Canada at the start of Delta dominated fourth Covid wave, so get vaccinated to save lives.

[OftenWrong]

My what wonderful armchair epidemiologists we’ve all become. Statistician, mathematician, magician.

 

[Zeitgeist]

You’re living under unnecessary restrictions forever because sheeple.

[Winston]

9 minutes ago, myata said:

We need to start analyzing the problem and the data may help us in that. But proving preordained conclusion by whatever mean possible just to confirm it correctness is a faulty method that isn't likely to produce the best solutions. Such an environment isn't productive for finding effective solutions.

And then, there can be unforeseen and unintended risks to ongoing mass vaccination over extended time and possibly, very serious ones. In the absence of the ability and methods of careful and objective analysis of risks and benefits for the society, making such decisions ad hoc, based on assumed validity is at a minimum risky and can easily turn dangerous. And we seem to be drifting right there, to the cheerful march.

What is the exact problem? What is the exact realistic outcome we are targeting?

[CITIZEN_2015]

50 minutes ago, Winston said:

"Please analyze data carefully before posting misleading conclusions." - They are not misleading if you only look at the raw data cited, but you are correct it is misleading to just use the raw data and that is my point. If Elliott is using raw data, it can be misleading. Using data this way as a method of interpreting vaccination efficiency and infection rate numbers may be incorrect.  

cite : https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data/case-numbers-and-spread

Unvaccinated 485 ( out of how many were tested?)

Partially vaccinated 83  ( out of how many were tested?)

Fully vaccinated 147 ( out of how many were tested?)

If we use the numbers cited, partially vaccinated is lower than fully vaccinated, we could claim that you are posting misleading statements based on this data. Again I am not in support of such claim because the data is generalized.

However, the point is that this data does not make good comparisons. We need to be able to compare similar individuals before making statement on this data. I would estimate that if we segregated individuals who have underlying medical conditions from those that do not, the vaccinated hospitalization numbers would drop to possibly 0 for healthy individuals. 

In regards to generic population infection rate, how many individuals who are vaccinated are tested? How many individuals who are unvaccinated are tested? 

Why I ask this question.

If 1000 vaccinated individuals are tested, and 100 come out positive that would be a 10 % positivity rate.

If 100 unvaccinated individuals are tested, and only 10 come out positive that would be a 10% positively rate.

Even though they have the same rate, just looking at the numbers, 10 vs 100 it would appear more vaccinated people tested positive, which is incorrect. Without this data, general infection rates are unknown.

 

I am all for vaccinations, but we need to stop presenting raw data as though they are comparable.

 

Why on earth should anyone care out of how many tested????!!!!!, Whatever number who were tested of those tested positive an overwhelming majority were among the small minority who were unvaccinated. 

I repeat data released for Ontario today:

of the 781 new cases, 634 involved people who were unvaccinated or had only one dose, while 147 involved fully vaccinated people.

Unvaccinated and partially vaccinated people make up 34 per cent of Ontario’s population but 81 per cent of Friday’s cases.

 

Just make it clear what is that you are saying:

Are you saying vaccines do nothing to reduce infections, hospitalizations and deaths?

Are you saying vaccines are not safe in short and/or long term?

What is that you are trying to prove?

[Argus]

23 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re living under unnecessary restrictions forever because sheeple.

Yes, yes, because of the 'sheeple' who who went and got their vaccines not because of the paranoid raving lunatics terrified of getting a needle because they think it's going to change their DNA or turn them gay or something.

[myata]

48 minutes ago, Winston said:

What is the exact problem? What is the exact realistic outcome we are targeting?

These are very good questions and a subject for a discussion and determination by the society, rather than some obscure bureaucratic offices by only to them known rules and reasons. To me, the objectives are minimizing the epidemics impact on the society in all terms at the same time, i.e. we should strive at a set of measures that control the epidemics while allowing the society to function at the normal or near normal level. It isn't one or the other and certainly not a carte blanche for anything coming from high on. It has to, provably, effectively and efficiently reduce serious complications and mortality attributed to the epidemics without at the same time, unnecessarily restricting society and economy. 

Otherwise, if we wouldn't set these constraints on the bureaucracy, the default answer is known from the start: longer and deeper lockdowns just in case, can't lose by calling for more caution because if a new wave isn't growing it may start tomorrow and there will be no exit from this cycle.

[myata]

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

because of the paranoid raving lunatics terrified of getting a needle because they think it's going to change their DNA or turn them gay or something.

Note the terminology. So it has to be our, the right and shiny way or "raving lunatics" and nothing in between. And no reason or evidence needed either. Wait, what century did you say it (was) is?

[Winston]

11 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Why on earth should anyone care out of how many tested????!!!!!, Whatever number who were tested of those tested positive an overwhelming majority were among the small minority who were unvaccinated. 

I repeat data released for Ontario today:

of the 781 new cases, 634 involved people who were unvaccinated or had only one dose, while 147 involved fully vaccinated people.

Unvaccinated and partially vaccinated people make up 34 per cent of Ontario’s population but 81 per cent of Friday’s cases.

 

Just make it clear what is that you are saying:

Are you saying vaccines do nothing to reduce infections, hospitalizations and deaths?

Are you saying vaccines are not safe in short and/or long term?

What is that you are trying to prove?

Because 100 people testing positive out of 100 is different than 100 people testing positive out of 10000. If the data shows tests out of 100 people and that test is compared to another test which is out of 1000 people you would get higher resulting numbers from the 1000 people. 

If we tested 1000 vaccinated people and it showed that 100 out of the 1000 people were positive it would result in 100 people who are infected. 

if we tested 100 unvaccinated people and it showed that 10 out of the 100 unvaccinated people were positive it would result in 10 people who are infected. 

By the raw data it would seem than vaccinated people are more likely to test positive, but this is not true. We need to account for the ratios of testing vs positive results.  

"Whatever number who were tested of those tested positive an overwhelming majority were among the small minority who were unvaccinated." - The whatever number is important, if the number tested was say 1 million and only 400 were found testing positive that means only 0.04% of the unvaccinated were found positive. This is why the testing number is important. 

" Just make it clear what is that you are saying:  Are you saying vaccines do nothing to reduce infections, hospitalizations and deaths? "

No. 

"Are you saying vaccines are not safe in short and/or long term?"

No. 

"What is that you are trying to prove?"

I am not proving anything at this time, we need data that includes numbers tested, age of infected and underlying conditions of infected, before we reintroduce restrictions. 

[Winston]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

These are very good questions and a subject for a discussion and determination by the society, rather than some obscure bureaucratic offices by only to them known rules and reasons. To me, the objectives are minimizing the epidemics impact on the society in all terms at the same time, i.e. we should strive at a set of measures that control the epidemics while allowing the society to function at the normal or near normal level. It isn't one or the other and certainly not a carte blanche for anything coming from high on. It has to, provably, effectively and efficiently reduce serious complications and mortality attributed to the epidemics without at the same time, unnecessarily restricting society and economy. 

Otherwise, if we wouldn't set these constraints on the bureaucracy, the default answer is known from the start: longer and deeper lockdowns just in case, can't lose by calling for more caution because if a new wave isn't growing it may start tomorrow and there will be no exit from this cycle.

I can agree, but this still does not answer the question what is the exact problem? What is the exact realistic outcome we are targeting? What is the acceptable death rate, infection rate and hospitalization rate?

" It has to, provably, effectively and efficiently reduce serious complications and mortality attributed to the epidemics without at the same time, unnecessarily restricting society and economy. "  These two ideas are somewhat in conflict with one another. I think this is possible, but there will be risks. 

[myata]

21 minutes ago, Winston said:

I can agree, but this still does not answer the question what is the exact problem? What is the exact realistic outcome we are targeting? What is the acceptable death rate, infection rate and hospitalization rate?

Yes, and it has to be an intelligent and responsible conversation, with participation of the society, I can't see how it could be on board actively and intelligently otherwise. Not a one-way dictate and certainly not under poorly formulated or plain wrong premises. And it needs to be ongoing, all the way while the problem is present. 

The realistic outcome has to be a reasonably normal functioning of the society with intelligent targeted measures to control the epidemics unless it is proven that it cannot be sufficient. And why should the outcome be bound to unaccountable one-way dictate, where is this notion even coming from in a (ostensibly) democratic society?

Edited August 27, 2021 by myata

[OftenWrong]

Bonnie Henry does 180 about face. Not only will a provincial passport be implemented, but it WILL be unfair to the least among us.

People who can't get vaccinated against COVID-19 for medical reasons won't be exempt from B.C.’s upcoming vaccine passport system. 

Provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, who announced the requirement Monday afternoon, said those individuals will have to miss out on discretionary services and activities, such as dining in restaurants and attending live sporting events, until the proof-of-vaccination requirement is lifted next year.

 

Got that part? Not even medical exemption.

Wait for a year till things improve.

maybe

 

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by OftenWrong

[myata]

What is behind the drive for every single vaccination that is becoming apparent and pronounced recently? With mostly voluntary program by now (Ontario numbers) the equivalent fraction of vaccinated, including children and other protected groups should be very high, above 90%. If claims were to be believed at this level the risk of complications for vaccinated and equivalent could be very low and one could continue with an intelligent voluntary program, while developing other effective alternatives instead of pumping up fear and urgency. So why not, why yet again, the only panacea and just this one let's do it silver bullet?

The answer can be three-fold. First, for every massive propaganda campaign there's a momentum effect, social inertia so it cannot be just switched off, a well-known effect in totalitarian, propaganda-run societies. Large part of the population comes to depend on the propaganda feed and would be reluctant let go of it even if the source ceases. The second explanation is that it covers an absolute absence, a total lack and deficit of other intelligent and effective methods and solutions that could keep the infection under control without ongoing grand struggle and drama. And the last one, possibly the plain old grip on unaccountable, not controlled and unchecked power. "My Precious". When you hold it, so hard to let go. And always for the better good. Just can't let it go, sorry.

Edited August 30, 2021 by myata

[Zeitgeist]

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Bonnie Henry does 180 about face. Not only will a provincial passport be implemented, but it WILL be unfair to the least among us.

People who can't get vaccinated against COVID-19 for medical reasons won't be exempt from B.C.’s upcoming vaccine passport system. 

Provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, who announced the requirement Monday afternoon, said those individuals will have to miss out on discretionary services and activities, such as dining in restaurants and attending live sporting events, until the proof-of-vaccination requirement is lifted next year.

 

Got that part? Not even medical exemption.

Wait for a year till things improve.

maybe

 

 

Yeah that’s the problem with vaccine passports.  They become an added layer of bureaucracy and create a two-tier society.  Why, to protect the vaccinated who are already well protected?   In case of a variant that doesn’t yet exist?   I understand mandating vaccines, at least in certain fields, with exemptions on medical or other grounds.  That’s it.  If businesses or other jurisdictions require them then have your proof of vaccination ready, but really they are another form of restriction that shouldn’t be allowed.  The question we always need to ask is, Is the cure worse than the disease?  If BC doesn’t even have exemptions or allow ineligible children to participate in non-essential activities, that’s called fascism.   

[CITIZEN_2015]

I think Zeitgeist has a good point. If covid related deaths remain low then we shouldn't have further lockdowns. For example today in Ontario we had nearly 700 new cases but fortunately no deaths (vaccines are working very effectively) and as long as deaths are same as flu because of vaccinations of nearly 80% of population by fall then no more lockdowns should be imposed,

[CITIZEN_2015]

Latest data on vaccinated versus unvaccinated in Ontario:

Health Minister Christine Elliott says of the 944 new cases of COVID-19 reported on Saturday, 736 were in people who are not fully vaccinated or have an unknown vaccination status and 208 are in fully vaccinated people.

Of the 309 people in hospital, 32 are fully vaccinated. Twelve of the 172 people in ICUs across Ontario are fully vaccinated.

Ottawa Public Health says unvaccinated residents are 15 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals are

[myata]

On 8/30/2021 at 11:38 AM, CITIZEN_2015 said:

 as long as <deaths are same as flu because of vaccinations of nearly 80% of population by fall> then no more lockdowns should be imposed,

I translated it as: be happy folks that new lockdowns may not be imposed (if) with all the restrictions staying on until unknown time. Wait, how exactly it is different from before?

[myata]

27 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Of the 309 people in hospital, 32 are fully vaccinated. Twelve of the 172 people in ICUs across Ontario are fully vaccinated.

Right from the above, of 309 hospitalized, 172 or almost two thirds are in ICU. Have hospitals become synonymous with ICU? Is majority of higher severity cases escalated straight to ICU? Are there no early intervention treatments available? And if they are, are they used timely and correctly (then why such a high percent of escalations?).

[Winston]

37 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Latest data on vaccinated versus unvaccinated in Ontario:

Health Minister Christine Elliott says of the 944 new cases of COVID-19 reported on Saturday, 736 were in people who are not fully vaccinated or have an unknown vaccination status and 208 are in fully vaccinated people.

Of the 309 people in hospital, 32 are fully vaccinated. Twelve of the 172 people in ICUs across Ontario are fully vaccinated.

Ottawa Public Health says unvaccinated residents are 15 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals are

Specifics the health Minister should be presenting. Actual data https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data#ncf :  

Unvaccinated - 559 -  12.0% increase since Friday 

Partially vaccinated - 92  - 35.3% increase since Friday 

Fully vaccinated - 208 - 13.9% increase since Friday 

Vaccination status unknown - 85 - 41.7 %  increase since Friday 

Fully vaccinated and unvaccinated percental increase are nearly identical.

As we can see, unknown and partially vaccinated groups have the highest increase in infections. 

 

"Ottawa Public Health says unvaccinated residents are 15 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated individuals are" - citation?

The 15 times more likely number counters the number they provided just last week when they mentioned it was 20 times more likely, "Last week, Ottawa Public Health released new information showing that unvaccinated residents were 20 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated residents were." Being wrong by 500% would be considered professional misconduct in most professional fields. 

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/weekly-covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-ottawa-holds-steady-1.5558082

Edited September 4, 2021 by Winston

[Infidel Dog]

Told you so. And I'll make another prediction. They just scratched the surface on how we were being scammed by Trudeau's paid media using 2 weeks of questionable data to convince the gullibles there were these outrageous differences vaccinated versus unvaccinated infections. They contradicted the results we were getting from longer studies elsewhere in the world.

It was like Ontario's crackerjack media was reacting to those studies. They didn't like that vaccinated were being shown to be even less susceptible to the Delta Variant than the unvaccinated in other regions like the UK, Israel, Iceland and Taiwan so when Delta hit they did a little data massaging magic.

Not to feel bad though, Ontario. Some parts of America are doing it too.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/whos-really-being-hospitalized_3963392.html/?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=TheLibertyDaily

[Infidel Dog]

And here's another one that should be getting more or at least some airplay.

At least one study (I think there's been more) shows more virus gathers in the nasal passages of the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. If true it would make sense that the vaccinated are more infectious than the unvaccinated.

Again, if true, explain why you need vaccine passports.

More study is needed before you inflict such hysterically reactive authoritarian, apartheid-like policies on the public.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

These guys who claim to be all about the science also need to explain why they're ignoring studies that show mask mandates and lockdowns don't work.

[Winston]

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

These guys who claim to be all about the science also need to explain why they're ignoring studies that show mask mandates and lockdowns don't work.

Could you share or cite the studies that show mask mandates or lockdowns do not work? I am unaware of such studies, they would be an interesting read. 

 

[Infidel Dog]

Hang on. I've got it bookmarked but that folder is getting big.

[Infidel Dog]

In the meantime one might consider Israel versus Sweden:

https://thelibertydaily.com/no-lockdown-sweden-bans-travel-from-ultra-vaxxed-locked-down-israel-over-covid-spikes/

[WestCanMan]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:28 PM, Winston said:

By the raw data it would seem than vaccinated people are more likely to test positive, but this is not true. We need to account for the ratios of testing vs positive results.  

We need to be careful about what we're offering up to people who are collecting data.

Right now there are millions of children between 12 and 18 vaccinated, and hundreds of millios of 19-60 yr-olds. Why is that?

Is it to save them from covid? Not at all.

Is it to stop them from spreading covid? Nope. They can still do that too.

Then why?

What does it do for certain? Two things: 1) it boosts the profits for the Big Pharma lobbyists who are talking to our politicians, and 2) it boosts the stats for the Big Pharma vaccines, because none of those millions of people would have gotten sick from covid anyways.

Just think about it - Big Pharma and their political operatives are forcing millions of children and young adults to get vaccinated with experimental jabs just for their own profit margins, and to create a wave of fake science.

FACT: WHOEVER HAS THE MAJORITY OF THE 12-59 YR OLD CROWD ON 'THEIR SIDE' IS GUARANTEED TO WIN THE COVID STATISTICS SWEEPSTAKES. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WILL DIE FROM COVID.

When dbl-vaxxed people die from the vid, the vaxxists say "They were almost all elderly with co-morbidities". WOW! No shit Dick Tracy.