Contagion spreading among the vaccinated

[Paratus]

Oh - well thats certainly all the proof you need to say masks work - You're absolutely certain that during the night while sleeping when masks were off that "A-HA!" That was when she caught it. No doubt, no question. Case closed.

You're absolutely nuts at this point - you realize that, right?

You have absolutely zero science - and it's 100% based on your feels. This is textbook definition of cognitive bias' where you have the established outcome in your head - and then you play it out exactly as you prescribed.

My anecdotal evidence correlates with the scientific studies I was already aware of on the efficacy of masks.

For example:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

They work by reducing transmission of aerosol

Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities - Scientific Reports

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge in demand for facemasks to protect against disease transmission. In response to shortages, many public health authorities have recommended homemade masks as acceptable alternatives to surgical masks and N95 respirators. Although mask wearing is intended...

www.nature.com

And quite frankly it shouldn’t be controversial that viruses can transmit freely in enclosed spaces when no one wears a mask. I mean germ theory has been known for over a century.

 

[woolfe9998]

A member of the State Republican Executive Committee and Dickinson City Council bad mouths vaccines on Facebook, dies 5 days later from COVID.

Texas Republican leader dies of COVID-19 five days after anti-vaccination post

A Texas Republican leader who was hospitalized with COVID-19 died Wednesday, just days after he shared a post on social media questioning the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine.The Galve…

thehill.com

Lots of talk about "God" and "prayers" from his republican buddies but no talk of vaccination. Idiots.

 

[blackangst1]

Interesting article explaining the latest CDC "study"

The CDC has no idea what it's talking about (msn.com) (Washington Examiner)

 

[sandorski]

How many fucking examples are needed?

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh - well thats certainly all the proof you need to say masks work - You're absolutely certain that during the night while sleeping when masks were off that "A-HA!" That was when she caught it. No doubt, no question. Case closed.

You're absolutely nuts at this point - you realize that, right?

You have absolutely zero science - and it's 100% based on your feels. This is textbook definition of cognitive bias' where you have the established outcome in your head - and then you play it out exactly as you prescribed.

Good morning dumbfuck. What it's like out in dumbfuckistan today?

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission...

www.pnas.org

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536

Infection Prevention

www.idsociety.org

Face masks: what the data say

The science supports that face coverings are saving lives during the coronavirus pandemic, and yet the debate trundles on. How much evidence is enough?

www.nature.com

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

A member of the State Republican Executive Committee and Dickinson City Council bad mouths vaccines on Facebook, dies 5 days later from COVID.

Texas Republican leader dies of COVID-19 five days after anti-vaccination post

A Texas Republican leader who was hospitalized with COVID-19 died Wednesday, just days after he shared a post on social media questioning the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine.The Galve…

thehill.com

Lots of talk about "God" and "prayers" from his republican buddies but no talk of vaccination. Idiots.

Uhhh... if you're going to criticize his statement (or shared post on Facebook, rather) it would help to know if he took the vaccine or not.

Because if he shared about a post "questioning the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine." - then his death would kinda validate that to a certain extent, no?

Of course, most are naturally going to presume he was an anti-vaxxer.

 

[woolfe9998]

Uhhh... if you're going to criticize his statement (or shared post on Facebook, rather) it would help to know if he took the vaccine or not.

Because if he shared about a post "questioning the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine." - then his death would kinda validate that to a certain extent, no?

Of course, most are naturally going to presume he was an anti-vaxxer.

He never said whether he took it or not. But he died from COVID, and ~99.5% of COVID deaths are unvaccinated. I put the chance of him being vaccinated at less than .5%, however, due to his publicized attitude about vaccination.

Just playing the odds here.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Uhhh... if you're going to criticize his statement (or shared post on Facebook, rather) it would help to know if he took the vaccine or not.

Because if he shared about a post "questioning the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine." - then his death would kinda validate that to a certain extent, no?

Of course, most are naturally going to presume he was an anti-vaxxer.

Have you ever considered just fucking off somewhere, where people actually want to listen to your shit?

 

[allisolm]

A member of the State Republican Executive Committee and Dickinson City Council bad mouths vaccines on Facebook, dies 5 days later from COVID.

Texas Republican leader dies of COVID-19 five days after anti-vaccination post

A Texas Republican leader who was hospitalized with COVID-19 died Wednesday, just days after he shared a post on social media questioning the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine.The Galve…

thehill.com

Of course, most are naturally going to presume he was an anti-vaxxer.

Once again your writing that means you failed to read the article.

"Apley had also previously vocalized his opposition to vaccinations and mask mandates, and in May shared a flyer for a mask burning event.

In April, the Republican leader commented on a Twitter post from public health expert Leana Wen, who shared findings from a trial indicating that the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech remains effective against the virus for at least six months after the second dose.

Apley replied to the tweet by writing, 'You are an absolute enemy of a free people,” and “#ShoveTheCarrotWhereTheSunDontShine.'"

I don't think anyone who "presumes" he was an anti-vaxxer would be doing so in error.

 

[abj13]

Interesting article explaining the latest CDC "study"

The CDC has no idea what it's talking about (msn.com) (Washington Examiner)

Why are you stating the CDC study in quotations?

Furthermore, why are you posting an shitty news article from the Washington Examiner that is written by an idiot? All it takes is a few parsing of her claims to realize she never read the study.

"But the CDC concluded that this study, which only began on July 3 and has not been peer-reviewed, was somehow enough evidence to take the United States back to pre-vaccination restrictions. "
-No, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is a peer reviewed journal. The study was peer reviewed.

"One of the biggest red flags with the Provincetown study is that it only looked at people who volunteered to be tested."
-No, that's not what occurred. The public health system traced close contacts and tested when appropriate: "During July 10–26, using travel history data from the state COVID-19 surveillance system, MA DPH identified a cluster of cases among Massachusetts residents. Additional cases were identified by local health jurisdictions through case investigation." This is how they identified over 20% of individuals who were asymptomatic but still tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

"In other words, the Provincetown study looked at a very small sample size of an outlying group (fully vaccinated breakthrough symptomatic infections), and instead of verifying this data or at least adding additional context to it, the CDC took it and applied it to the entire vaccinated population."
-No, the authors reported the demographics of the vaccinated individuals who developed COVID-19. They did the very thing she claimed they didn't. Of the 346 individuals who were vaccinated, 274 (79%) had symptoms consistent with COVID-19. To claim that it is a very small sample size and outlier... well somebody didn't read the study.

"One study from the United Kingdom, this one conducted via random sampling with a much larger sample size, revealed that fully vaccinated adults actually have lower viral loads than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated adults. "
-Wait, didn't she complain about non-peer reviewed studies? Why is she quoting a preprint study that has not been peer reviewed?
-And if she would have read that study, the data is not as clear cut as she claims. Please see Table 7.

"The CDC has no idea what it’s talking about, and its bureaucrats think we’re too stupid to figure that out. "
-Well, somebody is too stupid to read the study in the first place.

 

[cytg111]

Oh - well thats certainly all the proof you need to say masks work - You're absolutely certain that during the night while sleeping when masks were off that "A-HA!" That was when she caught it. No doubt, no question. Case closed.

You're absolutely nuts at this point - you realize that, right?

You have absolutely zero science - and it's 100% based on your feels. This is textbook definition of cognitive bias' where you have the established outcome in your head - and then you play it out exactly as you prescribed.

Mind still well and proper right out.

 

[ivwshane]

Why are you stating the CDC study in quotations?

Furthermore, why are you posting an shitty news article from the Washington Examiner that is written by an idiot? All it takes is a few parsing of her claims to realize she never read the study.

"But the CDC concluded that this study, which only began on July 3 and has not been peer-reviewed, was somehow enough evidence to take the United States back to pre-vaccination restrictions. "
-No, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is a peer reviewed journal. The study was peer reviewed.

"One of the biggest red flags with the Provincetown study is that it only looked at people who volunteered to be tested."
-No, that's not what occurred. The public health system traced close contacts and tested when appropriate: "During July 10–26, using travel history data from the state COVID-19 surveillance system, MA DPH identified a cluster of cases among Massachusetts residents. Additional cases were identified by local health jurisdictions through case investigation." This is how they identified over 20% of individuals who were asymptomatic but still tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

"In other words, the Provincetown study looked at a very small sample size of an outlying group (fully vaccinated breakthrough symptomatic infections), and instead of verifying this data or at least adding additional context to it, the CDC took it and applied it to the entire vaccinated population."
-No, the authors reported the demographics of the vaccinated individuals who developed COVID-19. They did the very thing she claimed they didn't. Of the 346 individuals who were vaccinated, 274 (79%) had symptoms consistent with COVID-19. To claim that it is a very small sample size and outlier... well somebody didn't read the study.

"One study from the United Kingdom, this one conducted via random sampling with a much larger sample size, revealed that fully vaccinated adults actually have lower viral loads than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated adults. "
-Wait, didn't she complain about non-peer reviewed studies? Why is she quoting a preprint study that has not been peer reviewed?
-And if she would have read that study, the data is not as clear cut as she claims. Please see Table 7.

"The CDC has no idea what it’s talking about, and its bureaucrats think we’re too stupid to figure that out. "
-Well, somebody is too stupid to read the study in the first place.

I honestly believe he’s not capable of figuring out when a source of information is good or not. I suspect confirmation bias plays a huge role in his research and learning.

 

[dank69]

Interesting article explaining the latest CDC "study"

The CDC has no idea what it's talking about (msn.com) (Washington Examiner)

When you wrote "(Washington Examiner)" that was your clue to not post.

 

[blackangst1]

Why are you stating the CDC study in quotations?

Furthermore, why are you posting an shitty news article from the Washington Examiner that is written by an idiot? All it takes is a few parsing of her claims to realize she never read the study.

"But the CDC concluded that this study, which only began on July 3 and has not been peer-reviewed, was somehow enough evidence to take the United States back to pre-vaccination restrictions. "
-No, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report is a peer reviewed journal. The study was peer reviewed.

"One of the biggest red flags with the Provincetown study is that it only looked at people who volunteered to be tested."
-No, that's not what occurred. The public health system traced close contacts and tested when appropriate: "During July 10–26, using travel history data from the state COVID-19 surveillance system, MA DPH identified a cluster of cases among Massachusetts residents. Additional cases were identified by local health jurisdictions through case investigation." This is how they identified over 20% of individuals who were asymptomatic but still tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

"In other words, the Provincetown study looked at a very small sample size of an outlying group (fully vaccinated breakthrough symptomatic infections), and instead of verifying this data or at least adding additional context to it, the CDC took it and applied it to the entire vaccinated population."
-No, the authors reported the demographics of the vaccinated individuals who developed COVID-19. They did the very thing she claimed they didn't. Of the 346 individuals who were vaccinated, 274 (79%) had symptoms consistent with COVID-19. To claim that it is a very small sample size and outlier... well somebody didn't read the study.

"One study from the United Kingdom, this one conducted via random sampling with a much larger sample size, revealed that fully vaccinated adults actually have lower viral loads than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated adults. "
-Wait, didn't she complain about non-peer reviewed studies? Why is she quoting a preprint study that has not been peer reviewed?
-And if she would have read that study, the data is not as clear cut as she claims. Please see Table 7.

"The CDC has no idea what it’s talking about, and its bureaucrats think we’re too stupid to figure that out. "
-Well, somebody is too stupid to read the study in the first place.

Introduction (cdc.gov)

Several other differences exist. A major one is that, unlike medical journals (with a few exceptions, i.e., certain special supplements such as this one), the content published in MMWR constitutes the official voice of its parent, CDC. One sign of this is the absence in MMWR of any official disclaimers. Although most articles that appear in MMWR are not "peer-reviewed" in the way that submissions to medical journals are, to ensure that the content of MMWR comports with CDC policy, every submission to MMWR undergoes a rigorous multilevel clearance process before publication. This includes review by the CDC Director or designate, top scientific directors at all CDC organizational levels, and an exacting review by MMWR editors. Articles submitted to MMWR from non-CDC authors undergo the same kind of review by subject-matter experts within CDC. By the time a report appears in MMWR, it reflects, or is consistent with, CDC policy.

 

[blackangst1]

When you wrote "(Washington Examiner)" that was your clue to not post.

Sorry I dont know what is considered good and bad. Maybe there should be a sticky.

 

[dank69]

Sorry I dont know what is considered good and bad. Maybe there should be a sticky.

Start by learning the difference between facts and opinions. Think you can handle that?

 

[blackangst1]

Start by learning the difference between facts and opinions. Think you can handle that?

Clearly the piece is op-ed. Doesnt mean its wrong. I just thought it was interesting.

 

[Muse]

A member of the State Republican Executive Committee and Dickinson City Council bad mouths vaccines on Facebook, dies 5 days later from COVID. Lots of talk about "God" and "prayers" from his republican buddies but no talk of vaccination. Idiots.

Texas Republican leader dies of COVID-19 five days after anti-vaccination post

A Texas Republican leader who was hospitalized with COVID-19 died Wednesday, just days after he shared a post on social media questioning the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine.The Galve…

thehill.com

Idiots indeed.

“God remains in control although this is yet another tough one to swallow,” the organization (the county Republican Party) added.

Their god is hard to swallow.

 

[dank69]

Clearly the piece is op-ed. Doesnt mean its wrong. I just thought it was interesting.

Step two: is the title of the article ludicrous on the surface? Yes = don't fucking post.

 

[sandorski]

Idiots indeed.
Their god is hard to swallow.

I always like how they never question the value of their perception of "God".

 

[VW MAN]

Oh - well thats certainly all the proof you need to say masks work - You're absolutely certain that during the night while sleeping when masks were off that "A-HA!" That was when she caught it. No doubt, no question. Case closed.

You're absolutely nuts at this point - you realize that, right?

You have absolutely zero science - and it's 100% based on your feels. This is textbook definition of cognitive bias' where you have the established outcome in your head - and then you play it out exactly as you prescribed.

when this fucking moron self owns himself nearly hourly around here it makes literally laugh out loud every time! Seriously this tool is nothing but a broken idiot, no matter what his politics are, he is just a giant irrelevant fuck-wit with no redeeming value to society at large at all.

@s0me0nesmind1 you are a hindrance to the living and the sane!

 

[Pohemi]

Clearly the piece is op-ed. Doesnt mean its wrong. I just thought it was interesting.

You thought it was a decent piece of FUD, like most of what you link. You can play dumb (is it really an act, or fact?) about not recognizing what sources are reliable and fact-based, but it seems you know exactly which ones are full of shit enough to support your biases and narratives.

In other words, go fuck yourself, cvnt.

I always like how they never question the value of their perception of "God".

But but but but...that's FAITH!!!!!1

 

[Zorba]

A member of the State Republican Executive Committee and Dickinson City Council bad mouths vaccines on Facebook, dies 5 days later from COVID.

Texas Republican leader dies of COVID-19 five days after anti-vaccination post

A Texas Republican leader who was hospitalized with COVID-19 died Wednesday, just days after he shared a post on social media questioning the effectiveness of the coronavirus vaccine.The Galve…

thehill.com

Lots of talk about "God" and "prayers" from his republican buddies but no talk of vaccination. Idiots.

And now his widow is fleecing the antivaxers for money.

 

[woolfe9998]

So the coroner in a small Missouri county removed COVID as CoD from some death certificates "at the request" of family members of the deceased.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/missouri-county-coroner-removed-covid-110916037.html

The reason given is strange.

In Macon, some requests came from people who wanted to avoid being reminded of how they could not see family before their deaths because of restrictions on visits to hospitals and nursing homes. "A lot of families were upset. They didn't want covid on the death certificates," the county coroner, Brian Hayes, told the Star.

They were upset about not being able to visit their loved ones in the hospital, and it then follows that they...didn't want COVID listed as a cause of death? Because they didn't want to be "reminded" of the trauma, because they spend all their time staring at their relative's death certificates?

Or how about this: they didn't want people to know that their unvaccinated loved ones died of COVID because it makes it look like they were responsible for their own deaths? Sounds a lot more plausible to me!

 

[Muse]

Or how about this: they didn't want people to know that their unvaccinated loved ones died of COVID because it makes it look like they were responsible for their own deaths? Sounds a lot more plausible to me!

A well loved member of the 98% volunteer organization I work in died over a year ago and we have no info how/why. I strongly suspect it was covid-19. My cousin died and his sister's pretty sure it was covid-19, but the NYC agency wouldn't confirm, saying they didn't think it was there then (Feb. 2020).