Article on covid vaccines - and possible repercussions

The Dude Abides said...
From the CDC's website:

1000Daisies said...
This is from the same organization that denies chronic lyme exists, right? ; )

I guess you better never take antibiotics if you get a bacterial infection, never go to the hospital if you have a heart attack, and never take a pain medication if you ever break a bone or have surgery. Better stick with homeopathy. ; )

My family's personal experience.

We don't wear masks, social distance (except to respect someone's wishes), and don't take the vaccine. We don't necessarily try to avoid Covid any more than we would a cold or flu. We basically live our lives normally except when current regulations determine otherwise.

As far as we know, we haven't gotten Covid. Parents went to OH to visit family a few weeks ago, and Mom came home with a head cold but that was over in about two weeks.

We are all on things that can help prevent or treat Covid and do eat healthy.

As far as the death rate in older people, I really think that if early treatments like Ivermectin, HCQ, Zinc, etc. were implemented for them that the death and hospitalization rates would plummet.

For some info, my dad is 73 with prostate cancer, and my mom is 70 and battles with something that appears to suppress her immune system - still trying to figure out what the root is.

Post Edited (ChristianWithLyme) : 4/19/2021 6:57:37 AM (GMT-6)

dcd2103 said...
Yes, and to my original point which you took issue with, the longer the study the higher the absolute risk, the higher the absolute risk reduction.

If we do a 6m study and 20 people out of 1000 get covid that’s an absolute risk is 2%. If we do a 1y study you’d expected 40 people to get it which would be an absolute risk if 4%

isitlyme said...
dcd, its not "over the length", not "during", not "indefinitely"

dcd2103 said...

These are all the same thing. So you basically took me on a detour to argue about semantics for nothing, my original point stands

dcd, you don't understand, its not the same thing, "during" or "over" is not the same as "end", that is obvious, its impossible to get the absolute risks "during" or in the middle of the study, doesn't make sense and i never said indefinitely. Besides, it doesn't matter the length of the study, days, months, years. What matters is when the study ends we now can calculate the results. Results of what? Of risks, its about the, please read well, risks. And absolute risks, wish are the most important, were not reported by Pfizer or Moderna, wish showed their mRNA vaccines could only avoid less than 2% of covid infection risks, wish shows the efficacy of that vaccines are almost nill, nada, useless.

Post Edited (isitlyme) : 4/19/2021 1:23:03 PM (GMT-6)

ChristianWithLyme said...
My family's personal experience.

We don't wear masks, social distance (except to respect someone's wishes), and don't take the vaccine. We don't necessarily try to avoid Covid any more than we would a cold or flu. We basically live our lives normally except when current regulations determine otherwise.

I really think that if early treatments like Ivermectin, HCQ, Zinc, etc. were implemented for them that the death and hospitalization rates would plummet.

For some info, my dad is 73 with prostate cancer, and my mom is 70 and battles with something that appears to suppress her immune system - still trying to figure out what the root is.

CWL, thank you for sharing your experience, it feels a relief making that decision. We stay away from this experimental vaccines, wish can kill in the short term and who knows, in the long term. Fortunately many members deal with it and make the same decision, trusting in existing treatments that are real proved effective and wait for more safe treatments to come.

In my case i use FFP3 mask and Visor Outside and i didnt even catch the flu this year .

dcd2103 said...
I don’t get angry very often, but the number of people who catch covid “over the length of the study” as I originally worded it is the same exact thing as the number of people who have caught it by the end of the study. I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you’re just a moron

Besides of being rude, you don't seem to know the difference between right and left. "During" the study, wish was the word you also used, is like saying: "During" the study, only 10 participants got an infection, but "at the end" of the study more 20 participants caught it. So, during = 10, Total at the end = 30 . Do you get it now or do you need me to make you a drawing? Yes, if by "Over the length" you mean the whole study period, its the same think, but "during" or "over" as you also said, can be interpreted as "while" and that is why i think you confused it all. "Duration or over the length" can also be interpreted as any point in time in the study, but if you say "end" people have no doubts at what point in time, the results were obtained, i could give you examples but i expect you get it..

But once and for all, if you get this straight, FORGET the timing (during, over, indefinite), who cares about the timing? I am speaking about results and you insist in putting the timing variable as if it was any important. Please read again, r.i.s.k r.e.s.u.l.t.s.

Post Edited (isitlyme) : 4/19/2021 2:55:09 PM (GMT-6)

"The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years. "

It's about 7 paragraphs down...

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine

"Study" and "trial" are not the same thing.

Not gonna get too deep into this as I didn't have any luck explaining this to you before...

The phase 3 trial was temporarily unblinded and data was pulled for the study you have been talking about. There will be many studies coming from one huge phase 3 trial that is still ongoing.

As time goes on, the absolute risk of getting covid will increase. Relative risk should stay in that confidence interval which was like 89 to 97% I think.

dcd2103 said...
Yah i was rude. Sorry about that, I dont get angry often but it seemed like you were purposely screwing with me.

But your example makes no sense. What does that even mean for 20 people to get it "at the end of the study"? What like at the last split second of the study 20 people get it lol

If the study is 6m, and 10 people get covid during/while/over-the-length of/by-the-end-of that 6m, then 10 people got covid. There's nothing else any of these things can mean, and quite frankly I have no idea what youre even talking about or where that extra 20 people "at the end" comes from or what that even means.

I am not screwing you, i am trying to help you. By your words, i assume you really have no clue of what i am saying and i believe you. It seems you don't read many trials theses days.. Let me give you an example with this trial sample:

In this case it was necessary to obtain the results of deaths:

"During the study" the number of deaths are obtained, but it is only at the "end of the study" that we obtain how many many participants survived. Meaning, in this trial sample there were participants who "Died during the study period" and participants that were "Alive at the end of the study period". We clearly see the difference between the two. If you cant see that, i cannot help you here, sorry.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc6082166/

dcd2103 said...
In addition, my point on the timing is that you were saying that the absolute risk reduction is small...but that absolute risk number is calculated over THE LENGTH OF THE STUDY. If the study is 3m for example, then that absolute risk number you were pointing to grossly underestimates the risk of covid, and the benefits of a vaccine, for someone who needs to live for years in a world where covid exsits. Before you argue with this, just think about it...a 3m study will produce a far smaller "absolute risk" than a 2y study.

Dcd, please try to memorize this, there is no length of time/period factor in the risk reduction calculation, but there is no harm in learning, here it goes:

AR (absolute risk) = the number of events (good or bad) in treated or control groups, divided by the number of people in that group.

ARC = the AR of events in the control group.
ART = the AR of events in the treatment group.
ARR (absolute risk reduction) = ARC – ART.
RR (relative risk) = ART / ARC.

No "length of time" in any of the variables whatsoever. Anyone can figure this out..

Post Edited (isitlyme) : 4/19/2021 6:12:30 PM (GMT-6)

potsnpans said...
"Study" and "trial" are not the same thing.

They finished the final efficacy analysis on the phase 3 trial and and some news reported end of the trial, so, yes, the Phase 3 is still running. Meaning Pfizer even admits that people all over the world are still part of the ongoing "humanimal trials".

potsnpans said...
As time goes on, the absolute risk of getting covid will increase. Relative risk should stay in that confidence interval which was like 89 to 97% I think.

Are you even hearing yourself here? "As time goes on, the absolute risk of getting covid will increase"?

You are swapping the meaning.. Common potsnpans. Hehe. Now i see why you didn't understand the concept from the beginning. Look, the more the increase in infections during trials, the lower is the ARR. Its ARR (Absolute risk reduction) not ARI (Absolute risk increase) -> Lol. ARI, doesnt even exist in this context. Its not about getting, its about reducing..

If covid infections increase, we are in fact saying that ARR will decrease even more. You swapped the meaning. But hey, i will give the benefit of the doubt and believe you didn't notice it, and made a mistake..

Post Edited (isitlyme) : 4/19/2021 9:35:55 PM (GMT-6)

dcd, thank you for your point but you are falling in the same mistake. The misunderstanding remains for both of you. Even if potspans is referring to AR/ART, the greater the AR (increase/getting) the worst it is for ARR, meaning the ARR will reduce even more and the ARR is the only important value to take a decision about a treatment. Remember: ARR (absolute risk reduction) = ARC – ART

Conclusion: more AR raise = more bad news for the vaccine, more useless, lower the ARR.

nope, you are not reading what i said, read again: "Even if potspans is referring to AR/ART" - read well:AR/ART (vaccine group), the ARR lowers and gets worst.

There is no AR alone in the concept of ARR. This is your mistake. When you and pots say "AR raises", you are not even saying it right, because AR is an abstract term only to identify the initials of the words "Absolute Risk", this abstract term gains only meaning with the variables ART/ARC.

Only when ARC is greater, then ARR is greater (Good), but the greater the ART then the lower the ARR.(worst).

While if both ARC/ART raise (as i explained) - ARR tends to get lower - worst.. It is this tendency that gets worst, as both variables raise and that is the point. If you only look at the raise of ARC alone, as you seem to be, you cannot interpret nothing, without subtracting it to ART. Only when ARC raises in comparison with ART does ARR raise or gets better. But anyway, the ARR can only be determined with data, no one can assume ARR is raising or lowering, just because someone fells like it will, trough time. If you want to hear predictions, better go to weather news or something, but risks are only known with data, we cannot assume nothing just because we think it will raise, its pure speculation.

Unless you have already data from the ongoing trial and if you have the data, we want to do the ARR calculations and not the RR wish pfizer and moderna like so much to present and is useless and not valid in the real world. So this conversation is useless and based on an assumption that neither you, me or pots even know yet

Post Edited (isitlyme) : 4/19/2021 10:25:44 PM (GMT-6)