What I don't understand is the data coming from Great Britain showing that the vaccinated are getting COVID at a higher rate than the unvacc'd.Forum Troll said:
If mumps were actively circulating there would be plenty of breakthrough cases.
And based on compiled data from state health departments through the main delta wave, the unvaccinated were getting COVID at nearly 6 times the rate of the vaccinated.
CDC Reports of Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths per Vax status
7,817 Views |
74 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Gunny456
If you had 100 vaccinated people in a room and 3 of them got covid then vaccinated individuals would make up 100% of the cases.
The surveillance reports going into it some, mainly discussing behavioral differences in the unvaccinated vs vaccinated population, but its probably due to the small portion of unvaccinated in the UK having natural immunity from recent infection. That and they have a huge amount of people with the AstraZeneca vaccine which has pretty low infection prevention rate.Jabin said:What I don't understand is the data coming from Great Britain showing that the vaccinated are getting COVID at a higher rate than the unvacc'd.Forum Troll said:
If mumps were actively circulating there would be plenty of breakthrough cases.
And based on compiled data from state health departments through the main delta wave, the unvaccinated were getting COVID at nearly 6 times the rate of the vaccinated.
Thanks, those are plausible explanations.Forum Troll said:The surveillance reports going into it some, mainly discussing behavioral differences in the unvaccinated vs vaccinated population, but its probably due to the small portion of unvaccinated in the UK having natural immunity from recent infection. That and they have a huge amount of people with the AstraZeneca vaccine which has pretty low infection prevention rate.Jabin said:What I don't understand is the data coming from Great Britain showing that the vaccinated are getting COVID at a higher rate than the unvacc'd.Forum Troll said:
If mumps were actively circulating there would be plenty of breakthrough cases.
And based on compiled data from state health departments through the main delta wave, the unvaccinated were getting COVID at nearly 6 times the rate of the vaccinated.
Wow, an ackshually meme incarnate. I love it.Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:Using the term anti-vaxxer immediately outs you as someone who has difficulty communicating.Ribbed Paultz said:
There is no such thing as "leaky". It's just anti-vaxxer jibberish. Hth.
Let me help.
The word you are trying to spell is "Gibberish"; unless you intended to include the phonetic pronunciation, instead of the actual word. The word you are looking for is "Jargon."
Periods & Commas go inside the quotation marks; while commas, semi-colons & dashes go outside.
You make it so difficult to be anything but a grammar nazi....and if you are going to insult someone by incorrectly using the term "anti-vaxxer" at least do it in proper English.
For a grammar Nazi, your grammar isn't great. Also, gibberish =/ jargon. Really, hth.
So, in other words, the vaccines work?
Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:Ribbed Paultz said:
There is no such thing as "leaky". It's just anti-vaxxer jibberish. Hth.
Using the term anti-vaxxer immediately outs you as someone who has difficulty communicating.
Let me help.
The word you are trying to spell is "Gibberish"; unless you intended to include the phonetic pronunciation, instead of the actual word. The word you are looking for is "Jargon."
Periods & Commas go inside the quotation marks; while commas, semi-colons & dashes go outside.
You make it so difficult to be anything but a grammar nazi....and if you are going to insult someone by incorrectly using the term "anti-vaxxer" at least do it in proper English.
Using the term "leaky" immediately outs you as someone who has difficulty communicating.
The proper way to communicate vaccine effectiveness would be to discuss efficacy. And >80% efficacy would absolutely meet the criteria of being a very effective vaccine. Happy to help.
SamHou said:WoMD said:SamHou said:
BuT tHey ArE LeAkY
Yes, they are. Which is significant, despite your snarky post.
What's your point?
Vaccinations reduce infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Despite some ill informed posters' claims
So not a vaccine?
End Of Message said:SamHou said:WoMD said:SamHou said:
BuT tHey ArE LeAkY
Yes, they are. Which is significant, despite your snarky post.
What's your point?
Vaccinations reduce infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Despite some ill informed posters' claims
So not a vaccine?
This isn't the politics board. Covid vaccines reduce infections, illness, and death though with varying effectiveness for each metric.
Good grief - some posters have devolved into religious zealots.
Covid viruses are getting into all of our bodies on numerous occasions. "Stopping the spread" has been mostly a delay strategy. If you're old or ill (and have not yet had Covid) the vaccine is a wise choice. If you're young and healthy - there's never been significant statistical risk and getting the vaccine will reduce that risk by a nearly unnoticeable degree. If you get offended by the word "leaky" then you're delusional cause a non-leaky vaccine wouldn't see outbreaks in heavily vax'ed countries, spread between vax-current individuals, and ratios that low (a perfect vax would be infinity times better whereas a placebo would be a 1x factor). It's fine that they're leaky: they were designed for the alpha and that's not what's predominant any more but they're still taking the sting out of variant infection... but there's no moral superiority derived from getting it since it's benefit is individual.
Covid viruses are getting into all of our bodies on numerous occasions. "Stopping the spread" has been mostly a delay strategy. If you're old or ill (and have not yet had Covid) the vaccine is a wise choice. If you're young and healthy - there's never been significant statistical risk and getting the vaccine will reduce that risk by a nearly unnoticeable degree. If you get offended by the word "leaky" then you're delusional cause a non-leaky vaccine wouldn't see outbreaks in heavily vax'ed countries, spread between vax-current individuals, and ratios that low (a perfect vax would be infinity times better whereas a placebo would be a 1x factor). It's fine that they're leaky: they were designed for the alpha and that's not what's predominant any more but they're still taking the sting out of variant infection... but there's no moral superiority derived from getting it since it's benefit is individual.
You clearly don't understand statistical significance
Salute The Marines said:End Of Message said:SamHou said:WoMD said:SamHou said:
BuT tHey ArE LeAkY
Yes, they are. Which is significant, despite your snarky post.
What's your point?
Vaccinations reduce infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Despite some ill informed posters' claims
So not a vaccine?
This isn't the politics board. Covid vaccines reduce infections, illness, and death though with varying effectiveness for each metric.
Care to highlight the specific error, or just some drive-by snark since you're emotionally vested in Operation Warp Speed's products?SamHou said:
You clearly don't understand statistical significance
Rarely does a person actually use Six Sigma in a relevant context, but that's the level of minutiae that were talking in some of these results. 1 in a million vs 17 in a million. Sure, the latter is 17x higher, but this difference can also be described as a 0.0016% difference...
I don't think people get "offended" with the term leaky vaccine. I think they just roll their eyes and realize the person saying it is likely a moron when it comes to this topic. Similar to when people call the vaccine a therapeutic despite it not being given to treat existing disease.
You stated " there's never been significant statistical risk and getting the vaccine will reduce that risk by a nearly unnoticeable degree." which is patently false. HTH
Remind me - what was the qualifying first half of my sentence which you intentionally left off in order to misconstrue a reasonable assertion?SamHou said:
You stated " there's never been significant statistical risk and getting the vaccine will reduce that risk by a nearly unnoticeable degree." which is patently false. HTH
Honest people don't resort to strawman distortions.
No, even with the first part of your sentence, it is incorrect. This forum would be better if people didn't come here any spout misinformation
Ah, the good ol "misinformation" label! Name calling since the reality doesn't support your belief system. Let's check my work using OP's numbers, shall we?SamHou said:
No, even with the first part of your sentence, it is incorrect. This forum would be better if people didn't come here any spout misinformation
The quote in question: "If you're young and healthy - there's never been significant statistical risk and getting the vaccine will reduce that risk by a nearly unnoticeable degree."
A 65+ w/ vaccine is 4.4x more likely to be hospitalized than an unvaccinated 12-17yo. (There's no death comparison because the likelihood for youth approaches so near to 0)
A 30-49 yo w/o vax is only 1.06x as likely to die as a vaccinated 65-79yo, and 0.26x as likely to die as a vax'ed 80+ yo.
A kid who gets vax'ed reduces their hospitalization risk by 0.0027%, and a sub 50yo adult by 0.015%. And death? That's unk% and 0.0009% (respectively).
This forum would be better if critical thinking replaced dogmatic name calling. I'm still glad that old folks in my life have gotten jabbed - but the healthy young population just hasn't ever been at significant risk.
This is true. The problem is that many think they are in this category, but are not. This includes an Army veteran friend that died before Thanksgiving because he wasn't vaccinated. If people could properly assess their risk, we'd be much better off. Instead, people think they are way healthier than they really are.Get Off My Lawn said:
but the healthy young population just hasn't ever been at significant risk.
But, beyond that, if you are vaccinated you're about 5x less likely to get it, which makes it less likely you spread it. That benefits everyone in a society.
Agreed on the first. I wish my "healthy 65yo" neighbor were still alive, and a shot may have prevented his death.ORAggieFan said:This is true. The problem is that many think they are in this category, but are not. This includes an Army veteran friend that died before Thanksgiving because he wasn't vaccinated. If people could properly assess their risk, we'd be much better off. Instead, people think they are way healthier than they really are.Get Off My Lawn said:
but the healthy young population just hasn't ever been at significant risk.
But, beyond that, if you are vaccinated you're about 5x less likely to get it, which makes it less likely you spread it. That benefits everyone in a society.
Regarding the later - I'm not sure that "reducing the spread" isn't just prolonging things. Places like Sweden who burned through it fast seem to be in a better position as a result.
Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:
Periods & Commas go inside the quotation marks; while commas, semi-colons & dashes go outside.
So commas go both inside and outside the " quotation marks,", or is there a difference in big C and little c comma?
I agree, we will all likely get it and at this point with hospitals not full, it's less of an issue.Get Off My Lawn said:Agreed on the first. I wish my "healthy 65yo" neighbor were still alive, and a shot may have prevented his death.ORAggieFan said:This is true. The problem is that many think they are in this category, but are not. This includes an Army veteran friend that died before Thanksgiving because he wasn't vaccinated. If people could properly assess their risk, we'd be much better off. Instead, people think they are way healthier than they really are.Get Off My Lawn said:
but the healthy young population just hasn't ever been at significant risk.
But, beyond that, if you are vaccinated you're about 5x less likely to get it, which makes it less likely you spread it. That benefits everyone in a society.
Regarding the later - I'm not sure that "reducing the spread" isn't just prolonging things. Places like Sweden who burned through it fast seem to be in a better position as a result.
ORAggieFan said:I agree, we will all likely get it and at this point with hospitals not full, it's less of an issue.Get Off My Lawn said:Agreed on the first. I wish my "healthy 65yo" neighbor were still alive, and a shot may have prevented his death.ORAggieFan said:This is true. The problem is that many think they are in this category, but are not. This includes an Army veteran friend that died before Thanksgiving because he wasn't vaccinated. If people could properly assess their risk, we'd be much better off. Instead, people think they are way healthier than they really are.Get Off My Lawn said:
but the healthy young population just hasn't ever been at significant risk.
But, beyond that, if you are vaccinated you're about 5x less likely to get it, which makes it less likely you spread it. That benefits everyone in a society.
Regarding the later - I'm not sure that "reducing the spread" isn't just prolonging things. Places like Sweden who burned through it fast seem to be in a better position as a result.
Open it all up! No mandates, no mask requirements, no threats of shutdowns.
This thing isn't being stopped. Everyone is going to get their turn. I'm double vaxxed, so was the wife, both got Covid in October.
Liberal super masking, avoid crowds indoors, triple vaxxed, wife kept him to a restricted peer group golf buddy. Guess what he's getting his turn now.
We cannot stop a respiratory virus that is this communicable from spreading. Period.
I'm 100% in the open it up and no mandate camp. Always have been.
Get Off My Lawn said:Ah, the good ol "misinformation" label! Name calling since the reality doesn't support your belief system. Let's check my work using OP's numbers, shall we?SamHou said:
No, even with the first part of your sentence, it is incorrect. This forum would be better if people didn't come here any spout misinformation
The quote in question: "If you're young and healthy - there's never been significant statistical risk and getting the vaccine will reduce that risk by a nearly unnoticeable degree."
A 65+ w/ vaccine is 4.4x more likely to be hospitalized than an unvaccinated 12-17yo. (There's no death comparison because the likelihood for youth approaches so near to 0)
A 30-49 yo w/o vax is only 1.06x as likely to die as a vaccinated 65-79yo, and 0.26x as likely to die as a vax'ed 80+ yo.
A kid who gets vax'ed reduces their hospitalization risk by 0.0027%, and a sub 50yo adult by 0.015%. And death? That's unk% and 0.0009% (respectively).
This forum would be better if critical thinking replaced dogmatic name calling. I'm still glad that old folks in my life have gotten jabbed - but the healthy young population just hasn't ever been at significant risk.
Dafuq?? Why would you compare a 65 vaccinated to a 12-17 unvaccinated??? That's illogical and explains our disconnect.
You want to compare risk - so compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the same age bracket.
I think you are missing his point. The point is for young and healthy the statistics are so small that the difference is negligible whether they are vaccinated or not.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the vaccine is not benificial to older and less healthy portions of the population. And yes, that is a huge number.
But then again I may be missing his point too.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the vaccine is not benificial to older and less healthy portions of the population. And yes, that is a huge number.
But then again I may be missing his point too.
SamHou said:
Dafuq?? Why would you compare a 65 vaccinated to a 12-17 unvaccinated??? That's illogical and explains our disconnect.
You want to compare risk - so compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the same age bracket.
There's certainly a disconnect. Maybe he switched topics and/or did a poor job of articulating his point. The thread was a discussion of how vaccination decreases rates of three health outcomes: cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. Vaccination significantly reduces these outcomes, with the one exception of deaths in the U29 groups. Maybe he's dismissive of outcomes other than death? If so, I think that's a huge mistake.
Regardless, when assessing efficacy of vaccines, you want to compare apples-to-apples, which is why it would be bizarre to compare a 65+yo group to a U18 group
Regardless, when assessing efficacy of vaccines, you want to compare apples-to-apples, which is why it would be bizarre to compare a 65+yo group to a U18 group
If you only read half of my posts with a superiority complex and an eye to argue we'll never make any progress here. I did 2 things in my previous:
1. Showed that the young + healthy are at so little risk that their baseline is better than other groups even post-vaccination. (To support my claim of low initial risk)
2. Compared what you complained that I didn't: same age group risk reduction, which is for all practical purposes zero for young + healthy individuals. (Because 17x a super small number is still a super small number.)
1. Showed that the young + healthy are at so little risk that their baseline is better than other groups even post-vaccination. (To support my claim of low initial risk)
2. Compared what you complained that I didn't: same age group risk reduction, which is for all practical purposes zero for young + healthy individuals. (Because 17x a super small number is still a super small number.)
Right on target.
Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations and Deaths by Vaccination Status
Updated from OP, 12/8/21
Incidents per 100,000 population per week ending (see group):
Age--------No Vax --- Vax ---Ratio
Tested Positive (week ending 11/20/21)<--last update 10/2/21
12-17 ------- 407 ------- 55.7 ------ 7 X
18-29 ------- 356 ------- 94.4 ------ 4 X
30-49 ------- 512 ------- 125 ------- 4 X
50-64 ------- 485 ------- 103 ------- 5 X
65-79 ------- 648 ------- 69.5 ------ 9 X
80+ --------- 352 ------- 79.2 ------- 4 X
Overall ---- 475 -------- 99.7 ----- 4.8 X
Hospitilizations (week ending 10-30-21) <---this data was not updated
12-17 ------ 2.8 ------- 0.1 ------- 28 X
18-49 ---- 16.6 ------- 1.2 ------- 14 X
50-64 ---- 49.5 ------- 3.2 ------- 15 X
65+ ------- 131 ------ 12.4 ------- 11 X
Overall -- 47.3 ------- 3.9 ----- 12.1 X
Deaths (week ending 10/30/21)<--- last update 10/2/21
12-17 ------- 0.02 ------- 0.02 -------- 1 X
18-29 ------- 0.17 ------- 0.01 ------- 17 X
30-49 -------- 1.2 ------- 0.03 -------- 40 X
50-64 -------- 5.3 ------- 0.20 -------- 27 X
65-79 ------ 21.4 ------- 1.00 -------- 21 X
80+ --------- 28.7 ------- 5.33 --------- 5 X
Overall ---- 4.98 ------- 0.38 ------ 13.1 X
50 -64 Cases by Booster status per 100K, week ending Nov 20
No Vax ------- 454 ------ 13 X
Vaxxed ------- 130 ----- 3.6 X
Booster -------- 36 ------- 1 X
65+ Cases by Booster status per 100K, week ending Nov 20
No Vax ------- 636 ----- 28 X
Vaxxed ------- 105 ----- 4.6 X
Booster -------- 23 ------- 1 X
No Vax were 10X as likely to test positive as Vaxxed & Boosted in October per 100K.
No Vax were 20X as likely to die as Vaxxed & Boosted in October per 100K.
Updated from OP, 12/8/21
Incidents per 100,000 population per week ending (see group):
Age--------No Vax --- Vax ---Ratio
Tested Positive (week ending 11/20/21)<--last update 10/2/21
12-17 ------- 407 ------- 55.7 ------ 7 X
18-29 ------- 356 ------- 94.4 ------ 4 X
30-49 ------- 512 ------- 125 ------- 4 X
50-64 ------- 485 ------- 103 ------- 5 X
65-79 ------- 648 ------- 69.5 ------ 9 X
80+ --------- 352 ------- 79.2 ------- 4 X
Overall ---- 475 -------- 99.7 ----- 4.8 X
Hospitilizations (week ending 10-30-21) <---this data was not updated
12-17 ------ 2.8 ------- 0.1 ------- 28 X
18-49 ---- 16.6 ------- 1.2 ------- 14 X
50-64 ---- 49.5 ------- 3.2 ------- 15 X
65+ ------- 131 ------ 12.4 ------- 11 X
Overall -- 47.3 ------- 3.9 ----- 12.1 X
Deaths (week ending 10/30/21)<--- last update 10/2/21
12-17 ------- 0.02 ------- 0.02 -------- 1 X
18-29 ------- 0.17 ------- 0.01 ------- 17 X
30-49 -------- 1.2 ------- 0.03 -------- 40 X
50-64 -------- 5.3 ------- 0.20 -------- 27 X
65-79 ------ 21.4 ------- 1.00 -------- 21 X
80+ --------- 28.7 ------- 5.33 --------- 5 X
Overall ---- 4.98 ------- 0.38 ------ 13.1 X
50 -64 Cases by Booster status per 100K, week ending Nov 20
No Vax ------- 454 ------ 13 X
Vaxxed ------- 130 ----- 3.6 X
Booster -------- 36 ------- 1 X
65+ Cases by Booster status per 100K, week ending Nov 20
No Vax ------- 636 ----- 28 X
Vaxxed ------- 105 ----- 4.6 X
Booster -------- 23 ------- 1 X
No Vax were 10X as likely to test positive as Vaxxed & Boosted in October per 100K.
No Vax were 20X as likely to die as Vaxxed & Boosted in October per 100K.
So 2 deaths out of 1 million for 18-29 and 17 deaths out of 1 million for up to 49.
Is my math right?
And did the 2 have cancer or HIV in the first group and what about the 17 in that next group? What were their underlying issues?
Is my math right?
And did the 2 have cancer or HIV in the first group and what about the 17 in that next group? What were their underlying issues?
Hospitilizations (week ending 10-30-21) <---this data was not updated
------------------------------------------------------- Chance of NOT being hospitalized
12-17 ------ 2.8 ------- 0.1 ------- 28 X ------- 99.9972% vs. 99.9999% ---- .0027% difference
18-49 ---- 16.6 ------- 1.2 ------- 14 X ------- 99.9834% vs. 99.9988% ---- .0154% difference
50-64 ---- 49.5 ------- 3.2 ------- 15 X ------- 99.9505% vs. 99.9968%. ---- .0463% difference
65+ ------- 131 ------ 12.4 ------- 11 X ------- 99.8690% vs. 99.9876% ---- .1186% difference
Overall -- 47.3 ------- 3.9 ----- 12.1 X ------- 99.9527% vs. 99.9961% ---- .0434% difference
Deaths (week ending 10/30/21)<--- last update 10/2/21
------------------------------------------------------- Chance of NOT dying
12-17 ------- 0.02 ------- 0.02 -------- 1 X ------ no difference
18-29 ------- 0.17 ------- 0.01 ------- 17 X ------ 99.99983% vs. 99.99999% ---- .00016% difference
30-49 -------- 1.2 ------- 0.03 -------- 40 X ----- 99.9988% vs. 99.99997% ---- .0009% difference
50-64 -------- 5.3 ------- 0.20 -------- 27 X ----- 99.9947% vs. 99.9998% ---- .0051% difference
65-79 ------ 21.4 ------- 1.00 -------- 21 X ----- 99.9786% vs. 99.999% ----- .0204% difference
80+ --------- 28.7 ------- 5.33 --------- 5 X ----- 99.9713% vs. 99.99467% ---- .02337% difference
Overall ---- 4.98 ------- 0.38 ------ 13.1 X ----- 99.99502% vs. 99.99962% ---- .0046% difference
Instead of focusing on super-scary numbers like "28 times more likely to be hospitalized" and "40 times more likely to die", should the focus be on how incredibly UNLIKELY it is to be hospitalized or die from COVID across ALL age groups?
If the benefit of any other medication on the market was only .02337% better or .1186% better, would you take it? Say your doctor wanted to prescribe a blood pressure med which is very benign and told you that you needed it to lower your chance of heart attack or death by .1186% or .02337%, would you take it? Would you consider the side effects before taking it for such a minuscule benefit?
A huge problem in society right now is the number of people who are absolutely convinced that if they get COVID, or their kids get COVID or their parents get COVID, that they are going to die. Or something like 25% chance of dying or whatever. It's just not true based on "science". I wish people would quit living in fear, but to each their own.
These data show how incredibly unlikely it is for anyone to actually be hospitalized or die from COVID. Therefore, some people have made a rational choice to forego the vaccine - either due to personal choice or natural immunity. And they should have that right without being ridiculed. And some people have chosen to get the vaccine, which is their right as well. There may be deep disagreements on the benefit/risk ratio, but each individual should be allowed to make their own decision without influence from the government, employer or society.
------------------------------------------------------- Chance of NOT being hospitalized
12-17 ------ 2.8 ------- 0.1 ------- 28 X ------- 99.9972% vs. 99.9999% ---- .0027% difference
18-49 ---- 16.6 ------- 1.2 ------- 14 X ------- 99.9834% vs. 99.9988% ---- .0154% difference
50-64 ---- 49.5 ------- 3.2 ------- 15 X ------- 99.9505% vs. 99.9968%. ---- .0463% difference
65+ ------- 131 ------ 12.4 ------- 11 X ------- 99.8690% vs. 99.9876% ---- .1186% difference
Overall -- 47.3 ------- 3.9 ----- 12.1 X ------- 99.9527% vs. 99.9961% ---- .0434% difference
Deaths (week ending 10/30/21)<--- last update 10/2/21
------------------------------------------------------- Chance of NOT dying
12-17 ------- 0.02 ------- 0.02 -------- 1 X ------ no difference
18-29 ------- 0.17 ------- 0.01 ------- 17 X ------ 99.99983% vs. 99.99999% ---- .00016% difference
30-49 -------- 1.2 ------- 0.03 -------- 40 X ----- 99.9988% vs. 99.99997% ---- .0009% difference
50-64 -------- 5.3 ------- 0.20 -------- 27 X ----- 99.9947% vs. 99.9998% ---- .0051% difference
65-79 ------ 21.4 ------- 1.00 -------- 21 X ----- 99.9786% vs. 99.999% ----- .0204% difference
80+ --------- 28.7 ------- 5.33 --------- 5 X ----- 99.9713% vs. 99.99467% ---- .02337% difference
Overall ---- 4.98 ------- 0.38 ------ 13.1 X ----- 99.99502% vs. 99.99962% ---- .0046% difference
Instead of focusing on super-scary numbers like "28 times more likely to be hospitalized" and "40 times more likely to die", should the focus be on how incredibly UNLIKELY it is to be hospitalized or die from COVID across ALL age groups?
If the benefit of any other medication on the market was only .02337% better or .1186% better, would you take it? Say your doctor wanted to prescribe a blood pressure med which is very benign and told you that you needed it to lower your chance of heart attack or death by .1186% or .02337%, would you take it? Would you consider the side effects before taking it for such a minuscule benefit?
A huge problem in society right now is the number of people who are absolutely convinced that if they get COVID, or their kids get COVID or their parents get COVID, that they are going to die. Or something like 25% chance of dying or whatever. It's just not true based on "science". I wish people would quit living in fear, but to each their own.
These data show how incredibly unlikely it is for anyone to actually be hospitalized or die from COVID. Therefore, some people have made a rational choice to forego the vaccine - either due to personal choice or natural immunity. And they should have that right without being ridiculed. And some people have chosen to get the vaccine, which is their right as well. There may be deep disagreements on the benefit/risk ratio, but each individual should be allowed to make their own decision without influence from the government, employer or society.
Link to the source of that data?
The link is literally in the post two above mine - https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-statusJabin said:
Link to the source of that data?
It's CDC data, but I presented it in a slightly less "meant-to-scare-the-sh*t-out-of-you" way. Simple statistics that can be manipulated to tell whatever story you want. The CDC wants us to think that COVID is unbelievably deadly and scary, and so you MUST BE VACCINATED.
They could easily have chosen to present the data in a way that tells a different story - COVID sucks, it's real and it can be deadly for a very, very small percentage of people. Get your vaccine, if you choose to. And if you're high-risk, we encourage it.
So everyone should ask themselves - why is the government choosing the most sensationalistic (and scariest) view of the data and making policy decisions (OSHA mandates) based on the worst possible representation of reality?
Featured Stories
See All
Any direct path to Atlanta for Texas A&M goes through South Carolina
by Olin Buchanan
5:17
21h ago
3.5k
1:49
6h ago
1.7k
2025 Texas A&M DT commit DJ Sanders talks district title, Kyle Field
by Ryan Brauninger
113:02
6h ago
1.2k
42:43
1d ago
5.7k