Opinions about Covid vaccines, immunity, side effects and immunology

[pedrodelavega]

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]

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 ...

[izentrop]

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://vitemadose.fr/
Precisely, the recombinant variants are made between 2 viruses, not with a vaccine RNA. This kind of talk incites suspicion.

the 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

https://www.doctissimo.fr/sante/epidemi ... combinants

[ABC2019]

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://vitemadose.fr/
Precisely, the recombinant variants are made between 2 viruses, not with a vaccine RNA. This kind of talk incites suspicion.

the 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

https://www.doctissimo.fr/sante/epidemi ... combinants

Dr Velot's video is here:

I find it rather clear, didactic and without obvious error as far as I can judge. In fact, he seems more worried about AZ-type adenovirus vaccines than Pfizer and Moderna-type mRNA vaccines, because they have DNA that can be incorporated into the genome, they are even used for gene therapy. .. 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]

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?

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.

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]

pedrobac

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!

what sweet music to my ears! Finally, it is still and always a question of belief, not of science.
If the kitchen is on fire we can hope that the whole house will not burn! and the guy he got stung in the most complete ignorance! if that isn't superstition, what is it?

[ABC2019]

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!

I do not see how I "kick in touch", I ask you a question to clarify what you are saying because I am not sure I understood.

It's a bit painful this way of continually interspersing a discussion with aggressive apostrophes, and in addition by attacking those who agree to discuss, but let's move on, and continue to discuss.

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.

it's instantaneous when it comes to taking the rate of positives "at a given time", a photo of the people. But you say

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.

so over two months, it is no longer instantaneous, it is integrated: they weren't all sick at the same time. Obviously there has never been 13% of the population in EHPAD positive at the same time at the national level.

On the other hand that there is 63% or even 100% in a particular EHPAD at a time, it is quite possible. You can have 100% of all 5 members of the same family positive at the same time, but that has nothing to do with the rate in the population, so I don't understand the comparison you are making.

For the moment, it reinforces the idea that you manipulate the numbers without understanding what they mean, and that you draw conclusions without any legitimacy to do so, but I may not have understood what you wanted to calculate. , so you still have the opportunity to explain yourself.

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 ?

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.

[ABC2019]

pedrobac

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!

what sweet music to my ears! Finally, it is still and always a question of belief, not of science.

no, the belief is that you assert certainties without having the elements to do so, and science is when you recognize the uncertainties. It's weird that you can't tell the difference.

[Janic]

no, the belief is that you assert certainties without having the elements to do so,

Absolutely not: when we say: I believe it will rain, "there is no certainty that it will rain.

and science is when you recognize the uncertainties. It's weird that you can't tell the difference.

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.
but AFIS et cie and real science is definitely incompatible.

[Robob]

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.

The national figures are the aggregation of the figures for each establishment: they reflect the average.
Should a control group be representative of the average?

Are the 8 unvaccinated patients in the study more representative than the average for French EHPAD residents?

75% of positive, 63% of sick, 25% of death: to consider that this is representative of a control group "resident in a retirement home" confronted with the pandemic, is to take people for idiots.
If 75% of EHPAD residents had been positive only once since March 2020, there would be more than 450 cases in EHPAD.
If 25% of EHPAD residents had died, we would have over 150 deaths in EMS.

how could these figures be used to assess the effectiveness about vaccine?