Dakotah Norton Unable to Race in Maribor World Cup Following Positive COVID Test
Dakotah Norton will not be racing at the Maribor World Cup this year after he tested positive for COVID before his flight into Slovenia.
Dakotah was enjoying a successful start to his season with results including a ninth-place finish in Leogang and a win at the US National Championships early in July. Unfortunately he won't be able to show off his first Stars and Stripes sleeve or his 12th place overall number board this weekend as he was unable to board his flight. Thankfully Dakotah is not currently experiencing any symptoms of COVID and is hoping to be back for the World Championships that take place on 25-29 August.
 | As much as it devastates me to write this, I have to inform everyone that I won’t be making it to the Maribor World Cup. I was tested yesterday pre flight and it came back positive. I’m currently not experiencing any symptoms and feel fine other than being bummed I’m not going racing. Time to regroup for World Champs! Can’t thank everyone enough for continuing to support me through these difficult times. |
We hope Dakotah is able to brush off the virus quickly and look forward to seeing him back in Europe on the race track soon.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
* "... refrain from such wit..."
The holier-than-thou attitude of some British Columbians towards Albertans is pretty sad
But I want to say USA is not the only country drowning in conspiracy theorists.
Here the hybrid war (propaganda) is at its high now, and this is why is so noisy (also I feel KGB has recruited big part of the Republican party for some reason
In the whole Eastern Europe, France, and some other countries conspiracy theories are even stronger, and more people have fallen in the rabbit holes. Brexit was also helped by propaganda campaigns over social networks. Brexit was a big win for any anti-western country out there.
It is not a sign of intelligence to follow the herd.
www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-risks.html
A new CDC study finds the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people.
So yeah, the government created a fear campaign that’s killed nearly a million people, 3 of which I knew. Go ahead and Keep “thinking” for yoursef
I wince every time this type of article pops up because it's virtually guaranteed that some of us from the U.S. come crawling out of the woodwork to spew their conspiracy theories. Wish they'd keep to their neighborhood soapbox yelling at everyone that they're sheep and about fAkE MeDiA narratives instead of making those of us who actually believe in science & evidence look bad. @ReeferSouthrland and @swellhunter really stepped up to the task this time.
Sorry you all have to deal with it.
My wife works in a hospital, covid is real. Have a day off being a d**khead mate.
When most of the studies talk about vaccine effectiveness in reducing hospitalization and death they are conflating:
Prophylactic efficacy (likelihood that a vaccinated person exposed to COVID was not infected)-about 5-15%
Then among those 5-15% that do end up infected they are adding the Therapeutic efficacy (likelihood that a vaccine breakthrough case ends up hospitalized) which is more unknown likely 25-80%.
So if the vaccines were not preventing infection among a large number of individuals in the first place the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations would only be somewhere around 20-75% vs the 90% numbers that are often being quoted.
Thus immunizations prevent, but do not eliminate, risk of infection), and then when you are infected they appear to reduce the likelihood of hospitalization (still needs a lot more definitive research)
469 cases, 346 were fully vaccinated. (123 non-vaccinated)
Of those, 5 people hospitalized - 4 vaccinated (1 non-vaccinated)
4/346 = .0115%. 1/123 = .0081.
IE - there is a 34% higher chance of a vaccinated person going to the hospital than a non-vaccinated person.
Explain to me why i need this again?
So... not everyone's the same and not everyone needs to react the same to this, is that what I'm reading?
Gotcha.
P.S. You know the CIA invented the term "conspiracy theorist" to discredit leakers and people with real stories to tell, right? Trust the government(s), they know what's best! Like the Tuskegee Experiment
1) Total number of people at the event
2) Total number of vaccinated people at the event
So the prophylactic impact of the immunization (preventing infection) is not taken into account
You are correct at the crude level there does not appear to be no difference in the risk of hospitalization among cases by immunization status (those are extremely low numbers so even 1 or 2 hospitalizations would change your calculation). More importantly individuals at greatest risk of severe disease (elderly and those with conditions that increase hospitalization risk) have higher rates of vaccination. These are also groups where the vaccines do not work as well. Thus in order to truly assess the effectiveness of the immunization in preventing hospitalization here you need to "adjust" for age, underlying condition, sex etc to get an accurate estimate.
This is why scientific studies are needed!
P.S. It isn't an education thing, I've spent more than 12 years in higher ed, I have three degrees in three fields... Knowledge has made me more skeptical, not less.
Even if this isn't made up (it sounds made up), that doesn't make more than 1% of conspiracy theories true - including those invented for fun by pranksters, but which still garner 000s of followers. It's almost like there's a psychological hack you can use to convince anyone of anything, one involving youtube and some really cheesy video graphics.
So I'll wait, thanks.
No need to rush, right? I mean normally vaccine development takes 5-10 years. What's the hurry?
Read the (singular) evidence, have the (singular) science do as you're told and you will prosper. Make your own mind up about anything (especially in the face of the singular truth called science) and you will probably die.
What we should absolutely not do is have a different point of view from the one single accepted point of view that has been determined to be the one sole truth by those above us who know better. This one sole truth will evolve over time so it could be the case that the one sole truth now directly contradicts the one sole truth 100 years from now. That not our concern. The truth givers in 100 years will look back at today's truth givers wistfully, believing that their one sole truth is the absolute truth that cannot be challenged. What those truth givers gave the people in 2021 was so antiquated and silly! But they didn't know they were wrong at the time, bless their primitive little souls.
Am I being too optimistic though. It's unlikely that humans will still exist in 100 years, based on the absolute single truth that science says about global warming. Climate change sorry. Or is it the climate emergency (TM) now. Oh gosh it is hard to keep up with all these single absolute truths that science proves, that we keep hearing about from the truth meisters who are absolutely always 100% right, 100% righteous, 100% of the time.
Don't dare to question anything. Just go to work like a good little boy and keep paying your taxes. My apologies to anyone who finds the word boy offensive.
Everybody love everybody!
They were age range of 50 to 65. All have recovered but one lady was close to death in hospital, as she developed pneumonia too. Her doctor told her to expect a lengthy recovery period.
Because of these examples, I came to the conclusion that it's more serious than the flu. I also know of folks that had the virus with mild symptoms too, but can't ever recall influenza landing anything I've known in the hospital.
News flash: we are going to die. If you don't die of covid you will die of something else.
Is it worth sacrificing your freedom to extend by a few years the lives of a small minority of the population, whose lives are probably closer to the end than the beginning anyway?
It's an interesting question, to which there is no one single answer that is 100% correct.
Different people have different values. Personally I think freedom is important. That includes the freedom to make bad decisions. And to those who would question if a selfish few should be allowed to potentially harm the many, I would answer that everyone is responsible for his own actions. I have the freedom to chose for myself if I want to increase my risk of exposure by visiting a public place at a busy time. I have the freedom to wear an NBC suit when I go to Sainsbury's if I want to. Instead of limiting the actions or compelling behaviour, I think we should encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions. Stay in if you want to. If you choose to go out, be aware that you may contract covid. Also be aware that the science unequivocally proves that if you do contract covid, you probably won't die. It won't be nice, but you probably won't die. That's some science that we can all believe in, despite the media always reporting the opposite side of the coin.
Maybe you should show the CDC this study and some data from Israel:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
From the link: "Among the 469 cases in Massachusetts residents, 346 (74%) occurred in persons who were fully vaccinated"
From Isreal: www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/07/23/pfizer-shot-just-39-effective-against-delta-infection-but-largely-prevents-severe-illness-israel-study-suggests/?sh=18b81f18584f
And anytime they say covid case you have to ask some questions. Did that particular case seek medical treatment for symptoms? What test was used? If the PCR test, how many cycles were used? This whole pandemic rests on the "cases" and if you've learned anything about the PCR test you'd know that what defines a case varies considerably and that any PCR test run at more than 28 cycles is likely not an infected person.
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm
From the link: "Beginning May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections to investigating only those among patients who are hospitalized or die, thereby focusing on the cases of highest clinical and public health significance. "
Going all the way back to the initial Phizer trials... they had over 3,400 subjects with "covid like symptoms" yet didn't test them. That's what your 95% effectiveness number is based on. Why aren't they releasing all the of the date? Why did they unblind the study and vaccinate the placebo group?
blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data
Does long covid cause you to lose ability to think critically? it'd appear so, yikes.
Everything on here is anecdotal. I'm sharing my experience. If you want real data, it is out there. My doctors shared with me everything they knew to my level of understanding and its easily accessible. Every single one said get the vaccine. And this isn't just canadian doctors. These are docs from Singapore, France, Scotland and they all said get it, no questions.
I can understand who you are scared when you are in a profit motivated system. But the resounding view from accross the globe is get the vaccine. If it can take me out, it can take anyone out.
Or... roll the dice and risk yourself and others. Just don't go knocking on the hospital door when you need help.
Regardless of the vaccine, what's happening here is fearmongers like you are sharing anecdotal information about your battle with covid prior to the vaccine being available. DAK was vaxd and asymptomatic testing post vaccine is and absolutely awful for society.
The fact is our actions affect others as we live in a society. We are not islands on this earth. We compromise for the greater good so that we all benefit.
It’s pretty interesting that you’re on big government side now. If I remember correctly that wasn’t your thing last year.
It's probably less dangerous after vax depending on age but that's not the point. The point is asymptomatic testing, after vax or natural infection is a way for a forever pandemic and absolutely ridiculous. Assuming DAK is vaccinated this whole point is dumb af but nobody wants to admit that.
No that's not correct. The pharmaceutical company designs the trials in adherence with FDA guidelines.
Does it not occur to you, a person that knows nothing about drug research, that maybe you should argue less, try to be more open minded and learn about the vaccine if you have concerns?
So the FDA is your go to??? Another government agency?? Tell you what how many products approved by the FDA have caused cancer?? Don’t worry that will be easy for you to justify I am sure.
Your Highland season pass has been revoked.
"Earth" LOL
www.pinkbike.com/u/DoubleCrownAddict/blog/yt-marketing-the-most-offensive-mysogynist-violent-pro-trump-company-in-bicycle-history.html
The world would be a better place if everyone would just accept and respect that there are many points of view, and that we don't always have to be right.
Also, you didn't make a typo. Pfizer is a short proper name and you're not misspelling their name multiple times if you know anything about them. Like if you told me you went to college at Hardvard and misspelled it four more times, I know you didn't go to school in Cambridge.
Feeling so proud of myself for not making a universal heathcare joke #humblebrag
Is it fair to draw a parallel between the objective evidence:subjective belief of trans persons, and the objective evidence:subjective belief of anti vaxxers?
And what is the name for people who understand the science of vaccination, but choose to not be vaccinated? Are those people fair game in the internet name calling culture we currently experience?
What makes one group fair game, and another group protected?
I wish all the rules were written down. Everybody love everybody, celebrate diversity. Those are the rules I live by.
The drug companies are most definitely not aggresssively pursuing patents using college research, government funding and are definitely spending the majority of their revenues on applying existing medical treatment procedures and the medications that have ran out of patent that wouldn't profit them.
The drug companies aren't spending the vast majority of revenue on advertising & marketing.
Our governments are definitely not heavily invested in these drug companies
Our government officials definitely did not use insider information to purchase shares of every supply needed to fight a pandemic prior to announcing the coming dangers.
Drug company lobbyists definitely do not pay vast sums of money to government officials and powerful lobbyists
Media companies definitely do thorough research and investigative reporting before publishing their reports on the available data
Media companies definitely only pay the bills by reporting good news and focus their reporting on positive health outcomes of survivors who took good care of their bodies prior to this.
People who survived Covid due to healthy lifestyle were just lucky. Only a vaccine could have saved them. People who got Covid prior to vaccines or even during this vaccination protocol can get on planes because they have actual post-Covid antibodies and are safe to be around and don't have to wear masks.
But hey, most all of my family has had Covid despite masks, are being forced to go back to school and wear a mask despite having antibodies but no vaccine card.
My brother in law's lower leg swelled up to the size of a Christmas ham 2 days after his 2nd dose of vaccine & he was hospitalized for potential life threatening blood clots that just "went away". I'm sure it couldn't have happened in his neck or brain or heart though.
If you want to be part of the human trials for this emergency vaccine, do it. But don't enslave society if you supposedly have this "magic pill" that protects you and is available to anyone who wants it and then try to turn around and blame people willing to "chance it" for killing ANYBODY. If it's available to everybody, me not taking it doesn't kill you if you're in the right.
Very, very funny. I didn't take a side in the argument even. Probs both sides thought I was on the other side. In reality I'm on the side of freedom and definitely not tribalism.
Don't need an experimental mRNA vaccine trial. Got the real deal.
Hope you get back to racing soon Dak!
One year later…
CDC: PCR test unreliable. We will stop using it SIX F’n MONTHS FROM NOW.
COVID PCR tests have >99% sensitivity and >99.9% specificity. Meaning they successfully identify a sample with virus in it 99% of the time and say they test positive when the specimen is truly negative 0.1% of the time.
However, the timing of testing is very important since the virus peaks in nasal passages around day 5-6 testing too soon can give you a false negative and testing to late can also give you a false negative.
Finally, testing and interpreting test results can be a bit challenging because it requires bayesian inference and most doctors frankly even don't understand what we call positive predictive value (PPV). In basic terms if you have 0 have no covid symptoms and no known exposure and you are immunized then the likelihood that postive test results is real is very low (ie likely a false positive). In contrast if you have COVID symptoms, have a known exposure to someone else with COVID and are unvaccinated (though vaccinated even as well) and you get a negative test result the likelihood that the result is real is lower (ie possible false negative)
www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
The individual test accuracy is >99.9% accurate for a positive (this is the specificity piece) however with 10's of thousands of tests being performed every week where I live you would expect that even with 99.9% specificity you would end up with a fraction of cases with a false positive test result (if 10,000 tests were performed you would expect ~10 false positives) and you would expect the true false positives to be those with lower levels of viral RNA (high cycle threshold).
So, yeah the CT value is not unimportant but the test still performs really well.
In reality, the false positive rate is very close to zero. It's miniscule. The likelihood of that test being a false pos are so tiny that you'd just move on to taking steps to prevent spread of the virus. There's no real point to doing a confirmatory second test—if the second test is negative, which do you believe, especially given that the false negativity rate is considerably higher than the false positivity rate? Even if second and third tests were negative, that wouldn't prove a false pos. The test is extremely unlikely to detect something that isn't there, though it does have a somewhat higher potential to miss something that is there. It just doesn't make any sense to go running a bunch of additional tests, when it's not going to change your course of action at all.
1) I wrote "From a vaccine management perspective" but meant to write "virus management." I'm only talking about testing here—what I'm saying has nothing to do with vaccination. My bad for the typo, because I think it led you to think you were saying something that made sense about vaccines. Let me clarify that for you—you didn't make any f*cking sense. It's total word salad, like just about everything else I've seen you write today.
2) Read what I wrote, dumbass. False positivity is very close to zero. Not non-existent, but certainly rare enough that it's not very worthwhile to chase down whether someone has a false pos or not. You presume they have the virus, urge them to quarantine and monitor symptoms, and move on. Someone returns a positive test, you treat it like a positive, because we've got a novel virus that's f*cking killing people, so you don't f*cking worry about whether someone has to miss a little bit of work, or god forbid a bike race, or otherwise be mildly inconvenienced. You take steps to minimize the chances of that person spreading the virus.
3) I can tell you're part of the "do your own research" crowd, the don't believe the media crowd. But you're a f*cking idiot who can barely string together a coherent sentence—what makes you think you can make any sense of your "own research" anyway?
4) Go f*ck yourself, Reefer.
The problems here that we for some reason have to keep harping about are a) this isn't a difference of opinion issue, where both opinions are valid. One is fact and evidence based, and the other issue conspiratorial delusion. Flat earth is not a valid opinion. Nor is 1+1=3. And b) this shit is contagious. Personal decisions are not personal. Unvaccinated morons put countless other's lives at risk. Their selfish ignorance deserves less than 0 respect and tolerance, because of their callous disregard for the wellbeing of anyone but themselves.
This attitude is also extremely counter productive. For better or worse Americans are very individualistic. You try to force them to do something and they'll do everything they can to not comply. The trick was selling the vaccine to people and making them want to get it, not threatening them or talking shit to them constantly. It's really no wonder so many aren't complying. They feel Iike something f*cked up is going on. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
I would concede that in most circumstances, individualism is a overall positive thing. But if someone is so caught up in their "individualism" that they can't be troubled to man up and take poke in the arm, its not good. While some people are busy being true to their convictions, others of us are dealing with (preventable) death and destruction on a massive scale. If someone thinks that being told to take a safe medicine is akin to living in a totalitarian state, you need to calm down.
If you have a problem with the science behind vaccines I suggest you start to question everything else you take for granted in your life. Your doctor is definitely f*cking with you. You should stop eating everything that isn't grown in your back yard. Definitely stop riding a bike (you're an engineer, you can design your own bike!). Seriously what the f*ck is science anyway? Go out in a blaze of glory like Mike Hughes.
Someone close to me just got sick and they were vaccinated and mask everywhere they go. What's the harm in wearing a mask? Seriously, I want to know why it's so hard. And no, a mask probably doesn't keep you safe, but it might prevent you from getting someone else from catching... THAT'S THE POINT!!!
I don't think many rando midwid PBers know this...
Here's the thing, there are no certainties in "science" only degrees of likely. "Science" is in fact the antithesis of belief and purely agnostic. If there are new facts discovered, smart people, you know, scientists, try to interpret what could be the most logical explanation and after lots of debate and checking the best theory is adopted as "as far as we know, it should be like this".
And of course there will be the usual "but that does mean science knows as much as I know" comment.
Our cheesebrain can't comprehend the amount and depth of knowledge humanity has amassed over the last few decades. And I'm not being an a..hole, it's just not possible for one human being to hold all this knowledge. That's the reason universal scholars are no longer a thing. So, if a well educated person, that has sworn an oath to do no harm and dedicated their life to ease and prevent suffering, tells you there is a deadly virus on the lose. It might just be the smart thing to listen.
We can debate about the severity of counter measures and the execution of those an all that. But it feels like the
pandemic and all the other conspiracy theories are just a prop that certain instigators and/or political movements like to wield to wall themselves off and intensivy the group dynamic among themselves. Outrage porn and fear sells like hot cake, giving our brittle and battered society the rest after a decade of ever increasing wealth inequality.
I just wish all the conspiracy theorists would take a step back and reflect on what they are doing, what the consequences are if they are in the wrong, and perhaps most importantly why they are doing this.
Reality isn't easy, it's not black and white, it's dirty, gritty and exhausting. Instead of being a nuisance for others, why not connect with people that need help? Why not be a pillar for society instead of a pee stain?
/Rant over
I think no human construct will ever be perfect, throw in money and power and it is pretty much a given that there will be shady business.
That said, most of the world enjoys the fruits of progress. longer life, plenty of food, clean water, mostly safe medicine, not to mention a great deal of mobility and so on and on. Vaccinations have saved countless people from the pocks, polio, measles and other highly dangerous viruses. Antibiotics are crucial for so many patients (I'm aware of the misuse of antibiotics)
There isn't really an other way to keep improving the capabilities of humanity I can think of, so we need to reform certain aspects of the current system to ensure it will serve us in the future. Moving away, or at least dampen the influence from the all encompassing money motiv would be a huge first step.
There are several examples of viable "theories" that are labeled as conspiracy theories because the media, world leaders, world health officials, and world health agencies labeled it as conspiracy theories. Then many guys like yourself are parroting the same stuff you see. Knee-jerk reactions without researching and looking at all the possibilities and data. Here is just one example of a viable theory labeled as conspiracy theory that was started and supported by many well known scientists. There are many more.
The Wuhan Lab Leak:
In the beginning of the pandemic many well known scientists (former CDC Director and Virologist: Dr. Robert Redfield Virologist, Chinese Virologist Li-Meng Yan (who work with the Wuhan Lab in Hong Kong), among other scientists) brought up the theory that the COVID virus could have possibly leaked from the lab. They were met with major backlash from the liberal media, world leaders, world health officials, scientists, and world health agencies. Fast forward to May 2021 and new intelligence report comes out that three employees from Wuhan Lab were sick with COVID symptoms in Nov 2019 and the Wuhan Lab Leak is even more plausible. Now you have those same people liberal media, world leaders, world health officials, scientists, and world health agencies that were slamming it as conspiracy theory, now saying it is a very viable possibility.
www.livescience.com/covid-lab-leak-wuhan.html
www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-lab-theory-robert-redfield-no-evidence
www.ndtv.com/world-news/covid-19-chinese-virologist-says-fauci-emails-prove-her-wuhan-lab-leak-claims-2457013
1st: You know nothing about me, so f you for putting words in my mouth.
2nd: I don't remember seeing any "liberal" media dismissing that possibility without any known facts in either direction. That is more of a "right" practice. Several governments and several neutral international committees all demanded access to investigate the pandemics roots. What the media objected to was an unproven accusation.
You said this about me " also, your last sentence is complet bs and you know it"
Yeah, there is a difference between claiming you know what I do and how I think, and someone calling out your bs statement. it's not even a conspiracy theory, we just don't know what happened or where it came from.
And thanks to the Chinese repressive regime we probably never will.
I'm done here, have a nice day
apps.who.int/flumart/Default?Hemisphere=Southern&ReportNo=5
Influenza has a infection rate of R1-2, covid R2-3. Influenza is still very contagious.
Do you really think masks are only Influenza specific?
Again why are covid cases exploding if all those measures worked on the influenza? covid cases should be down as well.
Please explain your reality. I'd like to hear your argument.
You want to hear our arguments to then ignore them and move straight to the next bs harebrained statement.
Waste of time and effort. why don't you invest some of your obviously abundant free time and learn biology and biochemistry? Warning, you might learn something.
FYI: I have a Biological Sciences degree and worked in science research at Stanford before and in pharmacy. What is your science background?
@tacklingdummy:
Sure you have a degree, that's why you struggle to understand basic logical principles and argue with randoms on the internet instead of filing your concerns with the proper authorities. I'm not responsible to explain every damn study you don't understand, I'm not responsible for any study made by anyone else. If you have concerns you should contact the authors.
I'm out of here, don't expect any more answers.
www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of-people-infected-in-massachusetts-covid-outbreak-were-fully-vaccinated.html
Get well soon Norton.
www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1960
"Figures from Public Health Scotland published in the Lancet also show a drop in protection against symptomatic illness,5 from 92% against the alpha variant, which was first detected in the UK, to 79% against delta among people with two doses of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. For the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, the reduction was from 73% to 60%. Data from Canada, yet to be peer reviewed, also show a drop in efficacy.6"
95% effective? How? Is someone spraying Covid particles up their nose 2 weeks after their second dose and monitoring their biological data from that point forward for the next several months and attempting to re-infect them periodically to see how long that 2nd dose takes to wear off.
Leading your life and not contracting a virus or testing positive for it after having gotten one or two shots isn't science. It's an extrapolation of data and an assumptive proposition at best.
Surely there is someone on this site that conducts actual research with control groups in an organized manner that can better state what I'm getting at.
Sure, at some point this virus is going to curtail itself through for all sorts of biological reasons. But these percentages being tossed around within weeks or months of getting a shot are so inaccurate.
Variance...that's the word I'm looking for. The percentage variance of accuracy if these were conducted scientifically and posted with the findings would be through the roof.
The math bugs me. Not the desire to prove or disprove anything.
"Marr recovered but some have not. Data from Public Health England (PHE) reveal that of all the people who died within 28 days of testing positive for the delta variant between 1 February and 19 July, 49% (224) had had two vaccine doses. Almost all of these people, 220, were aged 50 or older."
So, 49% died after having two vaccine doses. That is conflicting data from the 95% chance of not getting seriously ill after being vaccinated.
The content in this case is, between 1 feb and 19 july, 553 people died of covid in England, with a positive covid test within 28 days. Of those 553, 49% had been vacinated. Now, that is to be expected, given that by mid march, 85% of our over 50s had one dose at least, with the higher risk over 60/70s etc having the second dose complete by the end of Feb. so, based on that: 229 of 15% died of covid, where only 224 of the remaining 85% died of covid. This is not a difficult subject.
Maybe a hypothetical extreme will help you better understand. Say we have a community of 100,000 people, with a 100% vaccination rate. Now let's say that ten people from that community became severely ill from COVID. We could make the statement that 100% of the people who became severely ill were vaccinated. Does that make the vaccine ineffective? In this hypothetical situation, the vaccine is 99.99% effective against severe illness, because only .01% of the vaccinated population became severely ill, so I'd consider it highly effective.
Just like I said before, your article quotes Spiegelhalter which says " less-than-perfect vaccines have been distributed widely, one would expect to see deaths occurring among vaccinated people". So he is acknowledging the fact that the 49% is a high percentage death rate for vaccinated.
If you consider that the majority of the population there is vaccinated compared to not, and this sample is accounting for hospitalized people that died in general, that means that the percentage of people that died who were unvaccinated is going to be greatly higher than the number of people from the percentage of vaccinated people would be. Yes, the number of deaths was almost split 50/50, but the pool size of vaccinated people is MUCH higher than those without it. Currently, almost 90% of people in England have been vaccinated, yet still, 60% of hospitalizations are from unvaccinated people. 10% of the population has held out, yet they account for more than half of the current hospitalizations.
TL,DR Vaccines are there to help, and they are helping a lot.
It's as if healthy people capable of successfully fending off a virus just don't count toward anything. They don't get to go on planes, trains or back to work. Nope...they're just anti-vaxxers. They don't exist.
Next, amazing how none of the reductions in deaths is due to the virus having been checked by medical professionals who have learned to treat it.
A virus that made it to every continent in less than 12 weeks and the only thing that slows it down is a pharmaceutical grade synthetic nanoparticle coated spike protein that has to be injected twice.
Guess the virus couldn't have possibly run through the high risk people already and will begin to ebb and flow like other aerosol transmitted viruses
FYI: Your statement , "this sample is accounting for hospitalized people that died in general" is not true. The study sample was "all the people who died within 28 days of testing positive for the delta variant between 1 February and 19 July."
The facts are that of the sample 49% of the people who died were vaccinated and 51% of the people who died were unvaccinated. Also, according to the article below only 68% of the UK population was fully vaccinated as of 19 July the time the study sampling ended not 90% like you state.
You should re-read the study and my comments.
Also, the vaccines are still not approved by FDA in the US. So, they still have questions and have to analyze the data.
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/19/are-enough-people-vaccinated-in-time-for-englands-freedom-day
Note the 50 or older. I think you'll find my vaccine rate statistics are correct, given the data you're arguing with. Over 50s, not the whole adult population (that starts at 18 by the way, just in case you need extra help). Laters dude, you're not smart enough to win this argument.
What kind of small minded, idiotic statement is that?
Are you seriously spouting something off that unintelligent?
You really think that a body that was ALREADY exposed to the actual virus needs to then be exposed to a synthetic lipid nano-particle coated spike protein too?
What in the name of brain cells being wasted is your proof for even spouting such garbage?
Why do you need to take a synthetic lipid nano-particle coated spike protein if you already had Covid and have antibodies?
www.vaxlonghaulers.com
Even with 70% vaccinated during this period, only 0.000005% of people that were vaccinated died compared to 0.00001 who were unvaccinated. The percentage of unvaccinated people dying is exponentially higher than those who have been vaccinated. The fact that 30% of the population led to a higher death count over that period than the 70% who were vaccinated is crazy. And that only gets more ridiculous now that they are at 90% vaccinated and still unvaxxed are making up the majority of hospitalized people.
I'm not really sure what you are arguing at this point, other than vaccinated people made up almost half of the deaths during that time, which excludes the fact that 224 deaths out of ~39 million vaccinated people (at the time) compared to 230ish people out of ~16.5 million people
apps.who.int/flumart/Default?Hemisphere=Southern&ReportNo=5
Thanks for the username compliment. I worked in science research at Stanford before, and have a science degree.
PS: I was awarded full scholarship at MIT and MENSA made me an honorary member, all before I was 12, but I turned it down because they're a bunch of leftist snowflakes.
LoL
The influenza vaccinations are only 40-60% effective. Coupled with covid measures (that are transmitted in the same way), one would reasonable not conclude that influenza cases would be 99% down and covid cases are exploding.
Are you a disease expert? You should pretend to be either. I am just posting opinions as you are.
Completely sucks that people would think that flu was eliminated from the air and respiratory viruses stopped transmitting because of masks but Covid was able to sneak past the paper mask goalie.
Northern Hemisphere
apps.who.int/flumart/Default?Hemisphere=Northern&ReportNo=5
Southern Hemisphere
apps.who.int/flumart/Default?Hemisphere=Southern&ReportNo=5
Is this the visual you were trying to post? I copied and pasted and yeah..."poof".
www.pinkbike.com/photo/21143094
www.pinkbike.com/photo/21154601
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001358/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_18.pdf
I'm not trying to sell anything. I'm trying to learn everything. Heck...I just found out the "experimental lipid non-particle coated spike protein vaccine trials" aren't FDA Approved, they only have Emergency Use Authorization. Wheeee.
Has zero risk
He educated himself
Did not want to end up like this Kyle Warner guy, that probably now has permanent heart damage
www.instagram.com/tv/CR-BJLkBtw_
Can you still test positive for COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated?
Yes, if you've been around someone who has COVID-19. The latest guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says people who are fully vaccinated should get tested three to five days after a potential exposure, even if they don't have symptoms.
It'd be really awesome if people could actually think and not just start pointing fingers and waiting to shame people.
― C. S. Lewis
If everyone refuses tests then numbers go to zero and we can all get back to normal living.
this is becoming ridiculous on a scope and scale you couldn't have imagined in Feb or 2020.
clown world
He has a false positive from a test that’s BS
Ruin a persons DH career standing over scamdemic
Can you still test positive for COVID-19 after being fully vaccinated?
Yes, if you've been around someone who has COVID-19. The latest guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says people who are fully vaccinated should get tested three to five days after a potential exposure, even if they don't have symptoms.