Jan 29, 2022·edited Jan 29, 2022Liked by Just A Guy
I've noticed among the substack vax dissidents a definite tendency to neglect to point out the fact that they are somewhat effective. It looked like maybe 2 dose after 8 months was pretty ineffective but booster numbers look good. 2-5x reduction in general. This is true
The counter to that is
1. It only lasts maybe 6 months
2. Non trivial side effect risk, unknown long term effects
3. Early treatment might be more effective and is much safer
4. Infections from Initial suppression of immune response are significant and not included in the stats
So unfortunately we have to say yes they are effective at reducing symptoms, but... It's complicated.
He seems to have an analysis method where he analyzes the case data by solving for a fit to a sum of gompertz curves. This makes sense to me and seems to produce interesting results.
I just came from the store and to my surprise almost everyone is wearing masks again, even though the store does not require it, and there certainly isn't a mandate. Does this mean the population is losing track completely?
It's a natural reaction. Lots of people got sick of it and stopped but probably figured they would go back to masking if there was another wave.
Even my wife who knows masks don't work regularly refers to people wearing masks as being in some way protected. She KNOWS our government regularly lies to us, but suffers Gel-Mann Amnesia when it comes to public health a bit. "Surely there must be a reason they tell us to wear masks?!"
This is fair, and again the 80+ population that isn't vaccinated is probably in pretty bad shape. But the raw signal is there and we've been hanging a lot on a lot of very raw signals
The way I see it, the "dose 2 only" population is doing worse than the dirty dirty unvaccinated, in England, right now. This is so for "cases" from age 18 up, and for hospitalizations and deaths from age 60 up. I take your point that the "dose 2 only" population size is small and therefore likely contains a number of people who can't withstand another injection, but I fail to see how this is good news for the injections. For one thing, something that people are avoiding because it will likely kill or injure them is hard to characterize as a universal good. Especially when for people with memories longer than goldfishes, it seems that the frail and comorbid are precisely the ones who are at risk from the coof and thus most in need of a magic injection.
Help me check my assumptions on this:
As of week 4, the 40-49 bucket was 58.8% boosted compared with 77.2% double dosed, so roughly 2 "vaccinated" people are boosted for every 1 that is only double dosed in the 40-49 bucket. So 1/3 of the vaccinators are only double dosed in 40-49, and this represents a substantial population of people who likely aren't old enough to be considered "frail" in massive numbers. Yet the 40-49 "dose 2 only" has worse hospitalizations per 100K than 40-49 unvaccinated.
Obviously the reasons for this (besides Abhijit's math errors) could include what el gato malo calls the Bayesian data crimes (defining newly boosted people as only having two doses); and some of these people could also be frail. But is this enough to explain why having two doses is correlated with worse outcomes than having no doses at all in this age category?
I'm tending to fall into C.S. Lewis' second category, despite my best efforts not to, so maybe you can help me out...
In raw terms, the 2 Dose are absolutely cruising the Unvaccinated in case rates and as you said, admissions in the older ages.
There are confounders. I wanted a chance to run some numbers for you today, but my wife got the coof overnight and it came down fairly hard on her in terms of the headache. But one confounder as I've detailed many times, is that some percentage of the Unvaccinated are actually naturally immune. I was going to run some range calculations on that and give you more of a "True" Unvaccinated case rate than what is on our chart).
And of course if we are right, then the 2 Dose rate is worse than it really should be because boosting increases risk for 14 days.
Basically we just need to be really careful to not oversell what the data says.
Agreed. And I've seen an absolute metric crap ton of absolutey tortured statistics used to justify vaccine mandates, so it's hard to hold back.
FYI, total anecdote, but the two people who already had Covid 12 months ago, are having the worst cases in our house. (Well unless my son is being a huge drama queen, which he kind of is, but my wife insists she can tell when he's really not feeling well vs milking it). My daughter seems to be pretty much over it in about 24 hours and my youngest stubbornly refuses to get sick.
1. Can’t take a COVID shot because of being too sick or some similar reason will mean these sick people make the unvaccinated category look bad
2. The Categorization of anyone who has had a COVID shot in less than 14 days as “unvaccinated” ( during the first 14 days post COVID shot is where at least 50% of all deaths and adverse reactions occur )- makes the unvaccinated category appear much worse than it is.
It’s very deceptive to not add the comorbidities of those who die.
I've noticed among the substack vax dissidents a definite tendency to neglect to point out the fact that they are somewhat effective. It looked like maybe 2 dose after 8 months was pretty ineffective but booster numbers look good. 2-5x reduction in general. This is true
The counter to that is
1. It only lasts maybe 6 months
2. Non trivial side effect risk, unknown long term effects
3. Early treatment might be more effective and is much safer
4. Infections from Initial suppression of immune response are significant and not included in the stats
So unfortunately we have to say yes they are effective at reducing symptoms, but... It's complicated.
Btw have you seen this
https://metatron.substack.com/p/covid-19-in-ireland
He seems to have an analysis method where he analyzes the case data by solving for a fit to a sum of gompertz curves. This makes sense to me and seems to produce interesting results.
I had not, I'll need to go back through his stuff some more, thanks!
I just came from the store and to my surprise almost everyone is wearing masks again, even though the store does not require it, and there certainly isn't a mandate. Does this mean the population is losing track completely?
It's a natural reaction. Lots of people got sick of it and stopped but probably figured they would go back to masking if there was another wave.
Even my wife who knows masks don't work regularly refers to people wearing masks as being in some way protected. She KNOWS our government regularly lies to us, but suffers Gel-Mann Amnesia when it comes to public health a bit. "Surely there must be a reason they tell us to wear masks?!"
Yes there is. Some people make lots of money of it
My wife has a friend who knows they don't work and yet wears one because it makes her feel safe.
I cannot relate to this, but I can confirm that a real human admitted to this.
"if you GET SICK at 80+ and are unvaccinated, you have about a 25% mortality rate and it is increasing"
Would love to see a base line here. Men die at 80 anyway, so "getting sick" - of anything - would have the same result. Women die at 84 - same deal.
This is fair, and again the 80+ population that isn't vaccinated is probably in pretty bad shape. But the raw signal is there and we've been hanging a lot on a lot of very raw signals
The way I see it, the "dose 2 only" population is doing worse than the dirty dirty unvaccinated, in England, right now. This is so for "cases" from age 18 up, and for hospitalizations and deaths from age 60 up. I take your point that the "dose 2 only" population size is small and therefore likely contains a number of people who can't withstand another injection, but I fail to see how this is good news for the injections. For one thing, something that people are avoiding because it will likely kill or injure them is hard to characterize as a universal good. Especially when for people with memories longer than goldfishes, it seems that the frail and comorbid are precisely the ones who are at risk from the coof and thus most in need of a magic injection.
Help me check my assumptions on this:
As of week 4, the 40-49 bucket was 58.8% boosted compared with 77.2% double dosed, so roughly 2 "vaccinated" people are boosted for every 1 that is only double dosed in the 40-49 bucket. So 1/3 of the vaccinators are only double dosed in 40-49, and this represents a substantial population of people who likely aren't old enough to be considered "frail" in massive numbers. Yet the 40-49 "dose 2 only" has worse hospitalizations per 100K than 40-49 unvaccinated.
Obviously the reasons for this (besides Abhijit's math errors) could include what el gato malo calls the Bayesian data crimes (defining newly boosted people as only having two doses); and some of these people could also be frail. But is this enough to explain why having two doses is correlated with worse outcomes than having no doses at all in this age category?
I'm tending to fall into C.S. Lewis' second category, despite my best efforts not to, so maybe you can help me out...
In raw terms, the 2 Dose are absolutely cruising the Unvaccinated in case rates and as you said, admissions in the older ages.
There are confounders. I wanted a chance to run some numbers for you today, but my wife got the coof overnight and it came down fairly hard on her in terms of the headache. But one confounder as I've detailed many times, is that some percentage of the Unvaccinated are actually naturally immune. I was going to run some range calculations on that and give you more of a "True" Unvaccinated case rate than what is on our chart).
And of course if we are right, then the 2 Dose rate is worse than it really should be because boosting increases risk for 14 days.
Basically we just need to be really careful to not oversell what the data says.
Agreed on your last statement. It's a constant battle.
OTOH, as eugyppius said the other day, res ipsa loquitur. Confounders or not, it's not a good look.
Agreed. And I've seen an absolute metric crap ton of absolutey tortured statistics used to justify vaccine mandates, so it's hard to hold back.
FYI, total anecdote, but the two people who already had Covid 12 months ago, are having the worst cases in our house. (Well unless my son is being a huge drama queen, which he kind of is, but my wife insists she can tell when he's really not feeling well vs milking it). My daughter seems to be pretty much over it in about 24 hours and my youngest stubbornly refuses to get sick.
1. Can’t take a COVID shot because of being too sick or some similar reason will mean these sick people make the unvaccinated category look bad
2. The Categorization of anyone who has had a COVID shot in less than 14 days as “unvaccinated” ( during the first 14 days post COVID shot is where at least 50% of all deaths and adverse reactions occur )- makes the unvaccinated category appear much worse than it is.
It’s very deceptive to not add the comorbidities of those who die.