Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All this over a virus that people don't even know they have when they have it.
There was a study done in Italy, they pulled the records of something like 1000 patients in some lung cancer screening program from Sep 2019 to March 2020:
Quote:
There are no robust data on the real onset of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and spread in the prepandemic period worldwide. We investigated the presence of SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific antibodies in blood samples of 959 asymptomatic individuals enrolled in a prospective lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 to track the date of onset, frequency, and temporal and geographic variations across the Italian regions. SARS-CoV-2 RBD-specific antibodies were detected in 111 of 959 (11.6%) individuals, starting from September 2019 (14%), with a cluster of positive cases (>30%) in the second week of February 2020 and the highest number (53.2%) in Lombardy. This study shows an unexpected very early circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among asymptomatic individuals in Italy several months before the first patient was identified, and clarifies the onset and spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Finding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in asymptomatic people before the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy may reshape the history of pandemic.
All these folks were asymptomatic! Every single one of them.
What's more:
Quote:
SMILE cohort characteristics are shown in the Supplementary Table S1. In summary, 397 patients (41.4%) were women, 63.2% were 55–65 years old, 76.8% were current smokers, and 92.9% had smoked ⩾30 pack-years.
That's not the logic being used in this thread nor the claim of the poster I was responding to.
53% of car deaths wore seatbelts.
47% no seatbelts.
Heck, it's safer (according to this threads logic) to just not wear a seatbelt at all.
If you got those figures and also had figures showing that 50% of people wore seatbelts and 50% didn't, and the average speed on crash was the same, etc. What would you conclude? The seat belts did anything?
I would guess that is not statistically significant.
Ehh, I think it is. We're talking about all Covid deaths since they began counting. I'm comfortable believing that the Amish are dying at a slightly higher rate from Covid. Just nowhere near the 32x rate the other poster was hysterically throwing around.
If the vaccine decreased your chance of death by 32x, and deaths are overwhelmingly in people above a certain age, and about 50% less of the population above that age are vaxxed in the Amish than the state as a whole, then it's not unreasonable to expect something like 16x higher deaths per capita in Holmes County compared to Ohio as a whole...but of course, that's nowhere near the case (it's more like 1.3x).
Accounting for the fact that the Amish are healthier than the average Ohioan, I'd ballpark the vaccine at 2-3x effectiveness against death for a period of some number of months (certainly no more than a year), tapering off to zero effectiveness. It is what it is.
There might be some other confounding factor I'm missing, though.
Last edited by tribecavsbrowns; 03-03-2022 at 11:18 AM..
Shouldn't Twitter, Google, Youtube, et al cancel the UK? I mean everyone else that attempts to tell the truth gets cancelled.
Actually, within the first few responses, people exposed the misinformation that OP was trying to spread.
And I'd add, that those numbers, even if true, are meaningless unless you have all the contextual data.
For example, what is the percentage of vaccinated people in the entire population, how is "vaccinated" defined, and how is "dying from COVID" defined.
Same arguments the anti-vaxxers used (and valid then, too) when they were trying to undermine the science, but in most cases, certainly in this one, you can't isolate a statistic and make any valid point without context.
Actually, within the first few responses, people exposed the misinformation that OP was trying to spread.
And I'd add, that those numbers, even if true, are meaningless unless you have all the contextual data.
For example, what is the percentage of vaccinated people in the entire population, how is "vaccinated" defined, and how is "dying from COVID" defined.
Same arguments the anti-vaxxers used (and valid then, too) when they were trying to undermine the science, but in most cases, certainly in this one, you can't isolate a statistic and make any valid point without context.
89% of deaths are vaccinated (per Table 12a), 78% of the population is vaccinated (per Google). Table 12 shows how "vaccinated" is defined and I believe they define Covid death, too, or at least hint at it.
So, there's some of the context you asked for, right there.
Last edited by tribecavsbrowns; 03-03-2022 at 11:50 AM..
What do you think the actual percentage is, then (since you're so convinced that this sample doesn't tell us anything)? Is it low enough that you're taking my under 8.5 (out of 10) at even odds?
Conveniently, already covered at least once in this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
Yup, table 13 has the actual rates.
Columns 5 and 6 have the death rates.
Death rates per 100K:
Age________Vaccinated_____Unvaccinated
Under 18______0.0_____________0.0
18 to 29 ______0.1 _____________0.1
30 to 39 ______0.1 _____________0.7
40 to 49 ______0.5 ____________1.6
50 to 59 ______1.3 ____________5.8
60 to 69 ______4.5 ____________15.7
70 to 79 ______13.4 ___________54.1
80 or over ____85.6 ___________197.3
You can see the dichotomy really starts to become apparent in people 50 and older.
Conveniently, already covered at least once in this thread:
That doesn't address my question at all. The UK data show that currently, 89% of Covid deaths are in vaccinated people. You insist that this is wrong, a product of a biased sample, or something like that.
My question is, what do you believe the actual percentage is? Give a range if you want. It's a simple question.
That doesn't address my question at all. The UK data show that currently, 89% of Covid deaths are in vaccinated people. You insist that this is wrong, a product of a biased sample, or something like that.
My question is, what do you believe the actual percentage is? Give a range if you want. It's a simple question.
Could you please point to where specifically in the OP's source the data show that 89% of Covid deaths are in vaccinated people? I looked on page 45 of the report, and that's not what I see according to the chart. It looks like there were more deaths in unvaccinated people.
Could you please point to where specifically in the OP's source the data show that 89% of Covid deaths are in vaccinated people? I looked on page 45 of the report, and that's not what I see according to the chart. It looks like there were more deaths in unvaccinated people.
Table 12a, where you've been told multiple times to look, is on page 43, not page 45. You can find the figures there. I am not going to do the arithmetic for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
