The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[Scaff]

I'm sure you believe you can.. But the broken link you posted (working link) is not it. I asked a very specific question. Who is keeping statistics on people refusing the vaccine and ending up in the hospital or dead?

Not that this has anything to do with the question I asked (people who refused).. But when is a person fully vaccinated? Is a person who received a second shot a month ago fully vaccinated? What if that person only received the second shot 2 days ago? Is that person fully vaccinated? Or a person that received their second shot 7 months ago? Is that person fully vaccinated? The definition of a fully vaccinated person seems to change depending on who you ask...


I think you missed something here. Rogan tested positive for COVID, treated himself with "horse dewormer" and was "cured" a few days later. I don't think he needed Ivermectine to cure himself from the virus...

You asked a question that is, to be blunt, never going to be specifically measured, and you know that.

Nor does it need to be measured, as those individuals are within the unvaccinated group, the data for which, in terms of risk, is abundantly clear.

Oh and moving the goalposts on Rogan doesnt change the fact that your image is wrong. Nor does it change the fact that a multi millionaire is going to have access to medical care that the majority of unvaccinated will not have.

The science on this is clear, if you are fully Vaccinated (which is generally agreed to be around two weeks after the second dose but will vary depending on the vaccine), you are at a significantly lower risk of catching Covid, being hospitalised and of dying. Not to mention that he only tested positive on the 1st September, a few days is now, and by his own admission he used a lot more than dewormer, as such let's not keep making things up.

Feel free to shuffle those goal posts around and throw in outliers, it's not going to change those facts.

 

[Outspacer]

What statistic proves that people who refused the vaccine are hit harder by the virus?

Essentially the same statistics that you said you agreed with in the COVID thread when I worked out comparative risks for you.

Not that this has anything to do with the question I asked (people who refused)

COVID doesn't give a toss whether an unvaccinated person denied themselves the vaccine or not.


I'm sure you wish Oscar all the best and a speedy recovery /s

Looks promising so far, can't see any oxygen tubes and he was able to make a video to post. Without the vaccine, odds are he'd be in a much worse position. Odds that you said you agreed with.

 

[VolkswagenX]

You asked a question that is, to be blunt, never going to be specifically measured, and you know that.

But how can anyone know that it's people refusing the vaccine who are hit the hardest? Why claim something to be true when you don't really know?

Nor does it need to be measured, as those individuals are within the unvaccinated group, the data for which, in terms of risk, is abundantly clear.

Who are we talking about when we're talking about the unvaccinated? Let's be honest here, people like to bring these statistics into an argument to get an own on "anti-vaxxers". It's only fair as an "anti-vaxxer" to give a clear definition on what an unvaccinated person is and how many people that refuse to get vaccinated are hit hard bij the virus?

Oh and moving the goalposts on Rogan doesnt change the fact that your image is wrong. Nor does it change the fact that a multi millionaire is going to have access to medical care that the majority of unvaccinated will not have.

Not an argument.

The science on this is clear, if you are fully Vaccinated (which is generally agreed to be around two weeks after the second dose but will vary depending on the vaccine), you are at a significantly lower risk of catching Covid, being hospitalised and of dying. Not to mention that he only tested positive on the 1st September, a few days is now, and by his own admission he used a lot more than dewormer, as such let's not keep making things up.

Never claimed the vaccine doesn't improve your chances with the virus. Every statistic out there shows that a healthy 36 old has not much to fear from the virus.

Feel free to shuffle those goal posts around and throw in outliers, it's not going to change those facts.

Yeah, I'm moving the goalpost...

Essentially the same statistics that you said you agreed with in the COVID thread when I worked out comparative risks for you.

I agreed on the numbers. We have different opinions on what the represent.

COVID doesn't give a toss whether an unvaccinated person denied themselves the vaccine or not.

You should direct that comment at people who use the statistics about the unvaccinated to the people who use it as an argument against the "anti-vaxxers".

I'm sure you wish Oscar all the best and a speedy recovery /s

I do

 

[Scaff]

But how can anyone know that it's people refusing the vaccine who are hit the hardest? Why claim something to be true when you don't really know?

If you refuse the vaccine you are by definition unvaccinated and statistically at higher risk.

Who are we talking about when we're talking about the unvaccinated? Let's be honest here, people like to bring these statistics into an argument to get an own on "anti-vaxxers". It's only fair as an "anti-vaxxer" to give a clear definition on what an unvaccinated person is and how many people that refuse to get vaccinated are hit hard bij the virus?

We are talking about anyone who isn't Vaccinated, regardless of reason, as oddly enough the virus doesn't care.

Not an argument.

Then why misrepresent the situation?

Never claimed the vaccine doesn't improve your chances with the virus. Every statistic out there shows that a healthy 36 old has not much to fear from the virus.

Still a significantly higher risk than one who is Vaccinated and equally important a higher risk to others.

Yeah, I'm moving the goalpost...

Yes, you clearly are.

 

[Outspacer]

You should direct that comment at people who use the statistics about the unvaccinated to the people who use it as an argument against the "anti-vaxxers".

No. Unless you're trying to claim that someone who 'refuses' isn't 'unvaccinated'...?!

Of course such stats are used to persuade the hesitant by informing them of the facts. And against anti-vaxxer arguments; they absolutely refute weak vague arguments such as "low risk". They have a choice, unlike the unfortunate people unvaccinated because they haven't got access to vaccines. They deserve facts rather than misinformation.

That's the only distinction between 'refuse' and 'unvaccinated' - choice. Not anything medical that would affect the statistics.

In our countries, the vast majority of unvaccinated adults have refused the vaccine, with only a few not having it due to medical reasons. Therefore, UK, US and EU stats for unvaccinated adults are, for all practical purposes, for those who refused.

 

[TexRex]

Covidiocy is mental illness.

 

[VolkswagenX]

If you refuse the vaccine you are by definition unvaccinated and statistically at higher risk.

Thats fine, but still at a very low risk for many people.

We are talking about anyone who isn't Vaccinated, regardless of reason, as oddly enough the virus doesn't care.

I asked a specific question in response to a reply you gave. You seem to care when about someone's vaccination status when you wan't to use statistics of the unvaccinated to make a point against "anti-vaxxers". You must know that the term "unvaccinated" is used for more than just people who never received the vaccination. Thats why I asked specific questions about the definition of an unvaccinated person. The question could be answered with a simple yes or no.

Then why misrepresent the situation?

Not sure I did.

Still a significantly higher risk than one who is Vaccinated

What are we really talking about? One example, before vaccinations started, the risk of a person in the ages 0-49 dying of the virus was about 0,008% (includes people with comorbidities)in my country. Not sure how much the risk get lowered when someone in this group get's vaccinated. Lets say it lowers the risk a 100 times (0.00008%). Thats a significant decrease in risk. Going by this logic, you're a 100% correct that the unvaccinated person has a significantly higher risk of dying than a vaccinated person.. but is still at a very low risk to begin with.

No. Unless you're trying to claim that someone who 'refuses' isn't 'unvaccinated'...?!

Obviously not claiming that... Just to be clear. A person that refuses to get vaccinated, counts as an unvaccinated person.

Of course such stats are used to persuade the hesitant by informing them of the facts. And against anti-vaxxer arguments; they absolutely refute weak vague arguments such as "low risk". They have a choice, unlike the unfortunate people unvaccinated because they haven't got access to vaccines. They deserve facts rather than misinformation.

The facts show that young healthy adults are at very low risk from being hospitalised or dying from the virus. Even without the vaccine. You're own statistics showed that.

That's the only distinction between 'refuse' and 'unvaccinated' - choice. Not anything medical that would affect the statistics.

You don't understand or are being extremely dishonest.

In our countries, the vast majority of unvaccinated adults have refused the vaccine, with only a few not having it due to medical reasons. Therefore, UK, US and EU stats for unvaccinated adults are, for all practical purposes, for those who refused.

A "majority", a "huge number", "many", "a lot", "a great number of", etc..

 

[Outspacer]

Obviously not claiming that... Just to be clear. A person that refuses to get vaccinated, counts as an unvaccinated person.

What so special about 'refuse' then? You know COVID don't care.

The facts show that young healthy adults are at very low risk from being hospitalised or dying from the virus. Even without the vaccine. You're own statistics showed that.

"Very low risk", "young", "healthy"...

The statistics, that you agreed with, showed that even for that specific cohort, vaccination offers considerable reduction in risk. Overall a benefit at any adult age. If you interpret the numbers differently, you're lying to yourself about what they tell us.

You don't understand or are being extremely dishonest.

Well that's rich. Pray tell, what other difference is there? How can someone refuse something they haven't been offered or have been medically advised not to have? Are you not making a choice by refusing?

A "majority", a "huge number", "many", "a lot", "a great number of", etc..

All adults have been offered the vaccine in our countries, except for a "very small minority" that have been medically advised not to have it. I don't have that stat because it's such a small number that it's irrelevant when looking at overall statistics. Even if we added up all the possible candidates for that group - immune system disorders, transplant recipients, cancer/chemo, etc - it wouldn't change the stats much, even though many of them might be able to have the vaccine. So yeah, "vast majority" is accurate enough, in what I said.

Someone arguing in an honest fashion might try to pin down a range for "vast majority", not simply attempt to dismiss all that was said because of its vagueness. "Majority" is well defined, simply means >50%, so that's a pretty lame comeback. "Vast majority" less so, but I'll clarify it to >90% for what I said (it's probably much higher than that).

UK, US and EU stats for unvaccinated adults are, for all practical purposes, for those who refused.

 

[Scaff]

Thats fine, but still at a very low risk for many people.

Even a low risk have major impacts when looked at in scale.

A 0.5% mortality rate in the UK would see over 3 million people dead!

I asked a specific question in response to a reply you gave. You seem to care when about someone's vaccination status when you wan't to use statistics of the unvaccinated to make a point against "anti-vaxxers". You must know that the term "unvaccinated" is used for more than just people who never received the vaccination. Thats why I asked specific questions about the definition of an unvaccinated person. The question could be answered with a simple yes or no.

Actually it's even simpler, the distinction is unnecessary

Not sure I did.

First you claimed JR never had covid, then that moved to he had it and got over it, which he hasn't as its only a few days since he caught it, then he got over it just using sheep dip, when he actually used a cutting edge and rather expensive medically proven treatment.

The goalpost couldn't have moved further.

What are we really talking about? One example, before vaccinations started, the risk of a person in the ages 0-49 dying of the virus was about 0,008% (includes people with comorbidities)in my country. Not sure how much the risk get lowered when someone in this group get's vaccinated. Lets say it lowers the risk a 100 times (0.00008%). Thats a significant decrease in risk. Going by this logic, you're a 100% correct that the unvaccinated person has a significantly higher risk of dying than a vaccinated person.. but is still at a very low risk to begin with.

And low percentages kill a lot of people when scaled to population levels.

 

[VolkswagenX]

What so special about 'refuse' then? You know COVID don't care.

Depends on the context. When somebody is going to blame people refusing the vaccine for the numbers going up (possitive tests, hospitalisation and deaths), than that somebody should be able to give out clear statistics on the people that refused the vaccine.
I wasn't the one who brought up the vaccine refusal, I only responded with a question. I responded to this:

People who don't vax getting hit hardest by the virus they refused a vaccine for is the exact opposite of an outlier.

"Very low risk", "young", "healthy"...

The statistics, that you agreed with, showed that even for that specific cohort, vaccination offers considerable reduction in risk. Overall a benefit at any adult age. If you interpret the numbers differently, you're lying to yourself about what they tell us.

What am I exactly "lying" to myself about here? I gave out an example in my previous post. Yes the risk is reduces from extremely low to extremely lower. Based on the known statistics, a young healthy adult is at a very low risk of having complications from the virus. And I say this knowing (and you know this) that the statistics include people with comorbidities.

Well that's rich. Pray tell, what other difference is there? How can someone refuse something they haven't been offered or have been medically advised not to have? Are you not making a choice by refusing?

Are we in the same conversation? Thanks for kinda making my point.. jeez..

All adults have been offered the vaccine in our countries, except for a "very small minority" that have been medically advised not to have it. I don't have that stat because it's such a small number that it's irrelevant when looking at overall statistics. Even if we added up all the possible candidates for that group - immune system disorders, transplant recipients, cancer/chemo, etc - it wouldn't change the stats much, even though many of them might be able to have the vaccine. So yeah, "vast majority" is accurate enough, in what I said.

Someone arguing in an honest fashion might try to pin down a range for "vast majority", not simply attempt to dismiss all that was said because of its vagueness. "Majority" is well defined, simply means >50%, so that's a pretty lame comeback. "Vast majority" less so, but I'll clarify it to >90% for what I said (it's probably much higher than that).

UK, US and EU stats for unvaccinated adults are, for all practical purposes, for those who refused.

Misrepresenting statistics to fit a narrative is not the way to argue in honest fashion.. I'm going to go with your >90% that refused. What percentage of those refusers are causing significant "problems" for health care systems in the UK, US and EU? Would be really suprised if you could answer that.. I could easily assume that the problems are being caused by the 10% that have a legitimate reason to not get the vaccine. Or I could say many people in the hospitals are unvaccinated but we don't have clear statistics on why they are unvaccinated.

Even a low risk have major impacts when looked at in scale.

A 0.5% mortality rate in the UK would see over 3 million people dead!

Yes very aware of that. But without contexts, that number is just fearmongering. A majority of the people dying from the virus are in the high risk category. Going by the dutch statistics, 0,1% died from the virus in total for our population. That number becomes 0,9% when you only take into account the people who tested positive. Of that 0,9%, 99,2% are older than 50. The numbers can be used in a very dishonest way to make it seem like all age groups have a 1 to 100 chance of dying of the virus or we can be more nuanced.

Actually it's even simpler, the distinction is unnecessary

No i'ts not, you're being very dishonest here.

First you claimed JR never had covid, then that moved to he had it and got over it, which he hasn't as its only a few days since he caught it, then he got over it just using sheep dip, when he actually used a cutting edge and rather expensive medically proven treatment.

The goalpost couldn't have moved further.

Where exactly did I claim that JR never had covid? It says in the original post I made:

"Rogan has triggered the naysayers again. Posting photo proof that he no longer has coronavirus"

And low percentages kill a lot of people when scaled to population levels.

Nobodies denies that. What's your point? you don't have to answer... It's 0,008% for the total number of infected people. Its 0,0008% for the total population. That is still a very low number of people. Even if you increase the population times 20, the number for people aged 0 to 50 would be low and in my opinion does not justify all the fear mongering.

 

[Outspacer]

Misrepresenting statistics to fit a narrative is not the way to argue in honest fashion.. I'm going to go with your >90% that refused. What percentage of those refusers are causing significant "problems" for health care systems in the UK, US and EU? Would be really suprised if you could answer that.. I could easily assume that the problems are being caused by the 10% that have a legitimate reason to not get the vaccine. Or I could say many people in the hospitals are unvaccinated but we don't have clear statistics on why they are unvaccinated.

Sorry, who is misrepresenting? It's your position that somehow 'refuse' is different to 'unvaccinated' as far as the stats go.

Even though all adults in our countries have been offered the vaccine and have had the choice whether to take it or not.

I mean you and I could say a lot of things, but I try to keep as close to facts as I can. If you want to try and support that last sentence with facts, go ahead.

Until then, our assumption has to be that stats for 'refuse' are effectively the same as the stats for 'unvaccinated'; it's the closest to the facts.

 

[Roo]

Based on the known statistics, a young healthy adult is at a very low risk of having complications from the virus.

Based on nothing whatsoever, I've always got the impression that the phrase "young healthy adult" is used to describe someone who wouldn't get complications from the virus, because if they did they wouldn't be healthy anymore.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Sorry, who is misrepresenting? It's your position that somehow 'refuse' is different to 'unvaccinated' as far as the stats go.

It's not. I've explained it and and you refuse to accept. No point in continuing this conversation.

Based on nothing whatsoever, I've always got the impression that the phrase "young healthy adult" is used to describe someone who wouldn't get complications from the virus, because if they did they wouldn't be healthy anymore.

Great, another post pretending to not know what is ment. Yeah pretend I never said:

And I say this knowing (and you know this) that the statistics include people with comorbidities.

But I will rephrase.. Based on known statistics, people aged 0 to 50 are at very low risk for having complications from the virus.

 

[Outspacer]

It's not. I've explained it and and you refuse to accept. No point in continuing this conversation.

Apologies. I made a big edit on my post that crossed with your posting. Not that it matters because you ignored the edited part.

But what is your position and why are you so keen on this argument over refused vs unvaccinated?

(In the absence of stats, I'm going with the sensible assumption that people with comorbidities are actually far more likely to have accepted the vaccine rather than ended up in the 'unvaccinated' stats).

 

[Scaff]

Yes very aware of that. But without contexts, that number is just fearmongering. A majority of the people dying from the virus are in the high risk category. Going by the dutch statistics, 0,1% died from the virus in total for our population. That number becomes 0,9% when you only take into account the people who tested positive. Of that 0,9%, 99,2% are older than 50. The numbers can be used in a very dishonest way to make it seem like all age groups have a 1 to 100 chance of dying of the virus or we can be more nuanced.

It's not fearmongering at all, those people are still dead and you (as is common for anti-vaxers) happily ignore the effects on those that contract it but do not die, the short, medium and long terms effects can be life-altering.

For every person that dies from Covid, you get roughly the following:

• 19 more who are Hospitalised
• 18 of them will have permanent heart conditions
• 10 will have permanent lung damage
• 3 will have strokes
• 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination
• 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function

Nor do you seem to care about the effect those at a lower risk, but still infected can have in transferring it to those at a higher risk.

Nor do you realize that it's unvaccinated people that are the biggest factor in the emergence of new varients.

The lack of nuance is actually in regard to those who take the attitude 'I'm low risk, so **** anyone else'!

No i'ts not, you're being very dishonest here.

How exactly is it dishonest? Does the virus know the difference?

Where exactly did I claim that JR never had covid? It says in the original post I made:

"Rogan has triggered the naysayers again. Posting photo proof that he no longer has coronavirus"
View attachment 1078380

You might want to check the dates before getting too excited, and moving the goalposts twice rather than three times doesn't stop it being a fact that you moved them.

Nobodies denies that. What's your point? you don't have to answer... It's 0,008% for the total number of infected people. Its 0,0008% for the total population. That is still a very low number of people. Even if you increase the population times 20, the number for people aged 0 to 50 would be low and in my opinion does not justify all the fear mongering.

I do have an answer, as do others, checking this thread and others it's already been explained to you a good number of times, however, you seem to have the attitude that Covid is either death or you're fine (it's not at all)and that as you are a low-risk it's everyone else's problem.

Oh and that the Netherlands has a high rate of vaccination is a large factor in you being lower risk, it's thanks to those who got the vaccine, in part that you are at a lower risk than the global average! Globally the death rate is close to 2% for those infected, a long way from your privileged position of 0.0008%, and the majority of that 2% didn't have the luxury of your choice.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Apologies. I made a big edit on my post that crossed with your posting.

No problem.

But what is your position

Not sure if you mean my general position but I will give it anyway. My position is that covid is a virus that can hit certain groups of people very hard. These people can greatly benefit from getting vaccinated. There is also a large group of people at less risk of getting complications from covid. People with a healthy BMI and a general healthy life style. I don't feel like this group really needs the vaccine to continue on with life, but I will support them if they wan't to get it. I don't even have a problem with my tax money funding that because it falls under general health.

My main issue is with the policies, the double standards that come with these policies and this push into the direction of vaccine mandates. I feel like the policies have done more damage than the virus. Heavy ristrictions at the start (when alot was unknown) is very understandable but we have a good view now of what this virus is and who is most affected but it's not shown in the policies. I could go on a very long rant but it's time for me to go to bed.

and why is there this argument over refused vs unvaccinated?

The argument was a direct response "people who refuse are hit the hardest". Could be that many of the unvaccinated people that are "hit hard" are unvaccinated because they had no choice. There is (at the moment) no way of knowing what type of unvaccinated person is hit hard bij covid. There was no need to put "refuse" in it and was only put there as a dig at "anti-vaxxers".
How exactly is it dishonest? Does the virus know the difference?

You might want to check the dates before getting too excited, and moving the goalposts twice rather than three times doesn't stop it being a fact that you moved them.

You got me on the dates. Now where did I ever claim that Joe Rogan never head covid? It was my understanding that he treated himself with "sheep dip" because he had covid? You could quote the post where I said JR never had covid, should not be that hard.

I do have an answer, as do others, checking this thread and others it's already been explained to you a good number of times, however, you seem to have the attitude that Covid is either death or you're fine (it's not at all)and that as you are a low-risk it's everyone else's problem.

Talk about goalpost moving.. jeez..

Oh and that the Netherlands has a high rate of vaccination is a large factor in you being lower risk, it's thanks to those who got the vaccine, in part that you are at a lower risk than the global average!

These numbers are about the same since the vaccination campeign started...

Globally the death rate is close to 2% for those infected, a long way from your privileged position of 0.0008%, and the majority of that 2% didn't have the luxury of your choice.

Do you even know what numbers you are comparing here? I would be with you on the feartrain if 2% of the global population in the age category 0 to 50 had died of covid. I'm not sure what percentage of the world population is aged 0 to 50 but 2% would far times more people having died than the current 4.55 million...

 

[Biggles]

For every person that dies from Covid, you get roughly the following:

• 19 more who are Hospitalised
• 18 of them will have permanent heart conditions
• 10 will have permanent lung damage
• 3 will have strokes
• 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination
• 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function

How do those stats relate to age?

On the one side there are tales of people suffering from vaccination side effects or deaths. On the other side there are tales of "younger people" - mostly apparently rightwing radio hosts or evangelical pastors - dying after contracting Covid.

I have friends who have decided against getting vaccinated who are in the medical field & have extremely informed & nuanced pinions on the matter.

Do you even know what numbers you are comparing here? I would be with you on the feartrain if 2% of the global population in the age category 0 to 50 had died of covid. I'm not sure what percentage of the world population is aged 0 to 50 but 2% would far times more people having died than the current 4.55 million...

I think it's possible we are still in first stages of the pandemic. You can see Covid spreading gradually into parts of the world that were untouched by infection until recently. I think the figure of 4.55 million is likely very low. There has been some reporting that the underreported death toll in India alone may be over 4 million.

 

[Scaff]

You got me on the dates. Now where did I ever claim that Joe Rogan never head covid? It was my understanding that he treated himself with "sheep dip" because he had covid? You could quote the post where I said JR never had covid, should not be that hard.

And I've already said that would make it two rather than three goalposts being moved in that case, which still would have you moving the goalposts!

Talk about goalpost moving.. jeez..

[
Nope, well unless you have an odd idea about goalposts. I've explained it to you, others have explained it to you, I even provided more reasons why lower-risk groups would be wise to vaccinate, quite the opposite of moving goalposts.

These numbers are about the same since the vaccination campeign started...

Now thinking critically, why do you think that might be? And do you actually think that would still be the case if vaccinated rates were not as high as they are?

Do you even know what numbers you are comparing here? I would be with you on the feartrain if 2% of the global population in the age category 0 to 50 had died of covid. I'm not sure what percentage of the world population is aged 0 to 50 but 2% would far times more people having died than the current 4.55 million...

Why do you insist on focusing on a single (rather wide) age-group? Does anyone over the age of 50 not count? Are they any less dead because they are in this age group? Does a focus on that age group and the lower risk (of personal illness) they are in suddenly stop them from being able to be a greater cause of transmission and viral mutation if not vaccinated? No is the answer, but I notice you ignored those last two points previously, which is interesting as part of the under 50s group (35 to 49) is at the highest risk of Long Covid, which being vaccinated also reduces the risk of, as such should your argument not now be focusing on 0 to 35?

Oh and globally it's 2% of those infected have died, as I quite clearly said.

COVID-19 cases | WHO COVID-19 dashboard

The latest data for coronavirus (COVID-19) cases from the WHO COVID-19 dashboard.

covid19.who.int

How do those stats relate to age?

On the one side there are tales of people suffering from vaccination side effects or deaths. On the other side there are tales of "younger people" - mostly apparently rightwing radio hosts or evangelical pastors - dying after contracting Covid.

I have friends who have decided against getting vaccinated who are in the medical field & have extremely informed & nuanced pinions on the matter.

I would imagine they reduce with age as does overall risk of illness and complications. However as I mentioned above, that doesn't reduce the increased risk anyone unvaccinated (regardless of age) has in spread to higher-risk groups and in viral mutation.

Edited to correct, Long Covid itself (which is part of those numbers) appears to be highest among the 35 to 49-year-olds (25.6%) and 50 to 69 (25.1%), it's also more likely if you are Female and increases slightly based on social deprivation.

What might long COVID mean for the nation’s health?

The COVID-19 impact inquiry team summarise emerging evidence on the effects of long COVID for individuals and wider society.

www.health.org.uk

 

[Outspacer]

Not sure if you mean my general position but I will give it anyway. My position is that covid is a virus that can hit certain groups of people very hard. These people can greatly benefit from getting vaccinated. There is also a large group of people at less risk of getting complications from covid. People with a healthy BMI and a general healthy life style. I don't feel like this group really needs the vaccine to continue on with life, but I will support them if they wan't to get it. I don't even have a problem with my tax money funding that because it falls under general health.

OK. Well we discussed that enough on the other thread already. I disagree.

I do wonder though about the stat you quoted about 0-49 year olds having a mortality rate of 0.008%, and whether you are using that to inform your thinking. It's not the right stat to look at, since it includes children. (I'm assuming that's the main reason why it's so low). UK stats I shared before showed 1 in 12,000 (0.0083%) at age 18, worsening by 2x for every 5.5 years over that. So about 1 in 1,500 by age 34.5. I'd say this figure, from the middle of the 18-49 age range, is a much more relevant one to use (more representative of the group that may be faced with vaccine passports etc). It's already 8 times worse than the one you used. Up to you if you still call it "low" (I wouldn't), but it's certainly not "very low".

My main issue is with the policies, the double standards that come with these policies and this push into the direction of vaccine mandates. I feel like the policies have done more damage than the virus. Heavy ristrictions at the start (when alot was unknown) is very understandable but we have a good view now of what this virus is and who is most affected but it's not shown in the policies. I could go on a very long rant but it's time for me to go to bed.

Well I have my own thoughts on employers requiring vaccination, vaccine passports, etc. But I don't see that we could have any constructive discussion, when we're so far apart on the more fundamental 'merits of vaccination' point.

The argument was a direct response "people who refuse are hit the hardest". Could be that many of the unvaccinated people that are "hit hard" are unvaccinated because they had no choice. There is (at the moment) no way of knowing what type of unvaccinated person is hit hard bij covid. There was no need to put "refuse" in it and was only put there as a dig at "anti-vaxxers".
How exactly is it dishonest? Does the virus know the difference?

There may have been no need to put "refuse" into it, but it's a perfectly reasonable statement. Suggesting that all those people had no choice is pretty extreme by comparison, and not at all supported. Yes, it's a dig at anti-vaxxers, but wholly supported by the stats as we have them - there's absolutely no reason to assume that anything other than unvaccinated stats apply.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[VBR]

 

[VolkswagenX]

@Scaff this is getting childish. You are being very dishonest because you know I never said about JR what you claimed I said. You can't prove I said he never got covid and are now lying because you can't admit you were wrong. I really see no point in continuing this conversation with you.

I do wonder though about the stat you quoted about 0-49 year olds having a mortality rate of 0.008%, and whether you are using that to inform your thinking. It's not the right stat to look at, since it includes children. (I'm assuming that's the main reason why it's so low). UK stats I shared before showed 1 in 12,000 (0.0083%) at age 18, worsening by 2x for every 5.5 years over that. So about 1 in 1,500 by age 34.5. I'd say this figure, from the middle of the 18-49 age range, is a much more relevant one to use (more representative of the group that may be faced with vaccine passports etc). It's already 8 times worse than the one you used. Up to you if you still call it "low" (I wouldn't), but it's certainly not "very low".

It sadly is all I can work with for now. There used to be stats for smaller age groups provided by the government, but they stopped doing that because according the them, the number of people under the age of 50 dying from covid very low and could lead to people tracking through the media who exactly was dying from covid in those age ranges. The last time these statistics were available was around april 2021.

I prefer more in dept information (0-4, 5-9, 10-14, etc.) but it's what I have to work with. What I don't understand is how 0,008% would become higher when we remove the lower age range? My numbers are the case fatality rate for covid in the Netherlands. Out of 1.95 million people infected, 0,0074% (yes adjusted with new stats) of the people in group 0 to 49 have died of covid. 0,02% for 50 to 59, 0,07% for 60 to 69, 0,23% for 70 to 79, 0,4% for 80 to 89 and 0,19% for 90+.

The numbers you are showing seem to only take into account the people that have died from covid and not the total number of people infected. 0,0074% risk of dying from a covid infection is a very low Risk in my opninion and that number is likely to include a majority of people with comorbidities. I'm sure none of this will change your perspective but I did would I could to explain my perspective.

Well I have my own thoughts on employers requiring vaccination, vaccine passports, etc. But I don't see that we could have any constructive discussion, when we're so far apart on the more fundamental 'merits of vaccination' point.

Agreed.

There may have been no need to put "refuse" into it, but it's a perfectly reasonable statement. Suggesting that all those people had no choice is pretty extreme by comparison, and not at all supported. Yes, it's a dig at anti-vaxxers, but wholly supported by the stats as we have them - there's absolutely no reason to assume that anything other than unvaccinated stats apply.

I disagree.

I think it's possible we are still in first stages of the pandemic. You can see Covid spreading gradually into parts of the world that were untouched by infection until recently. I think the figure of 4.55 million is likely very low. There has been some reporting that the underreported death toll in India alone may be over 4 million.

I can only go by the known and available data. Another thing is that many different countries have different standards of living. Comparing the global covid statistics to the covid statistics of the Netherlands shows a very big difference in the CFR (2% vs 0,1%).

----
Back to meme's

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff this is getting childish. You are being very dishonest because you know I never said about JR what you claimed I said. You can't prove I said he never got covid and are now lying because you can't admit you were wrong. I really see no point in continuing this conversation with you.

Then I can only assume it's a language barrier, as I've already acknowledged that (when I pointed out that 2 out of three goalposts shift is still shifting goalposts), you want it written to an unambiguous degree, happy to do so.

You never claimed that JR didn't have Covid!

You did however claim he got over it in a few days (with no evidence) and that he used Ivermectin to do so (when he used a cutting-edge and expensive medically proven treatment that his average listener would not have access to), as such the actual point, that you moved goalposts, remains utterly true.


However, if you still wish to use it as a reason to escape the conversation, then please feel free to do so.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Yeah lets misrepresent what I said..

I think you missed something here. Rogan tested positive for COVID, treated himself with "horse dewormer" and was "cured" a few days later. I don't think he needed Ivermectine to cure himself from the virus...

Next time, I will ad a clown emoji after "horse dewormer" and "cured" to show you how serious I am...

Yeah sorry man I really tried very very hard to mislead you and failed. Congrats on exposing me for the lying fraud that I am 🤡

 

[Scaff]

Yeah lets misrepresent what I said..

Next time, I will ad a clown emoji after "horse dewormer" and "cured" to show you how serious I am...

Yeah sorry man I really tried very very hard to mislead you and failed. Congrats on exposing me for the lying fraud that I am 🤡

I can only reply to what you write, oh and tagging or quoting someone will let them know you have replied. Helps stop it from being missed.

 

[VolkswagenX]

@Scaff

I somehow felt.. that you would not miss my response. And you indeed.. didnt miss it.

@VBR bless you for making me laugh again at some of my old posts


MOD EDIT - Image removed due to AUP Violation - Don't bypass the swear-filter

 

[UKMikey]

When you have to use made up counterexamples because you can't find any in real life...

At least it beats throwing a bunch of unfounded accusations around in lieu of evidence like our angry redpilled friend.

 

[Outspacer]

It sadly is all I can work with for now. There used to be stats for smaller age groups provided by the government, but they stopped doing that because according the them, the number of people under the age of 50 dying from covid very low and could lead to people tracking through the media who exactly was dying from covid in those age ranges. The last time these statistics were available was around april 2021.

I prefer more in dept information (0-4, 5-9, 10-14, etc.) but it's what I have to work with. What I don't understand is how 0,008% would become higher when we remove the lower age range?

Because children (0 - 17) have a much lower risk of death than 1 in 12,000, so that brings the average risk (for 0 - 49) down significantly (and the risk reduces by more than 2x per 5.5 years; that rule of thumb only holds for adults).

UK data is a good to look at as we have more of it. We've certainly had more than enough cases. Broadly, conclusions taken from UK data will apply to NL as well, as our demographics are not so different.

The big caveat is that the latest data will be affected by vaccinations, and biased by the huge number of cases here since I first posted those stats (a month ago? we've had about a million reported cases since then!). Better to find archived stats (using wayback machine if necessary) from March/April, before under 50s started getting jabbed.

My numbers are the case fatality rate for covid in the Netherlands. Out of 1.95 million people infected, 0,0074% (yes adjusted with new stats) of the people in group 0 to 49 have died of covid. 0,02% for 50 to 59, 0,07% for 60 to 69, 0,23% for 70 to 79, 0,4% for 80 to 89 and 0,19% for 90+.

If new stats, surely these figues are massively better than they would be without vaccination. 0,0074% is lower than the 0.008% you mentioned before, presumably because more are vaccinated now. Which would show that vaccination of under 50s has a useful, noticable, effect.

The numbers you are showing seem to only take into account the people that have died from covid and not the total number of people infected.

That doesn't even make sense. Of course they were relative to the number of people infected. I even adjusted them downwards (i.e. in your favour) to account for the fact that the actual number of cases is higher than the number of reported cases (based on the ONS survey data).

0,0074% risk of dying from a covid infection is a very low Risk in my opninion and that number is likely to include a majority of people with comorbidities. I'm sure none of this will change your perspective but I did would I could to explain my perspective.

Right, you've brought in a new stat that you hadn't mentioned before. It likely doesn't represent the unvaccinated risk, and certainly includes children skewing the risk downwards.

Comorbidities are also something that increase significantly with age. Having just one or two doesn't increase the risk much (figs 3 and 4) - in fact, if vaccinated, risk is much lower than for an unvaccinated person of the same age. Plus, people with known comorbidities are far more likely to have had the vaccine as it's more clearly in their interest.

If you want to claim that a 'majority' of deaths under 50 are of people with comorbidities, go ahead and find some data to support that, from any country. But even if you could, you'd still have to show that they are the majority of the unvaccinated deaths to support your original argument against Scaff's use of 'refuse'. In notoriously unhealthy USA, fewer than 20% of young people (18-29) have one or more comorbidities. Even if you assume they refuse vaccines at the same rate as 'healthy' people, it would take a increased risk of 4x to match the numbers of vaccine refusers dying - which, going by the earlier link, is not what we'd expect (all of the comorbidities mentioned in the paper have a risk increase of less than 4x, some a lot less). So it's fair to say that the majority, if not the vast majority, of unvaccinated deaths in that age group are not of people with comorbidities.

Not only is that call of 'comorbidities' wrong, it doesn't address the fact that few of them would have been medically advised to not have the vaccine. That would be a subset of those with comorbidities. Does it make any real difference how many? Whatever we'd be arguing over would be single digit percentages.

So there's some fact-based support for saying that most of the unvaccinated deaths are of those who refused the vaccine.

 

[VolkswagenX]

@Outspacer All I'm going to say is that I agree with some of your points and disagree with most of your points. I really don't have the energie for going back and forth with you on this. I'm a 36 year old fit unvaccinated male. I'm not scared of getting the virus and nothing you have said has me convinced in to being scared. I've said what I've said and I stand by that.

 

[Outspacer]

@Outspacer All I'm going to say is that I agree with some of your points and disagree with most of your points. I really don't have the energie for going back and forth with you on this. I'm a 36 year old fit unvaccinated male. I'm not scared of getting the virus and nothing you have said has me convinced in to being scared. I've said what I've said and I stand by that.

That last post of mine was pretty much all fact-based. Disagree? Not really an option that facts provide.

You can make any choice you want, I'm not even trying to change your mind on whether to vax or not.

But try to justify it here - with almost no factual support - and you will get challenged.

Til the next time.