Accountability Now
-
Posts
2,890 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Accountability Now
-
-
6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:
never anything important that he is obviously wrong abouT
I thought it was a fairly important point we were discussing but I’ll let you be the judge on that
-
2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
When he's faced with responses that he can't answer @Michael Hardner just goes silent
Actually not true. I had a good debate with him this morning where in the end he admitted he was mistaken. Not a lot of folks on here have the ability to do that.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
Well I am shocked, but reading the wording it appears you are correct. As such I am going to stop posting on stats until I am clearer on this topic.
Thanks for educating me.Thanks for the chat Michael. To be fair, Boges and I have debated this exact topic before so I already had done my homework. In that discussion, Boges educated me as well which is hopefully why we come on these sites.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
OK but your stat says risk of hospitalization is 7.5X. Dr. Peter Juni, head of Ontario's Science Advisory Table, was on the radio and he put risk of unvaccinated people being severely impacted as 40-50X those of vaccinated people.
My graphic is for Quebec, not Ontario. . Hence the difference as different provinces have different numbers going at different times. Plus if you look back to September, the Quebec data was at 25X. Again, these professionals aren't doing a peer reviewed study to come up with their risk assessment. They look at the data and derive their numbers based on that time. Unfortunately, the numbers change however we don't seem to see these same professionals step up and say "hey, that risk factor has now changed!"
At this point you can still say that vaccines are giving a marginal benefit to reduce hospitalizations and a decent benefit to reduce ICU. However, there are also other factors involved in who goes to the hospital/ICU other than vaccination status.
-
25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. 3. Ok - please explain. Per 100K population in general ? If so then the math still needs to account for the smaller number of unvaccinated.
No. Its calculated based on the vaccination status population, not general population. Here is the exact wording from the Ontario site:
QuoteAbout this data
For COVID-19 cases by vaccination status, vaccination status is limited to Health Canada approved vaccines.
Rate per 100,000 (7-day average) is the average rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 for each vaccination status for the previous 7 days as noted.
Rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 is calculated by dividing the number of cases for a vaccination status, by the total number of people with the same vaccination status, and then multiplying by 100,000.
This method allows them to compare the numbers taking into account the varying percentages of people vaccinated and not. The case you are trying to make actually works when you look at hospitalizations and ICU in that 26% of the hospitalizations are unvaxxed. This percentage comes from a group that is only 15% of the population. I don't see a hospitalizations per 100k for this data but for it to be even, the percentages need to match (ie 15% of the hospitalizations versus 15% of the population being unvaxxed.
32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:5. They don't 'stop' it but they reduce it
If a mandate even reduced spread, they would keep it. But its not hence the reason they are gone.
-
1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:
The funny part is they used to post a similar box showing your risk of catching Covid is you were unvaccinated until that risk became 0.7X. I wish I had screenshot that one. Regardless, they no longer post anything on that because transmission is no longer the issue.
I found the screenshot on the Sante Quebec twitter feed.
This was the post from January 10th which is the LAST time they included this info in their Dashboard as you can see they are saying the chances of you catching Covid as an unvaccinated person was 0.7X that of a fully vaccinated person. If you scroll back on that twitter feed to Sept/Oct, this number used to be 9X and slowly started going down as the vaccines waned. When Omicron hit....it was a 0.7X and they decided to remove that portion.
-
22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
2. 3. What you are missing is that only 7% of eligible Ontarians are unvaccinated. So if the numbers of infected are the same - leaving aside degree of sickness - then your chance of catching the disease as an unvaccinated person is over 14X that of a vaccinated person.
Facepalm. I quoted cases per 100k. If you don't know what this means then I can explain however this number takes into account exactly what you are saying. Also, your claim about 7% is not correct according to this site (https://covid19tracker.ca/provincevac.html?p=ON) as its actually around 11.4%. Of course the case numbers aren't reflecting those who are vaccine eligible and have contracted COVID. The case numbers are of all the population so our vaccine comparable needs to be on the same metric. If that is the case, 15.7% of all Ontarians are unvaccinated. Minor point as all these numbers are already factored into the cases per 100k
30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:1. I think that a balance of political and public health perspectives is saying we can go back to where we were last year again. It has nothing to do with your claim though.
It has everything to do with the claim. If they thought the mandates were helping to stop spread then they would keep them. The fact is they realize the current vaccines we have don't stop spread so why push a mandate that promotes an idea that is false?
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
Hey man - I gave you 30 seconds of research for your post, please forgive the error. What I should have done instead is asked you for a cite.
Do you have one ?Before I cite, why do you think numerous countries across the world and provinces here in Canada are all dropping their mandates? Because they know they don't make sense anymore. Even the director of the CDC in the US said in August admitted they can't prevent transmission and that was with Delta. If you can't prevent transmission then why have a mandate that is designed to do just that?
Now...lets look at your home province of Ontario and the cases per 100k.
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread
At the start of the reporting period, the unvaccinated cases were 7X that of the unvaccinated. Even though the vaccinated were still catching it, it was clear at this point their was a benefit to being vaccinated in regards to transmission. This started dropping as we hit fall due to the vaccines waning. If Omicron never hit then we would have seen similar results as what the UK saw with Delta where the vaccinated started to become the larger percentage of cases (not per 100k but percentage wise). This was why the UK dropped its mandates in September, only to pick them up again in December when Omicron hit. Once Omicron hit in Ontario, the cases per 100k were actually higher in the vaccinated than in unvaccinated as shown on the green line above (around the beginning of January). This reverse gap (IMO) was created by the mandates because the vaccinated were allowed to be out spreading it and they had a false sense of security in thinking they couldn't. That reverse gap only lasted a month or so where now it shows the lines in the closest spot they have been since the pandemic started basically to a point where its even among groups. I also observed similar numbers in Alberta and other provinces that track this way. Funny enough, Quebec posts their data on a Dashboard that includes boxes that include main points that supported the vaccines:
The funny part is they used to post a similar box showing your risk of catching Covid is you were unvaccinated until that risk became 0.7X. I wish I had screenshot that one. Regardless, they no longer post anything on that because transmission is no longer the issue.
We could probably go on and debate if a vaccinated person is objectively the same or less risk for transmission but the reality is they are so close it shouldn't be a factor in pushing mandates. The only factors showing a favor to being vaccinated is hospitalizations and ICU and even those margins are narrowing to the point that doesn't favor vaccines.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. No this is not right. Here's a reputable source telling you that you are wrong - so I expect you as a conscientious poster will stop spreading that non-fact.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/12/vaccinated-who-get-breakthrough-infections-less-contagious/Thank you for sharing an article that was posted BEFORE Omicron. I expect a conscientious poster would have their facts straight
-
On 2/6/2022 at 7:43 AM, Michael Hardner said:
1. Right, because your individual right to refuse a vaccine trumps my right to live at low risk, mostly because you are you and not me.
Except you are at the same risk being next to a vaccinated (even triple doser) as it has been shown vaxx spread it the same as unvaxxed. Actually being in a space with only vaccinated people would technically be higher as your false sense of security would lull you into thinking you are protected from spread when we know that is not the case.
-
9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:
Adding more requirements to the passports (i.e. third vaccination) will just prove what everyone opposed to mandates is saying:
I agree and that’s why they can’t go that route. There will be a considerable amount of people that won’t get the third shot and will be added to the unvaxxed list which would tip the scales. Instead they stick with the current definition and let people believe that their 6 month plus vaccine is actually doing something to stop spread even though the “science” says it doesn’t
-
2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
Can’t they? Why not?
You tell me what the mandates are supposed to do?
-
The mandates as they exist cannot remain. The vaccines are waning and will soon lose their efficacy for even severe illness. If they want the mandates to remain then they’ll be forced to change the definition of fully vaxxed to 3 doses. If they don’t do that then scrap the mandates as they do t make any sense
-
1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:
Like when we had a mandatory polio vaccine...and measles...and diptheria...
1. Those vaccines were actually effective at stopping transmission
2. To my knowledge, those vaccinations aren't mandatory either. I know a handful of kids that aren't vaccinated and can go to school, travel and participate in society. Perhaps its just Alberta but I know Ontario has exemptions as do other provinces. Maybe you're referring to when these first came in?
-
9 hours ago, blackbird said:
Lots of things different about Italy. I am sure there are certain factors that determine the spread of the virus. So if the factors are different in one place, then the spread will be different.
Exactly. That’s why it’s tough to consider any rates between countries based solely on one parameter like lockdowns
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, blackbird said:
Sweden has had over 15 thousand deaths.
Italy’s death per million rate is almost three times that of Canada and they had some of the harshest restrictions in the world. I think what this shows is there are a number of factors that are at play and not just the restrictions one area placed.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
I fear
I think fear is the problem. People died before Covid and they’ll die after it. People are going to have to learn to get over their fear before things return to normal
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
Regretfully some 72 people died today in Ontario alone in one day.
No. They reported 72 deaths today
A spokesperson with the Ontario Ministry of Health says 67 of the latest deaths occurred over the past 24 days, with four deaths occurring on Feb. 1, 18 deaths on Jan. 31, 17 deaths on Jan. 30 and the remaining deaths in the preceding days. Five of the 72 deaths occurred more than a month ago.
-
14 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:
How high a death rate do you require before they act to contain it?
According to a study out of John Hopkins today, the lockdowns or restrictions did very little/nothing to prevent deaths.
QuoteThe lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/31/lockdowns-had-little-or-no-impact-covid-19-deaths-/Just food for thought....
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Boges said:
The un-answerable question is how much more additional death would have been experienced had COVID been left unchecked in more densely population North American communities.
That is a great beer time conversation and like you said...un-answerable. My basic argument on this is people that were really susceptible to this virus were going to die no matter what. Hence the reason we saw a sizeable number of vaccinated deaths. There was a second group of lesser susceptibility that benefitted from vaccine and those are the numbers that would be of interest knowing.
Unchecked it probably would have been like the Spanish Flu....larger, immediate hit but the pandemic wouldn't have lasted as long.
I spoke to a friend's dad who is a retired ER doctor at the start of this and he made an off the cuff comment that our society has changed in that back in the days of the Spanish Flu, people just thought if the flu killed you then you were probably going to die from something else anyway. Today's society doesn't think that way as we believe an extension of life is worth it. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the morals of this statement but I would agree that our society's view on expectations has changed.
-
12 hours ago, blackbird said:
I listened to a medical doctor on CBC
I now see why you are misguided.
12 hours ago, blackbird said:It's not correct to say the vaccine is ineffective for Omicron. All medical professionals say the vaccine generally helps prevent serious illness with Omicron. It helps prevent hospitalization, and fewer deaths and long Covid.
Its really amazing to see people like you that don't actually read what was said. Why are you talking about hospitalizations and ICU when your initial point and the recent discussion point is about SPREAD. Here is what I said:
13 hours ago, Accountability Now said:2. The vaccines are basically ineffective at preventing infection with Omicron, hence the reason why they are trying to create a new Omicron vaccine.
There are four main categories when it comes to vaccine efficacy:
1. Prevention of Infection (Transmission)
2. Prevention of Hospitalization
3. Prevention of Serious Hospitalization (ICU)
4. Death
My original comment on my first rebuttal to you PLUS my comment above are about the vaccine's inability to stop transmission. Fully vaxxed people are still getting the virus and spreading it at statistically similar rates to unvaxxed. Even the triple vaxxed people like your hero JT are contracting the virus. Does this suggest to you that the vaccine is stopping spread??? Instead of arguing this point, you in turn argue on Points 2 and 3. I will gladly have a conversation on those too if you want but its kind of pointless if you're not going to argue this properly.
12 hours ago, blackbird said:You can believe what you want, but I believe the experts. Mandates are not useless. They reduce the amount of spread.
Well...let's take a look at the Ontario cases per 100k.
If you look at start of this data set on Nov 5, the cases for unvaccinated were 4X the amount of the vaccinated. That ratio kept lowering as we approached December and then on Christmas day, the cases per 100k for the vaccinated actually overtook the unvaccinated (You see that Green line spiking up). This was Omicron. As you can see by Jan 5, the fully vaccinated were 1.3X the amount of cases compared to the unvaxxed. Does this mean the vaccine was causing you to catch the virus....NO. The reason the fully vaxxed were catching it is because they were the ones allow out in these critical spaces that the mandates were supposed to protect. In other words...the mandates weren't just useless but were actually harmful as they provided a false sense of security allowing fully vaxxed to spread this. As you can see now that things are calming down, both rates are very close to each other which again suggests the vaccine is doing nothing to stop the spread.
Remember....there are hundreds of experts and some of them have different views. You saying the experts agree is clearly not the case as countries around the world have already removed their mandates and provinces are taking the next steps to do the same. Mandates are not useful with Omicron....plain and simple.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, blackbird said:
You're not making sense. I never said everyone spreads it. The restrictions target the places and people more likely to spread it.
I know you didn't say it.... I said everyone spreads it. This is because they do. Are you still caught up on the narrative from when the vaccines worked on preventing infection because that started to change with Delta and it has completely been blown out of the water with Omicron. They keep pushing the vaccines because they claim it reduces severe infection like hospitalization and ICU however even those numbers continue to creep up and are now very close to matching their demographic percentages.
There are two things that are clear:
1. The vaccines wane after about 5-6 months so the majority of vaccinated people were starting to be exposed with Delta, never mind Omicron
2. The vaccines are basically ineffective at preventing infection with Omicron, hence the reason why they are trying to create a new Omicron vaccine.
Having vaccine mandates at this point is absolutely and completely useless. Hence the reason Sask is getting rid of theirs and Alberta announced they will be doing away with theirs soon. My guess is Ontario won't be far behind. Also the reason that Quebec just walked back on their threat to tax the unvaccinated.
-
4 minutes ago, Boges said:
No where in that article does it suggest that the vaccine, specifically, was causing this spike.
Variants like Delta and lower vaccination rate (in that specific state) around 50% could be the cause.
The article doesn't say vaccine but it does say this:
QuoteMost of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.
“What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”
Opiods is definitely one idea. Mental health issues could be another.
Regardless, if this article is true then it would point to a side of the lockdowns that many people have argued for a while now in that the lockdowns come at a price of their own.
-
37 minutes ago, blackbird said:
The unlawful blocking of the highway at the major border crossing between Alberta and Montana looks like it will be coming to an end today.
Good. Like I said, I don't believe any protest should be able to block roads.
-
1
-
Trucker's Convoy
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
100% agree. If you don't like pipelines being blocked then you can't like this. They are one and the same.