Pfizer clinical trial data: not good at all

[isItFallYet]

Thats a hard no from me on that one. The goalpost definitely moved. No one, and I mean no one thought that is all the vaccines did when they came out. When they said 95% effective, what exactly do you think people thought that meant? Almost everyone who I've talked to one on one thought it meant there was a 5% chance of getting a breakthrough case of Covid 19, or they didn't really know what it meant at all.

Lets take a look at pfizers own numbers:
The pfizer phase 3 trial had 43k participants. and they evaluated 170 positive cases out of that group. Eight vaccinated subjects had covid 19, the other 162 were placebo, so 162/170*100=95% That's the number everyone heard. 95% effective.

Again: 170 confirmed positive covid cases evaluated out of 43k participants.
Pfizer Phase 3
Nothing about preventing severe illness, nothing about preventing hospitalization, nothing about preventing death. Only the odds of a positive covid 19 test: Vaxed vs Unvaxed.
The whole trial is about numbers of breakthrough infections. Thats how they calculated the efficacy percentage.

And if you are going to post from that memo,
From 2.3 of that very same Pfizer memo.
"Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, is developing a vaccine to prevent
COVID-19 which is based on the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein"
6.1. Known Benefits
The known benefits among recipients of the proposed vaccine relative to placebo are:
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after Dose 2
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed COVID-19 after Dose 1 and before Dose 2
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed severe COVID-19 any time after Dose 1

They were sold as a vaccine that would prevent Covid19. Period.
Not as a vaccine that would prevent you from being hospitalized.
There is no data in the EUAs that suggest their intention was only to prevent hospitalization and death. There is only the implication that it will.

Now if you want to discuss why they are not nearly as effective with delta and omicron as they were with alpha, thats a different conversation.

That’s why they lobbied against the amendment to the False Claims Act.

Pfizer Is Lobbying to Thwart Whistleblowers From Exposing Corporate Fraud

Pfizer is among the Big Pharma companies trying to block legislation strengthening whistleblowers’ ability to report corporate fraud.

theintercept.com

They paid $2.3 billion in 2009 for falsifying data. AKA: misinformation

This was pfizer in 2018

Pfizer Settles False Claims Allegations for $24M

The drug-maker allegedly used a charitable foundation to boost its own revenues by covering the copays of Medicare patients taking the company's drugs.

www.healthleadersmedia.com

Fact check me please!

 

[Flyjunky]

Thats a hard no from me on that one. The goalpost definitely moved. No one, and I mean no one thought that is all the vaccines did when they came out. When they said 95% effective, what exactly do you think people thought that meant? Almost everyone who I've talked to one on one thought it meant there was a 5% chance of getting a breakthrough case of Covid 19, or they didn't really know what it meant at all.

Lets take a look at pfizers own numbers:
The pfizer phase 3 trial had 43k participants. and they evaluated 170 positive cases out of that group. Eight vaccinated subjects had covid 19, the other 162 were placebo, so 162/170*100=95% That's the number everyone heard. 95% effective.

Again: 170 confirmed positive covid cases evaluated out of 43k participants.
Pfizer Phase 3
Nothing about preventing severe illness, nothing about preventing hospitalization, nothing about preventing death. Only the odds of a positive covid 19 test: Vaxed vs Unvaxed.
The whole trial is about numbers of breakthrough infections. Thats how they calculated the efficacy percentage.

And if you are going to post from that memo,
From 2.3 of that very same Pfizer memo.
"Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, is developing a vaccine to prevent
COVID-19 which is based on the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein"
6.1. Known Benefits
The known benefits among recipients of the proposed vaccine relative to placebo are:
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days after Dose 2
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed COVID-19 after Dose 1 and before Dose 2
• Reduction in the risk of confirmed severe COVID-19 any time after Dose 1

They were sold as a vaccine that would prevent Covid19. Period.
Not as a vaccine that would prevent you from being hospitalized.
There is no data in the EUAs that suggest their intention was only to prevent hospitalization and death. There is only the implication that it will.

Now if you want to discuss why they are not nearly as effective with delta and omicron as they were with alpha, thats a different conversation.

Thanks for posting.

Yes, the vaccines were promoted by all the shills at most MSM sites, and the current "President" as being able to stop covid...this is just one example:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1475193955704881152

And people wonder why there is a trust issue in this country

 

[isItFallYet]

Thanks for posting.

Yes, the vaccines were promoted by all the shills at most MSM sites, and the current "President" as being able to stop covid...this is just one example:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1475193955704881152

And people wonder why there is a trust issue in this country

Wait!! Was she booted from Twitter, Instagram, Facebook?

 

[Troutnut]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

As a scientist with a heavy statistics background, I rely on statistics all the time, but I take very seriously the obligation to use them carefully. They can be misinterpreted even by well-meaning people with moderate-to-good training, and they're a very powerful tool in the arsenal of a liar who wants to use them to mislead people on purpose.

That's exactly what's happening in this video: lying with statistics. This is some high-grade, sophisticated pseudoscience made by people skilled in the art of mixing things that look like science (like citing real published studies) with crafty sleight-of-hand to sell conclusions opposite what the science really shows.

I'll prove it here with an example of the kind of lie they're telling. This comes around the 3-minute mark.

They're using data from Pfizer's clinical trial showing that the vaccine reduced a person's chances of getting Covid during the trial period from 0.88 % in the unvaccinated control group to just 0.04 % in the vaccinated group. That relative risk reduction of 95 % is a fantastic result from any clinical trail, especially a vaccine. (Side note: it's lower than 95 now against Omicron, but still worth getting.) These propagandists dismiss that result by phrasing it in terms of absolute risk reduction of 0.84 % instead. They justify this by pulling out of context and stripping nuance from an FDA recommendation to communicate risks to the public in absolute rather than relative terms. That recommendation was never meant to apply to interpreting clinical trials, where the exact opposite is true -- the whole point of them is to measure relative risk!

The problem with using absolute risk in this situation is that the circumstances which convert relative to absolute risk change enormously over time. The absolute risk reduction of 0.84 % was the absolute risk of a Pfizer trial participant catching Covid during the limited months Pfizer ran the trial, early in the pandemic when Covid was far less widespread and life was locked down. Somebody is many times more likely to be exposed to Covid now than a participant was during that trial. Also, many of us want to avoid getting Covid at all, not just for a few months, and the absolute risk grows higher over time. Roughly 15 % of the U.S. population has already tested positive for Covid, and it's estimated that around the same number have had it without getting tested, so roughly 30 % of the U.S. population has had Covid already. Many more were undoubtedly exposed to Covid but didn't get it because they were vaccinated.

So the absolute risk of somebody being exposed to Covid from the start of the pandemic up until now (so they catch it or would have caught it if unvaxxed) is probably at least 40 %, likely higher. The vaccine's 95 % relative risk reduction converts to a 38 % absolute risk reduction, or about 45 times higher than what the video dishonestly portrays. The numbers I'm giving are approximate, but it really doesn't matter if they're lying by a factor of 30 or 45 or 60, does it? Their pants are on fire any way you slice it.

I'm almost certain this wasn't an innocent mistake by the people who made this video. The lie is too well-crafted to be an accident. When you catch somebody lying that deviously to you on purpose, you can't trust anything else they're saying. The video is garbage.

 

[Crowmangler]

From multiple news sources:

The Henry Ford Health System, Michigan’s largest health system reported that 686 of its employees tested positive for COVID-19 over the last seven days despite having a vaccination compliance rate of 99%.

"PanDeMiC oF ThE uNvAcCiNaTeD!!!!!!"

 

[JJJ]

What percentage of the 20+million US healthcare workers are employed by that hospital?

Where are the statistics that validate that vaccine mandates are primarily responsible for a decrease in the number of employed Healthcare workers? Posting unsupported assertions (and then demanding other people prove them wrong rather than posting support themselves) doesn't make a person a flat out liar, it just ads nothing to the conversation and diminishes their credibility.

There is plenty of evidence that would suggest that factors other than the vaccine mandates which have driven people out of healthcare (or to other jobs within the healthcare field). This article cites heavy workloads, burnout, and stress as contributing factors. It also lists the impacts of the COVID pandemic, Strangely, it does not list vaccine mandates. You'd think it would if it was in fact the primary factor - no?

Post-Pandemic Nursing Shortage: Effects On Aspiring Nurses

The 2020 pandemic has had a significant impact on nurses and a growing global shortage. Here's how it impacts nursing practice.

nursejournal.org

From this article, it sounds like the downstream impacts of the lack of vaccination is a contributing factor. It likewise doesn't list vaccine mandates as a reason. Funny.

"That sense of burnout has become more common among nurses in the US during the pandemic because of anxiety, depression and exhaustion due to the increased workload; fears of catching the virus; and the witnessing of so many deaths, among other reasons, according to several studies."

‘I can’t do this any more’: US faces nurse shortage from burnout

Anxiety, depression and exhaustion, as well as fears of catching Covid, and the witnessing of so many deaths, are among some of the reasons, according to several studies

www.theguardian.com

Because it was all at ******* once after a vax mandate deadline.

 

[JJJ]

Because it was all at ******* once after a vax mandate deadline

What percentage of the 20+million US healthcare workers are employed by that hospital?

Where are the statistics that validate that vaccine mandates are primarily responsible for a decrease in the number of employed Healthcare workers? Posting unsupported assertions (and then demanding other people prove them wrong rather than posting support themselves) doesn't make a person a flat out liar, it just ads nothing to the conversation and diminishes their credibility.

There is plenty of evidence that would suggest that factors other than the vaccine mandates which have driven people out of healthcare (or to other jobs within the healthcare field). This article cites heavy workloads, burnout, and stress as contributing factors. It also lists the impacts of the COVID pandemic, Strangely, it does not list vaccine mandates. You'd think it would if it was in fact the primary factor - no?

Post-Pandemic Nursing Shortage: Effects On Aspiring Nurses

The 2020 pandemic has had a significant impact on nurses and a growing global shortage. Here's how it impacts nursing practice.

nursejournal.org

From this article, it sounds like the downstream impacts of the lack of vaccination is a contributing factor. It likewise doesn't list vaccine mandates as a reason. Funny.

"That sense of burnout has become more common among nurses in the US during the pandemic because of anxiety, depression and exhaustion due to the increased workload; fears of catching the virus; and the witnessing of so many deaths, among other reasons, according to several studies."

‘I can’t do this any more’: US faces nurse shortage from burnout

Anxiety, depression and exhaustion, as well as fears of catching Covid, and the witnessing of so many deaths, are among some of the reasons, according to several studies

www.theguardian.com

Also, to you unsupported assertions = first hand accounts from people I’ve known for 35 years. You’re in a stats world quoting the guardian, I’m over here talking about reality. I feel bad for fake scientists like you.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

The Isreali study confirmed that natural immunity was better than vaccine only immunity - since you love posting links, here you go:

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

It doesn't seem like you listened to the podcast that @fwafwow posted earlier - those 3 doctors indicated that several studies about natural immunity exist - if you are actually interested in an expert opinion check out the 45 minute mark - better yet, you might consider listening to the entire podcast...

#189 - COVID Part 1: Current state of affairs, Omicron, and a search for the end game - Peter Attia

“Where's the humility? People are hungry for honesty right now.” —Marty Makary

peterattiamd.com

I'm glad you provided a link. To clarify, that's a news article about the study, not the study itself, but it's still helpful because it contains a piece of information you missed. From the article you linked:

"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated."

So it looks like if you could confirm a prior infection, one dose provided more protection than no vaccine or two vaccines against the Delta variant specifically. The article also mentions one of the major concerns, that people would read the headline and decide "Well I should just get infected and then I'll be safe." If you're unvaccinated and don't have a confirmed prior infection, your best bet is still to get vaccinated. If you had a confirmed case, then getting a vaccine still provides greater protection than not.

I predict a year from now we'll still be disagreeing on this and some of these posters will be on their 5th-6th booster shot still telling others to "trust the science" while having totally wiped out immune systems.

That's not how immune systems work. A vaccine that provokes an immune respond doesn't make your immune system less effective or less able to respond to infection.

Perhaps the least expensive and most effective health decision would be to improve your physical health and lose weight by exercising and eating healthy.

CDC study finds about 78% of people hospitalized for Covid were overweight or obese

An overwhelming majority of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator or died from Covid-19 have been overweight or obese, the CDC said.

www.cnbc.com

Or perhaps because there's no way for big Pharma to make any money off of you if you don't get the jab.

Losing weight takes time, getting a vaccine provides protection far more quickly than one could lose even 16 pounds.

You're also pointing to a correlation, I don't see anything in that article that indicates that losing weight provides any protection against hospitalization.

Nearly half of the hospital staff where my aunt runs the OR wing have quit the hospital over vax mandates. Janitors, nurses, the head of neuro-surgery, the head of cardiovascular surgeries, an OBGYN, I could go on. Is that a conspiracy theory or do you think anyone who disagrees with you is a flat out liar?

I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is a flat out liar. I do think if someone claims to be looking for data and evidence, it's not a high bar to ask for the data and evidence they're using to make claims, especially if they're claiming the NIH "admitted" what they're claiming is true.

I also have reason to doubt the claim about quitting. I monitor employment trends in my region as part of my job as an analyst, it helps us predict and identify changes in economic development. We haven't seen a wave of people quitting healthcare over vaccine mandates. In fact it was kind of surprising that we also have reason to doubt the "unemployment payments are causing a labor shortage" thing. As far as we can tell, it's more that baby boomers and older gen-xers are retiring early, having been able to sell their homes or do a cashout refinance at ridiculously low rates. I can't release our proprietary data, but there's no shortage of publicly available data that matches: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackke...unami-great-retirement-trend/?sh=4e6c72c9260b

Becker Hospital Review is a healthcare professional publication that discusses healthcare trends, it's aimed at hospital administrators and the like. Still pretty readable for the layperson.

The less-discussed consequence of healthcare's labor shortage

The healthcare industry's staffing shortage crisis has had clear consequences for care delivery and efficiency, forcing some health systems to pause nonemergency surgeries or temporarily close facilities. Less understood is how these shortages are affecting care quality and patient safety.

www.beckershospitalreview.com

They also don't attribute the shortage to vaccine mandates. Things like harassment (y'all like anecdotes, we had a mob outside the children's hospital here last year, or the people convinced hospitals were faking bed shortages), existing staffing issues (again, if you're already shortstaffed and now you have to quarantine for 10 days following exposure, you just exacerbate the shortage), a lack of new labor (not just nurses, and it's been ongoing), patient loads (boomers are getting older and need more care, and there are more of them) and total workstress. The one they don't mention, that you will see elsewhere is pay. Again, I can give you an anecdote, my wife's coworkers had to threaten a walkout to get a raise on par with what their counterparts at other hospitals were getting and to hire an additional employee to cover the 40% increase in workload. If my workload increased 40% without a 40% pay raise I'd quit and go work at Cabelas.

Why are the pro vaxxers worried about the nonvaxxers killing people? Nobody has an issue with it when it comes to the flu every year.

You guys could always move to Australia and work enforcement at the quarantine camps.

Actually people talk pretty regularly about the flu vaccine's importance. it was interesting to note that we haven't seen as many flu deaths in the last couple years. You can find news articles and public statements every year about it, especially as we get closer to the holidays. My doctor's office always sends a reminder in October for people to get vaccinated before they go see gramma for the holidays. Here's one from 2018. You probably don't remember it because the antivaxxers didn't manage to latch their nonsense on publicly until this one.

"Doctors, Health Officials Urge Flu Shots Ahead Of Flu Season" | Mount Sinai - New York

www.mountsinai.org

 

[dieselchessy]

From multiple news sources:

The Henry Ford Health System, Michigan’s largest health system reported that 686 of its employees tested positive for COVID-19 over the last seven days despite having a vaccination compliance rate of 99%.

"PanDeMiC oF ThE uNvAcCiNaTeD!!!!!!"

This is the kind of stuff that’s annoying.

Why change the number values from total to percent? It looks dishonest.
What percent of the total employees does 686 represent? Is it 40%, 15%, or 2%?

And what about the severity of their illness? What percent or number of them suffered only mild symptoms with no need for hospitalization.

The one sentence you posted is just cherry picked to support a angle. It’s not usable info for much else than pot stirring.

What if 686 represents 2.2% of employees?
What if the 1% that weren’t vaccinated were in the 686 and only 1.2% of vaccinated tested positive.

Could show the vaccine is pretty effective.

With more than 30,000 employees, Henry Ford Health System is the fifth-largest employer in metro Detroit, and among the most diverse.

 

[JJJ]

I'm glad you provided a link. To clarify, that's a news article about the study, not the study itself, but it's still helpful because it contains a piece of information you missed. From the article you linked:

"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated."

So it looks like if you could confirm a prior infection, one dose provided more protection than no vaccine or two vaccines against the Delta variant specifically. The article also mentions one of the major concerns, that people would read the headline and decide "Well I should just get infected and then I'll be safe." If you're unvaccinated and don't have a confirmed prior infection, your best bet is still to get vaccinated. If you had a confirmed case, then getting a vaccine still provides greater protection than not.


That's not how immune systems work. A vaccine that provokes an immune respond doesn't make your immune system less effective or less able to respond to infection.

Losing weight takes time, getting a vaccine provides protection far more quickly than one could lose even 16 pounds.

You're also pointing to a correlation, I don't see anything in that article that indicates that losing weight provides any protection against hospitalization.


I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is a flat out liar. I do think if someone claims to be looking for data and evidence, it's not a high bar to ask for the data and evidence they're using to make claims, especially if they're claiming the NIH "admitted" what they're claiming is true.

I also have reason to doubt the claim about quitting. I monitor employment trends in my region as part of my job as an analyst, it helps us predict and identify changes in economic development. We haven't seen a wave of people quitting healthcare over vaccine mandates. In fact it was kind of surprising that we also have reason to doubt the "unemployment payments are causing a labor shortage" thing. As far as we can tell, it's more that baby boomers and older gen-xers are retiring early, having been able to sell their homes or do a cashout refinance at ridiculously low rates. I can't release our proprietary data, but there's no shortage of publicly available data that matches: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackke...unami-great-retirement-trend/?sh=4e6c72c9260b

Becker Hospital Review is a healthcare professional publication that discusses healthcare trends, it's aimed at hospital administrators and the like. Still pretty readable for the layperson.

The less-discussed consequence of healthcare's labor shortage

The healthcare industry's staffing shortage crisis has had clear consequences for care delivery and efficiency, forcing some health systems to pause nonemergency surgeries or temporarily close facilities. Less understood is how these shortages are affecting care quality and patient safety.

www.beckershospitalreview.com

They also don't attribute the shortage to vaccine mandates. Things like harassment (y'all like anecdotes, we had a mob outside the children's hospital here last year, or the people convinced hospitals were faking bed shortages), existing staffing issues (again, if you're already shortstaffed and now you have to quarantine for 10 days following exposure, you just exacerbate the shortage), a lack of new labor (not just nurses, and it's been ongoing), patient loads (boomers are getting older and need more care, and there are more of them) and total workstress. The one they don't mention, that you will see elsewhere is pay. Again, I can give you an anecdote, my wife's coworkers had to threaten a walkout to get a raise on par with what their counterparts at other hospitals were getting and to hire an additional employee to cover the 40% increase in workload. If my workload increased 40% without a 40% pay raise I'd quit and go work at Cabelas.

Actually people talk pretty regularly about the flu vaccine's importance. it was interesting to note that we haven't seen as many flu deaths in the last couple years. You can find news articles and public statements every year about it, especially as we get closer to the holidays. My doctor's office always sends a reminder in October for people to get vaccinated before they go see gramma for the holidays. Here's one from 2018. You probably don't remember it because the antivaxxers didn't manage to latch their nonsense on publicly until this one.

"Doctors, Health Officials Urge Flu Shots Ahead Of Flu Season" | Mount Sinai - New York

www.mountsinai.org

Anti-vax is nonsense because you, fauci and Biden say so? Again, your data analysis is a way to try to explain reality, while reality is actually happening. You’re trying to gain clues behind your computer screen as to what’s happening. Breaking things down into little pieces. Chopping them up and rearranging them. It’s horse shit. People are rejecting these vax mandates. Only the brain washed eat up the official narrative. You have been successfully trained to attack anybody who pushes against the narrative.
There are millions of people who work for the government for free as trained attack dogs.
There’s head of neurosurgery, head of cardio surgery and a slew of other doctors and surgeons telling their patients not to get the vaccine. And quitting because of the mandates specifically. That included nurses, support staff, janitors, etc.
you can try to break that down in your computer however you want.you can also believe there was massive flight delays for a fake storm in Florida before the holiday season, but the reality is pilots don’t want to take that shit. Nobody with any sense believes the government messaging. You’ve been duped and data analysis is phony science

 

[Skerhunter]

The flu vax hasn't been demonstrated to be nearly as effective as the COVID vaccines.

That's not a fair assessment and could easily be argued to be a false statement. Now is it easy to make a vaccine for influenza or coronavirus, that is proven to be efficacious year after year, season after season, no it is not.

 

[couesbitten]

Losing weight takes time, getting a vaccine provides protection far more quickly than one could lose even 16 pounds.

You're also pointing to a correlation, I don't see anything in that article that indicates that losing weight provides any protection against hospitalization.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. It looks like some of us may be suffering from lack of common sense. They hid the answer right in the headline, 78% of people hospitalized for COVID were overweight or obese.

 

[Crowmangler]

If your vaccine works why do I need to take it?

If your vaccine doesn't work why do I need to take it?

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. It looks like some of us may be suffering from lack of common sense. They hid the answer right in the headline, 78% of people hospitalized for COVID were overweight or obese.

Once again, sometimes "common sense" fails us, especially if we're only looking at one datapoint. You've probably heard of thisphenomenon already, the outlandish example is the correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, or Nick Cage movies and spree shootings.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2018-05-24/the-obesity-paradox-when-obese-patients-fare-better-than-healthy-ones

Does this study mean that obese patients actually have better health outcomes? No, there's a confounding factor: patients with lower bodyweight going into hospitalization often had other issues involved, especially in that population.

So now let's look and see if there are any other factors that might correlate with obesity.

Vaccination is Local: COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Vary by County and Key Characteristics | KFF

This issue brief builds on a previous CDC analysis by analyzing how vaccination rates to date vary by counties and identifying key county characteristics that are associated with higher or lower county vaccination rates.

www.kff.org

Who wants to take a guess at what the relationship is between vaccination status and obesity? I'll give you a hint, it also cross-correlates with poverty and whether or not the county went red in the 2020 election.

If your vaccine works why do I need to take it?

If your vaccine doesn't work why do I need to take it?

Because you can still spread it to people who can't be vaccinated, a large unvaccinated population causes faster mutations which reduce efficacy, and a large unvaccinated population can cause a disease to become endemic.

We had this conversation nationally during the last measles outbreak, and every year at flu season.

 

[Agross]

What’s the percentage of people that can’t be vaccinated?

 

[Yoder]

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. It looks like some of us may be suffering from lack of common sense. They hid the answer right in the headline, 78% of people hospitalized for COVID were overweight or obese.

To be fair, 69% of all Americans are overweight or obese. So it's 11% higher than the national average. This is probably one reason why our country had a higher death rate than some third world countries with terrible health care.

 

[Chucklehead]

Once again, sometimes "common sense" fails us, especially if we're only looking at one datapoint. You've probably heard of thisphenomenon already, the outlandish example is the correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks, or Nick Cage movies and spree shootings.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-care-news/articles/2018-05-24/the-obesity-paradox-when-obese-patients-fare-better-than-healthy-ones

Does this study mean that obese patients actually have better health outcomes? No, there's a confounding factor: patients with lower bodyweight going into hospitalization often had other issues involved, especially in that population.

So now let's look and see if there are any other factors that might correlate with obesity.

Vaccination is Local: COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Vary by County and Key Characteristics | KFF

This issue brief builds on a previous CDC analysis by analyzing how vaccination rates to date vary by counties and identifying key county characteristics that are associated with higher or lower county vaccination rates.

www.kff.org

Who wants to take a guess at what the relationship is between vaccination status and obesity? I'll give you a hint, it also cross-correlates with poverty and whether or not the county went red in the 2020 election.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Or why it is relevant to the point he was making.
Is it: Poor, Unvaxed, Trump voters are fat??? Or is it Poor, Fat, trump voters are unvaxed? Fill me in here.
Seems like you have a bunch of irrelevant data. Who cares if they are poor or if they live in a red county?

The only relevant information would be how the virus behaves and attacks cells.
Granted not peer reviewed yet but still:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20211209/coronavirus-attacks-fat-tissue#:~:text=9, 2021 -- The coronavirus,and death from COVID-19.
Or
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/28/pfizer-vaccine-less-effective-obesity-study

If you are obese, you have a higher chance of severe Covid19 and the vaccine is probably less effective.
Losing weight is therefore a positive action to take. Vax or Unvaxed.

Because you can still spread it to people who can't be vaccinated, a large unvaccinated population causes faster mutations which reduce efficacy, and a large unvaccinated population can cause a disease to become endemic.

Vaccinated people can still spread. Especially with Omicron.
There is no evidence that the mutations are occurring in the unvaccinated. None. They could very well be happening in the vaccinated. Or it could be both. I've read it both ways. Inconclusive at best.
https://www.citizensjournal.us/will-covid-shots-drive-mutated-variants/

And I hate to say it, but this is going to be an endemic. Its sticking around for good. Better get used to it.

 

[Skerhunter]

I'm glad you provided a link. To clarify, that's a news article about the study, not the study itself, but it's still helpful because it contains a piece of information you missed. From the article you linked:

"The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated."

So it looks like if you could confirm a prior infection, one dose provided more protection than no vaccine or two vaccines against the Delta variant specifically. The article also mentions one of the major concerns, that people would read the headline and decide "Well I should just get infected and then I'll be safe." If you're unvaccinated and don't have a confirmed prior infection, your best bet is still to get vaccinated. If you had a confirmed case, then getting a vaccine still provides greater protection than not.

One thing everyone needs to keep in mind when reading these articles/studies, is that we are simply monitoring a group of people, for a set amount of time and analyzing the data. This is not how you test a vaccines "performance". We basically have a bunch of assumptions and observations at this point and everyone keeps arguing them as fact. That is probably why this subject is so easy to argue over. The data will change, as the variables change, since they are not controlled. The information you trust may someday be proven wrong and the info you view as current misinformation, may some day be proven correct. Please keep that in mind.

 

[Actual_Cryptid]

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Or why it is relevant to the point he was making.
Is it: Poor, Unvaxed, Trump voters are fat??? Or is it Poor, Fat, trump voters are unvaxed? Fill me in here.
Seems like you have a bunch of irrelevant data. Who cares if they are poor or if they live in a red county?

The only relevant information would be how the virus behaves and attacks cells.
Granted not peer reviewed yet but still:
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20211209/coronavirus-attacks-fat-tissue#:~:text=9, 2021 -- The coronavirus,and death from COVID-19.
Or
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/28/pfizer-vaccine-less-effective-obesity-study

If you are obese, you have a higher chance of severe Covid19 and the vaccine is probably less effective.
Losing weight is therefore a positive action to take. Vax or Unvaxed.


Vaccinated people can still spread. Especially with Omicron.
There is no evidence that the mutations are occurring in the unvaccinated. None. They could very well be happening in the vaccinated. Or it could be both. I've read it both ways. Inconclusive at best.
https://www.citizensjournal.us/will-covid-shots-drive-mutated-variants/

And I hate to say it, but this is going to be an endemic. Its sticking around for good. Better get used to it.

No, the point was that the correlation between obesity and hospital admission does not indicate that losing weight protects one against hospitalization. To begin to make that assertion you would need to control for vaccination status, because people who are unvaccinated are also more likely to be obese.

Political affiliation is important because I know (because my family does this) that the response is typically to blame city liberals or some other "not me" group. This stuff effects everybody.

Your article is authored by Josephe Mercola. The dude has been antivaccine since the 90s. He's a crank, of course he's going to write an article with no data in support to fearmonger against vaccines. He has literally made millions telling people vaccines are poison and selling herbal supplements and snake oil.

Contrast that with this article which cites an actual virologist (Mercola is an osteopath, he has no background in virology or epidemiology or even immunology) that illustrates why an unvaccinated population drives mutations: https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/07/19/andrew-pekosz-delta-variants/

Speaking of fraud, Mercola has been repeatedly cited and fined for making illegal claims about the efficacy of supplements in treating disease.
https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/

 

[Skerhunter]

No, the point was that the correlation between obesity and hospital admission does not indicate that losing weight protects one against hospitalization. To begin to make that assertion you would need to control for vaccination status, because people who are unvaccinated are also more likely to be obese.

Political affiliation is important because I know (because my family does this) that the response is typically to blame city liberals or some other "not me" group. This stuff effects everybody.

Your article is authored by Josephe Mercola. The dude has been antivaccine since the 90s. He's a crank, of course he's going to write an article with no data in support to fearmonger against vaccines. He has literally made millions telling people vaccines are poison and selling herbal supplements and snake oil.

Contrast that with this article which cites an actual virologist (Mercola is an osteopath, he has no background in virology or epidemiology or even immunology) that illustrates why an unvaccinated population drives mutations: https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/07/19/andrew-pekosz-delta-variants/

Speaking of fraud, Mercola has been repeatedly cited and fined for making illegal claims about the efficacy of supplements in treating disease.
https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/

And the virologist just cited stated that the virus was only spreading in unvaccinated people?