Coronavirus Pandemic

The first human trials of an mRNA vaccine started in 2013. It's not like we know nothing about potential long-term effects. It's kinda weird to trivialize known COVID risks as "minuscule", and then turn around refuse the vaccine for (so far) imaginary reasons. How does "imaginary" outweigh the "miniscule" risk of 650,000 excess deaths? If that's someone's logical process, what information could possibly move someone off-the-fence and onto a vaccination?
I never said anything up there about COVID risks as being "minuscule" and vaccine refusal reasons as "imaginary" though?

We were talking about the reasoning for mandates.
 
I remember reading somewhere that of what is injected via vaccines, it only 'lasts' for around a week or so in the body, if you will pardon the low resolution understanding. So arguments about the long term effects were considered null and void according to the author. Can't remember where I read that now though.
 
The CDC acknowledges that vaccinated individuals may still spread COVID:
If you are fully vaccinated, to maximize protection from the Delta variant and prevent possibly spreading it to others, wear a mask indoors in public if you are in an area of substantial or high transmission.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

Article from Nature on the transmission of the diseases from vaccinated people:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1

Data from COVID-19 tests in the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore are showing that vaccinated people who become infected with Delta SARS-CoV-2 can carry as much virus in their nose as do unvaccinated people. This means that despite the protection offered by vaccines, a proportion of vaccinated people can pass on Delta, possibly aiding its rise.
An August report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that following large gatherings in the beach town, nearly three-quarters of 469 new COVID-19 cases that occurred in the state were in vaccinated people2. Both vaccinated and unvaccinated people had comparably low Ct values, indicating high viral loads, and of the 133 samples sequenced, 90% were identified as Delta.
Another article from Nature -
COVID vaccines protect against Delta, but their effectiveness wanes
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02261-8

"The results, published in a preprint on 19 August1, suggest that both vaccines are effective against Delta after two doses, but that the protection they offer wanes with time. The vaccine made by Pfizer in New York City and BioNTech in Mainz, Germany, was 92% effective at keeping people from developing a high viral load — a high concentration of the virus in their test samples — 14 days after the second dose. But the vaccine’s effectiveness fell to 90%, 85% and 78% after 30, 60 and 90 days, respectively.

The vaccine developed by Oxford and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca in Cambridge, UK, was 69% effective against a high viral load 14 days after the second dose, falling to 61% by 90 days."
 
I never said anything up there about COVID risks as being "minuscule" and vaccine refusal reasons as "imaginary" though?

We were talking about the reasoning for mandates.
I don't disagree with the things you've brought up. Vaccine mandates are supposed to work by increasing vaccination rates, so it's reasonable to wonder if it will make more people choose to be vaccinated (vs. taking a hit, whether that's more frequent testing or getting fired). The weighing of "minuscule" vs. "imaginary" risks was just me being pessimistic about whether anyone's mind can be changed at this point.
 
I don't know what you're going on about.
https://fluvaccinefraud.wordpress.com/

It is if you are interested in legitimate answers.
...slightly more accurate answers.

When you're in a cult and you're presenting info that is possibly damaging to your cult, you lead with damage control and you bury the real lead which is: the vaccines don't work to stop the spread.

Yes. Of the COVID cases, a larger and larger portion will occur among vaccinated people as vaccination increases. But the total number of COVID cases will decrease substantially. The Barnstable outbreak would have consisted of thousands, not hundreds, with a lower vaccination rate.
You're speculating on the Barnstable outbreak and your speculation is contrary to what has been seen elsewhere. Just as high or higher rates of infection.

I agree the findings can be considered preliminary. But the viral load was measured among people who were largely symptomatic. It doesn't tell us about the viral load among asymptomatic people (which we know from other data is substantially less). And again, the total number of symptomatic people would be substantially reduced with vaccination.
From this study: "With Delta, infections (defined as positive PCR rather than symptomatic) occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals."
https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/files/coro...ction-survey/finalfinalcombinedve20210816.pdf

Another study in Vietnam found people with breakthrough cases of Delta to have 251x higher viral load than unvaccinated people with the original COVID strain.

The definitions used by Pfizer were the same as that used in the UK or Mass. data. I don't know what news you were listening to, but they got it wrong. Pfizer reported 95% efficacy at preventing infection.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577?query=RP
Your statement is missing a key word ...95% effectiveness at preventing SYMPTOMATIC infection. To be included as a case in the study you linked they had to have at least 1 symptom. So they used the medically correct definition of a case to boost the effectiveness number but then to scare everyone with climbing "case" numbers they defined a case as merely a positive PCR test which could be asymptomatic.

And as time went on the language in the news media reports and Fauci's comments regarding effectiveness began to evolve from "symptomatic infection" to "severe illness and death". And now we have the CDC saying Americans are 11x more likely to die from COVID if unvaccinated... they're focusing on that data (which I don't believe) instead of: vaccine useless to stop spread.
 
I do love appeals to one's own authority. Does shed some light on your mindset coming into the pandemic that you wrote an anti-vax article back in 2016.

The CDC acknowledges that vaccinated individuals may still spread COVID:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

Article from Nature on the transmission of the diseases from vaccinated people:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1




Another article from Nature -
COVID vaccines protect against Delta, but their effectiveness wanes
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02261-8

"The results, published in a preprint on 19 August1, suggest that both vaccines are effective against Delta after two doses, but that the protection they offer wanes with time. The vaccine made by Pfizer in New York City and BioNTech in Mainz, Germany, was 92% effective at keeping people from developing a high viral load — a high concentration of the virus in their test samples — 14 days after the second dose. But the vaccine’s effectiveness fell to 90%, 85% and 78% after 30, 60 and 90 days, respectively.

The vaccine developed by Oxford and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca in Cambridge, UK, was 69% effective against a high viral load 14 days after the second dose, falling to 61% by 90 days."
North,

Are you aware of any studies that examine the viral load levels in cohorts previously infected with COVID either/both with also having taken a vaccine or who have not (the latter being the proverbial herd immunity cohort)?
 
One of the roles of government is to protect the health of its citizens.
Unfortunately the U.S. government has eased into this role like a greasy douchebag sliding up to a dame at the bar, but that is contrary to the foundational principles of the U.S. of A.

The best way to make your case that I can think of is seat belt laws. If you drive without a seat belt you're putting no one else at risk except yourself yet the government mandates it. IMO, the government has the right to mandate that car makers provide seat belts and that they be held to certain safety standards, but I don't think you should be able to get a ticket for not wearing one. Will this lead to an increase in car injuries and deaths? Yes. Temporarily. But people would grow wiser over time and look how successful PR campaigns have been at eliminating smoking! You could continue to educate people on the benefits of seat belts and remind and encourage them to wear them without making it a misdemeanor not to.

When you take away responsibility for personal risk from people this results in less responsible people.

But seatbelts aside, for the most part government's role is not or should not be "to protect the health of its citizens", it is to provide retribution to those who harm others, put others at imminent risk (as in reckless driving, not hypothetical risk through a chain of hypothetical infections), and to create an environment of trust such that I can be assured what you're selling me is legit as described otherwise retribution cometh.

There is a non-controversial level (excluding the most hardened, fundamentalist libertarians) at which it is reasonable and preferable for governments to intervene. And that is the level we are operating at here, when you look at whether or not there should be vaccine mandates.
Since the vaccine doesn't prevent spread we don't have to address the argument of "putting others at imminent risk". We only need to address the seatbelt argument, and here is how the vaccine mandate is different from a seatbelt mandate:
The vaccine is injected into your body and causes physiological changes which will not be the same for everyone, and in fact this puts some people at risk of adverse reactions which can be extremely serious and deadly. Especially for youth predisposed to heart conditions the risks may significantly outweigh the benefits. The risks are known to be there and the full extent of these risks is not yet fully known. Not everyone's body is the same or will respond the same to the vaccine.

The personal freedom of bodily integrity and autonomy to choose to refuse something that gets injected into your own bloodstream should be held sacred.

If you choose to not wear a seatbelt you can still work. If you get caught you merely have to pay a fine. What is being required with the mandates is that you cannot be employed or visit any public place unless you can prove you're vaccinated and in order to prove you're vaccinated you have to have a registry and ID tied to your body. Its as if they used Revelation 13 as an instruction manual here.

Finally, I mentioned one role of government is to create an environment of trust where I can believe that what you're selling is as advertised... well the government has severely failed in this role and destroyed trust in vaccines with the 1986 vaccine injury act which essentially eliminates liability for the vaccine makers and provides them with a free defense counsel and siphons off all injury claims to a separate court. ...and not to mention the revolving door between these industries and regulatory bodies resulting in "regulatory capture".

Leaving vaccination up to personal choice means potentially hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
You're free to go eat a cheeseburger and fries and twinkies and go skydiving... heart disease and cancer still top COVID deaths. Why don't they just mandate everyone get in shape? This would not only reduce COVID deaths but also the bigger killers. Would be far more effective than the vaccine too. Wait... now that I said that, shit.. that's where this is going isn't it? Joe Rogan doesn't realize he's preparing the way for fitness mandates... they'll soon start requiring everyone to get in shape and we'll all be like Winston with the telescreen yapping at us to do 10 more jumping jacks!

anyway...

This would be like eliminating law-enforcement and leaving personal safety and security up to personal choice.
No it would be like eliminating the seat belt law except that most people would still wear seat belts and most people would still get the vaccine.

Again, law enforcement is mainly for retribution against those who harm others. You can't rely solely on police to protect you which is why here in Texas we like our guns and weapons. Individualist mindset runs strong here.

I'm not claiming that's a bad thing. I just want to make it clear that you are asking government to fail in their duty in this particular case.
It is a pet owners duty to make sure their pets have shots before you take them to a dog park, and that is precisely why people are against this: they don't want their relationship with their government to be that of domesticated animal and master.
 
Last edited:
I do love appeals to one's own authority. Does shed some light on your mindset coming into the pandemic that you wrote an anti-vax article back in 2016.
It wasn't an appeal to my own authority... although since I did author it and since I haven't seen anyone else raise the point, it is... authentic.
It was merely a short way to provide further info if Ellis was interested without muddying up this thread further.

Geeze you really are jonesing to diagnose me with some kind of mental deformity.

And I wrote the article back in 2016 because that's when we were going through the flu vax mandates with the hospital where my wife worked.
 
Last edited:
The CDC acknowledges that vaccinated individuals may still spread COVID:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

Article from Nature on the transmission of the diseases from vaccinated people:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1




Another article from Nature -
COVID vaccines protect against Delta, but their effectiveness wanes
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02261-8

"The results, published in a preprint on 19 August1, suggest that both vaccines are effective against Delta after two doses, but that the protection they offer wanes with time. The vaccine made by Pfizer in New York City and BioNTech in Mainz, Germany, was 92% effective at keeping people from developing a high viral load — a high concentration of the virus in their test samples — 14 days after the second dose. But the vaccine’s effectiveness fell to 90%, 85% and 78% after 30, 60 and 90 days, respectively.

The vaccine developed by Oxford and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca in Cambridge, UK, was 69% effective against a high viral load 14 days after the second dose, falling to 61% by 90 days."
My understanding is that they have tried for decades to make a Corona virus vaccine but failed for two reasons: lack of durability (rapidly waning effectiveness), and Anti-body Dependent Enhancement which created an effect exactly opposite of what was desired: it increased the severity and lethality when wild virus was encountered. Even natural immunity to Corona viruses typically only lasts 180 days to a year.

So based on that I speculated a year and a half ago that this would not be a one and done but that they would require regular vaccination and registration updates. That speculation appears to have been correct.

Another speculation which is even more sinister (if you can imagine that) is that they want to create a situation where immunity is sold as a service: keep taking the jab every 6 months because without it you might be far more susceptible to ADE... in other words, once you start down the path of getting Coronavirus vaccines, you MUST continue getting your boosters regularly or you will die when exposed to the virus. The perfect population control mechanism really.
 
What a strange article. First off, the author seems surprised to discover how probability works, and treats it as though their discovery is somehow sinister. Then they go on to say some stuff that is wrong about case-control studies. For example, there's no assumption that the ILI risk is the same as the general population. It just needs to be the same between the case and control group. And actually, a higher risk than the general population is what you want, so you can maximize the number of cases. And then the worked example is very strange. I don't know what point they were trying to make.

I don't think that person really knows what they are doing. The only takeaway is if you do it differently from people who know what they are doing (CDC, researchers from across the county), you get a different answer.

...slightly more accurate answers.
This isn't about precision. It's about whether or not it has anything to do with the legitimate answer.

When you're in a cult and you're presenting info that is possibly damaging to your cult, you lead with damage control and you bury the real lead which is: the vaccines don't work to stop the spread.
LOL. "I don't know how to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines, and when it turns out I'm wrong, I'll accuse the people who do know of belonging to a damaging cult."

You're speculating on the Barnstable outbreak and your speculation is contrary to what has been seen elsewhere. Just as high or higher rates of infection.
Dude, there are no studies out there showing that there are higher rates of infection in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations. Even the studies you reference here clearly show otherwise, including the one immediately below this.

From this study: "With Delta, infections (defined as positive PCR rather than symptomatic) occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals."
https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/files/coro...ction-survey/finalfinalcombinedve20210816.pdf
That study proves my point. The viral load was much smaller in asymptomatic people (Figure S6).

Your statement is missing a key word ...95% effectiveness at preventing SYMPTOMATIC infection.
Thank you, I forgot to put that in.

It still doesn't mean that vaccines are useless at stopping the spread. That research and the (legitimate) references you've given show that the vaccines reduce the number of COVID cases, even with the Delta variant.
 
I do love appeals to one's own authority. Does shed some light on your mindset coming into the pandemic that you wrote an anti-vax article back in 2016.
Oops, that was Hurmanetar?


North,

Are you aware of any studies that examine the viral load levels in cohorts previously infected with COVID either/both with also having taken a vaccine or who have not (the latter being the proverbial herd immunity cohort)?
The study that Hurm referenced from the UK did that. It's a fairly dense read. Tables and Figures at the end.

https://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/files/coro...ction-survey/finalfinalcombinedve20210816.pdf
 
there's no assumption that the ILI risk is the same as the general population.
Yes there is and this is explicitly stated in the CDC documents although I don't have time to go dig it up for you right now.

It just needs to be the same between the case and control group. And actually, a higher risk than the general population is what you want, so you can maximize the number of cases. And then the worked example is very strange. I don't know what point they were trying to make.
You completely failed to comprehend it.

I don't think that person really knows what they are doing. The only takeaway is if you do it differently from people who know what they are doing (CDC, researchers from across the county), you get a different answer.
I used the exact same method used by the CDC but showed how they can show high vaccine effectiveness even if only the vaccinated people are getting sick.

Dude, there are no studies out there showing that there are higher rates of infection in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations. Even the studies you reference here clearly show otherwise, including the one immediately below this.
It is generally about the same. Slightly higher in Israel which is over 80% fully vaxxed and they just set case records (of course to be fair they also started asking people to test at home so that might have boosted the case numbers).

It still doesn't mean that vaccines are useless at stopping the spread.
They are and it is beginning to be impossible to hide that fact now... So carry on.
 
No.

You're making a false equivalence between mandatory dietary labels on food and mandated experimental vaccines for people not even really at risk, with the consequence of failing to meet the mandate being loss of employment and loss of ability to freely travel.

The former keeps free choice intact (yeah, I know it's junk food, but I can still buy it and eat it). The latter eliminates free choice (so much for "my body my choice"). The covid mandates are an absolute violation of the sanctity of the individual and his rights and it's not even necessary. The chance of dying from covid for ages 0-65 with no serious underlying conditions is minuscule AND being vaccinated foes not stop one from contracting the virus nor from spreading it to others That is accepted science that even the CDC agrees with. The argument now is that your case will be less severe. Maybe/maybe not, but the raison d'être for mandated vaccination is less compelling that mandates eliminating junk food and exercise etc for the obese.
How strange that you're my ally in this thread and vehement antagonist in the 9/11 thread... lol
 
Yes there is and this is explicitly stated in the CDC documents although I don't have time to go dig it up for you right now.
Here is the description from the CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm

You completely failed to comprehend it.
I used the exact same method used by the CDC but showed how they can show high vaccine effectiveness even if only the vaccinated people are getting sick.
I comprehended it fine. It was a bad example. You put almost all of the people at high risk of getting sick in the vaccinated group. Then you acted like it was sinister when the people at high risk of getting sick were in the vaccinated group. Did you not realize that that's what you did?

Then you showed that when people at high risk of getting sick were vaccinated, fewer of them got the flu. Then you acted like it was sinister that someone would call that "vaccine effectiveness". Did you not realize that that's what vaccine effectiveness means?

And then you go on to make claims that are contradicted by the research you reference.

<shrug>
 
It was in a powerpoint presentation from the CDC which presented the results of that year's vaccine study. The links I had are broken and I can't find it.

But we don't need a specific quote from the CDC on this, that's just how it works. The studies only enroll sick people. The case-negatives are sick patients with flu-like illness (ILI) rather than flu. If being vaccinated makes you more likely to get ILI and see a doctor about it then that pads the numbers to increase apparent flu vaccine effectiveness.

What are the side effects of the flu vaccine? Headache, fever, sore throat, nausea, malaise, etc... in other words... flu-like-illness. If the vaccine actually weakens your immune system overall such that you are more susceptible to disease or if being the type of person who would get the flu vaccine means you have a lifestyle or history that makes you more susceptible to getting sick, then that can improve the apparent vaccine effectiveness.

In my linked article I worked a hypothetical example (it was deliberately extreme to make the point):

50% of the general population receives the flu vaccine.
20% of the general population gets the flu.
25% of the general population gets ILI.
5% of the vaccinated population doesn’t get flu or ILI.
90% of those with the flu were vaccinated.
96% of those with ILI were vaccinated.
18% of the general population was vaccinated and got the flu.
24% of the general population was vaccinated and got ILI.
2% of the population was unvaccinated and got the flu.
1% of the population was unvaccinated and got ILI.

In this hypothetical example, being in the vaccinated group makes you 9x more likely to have the flu and makes you 24x more likely to have ILI, yet the CDC’s method could yield 62.5% VE.


I comprehended it fine. It was a bad example. You put almost all of the people at high risk of getting sick in the vaccinated group. Then you acted like it was sinister when the people at high risk of getting sick were in the vaccinated group. Did you not realize that that's what you did?
No you obviously still don't get it. <shrug>

Suppose hypothetically that the flu vaccine actually made people more likely to get flu but it made people even more likely to get flu-like-illness. If this were the case, then the method used to calculate vaccine effectiveness would show the vaccine to be effective even though it was really doing the opposite.
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
One study actually found about 250x greater viral load in the nasal passages of the vaxxed compared to unvaxxed. But whatever... Again... completely destroys the case for mandates to create herd immunity.
Why do you keep repeating these lies?
I showed you this was another internet fabel in post #2,723 ( which you completely ignored BTW):

Fact Check-Study did not find vaccinated healthcare workers carry 251 times the viral load of those who were unvaccinated
From this article:
The paper does not conclude that fully vaccinated healthcare workers carry 251 times the viral load of the virus compared to unvaccinated healthcare workers. Rather, it concludes that “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”
 
It was in a powerpoint presentation from the CDC which presented the results of that year's vaccine study. The links I had are broken and I can't find it.
Well, I don't believe you. You've been wrong every time. Even when you present a reference, it doesn't support your claims or it directly contradicts them. There's no reason to think this is any different. At best you misunderstood something. At worst you just made it up.

But we don't need a specific quote from the CDC on this, that's just how it works. The studies only enroll sick people. The case-negatives are sick patients with flu-like illness (ILI) rather than flu. If being vaccinated makes you more likely to get ILI and see a doctor about it then that pads the numbers to increase apparent flu vaccine effectiveness.
No, that's not how it works. It's pretty much the opposite of how it works. I'd tell you to read the description from the CDC I posted previously, but I doubt you could understand it.

Yes, there are groups of people who are at higher risk of getting ILI and the flu. Yes, those groups are targeted for vaccination, and many more of them get vaccinated than people at low risk. Yes, many of the people who get ILI were at higher risk for getting ILI (hint: that's the definition of "higher risk"). Whatever underlying risk factors someone has that makes ILI more likely, those underlying risk factors also make it more likely they will be vaccinated. (Hint: that's the definition of "confounding".)

Yes, you can't always tell the causal direction in observational studies. But even if RCT's didn't already show your guess (vaccination leads to increased ILI) was wrong, your guess still wouldn't give you an apparent flu vaccine effectiveness.

What are the side effects of the flu vaccine? Headache, fever, sore throat, nausea, malaise, etc... in other words... flu-like-illness. If the vaccine actually weakens your immune system overall such that you are more susceptible to disease or if being the type of person who would get the flu vaccine means you have a lifestyle or history that makes you more susceptible to getting sick, then that can improve the apparent vaccine effectiveness.

In my linked article I worked a hypothetical example (it was deliberately extreme to make the point):

50% of the general population receives the flu vaccine.
20% of the general population gets the flu.
25% of the general population gets ILI.
5% of the vaccinated population doesn’t get flu or ILI.
90% of those with the flu were vaccinated.
96% of those with ILI were vaccinated.
18% of the general population was vaccinated and got the flu.
24% of the general population was vaccinated and got ILI.
2% of the population was unvaccinated and got the flu.
1% of the population was unvaccinated and got ILI.

In this hypothetical example, being in the vaccinated group makes you 9x more likely to have the flu and makes you 24x more likely to have ILI, yet the CDC’s method could yield 62.5% VE.
Yes. If your guess - vaccines make you more susceptible to getting ILI/Flu - is correct, then being in the vaccinated group should make you 24x more likely to have the flu, not just 9x. Your guess doesn't lead to an "apparent" 62.5% VE unless you make it so that there is an actual 62.5% VE.

Suppose hypothetically that the flu vaccine actually made people more likely to get flu but it made people even more likely to get flu-like-illness. If this were the case, then the method used to calculate vaccine effectiveness would show the vaccine to be effective even though it was really doing the opposite.
Less likely to get more flu is still actual vaccine effectiveness, not apparent vaccine effectiveness. You're still proposing an advantage wrt getting the flu, regardless of "vaccination >> increased ILI/Flu".

So now let's answer your question - "does vaccination >> increased ILI/Flu ?" RCT's can tell us if this is a thing. And the answer is unequivocally no. So your post is completely shot down. "Vaccination >> increased ILI/Flu" wouldn't lead to a false impression of vaccine effectiveness. And vaccination does not lead to increased ILI/Flu, anyways.
 
Why do you keep repeating these lies?
I showed you this was another internet fabel in post #2,723 ( which you completely ignored BTW):
I generally skip over reading your posts because they are generally an inauthentic parroting of mainstream sources lacking in any critical or original thinking on your part. so... Sorry I missed it.

You quoted an older post of mine rather than my most recent post in which I stated things accurately:
Another study in Vietnam found people with breakthrough cases of Delta to have 251x higher viral load than unvaccinated people with the original COVID strain.
 
Well, I don't believe you. You've been wrong every time. Even when you present a reference, it doesn't support your claims or it directly contradicts them. There's no reason to think this is any different. At best you misunderstood something. At worst you just made it up.
Okay your appeals to schoolyard banter aside, I'm asking you to do a little independent thinking here and logic your way through this. Even if you disagree with me, if you actually want to convince me I'm wrong, first you must convince me you understand my argument, and so far all that you've said indicates you don't understand.

VE is supposed to be a measure of percent reduction in absolute risk by taking the vaccine. So if I had a 1% chance of getting a case without the vaccine and a .5% chance of getting a case with the vaccine that is 50% effectiveness because I've cut my risk in half. Okay, are you still with me?

When you use vaccinated people with ILI as your case-negatives you are making the assumption that being in the vaccinated population is not correlated with increased risk of ILI. Are you still with me or did I lose you there? Blink twice if you understand.

In the years that I reviewed the CDC's case controlled studies, the vaccination rate among those with ILI was significantly higher than the vaccination rate among the general population in almost all age ranges. Now whether that is indicative of a causal relationship between vaccine and ILI or merely an artifact of healthcare seeking behavior among the vaccinated cannot be determined from these studies, but it is enough to seriously doubt the VE presented to the public as marketing, and as I've shown they could potentially market it as highly effective even if it is actually making more people sick as long is it increases the rate of ILI more than the rate of than confirmed flu. Perhaps it is even marginally effective... say 3.33% effective at reducing flu, but it increases the rate of ILI, this would show up as a much higher vaccine effectiveness than the actual 3.33%

Yes, there are groups of people who are at higher risk of getting ILI and the flu. Yes, those groups are targeted for vaccination, and many more of them get vaccinated than people at low risk. Yes, many of the people who get ILI were at higher risk for getting ILI (hint: that's the definition of "higher risk"). Whatever underlying risk factors someone has that makes ILI more likely, those underlying risk factors also make it more likely they will be vaccinated. (Hint: that's the definition of "confounding".)
Okay, so I'm glad you understood at least that much. So then will you agree: if being in the vaccinated population makes you more likely to get ILI than being in the unvaccinated population then that will artificially increase the apparent VE in these studies?

If your guess - vaccines make you more susceptible to getting ILI/Flu - is correct, then being in the vaccinated group should make you 24x more likely to have the flu, not just 9x. Your guess doesn't lead to an "apparent" 62.5% VE unless you make it so that there is an actual 62.5% VE.
What? This is a non-sensical statement and is why I see no evidence you've really thought this out our understood the argument. Again, if you want to prove me wrong, I'm open to being corrected, but first I have to be convinced you understand and are addressing my argument.

So now let's answer your question - "does vaccination >> increased ILI/Flu ?" RCT's can tell us if this is a thing. And the answer is unequivocally no. So your post is completely shot down. "Vaccination >> increased ILI/Flu" wouldn't lead to a false impression of vaccine effectiveness. And vaccination does not lead to increased ILI/Flu, anyways.
RCT's in the lab can show efficacy that doesn't pan out in the real world. And I wasn't asking that question. I'm not really suggesting taking the flu vaccine makes you 9x more likely to get the flu, I just exaggerated the scenario to prove a point: you can show high VE with this type of study even if the opposite is true in reality.
 
Last edited:
Top