jump around a bit before we come up with final numbers, but thus far all actual evidence is strongly positive.

[subscriber]

You must be a teacher with that kind of attitude; or a cop: "I will ask the questions. You don't get to question me".

The official vaccine effectiveness numbers are expressed in a manner that is intended to impress the average person; not to foster full understanding. Not walking that back.

Your refusal to explain the section I quoted in the post above means you don't understand it; or that it promotes an understanding you are not allowed to promote. Allowed by whom? You tell us.

Hogwash. I am thus far giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are smart enough to read and comprehend the link that you brought to the discussion. This is the exact opposite of calling "you all" idiots. That window of doubt is rapidly closing, though.



That sounds like a walkback. Is it? You said previously the following, which is far, far stronger than the above:



... because this is not supported by the letter, and in fact has almost nothing to do with its content.

So did you now read and understand it? Do you still support your earlier statement?

[as_rocketman]

You must be a teacher with that kind of attitude; or a cop: "I will ask the questions. You don't get to question me".

The official vaccine effectiveness numbers are expressed in a manner that is intended to impress the average person; not to foster full understanding. Not walking that back.

Your refusal to explain the section I quoted in the post above means you don't understand it; or that it promotes an understanding you are not allowed to promote. Allowed by whom? You tell us.

Absolutely ridiculous. You brought a source, and you used it to support a claim of yours -- it does not appear in the letter. When challenged, you refuse to state whether you still support your own statement.

Instead, you're diverting to a new, irrelevant, subjective claim, and making up crap about my character.

You're trapped, admit it.

[theduracellbigd]

[QUOTE=as_rocketman;25904350]Hogwash. I am thus far giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are smart enough to read and comprehend the link that you brought to the discussion. This is the exact opposite of calling "you all" idiots. That window of doubt is rapidly closing, though.



HAHA

I will not call the usual suspects on this forum idiots, but my window is closed, there are some narrow minded, distrusting stubborn sum beaches in this forum. They have major trust issues of anybody but themselves(hermit types) and probably due to their nature and nurture(someone hurt them bad in childhood mentally or otherwise) have developed the fear of the unknown.
I only come to this forum to laugh . Lord knows I can not share anything I have positive regarding vaccine or society dealing with Covid without a quick retort of my mistake and some Dr. Mercola quote assuring me of my future demise. No more search for insight on Covid as I did early on in pandemic.

[subscriber]

Absolutely ridiculous. You brought a source, and you used it to support a claim of yours -- it does not appear in the letter. When challenged, you refuse to state whether you still support your own statement.

Instead, you're diverting to a new, irrelevant, subjective claim, and making up crap about my character.

You're trapped, admit it.

My one percent interpretation was an exaggeration.

I quoted a section of a document verbatim. You told me it does not mean what I thought it did. I asked you to explain it.

You have not explained that section you told me I misunderstood.
1. Because you can not do it;
OR
2. Because it undermines your promotion of covid vaccines; and your dismissal of any other treatments. On full display over dozens of posts and threads.

I am not the arbiter of your character. Which one of us appears trapped is going to depend on whether the person making that call is cautious about covax, and open to Ivermectin or not. The people that think the covax is worth the risk for everybody; and that Ivermectin is either dangerous or useless, will agree with your perception about me. And vice versa.

[as_rocketman]

My one percent interpretation was an exaggeration.

A more apt summary than "exaggeration" would be "utterly wrong," but I'm still in a charitable mood, so I will accept that retraction.

I quoted a section of a document verbatim. You told me it does not mean what I thought it did. I asked you to explain it.

You have not explained that section you told me I misunderstood.
1. Because you can not do it;
OR
2. Because it undermines your promotion of covid vaccines; and your dismissal of any other treatments. On full display over dozens of posts and threads.

Wrong. False choice fallacy. The real reason I didn't is because it was abundantly clear you had not read your source, and I was giving you every opportunity to correct yourself.

Do you need more time to understand what it actually means? You have assured me that you have read it and you fully understand it -- I do not need to wait for your answer, but it'll be much better if you work this out on your own. You are already prejudiced against information I might provide, as the above amply demonstrates.

I am not the arbiter of your character.

That's the first thing you've gotten right.

Which one of us appears trapped is going to depend on whether the person making that call is cautious about covax, and open to Ivermectin or not. The people that think the covax is worth the risk for everybody; and that Ivermectin is either dangerous or useless, will agree with your perception about me. And vice versa.

Stay on topic, please. Master this one before confusing yourself with ivermectin.

[subscriber]

You don't ask someone if they understood what they read. That relies on their judgment of their own interpretation. Most people think their judgement is good, and their interpretation correct. To judge their understanding, you ask them to explain what they understood. This is very basic stuff. That is why I asked you to explain it to me.

About not reading my own source - how do you think people select sources, if they don't read them? The question is whether I understood it correctly - again, not based on my assessment. It is possible that I read it and still did not understand it. Asking me if I understood it takes us back to the above paragraph.

You act the expert. That should make it easy for you to explain things you understand to other people. Since you seem to lack the ability to explain anything, that undermines your image as an expert. I don't actually care about your expertise. You don't care about my opinion of your expertise. However, others that observe your inability to explain may care; and you may care about their impressions.

You don't "win" by dismissing my understanding of Ivermectin. You win by dismissing observations of Ivermectin's effectiveness in clinical settings, by medical professionals. Ones that are only interested in preventing covid, minimizing its severity and curing it. You have not succeeded in dismissing that by dismissing me. Arrogant dismissal is not a substitute for a logical, fact based argument. Something that should be easy for an actual expert.

You are in a charitable mood? Who made you king?

A more apt summary than "exaggeration" would be "utterly wrong," but I'm still in a charitable mood, so I will accept that retraction.



Wrong. False choice fallacy. The real reason I didn't is because it was abundantly clear you had not read your source, and I was giving you every opportunity to correct yourself.

Do you need more time to understand what it actually means? You have assured me that you have read it and you fully understand it -- I do not need to wait for your answer, but it'll be much better if you work this out on your own. You are already prejudiced against information I might provide, as the above amply demonstrates.



That's the first thing you've gotten right.



Stay on topic, please. Master this one before confusing yourself with ivermectin.

[as_rocketman]

You don't ask someone if they understood what they read. That relies on their judgment of their own interpretation. Most people think their judgement is good, and their interpretation correct. To judge their understanding, you ask them to explain what they understood. This is very basic stuff. That is why I asked you to explain it to me.

I am well within social norms to ask someone if they understand what they read if they make public, unsolicited, gross distortions of what it contains. I am further within my wheelhouse to do so if that same individual makes a half-assed retraction, without committing to a new position.

You can ask me to explain it to you, but I see no point, since you still insist you do know what it means. You appear much more interested in fighting about it.

About not reading my own source - how do you think people select sources, if they don't read them?

You're kidding, right?

What usually happens is some crackpot misreads a source, finding a line that supports their own confirmation bias, and then they tweet it all over creation. An army of unsophisticated followers then re-tweet this in sympathetic places without ever understanding or even considering the source.

Is this you? Do you understand the source? If you do, how do you reconcile your error?

The question is whether I understood it correctly - again, not based on my assessment. It is possible that I read it and still did not understand it. Asking me if I understood it takes us back to the above paragraph.

That is completely possible. I'm inviting you to actually discuss the content.

You act the expert. That should make it easy for you to explain things you understand to other people. Since you seem to lack the ability to explain anything, that undermines your image as an expert. I don't actually care about your expertise. You don't care about my opinion of your expertise. However, others that observe your inability to explain may care; and you may care about their impressions.

Like I said, you don't appear interested in information from me.

You don't "win" by dismissing my understanding of Ivermectin. You win by dismissing observations of Ivermectin's effectiveness in clinical settings, by medical professionals. Ones that are only interested in preventing covid, minimizing its severity and curing it. You have not succeeded in dismissing that by dismissing me. Arrogant dismissal is not a substitute for a logical, fact based argument. Something that should be easy for an actual expert.

Again, off topic. I've discussed ivermectin elsewhere. You should too.

You are in a charitable mood? Who made you king?

Kings issue largesse, not charity. I'm just a guy who knows how to read a paper, that's all.

[chrisw]

Again, thank you for actually providing information (to my apparently worrthless question)

There are many studies underway, and the statistics vary in quality. The very best controlled studies are whole-nation studies and the extended Phase III trails -- basically everyone who participated in the Phase III is still being monitored, and over time the number of exposures, infections, and hospitalizations is increasing which gives us better numbers to work with.

A few examples:

Post-Vaccination results in Israel (Nature)

Vaccination and transmission study in England (preprint)

Extended Phase III results: Survey of both Pfizer and Moderna (CDC report; feel free to go to sources at bottom if you want to see the original studies, but you'll have to synthesize results of both vaccines for yourself in that case)

We are still learning and the actual performance will jump around a bit before we come up with final numbers, but thus far all actual evidence is strongly positive.

You have already developed Immunity. Nothing wrong with that, you just don't fit the current narritive.

Ask a worthless question get a worthless answer. I have never mat a vaccinated person who was afraid of catching COVID (even if we catch it the symptoms will be mild). Highly more likely you will give it to someone else who is not Vaxed like you. Most of us were never really worried about catching COVID, we took the jab to help protect those at risk. You just created a new group of at risk people the unvaxed. Personally that is between you and them and the media.

Again, thanks for nothing

[as_rocketman]

Again, thank you for actually providing information (to my apparently worrthless question)

Don't sell yourself short -- your question was quite reasonable.

This gets into finer points. There are some complicated trades to be made about how much to push vaccination, either trading risk versus reward or running up against diminishing returns. It's important to get good data before making these decisions. For example, I am for now still on the fence about vaccinating my children, when that becomes a reasonable option. The comparison was pretty clear in my own case, but for theirs the data is less certain so far.

[subscriber]

Like I said, you don't appear interested in information from me.

I asked you to explain something to me. Multiple times. That would seem a contradiction to the above.

The conclusion is that you know how to read a paper; and that anyone who does not see that, clearly doesn't.

Alrighty then...

[chrisw]

Don't sell yourself short -- your question was quite reasonable.

This gets into finer points. There are some complicated trades to be made about how much to push vaccination, either trading risk versus reward or running up against diminishing returns. It's important to get good data before making these decisions. For example, I am for now still on the fence about vaccinating my children, when that becomes a reasonable option. The comparison was pretty clear in my own case, but for theirs the data is less certain so far.

Oh I believe my question was reasonable.

What you said about the importance of GOOD data is the reason I'm asking questions. There still seems to a lot of conflicting data out there and none of it seems concrete. Perhaps because this is ongoing and evolving? Perhaps because it is politicized? (Likely both) Nevertheless, when I hear/ read whatever news story, talk show, internet forum , etc.... I am left with many things unanswered.

[as_rocketman]

I asked you to explain something to me. Multiple times. That would seem a contradiction to the above.

You asked me "multiple times?" No, you said this:

You have not explained that section you told me I misunderstood.
1. Because you can not do it;
OR
2. Because it undermines your promotion of covid vaccines; and your dismissal of any other treatments. On full display over dozens of posts and threads.

Since you seem to lack the ability to explain anything, that undermines your image as an expert. I don't actually care about your expertise.

This is a rather funny way of asking for help with a technical question, no?