ABC2019 wrote:indeed the Seychelles curve seems to show that the vaccine is not very effective ... but they used the Chinese vaccine a lot.
https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/chine/la- ... ns-1305900
ABC2019 wrote:indeed the Seychelles curve seems to show that the vaccine is not very effective ... but they used the Chinese vaccine a lot.
izentrop wrote:Ok, the variant risk is greater in the absence of vaccination.
I should have quoted the full sentence: "the risk of the appearance of recombinant variants linked to genetic vaccination, and the fear of the immune leakage which could result from it in a context of mass vaccination during a pandemic"
Does the word "genetics" seem ambiguous to you?
https://vitemadose.fr/ABC2019 wrote:izentrop wrote:Ok, the variant risk is greater in the absence of vaccination.
I should have quoted the full sentence: "the risk of the appearance of recombinant variants linked to genetic vaccination, and the fear of the immune leakage which could result from it in a context of mass vaccination during a pandemic"
Does the word "genetics" seem ambiguous to you?
it is a little ambiguous in the sense that it is not a question of transmissible genes, it is better to speak of RNA vaccination ...
https://www.doctissimo.fr/sante/epidemi ... combinantsthe recombinants reflect the high level of circulation of several viruses, simultaneously and on the same territory. "Today, to limit the circulation of coronaviruses, it is really necessary to bet on an effective vaccination and the respect of the barrier gestures
izentrop wrote:https://vitemadose.fr/ABC2019 wrote:izentrop wrote:Ok, the variant risk is greater in the absence of vaccination.
I should have quoted the full sentence: "the risk of the appearance of recombinant variants linked to genetic vaccination, and the fear of the immune leakage which could result from it in a context of mass vaccination during a pandemic"
Does the word "genetics" seem ambiguous to you?
it is a little ambiguous in the sense that it is not a question of transmissible genes, it is better to speak of RNA vaccination ...
Precisely, the recombinant variants are made between 2 viruses, not with a vaccine RNA. This kind of talk incites suspicion.https://www.doctissimo.fr/sante/epidemi ... combinantsthe recombinants reflect the high level of circulation of several viruses, simultaneously and on the same territory. "Today, to limit the circulation of coronaviruses, it is really necessary to bet on an effective vaccination and the respect of the barrier gestures
ABC2019 wrote:robob wrote:ABC2019 wrote:I'm not going to read the study on your order. If you post something rational explaining where the technical error in the study is, why the results are wrong, in terms that make me think you know what you are talking about and that you know how to interpret the data, with if possible more technical references, written by other serious authors, yes I will go see more closely what it is.
Ok.
Study control group: unvaccinated residents. We have 8 people of which 6 will be positive, 5 symptomatic, 4 hospitalized, 2 dead.
Control group positivity rate: 6/8 = 75%
percentage of patients: 5 out of 8 = 63%
deceased: 2 in 8 = 25%
Is this group representative?
I don't have the US figures but they must be similar to the French figures provided by sante publique France:
- The worst positivity rate observed in France for 80-89 year olds or 90+ is in November, for 80-89 year olds, or 15%. Control group above 75%.
- the number of patients in the control group 63%: still in France, taking all patients in EHPAD over two months, the worst period is between November and December 2012 when 13% of residents in EHPAD were sick.
uh..I'm not sure I understand there ... you compare instantaneous rates of positivities at the time of a particular contamination event, in a particular nursing home, with a national rate calculated over 2 months over the entire population?
what sweet music to my ears! Finally, it is still and always a question of belief, not of science.In fact, it seems to me impossible to decree that it is excluded that vaccines can have long-term effects, unfortunately. We can only hope that does not happen!
robob wrote:ABC2019 wrote:robob wrote:
Ok.
Study control group: unvaccinated residents. We have 8 people of which 6 will be positive, 5 symptomatic, 4 hospitalized, 2 dead.
Control group positivity rate: 6/8 = 75%
percentage of patients: 5 out of 8 = 63%
deceased: 2 in 8 = 25%
Is this group representative?
I don't have the US figures but they must be similar to the French figures provided by sante publique France:
- The worst positivity rate observed in France for 80-89 year olds or 90+ is in November, for 80-89 year olds, or 15%. Control group above 75%.
- the number of patients in the control group 63%: still in France, taking all patients in EHPAD over two months, the worst period is between November and December 2012 when 13% of residents in EHPAD were sick.
uh..I'm not sure I understand there ... you compare instantaneous rates of positivities at the time of a particular contamination event, in a particular nursing home, with a national rate calculated over 2 months over the entire population?
I love the way you kick in touch when you feel like it's gonna be tough!
The positivity rate being the ratio of the number of positives to the number of cases, it is not instantaneous: we are positive for more than a week, except perhaps by using early treatments.
still in France by taking all patients in EHPAD over two months, the worst period is between November and December 2012 when 13% of EHPAD residents were sick.
We should have the TDP of American retirement homes during the peak of a post-vaccine epidemic period, for example in the fall. Taking the worst PDT (15%) among the elderly in France during the worst period known (November 2020, we reached 15% over 1 or 2 weeks only) seems to me to be completely honest and representative.
We can also do like the American CDC, choose the worst possible control group in France in 2020: it seems to me that it is this EHPAD in Seine-et-Marne, where 50 of the 80 residents were infected, i.e. a PDR of 62.5 %. Damn, we're still over in Kentucky with 75%!
https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr ... 83400.html
And if not, for the rest of my numbers? Other comments ?
Janic wrote:pedrobacwhat sweet music to my ears! Finally, it is still and always a question of belief, not of science.In fact, it seems to me impossible to decree that it is excluded that vaccines can have long-term effects, unfortunately. We can only hope that does not happen!
Absolutely not: when we say: I believe it will rain, "there is no certainty that it will rain.no, the belief is that you assert certainties without having the elements to do so,
that's what I've been telling you from the start. Do you think the H is quackery, but it is only a belief (which you then recognized) since you have no scientific uncertainty? On the other hand, millions of cured patients, for you this is not scientifically acceptable since there is no uncertainty, but facts verified for 200 years on populations in phase IV.and science is when you recognize the uncertainties. It's weird that you can't tell the difference.
ABC2019 wrote:Since your comparisons don't make sense at the start, since you're comparing national rates to rates in one institution, I won't waste time looking at the others.
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 257 guests