"if vaccines didn't exist"Scotty wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:29 pm Ifs? What ifs? What are you referring to? Are you saying my figures are wrong?
According to YOUR figures, of those with no underlying conditions, the unvaccinated are 120 times a higher risk than the vaccinated. There's no 'ifs' there. They are the facts (unless your figures are wrong - I haven't checked them).
It's nothing to do with not liking the result, I have always agreed that vaccination will reduce the risk of ICU admission, there is no argument from me on that point. Within that post I both acknowledged that explicitly, as well as expressing surprise at just how stark the difference was.
Which is total and utter nonsense. There is absolutely no way to credibly claim what would have happened if we did not have vaccines.(27/7)x100 = 385 in ICU if vaccines didn't exist.
(3/93)x100 = 3.2 in ICU if 100% vaccinated.
For a start, for those of us who understand that a vaccine provides immunity, which was most of us pre Covid, since that was the old science we trusted, there is no evidence that the Covid vaccines are highly effective.Evidence suggests that the Covid vaccines are highly effective, and that their effectiveness wanes over time. The consequences of this waning effect might be lessened if more people were vaccinated. Yet a strain of anti-vaccination sentiment persists among a cohort of Europeans. This did not matter when we were all unvaccinated. Now that many of us have gone to the trouble of getting jabbed, the self-indulgence of the anti-vaccination faction has become a form of antisocial behaviour that threatens the health of others.
What do you mean 'if I insist it's credible'? It's based on your post.
I posted evidence that they are are highly effective at reducing the risk of requiring ICU treatment, but that is not what a vaccine is designed to do.
Not what ifs?Scotty wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:27 pm What do you mean 'if I insist it's credible'? It's based on your post.
27:3 current ratio of ICU << your stats. Which is...
1.9% : 98.1% ratio of otherwise healthy vaxxed in ICU, Which is...
385:3.2 Ratio of whole population. Which is...
120 x higher risk for healthy unvaccinated.
These are not 'what ifs'. These are the current stats just given in different ways, they all show the same thing. I'm not 'claiming' anything. They're fact.
These are big what ifs. That's my point. For the last time. I have agreed that the risks of the healthy unvaccinated ending up in ICU are astonishingly higher than the healthy vaccinated.(27/7)x100 = 385 in ICU if vaccines didn't exist.
(3/93)x100 = 3.2 in ICU if 100% vaccinated.
That's how science works Schmittel. You take a sample of data and analyse and extrapolate it. It's what you did and it's what I did. Nothing idiotic about it.
How science works?! That must be more of this new normal science I mentioned in the other post. Anything goes sort of so-called science to bolster the case for the so-called vaccine!
So are we looking to increase the humidity in our homes or decrease it.isha wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:34 am https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/p ... -19-spread
Further info re Humidity and Covid. Indoor central heating decreases humidity a lot. One can buy ceramic/steel water containers to hang on radiators, quite cheap, effective.
Increase. It is to do with dryness of epithelium. If the epithelium in bodies mucus membranes is too dry (eg lungs nose etc) then it cannot resist viruses as much.
I was shocked to learn from that article that humidity is the most important of the three factors they studied, along with temperature and amount of UV light. I would have guessed humidity was the least important. Good to know.
You're observing a problem with the media (and politicians) interpreting a "medical" use of a word to mean the same thing as is commonly understood by the public. In this case, the word "bed" is not the physical thing that people lie on, it is a concept that includes (typically) a team of as many as fifteen people, thousands of euros' worth of equipment, hundreds of euros' worth of consumable products and tens of square metres of space, which may (or may not) include what we think of as a bed.kadman wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:47 amI noticed the recovery room I was in, had at least 10-12 empty beds. Which i thought was strange if we are to believe that the
bed capacity is coming under severe pressure according to the news. I only saw one ambulance calling into the ambulance area
that i could see from my window. It was actually very quiet.
I am not actually sure about how atmospheric humidity exactly works. I think we here have a humid enough climate outdoors all year round but say in Sweden or where my friend lives in north US they have really cold snowy winters but very low humidity even outside. So in Scandinavia they can have those gorgeous wooden houses Here I think our humidity issue is inside, once the central heating cranks up. The air inside dries up and dries our membranes.schmittel wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:39 am The humidity thing is an interesting theory, and certainly it looks from that graph that something happened around that time to cause a spike.
If you add Ireland to the same graph you'll see we had a similar spike at a similar time.
Screenshot 2021-11-22 at 11.30.11.png
I presume rainfall would affect humidity? We had a very wet week then, with status yellow rainfall warnings in parts of the country.
Very interesting, thanks for posting.PureIsle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:01 pm I am unsure if this has previously been posted but if yes I do not recall any discussion about what was said.
I have no knowledge of the doctor in the clip, but his statements do cause some questions ...... especially about mortality from 1:30 to 2:10 of the clip
Thoughts?
Norman Fenton is another dismissed professional - but he is a British mathematician who is currently Professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London. He consistently says there is no real evidence benefit of vaccination outweighs the risk. He also says Infection Fatality Risk is much lower than constantly advertised. From 12.49 - 14.50 minutes he illustrates the Simpson's Paradox I mentioned yesterday. Once broken down by ages the vaccinated have lower mortality than the aggregate suggests. Which will clarify that information yesterday that was doing the rounds.A total of 566 pts, aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot. Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac. These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac. We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.
