To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Wrong. How many of those who have recovered also got vaccinated? You want to compare those who only got vaccinated with those who got infected without ever looking at how many of the first group were both infected and vaccinated. You're mixing reinfections with breakthrough+reinfections and the denominator for reinfections alone is unknowable from the data presented.

---

Yeah either way you look at it, whether bad math or bad data, we know prior to the availability of vaccines the natural reinfection rate in Israel was around 0.1%. Now they're claiming it's around 0.008%. Is some of that because recovered individuals have also been vaccinated? Probably. Is the discrepancy also because of bad math, because a small number is incorrectly divided by a much larger number? Unquestionably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Compared antibody levels and T cell activity after 2 AZ shots, 2 Pfizer shots, or 1 AZ followed by 1 Pfizer. The latter had higher levels. Clinical outcomes were not looked at. The findings can't be extrapolated to other vaccine combinations. I don't know if the differences in antibody levels and t cell activity are big enough to be significant for infection, hospitalization or death.

---

Ah, shit. Now I gotta get a Moderna or AZ shot.

There was a kid in my neighborhood growing up whose pattern was to hassle and bother kids until they snapped and then when they were beating him up he kind of crumbled into a pathetic heap and cowered and turtled. He did this from a young age over and over for years. His brother wasn’t like that, it seemed like his family was decent and normal. He was just, like, locked into this addiction-like pattern of flirting with the excitement and danger of getting beat up, and he’d always take it so far that he lost. Jeff Patrick….
You see it with dogs at the dog park, some agitator just dancing around bothering the other dogs to provoke a chase, chase me, fight me!

We have those trolls here. It’s not about the point, it’s about finding something people feel strongly about and posting statements that upset them, because all the responses, all the back-and-forth are a form of stimulus they crave. The power to insert themselves in your mind, to generate this flurry of emotional feedback is an antidote to the loneliness and boredom and insignificance that stands in contrast to the excitement of conflict.

You know who they are, read their nonsense and shake your head, and let those posts lie, knowing there’s probably some decent chance this is all just a bunch of rhetorical traps they set to watch you get upset and make you fight…
Nip nip chase me!!! Kick my ass!!!

IAS knocks it out of the park again.

Bet the fuckers don't even ski.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

IAS knocks it out of the park again.

---

Amen; he's a treasure.

I hadn’t thought about that guy in a really really long time.

Looked him up on fb…

Look, new profile pic
Attachment 382254

Yup, that tracks.
Attachment 382255

What about Amero dude?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

There was a kid in my neighborhood growing up whose pattern was to hassle and bother kids until they snapped and then when they were beating him up he kind of crumbled into a pathetic heap and cowered and turtled. He did this from a young age over and over for years. His brother wasn’t like that, it seemed like his family was decent and normal. He was just, like, locked into this addiction-like pattern of flirting with the excitement and danger of getting beat up, and he’d always take it so far that he lost. Jeff Patrick….
You see it with dogs at the dog park, some agitator just dancing around bothering the other dogs to provoke a chase, chase me, fight me!

We have those trolls here. It’s not about the point, it’s about finding something people feel strongly about and posting statements that upset them, because all the responses, all the back-and-forth are a form of stimulus they crave. The power to insert themselves in your mind, to generate this flurry of emotional feedback is an antidote to the loneliness and boredom and insignificance that stands in contrast to the excitement of conflict.

You know who they are, read their nonsense and shake your head, and let those posts lie, knowing there’s probably some decent chance this is all just a bunch of rhetorical traps they set to watch you get upset and make you fight…
Nip nip chase me!!! Kick my ass!!!

---

Ha ha. Or, more briefly, the old story that ends "You're not really here for the hunting, are you?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

There was a kid in my neighborhood growing up whose pattern was to hassle and bother kids until they snapped and then when they were beating him up he kind of crumbled into a pathetic heap and cowered and turtled. He did this from a young age over and over for years. His brother wasn’t like that, it seemed like his family was decent and normal. He was just, like, locked into this addiction-like pattern of flirting with the excitement and danger of getting beat up, and he’d always take it so far that he lost. Jeff Patrick….
You see it with dogs at the dog park, some agitator just dancing around bothering the other dogs to provoke a chase, chase me, fight me!

We have those trolls here. It’s not about the point, it’s about finding something people feel strongly about and posting statements that upset them, because all the responses, all the back-and-forth are a form of stimulus they crave. The power to insert themselves in your mind, to generate this flurry of emotional feedback is an antidote to the loneliness and boredom and insignificance that stands in contrast to the excitement of conflict.

You know who they are, read their nonsense and shake your head, and let those posts lie, knowing there’s probably some decent chance this is all just a bunch of rhetorical traps they set to watch you get upset and make you fight…
Nip nip chase me!!! Kick my ass!!!

---

You're not wrong, and that covers more than not. But since you're on the mod squad I hope you also see the difference between the typical troll and the motivated/intentional spreader of misinformation. This isn't an either/or situation, we can have both kinds. Seeing the difference is more involved than simply ignoring both, but it can be like the spam bots: success breeds more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abraham

What about Amero dude?

---

He doesn't ski either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobz

Ha ha. Or, more briefly, the old story that ends "You're not really here for the hunting, are you?"

---

Or "but the pig likes it"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ill-advised strategy

You see it with dogs at the dog park, some agitator just dancing around bothering the other dogs to provoke a chase, chase me, fight me!

---

Our cockapoo Cleo loves to provoke other dogs and get chased. She about killed the small woman owner when she got a leashed Great Dane to chase her down the steps. Guy down the street has a coonhound who loves to chase her. Out walking the other day and the owner was training the coon hound to lie down and not react--very impressive but frustrated the hell out of our dog. She also loves to chase--funny to see her chasing the Doby next door. You have a cockapoo don't you? Is she like that? Or is ours just badly socialized with bad owners.

What would be nice is if at some point, rather than being banned, certain unhinged and questionable posters could have their posts decorated with some remarks like "questionable content" or "known raving lunatic" or "cockapoo".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

What would be nice is if at some point, rather than being banned, certain unhinged and questionable posters could have their posts decorated with some remarks like "questionable content" or "known raving lunatic" or "cockapoo".

---

You could have skipped the first two.

critic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

critic.

---

Hey, it's nothing against those first two. But this is le TRG. We don't rank cities on the Chelsea scale. We don't measure volume by toaster ovens. If you give three options and one of them is 37x better than the others that's two options more than we need.

Pekinese?
Pomeranian?
Chihuahua?

or better yet.....

Poodle

Hell no. Cockapoo.

New thing on FB to add to your profile pic:

Attachment 382262

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KQ

New thing on FB to add to your profile pic:

Attachment 382262

---

“Ignant and PROUD”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Right, the calculations are correct for the % vax reinfections. That's not the problem.

The problem is you and they are being fooled by the fact "new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave" coincides with the vaccine rollout. In other words, it's a coincidence that the recent wave coincides with the vaccine rollout which puts the vax reinfections denominator in the same ballpark.

The problems is with the denominator for the % of natural reinfections because things have changed since the pandemic began. Many of the people with natural reinfections also got vaccinated. Some of the natural reinfections in previous waves would have been infected during the delta wave instead, and so on. There's also the same problem as your table, which your article mentions, i.e. dividing numbers for specific areas with national averages.

A lot of these issues would cancel out and provide a gross back of the envelope estimate if they simply used the numbers since the pandemic began. Just think about it, why would the natural reinfection rate of 0.1% fall several orders of magnitude over a two month span unless somebody screwed up the math? It's an obvious error.

---

Attachment 382264

Look at the two month span in question (May - July). Cases are at their lowest point of the entire outbreak. Your 10 month period contains the two largest outbreaks. It's not a surprise that there would be a big difference in reinfection rate comparing those two time periods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

I'm not insisting on anything. Your source is using data since the pandemic began, not me. If they were in fact using data over the same time period in both the numerator and the denominator then their numbers would be more accurate.

As it stands, their numbers are off by several orders of magnitude.

---

Immunity wanes over time. It makes no sense to limit the denominator to just the recent 2 month period.

The denominator for the vaccinated isn't limited to the 2 month period in the article either.

#cockapoo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Wrong. How many of those who have recovered also got vaccinated? You want to compare those who only got vaccinated with those who got infected without ever looking at how many of the first group were both infected and vaccinated. You're mixing reinfections with breakthrough+reinfections and the denominator for reinfections alone is unknowable from the data presented. That's fatally flawed and it's intentionally misleading to equate "previously infected" to mean only infected and never vaccinated when there's obviously a large number of people in that previously infected group who were also vaccinated.

It's well known that the best immunity comes from adding vaccination to prior infection (helps that prior infection pre-selects for survivors). All this hand waving probably reinforces that fact--but only probably. Because they don't cite the relevant data. Either they don't have it or, like yourself, they don't know how to use it so they just left it out.

I bet you don't even own 26" wheels anymore. No principles at all.

---

You realize that those recovered who also got vaccinated would fall in the vaccinated category and thus help improve the vaccinated category if "It's well known that the best immunity comes from adding vaccination to prior infection"?