Is it true that vaccinated people are counted as non vaccinated for 14 days?

[okie]

I’ll expand:

When a patient is vaccinated, if it’s within a system it just simply has dates, lot number, and manufacturers in their electronic record.

When I was a patient, nobody asked me. And I wasn’t in their system. So they would count me as unvaccinated if they rely solely on their system, but nobody asked me.

In fact, when I was tested, nobody asked me. What did happen, employee health called me and asked me a laundry list of questions including whether or not I was vaccinated and that is forwarded to the county health department who sends it to the CDC.

At work, I don’t ask anybody. It’s either in the record or it’s not. I assume when somebody pops positive the reporter that sends info to the county health department would be asking…but there is a lot of things that can happen between positive test and admission, or ICU stay.

I haven’t seen the claim that 90% of patients in hospitals are unvaccinated. I had seen the number was around 60%, but 90% of ICU admission were unvaccinated. There is no way that they actually know this as a fluid number because nobody is keeping taking records and crunching those fluid numbers.

I think they maybe took a small sample survey and that’s what it was in one study in one area at one moment of time, so they keep repeating it as though it’s true and constant.

Like I’ve said multiple times on other threads, I’ve seen more positive cases in vaccinated than unvaccinated people. The population I specifically work with is very compliant with vaccines and around 70% were vaccinated. In fact, I can think of only one admission that wasn’t vaccinated on the shifts I have worked since our surge in July.

But again to answer your question, nobody is linking those number in real time. Nobody is asking those questions in many places. The only mandated reporting is provider to county health department to CDC at the time of positive test. What happens beyond that can only be retrospective study and that isn’t being used for real-time meta analysis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good info! Thanks! So do you think antibody dependent enhancement is already in play? Or are the vaccines merely not providing the level protection claimed by the media?

[okie]

There's plenty of data looking at 1 shot vs 2 shots compared to no vax on end points such as hospitalizations and deaths. That's he know the effectiveness of 1 shot vs both of 2 shot protocols. I have known people who got covid between their first and second shot and you're not consired fully vaccinated until 14 days after second shot. So there must be a % who get vaccinated yet get covid depending on time frames, or in that 5% or so for who the vaccines are not effective.

Personally when someone tells me something, I ask for a source.

Well therein lies the problem. Lots of circular reasoning from both sides. About the only thing we have to rely on is anecdotal information.

[WillBrink]

Well therein lies the problem. Lots of circular reasoning from both sides. About the only thing we have to rely on is anecdotal information.

I do the science thing for a living and the last thing I'm relying on, and ever will, is anecdotal information. It is difficult to very difficult to find the signal among the noise to be sure, but can be done. Dependent on the source, anecdotal information has it's place and it's part of my signal source as I talk to med pros and such in the trenches as often as i can, but it's still a data point among many.

[mRad]

Good info! Thanks! So do you think antibody dependent enhancement is already in play? Or are the vaccines merely not providing the level protection claimed by the media?

The media is just reporting what they are told to.

When I read the original moderna white paper, all 144 pages of it, the day it was released, I noticed something.

Their control group was contracting COVID at almost twice the rate of the general population during the same time period. The paper didn’t acknowledge that in discussion, or even provide a comparison to real world numbers outside the phase three clinical trials. They simply compared control group to vaccinated group to develop their efficacy.

I suspect that their ignoring it was intentional. A rational mind could come to very logical conclusions:

The control group engaged in more risky behaviors believing they were vaccinated and protected from COVID.

Or

The testing sensitivity was tweaked to a level which wasn’t being done clinically to give more positives.

Or

The study called for a testing protocol that was catching more cases that would have been missed organically.

Or

There was some intentional data manipulation to provide the results they wanted.

The fact that it WASN’T ACKNOWLEDGED or discussed means the researchers were incompetent or they wanted to hide something.

So we have to question, do we trust big Pharma when they have a new product to sell worth BILLIONS.

I brought up to colleagues and was dismissed. They all bought the 95% narrative and whatever % they said if prevented symptomatic infection. I was their tinfoil guy I guess…but I learned a thing or two about data manipulation with my Econ and business degrees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[okie]

The media is just reporting what they are told to.

When I read the original moderna white paper, all 144 pages of it, the day it was released, I noticed something.

Their control group was contracting COVID at almost twice the rate of the general population during the same time period. The paper didn’t acknowledge that in discussion, or even provide a comparison to real world numbers outside the phase three clinical trials. They simply compared control group to vaccinated group to develop their efficacy.

I suspect that their ignoring it was intentional. A rational mind could come to very logical conclusions:

The control group engaged in more risky behaviors believing they were vaccinated and protected from COVID.

Or

The testing sensitivity was tweaked to a level which wasn’t being done clinically to give more positives.

Or

The study called for a testing protocol that was catching more cases that would have been missed organically.

Or

There was some intentional data manipulation to provide the results they wanted.

The fact that it WASN’T ACKNOWLEDGED or discussed means the researchers were incompetent or they wanted to hide something.

So we have to question, do we trust big Pharma when they have a new product to sell worth BILLIONS.

I brought up to colleagues and was dismissed. They all bought the 95% narrative and whatever % they said if prevented symptomatic infection. I was their tinfoil guy I guess…but I learned a thing or two about data manipulation with my Econ and business degrees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The control group received saline I guess?

[okie]

I do the science thing for a living and the last thing I'm relying on, and ever will, is anecdotal information. It is difficult to very difficult to find the signal among the noise to be sure, but can be done. Dependent on the source, anecdotal information has it's place and it's part of my signal source as I talk to med pros and such in the trenches as often as i can, but it's still a data point among many.

I don't know man, I don't think there is any signal to be found here, and I think that's intentional. I guess as long as they keep the waters muddy enough they can get away with saying things that are either untrue or unfounded, to support their narrative of necessitated control and mandated vaccination.

[georgeib]

The media is just reporting what they are told to.

When I read the original moderna white paper, all 144 pages of it, the day it was released, I noticed something.

Their control group was contracting COVID at almost twice the rate of the general population during the same time period. The paper didn’t acknowledge that in discussion, or even provide a comparison to real world numbers outside the phase three clinical trials. They simply compared control group to vaccinated group to develop their efficacy.

I suspect that their ignoring it was intentional. A rational mind could come to very logical conclusions:

The control group engaged in more risky behaviors believing they were vaccinated and protected from COVID.

Or

The testing sensitivity was tweaked to a level which wasn’t being done clinically to give more positives.

Or

The study called for a testing protocol that was catching more cases that would have been missed organically.

Or

There was some intentional data manipulation to provide the results they wanted.

The fact that it WASN’T ACKNOWLEDGED or discussed means the researchers were incompetent or they wanted to hide something.

So we have to question, do we trust big Pharma when they have a new product to sell worth BILLIONS.

I brought up to colleagues and was dismissed. They all bought the 95% narrative and whatever % they said if prevented symptomatic infection. I was their tinfoil guy I guess…but I learned a thing or two about data manipulation with my Econ and business degrees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And here we have the crux of the matter. And this is exactly what I've been trying to get Will to see in the other thread. Focusing exclusively on numbers provided by people with a vested interest in the manipulation of those numbers can make you blind to the truth. What was it again that Einstein said about statistics?

[mRad]

The control group received saline I guess?

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillBrink]

And here we have the crux of the matter. And this is exactly what I've been trying to get Will to see in the other thread. Focusing exclusively on numbers provided by people with a vested interest in the manipulation of those numbers can make you blind to the truth.

And I have never done any such thing, and you et al will focus exclusively on any bit of info, no matter how poor, if it supports your bias. A random vid by someone who makes up claims easy to disprove is what you hang on for example. You et al also assume X researchers motivated to hide something, ignore the fact those making random claims on vids and such may have motives to hide something.

For example, the noble front line docs people love to quote, are also making a fortune off people too.

There's $ being made from vaccines and such, lots of $ being made by people claiming they have the cure, and people should ignore what the evil scientists have to say.

You just don't know how well you are being played.

I on the other hand read/listen/look at all sides all the time and attempt to find the balanced pragmatic approaches and recs.

What was it again that Einstein said about statistics?

What was that?

[okie]

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I don't believe for one second that they were out there yoloing. They took part in the trials, so they were obviously very concerned about the virus, and that type of person isn't going to start taking risks just because there's a chance they may have gotten the vaccine, especially considering at that point nobody even knew if it worked and if so how well.

The fact that the study doesn't disclose what test was used and what the procedures were says it all.

Not only that, but I remember seeing as study a while back that showed quarantines weren't slowing the spread. People really don't understand the level of extreme it takes to seriously reduce one's exposure. We're talking like isolating in your house quarantining your mail for two weeks. The way people were "quarantining" was simply absurd. Basically they were play acting.