I don't care to dox myself. It's easily done these days, especially if someone gets to boasting about rare credentials or demonstrates expertise across more than one discipline. Phrase based fingerprinting is bad enough that a person should be changing up their writing style if they're going to be saying controversial things in controversial places.
The studies you're pointing at aren't saying what you think they are. Omicron spreads equally fast in both populations because it is less affected by bloodborne immunity than the ancestral and delta strains. It replicates in the upper respiratory tract @ 77X the ancestral strain's replication rate. It has increased specificity for those tissues and would be better addressed by mucosal immunity and more specific antibodies. Neither of which a vaccinee has. It's a tabula rasa situation.
I did mention that bloodborne antibodies do help when the infection progresses incredibly slowly to the lower lungs where the blood-oxygen exchange is happening. Not as much as you think because of COVID-19's pathology and tendency to form multi-nucleated tumor-like masses instead of lysing cells. The multinucleated masses also are not detected by the vaccinee's system.
There will be confounding factors in states with low vaccination rates. If you're taking absolute numbers, they probably burnt through the infection more quickly for behavioural reasons. It would have also been winter/spring so you'd have to look at past years and comparable influenza outbreaks. Also consider the "load" and triage states of a given state at that time of year. Also the age of the population (Florida snowbirds and retiree). Also the definitions used for vaccinated. Also lockdowns. Also the typical capacity of the hospitals in an area.
It's a lot and most statistical research doesn't consider these kinds of variables past seeing if the model they selected passes some sanity checks in the numbers being spit out.
Scientists have become increasingly sloppy with the past couple decade's changes to academic culture and the move toward the Replicability Crisis.
This is similar to demanding to see a control group in a parachute test because you don't want to accept the science and engineering behind drag, atmospheric pressure, and gravitational force being responsible for the success of the parachute. The years of foundational education that even prime someone to search for empirically valid repeatable truth are lost on you.
My "opinions" are based on math, the actual laws of thermodynamics, and a foundational understanding of life sciences and chemistry that's pretty on point with the topic at hand. The blogs you point at are narrow views presented narrowly, ignorance feigned and leaving known knowns to a benefit of a doubt [see the control group for parachutes]. They distort high levels of certainty as not being 100% certain and therefore uncertain so they can say whatever they want really. Actually it's worse because they speak to mathematical models that can be initialized with assumptions based on the above and leaving certain things out.
For example, the recent one about unvaccinated drivers being far more likely to have accidents. Leaves out distance driven and it turns out the unvaccinated cohort had an order of magnitude more kilometers driven. It told us that people who drive 10 times more have more accidents. But we leave that part out saying, instead prefacing that "if we just look at people's vaccine status and adjust for age because we need to flatten that distortion because the boosted cohort is older, but we just do it person to person instead of adjusting for km commuted", well then we can create a sexy sounding study that feeds people's confirmation bias that those risk tolerant asshole crazies are killers on the road too and maybe they're so evil that they should probably pay more for insurance so they don't drive up the premiums of good people.
TwoChodes Translation: ”I don’t have a clue what ItLivesInTheWind said, I’m an uneducated fat boomer that will double down and triple down on a failed vaccine that kills healthy kids”.
Keep grasping at straws Covid Nazi, attempting to cover up the blatant failure of the government mandated injections, knowing that the triple vaxed are dying at higher rates, the boosted are catching severe Covid a week after the booster, and you’re still too slow and too illiterate to understand the actual facts that u/itlivesinthewind brought up.
All of us here laugh at your low intellect.
We just want you to comply with your government and keep following your POLITICO fact checker Tuchodi. Get boosted often and soon.
I don't care to dox myself. It's easily done these days, especially if someone gets to boasting about rare credentials or demonstrates expertise across more than one discipline. Phrase based fingerprinting is bad enough that a person should be changing up their writing style if they're going to be saying controversial things in controversial places.
The studies you're pointing at aren't saying what you think they are. Omicron spreads equally fast in both populations because it is less affected by bloodborne immunity than the ancestral and delta strains. It replicates in the upper respiratory tract @ 77X the ancestral strain's replication rate. It has increased specificity for those tissues and would be better addressed by mucosal immunity and more specific antibodies. Neither of which a vaccinee has. It's a tabula rasa situation.
I did mention that bloodborne antibodies do help when the infection progresses incredibly slowly to the lower lungs where the blood-oxygen exchange is happening. Not as much as you think because of COVID-19's pathology and tendency to form multi-nucleated tumor-like masses instead of lysing cells. The multinucleated masses also are not detected by the vaccinee's system.
There will be confounding factors in states with low vaccination rates. If you're taking absolute numbers, they probably burnt through the infection more quickly for behavioural reasons. It would have also been winter/spring so you'd have to look at past years and comparable influenza outbreaks. Also consider the "load" and triage states of a given state at that time of year. Also the age of the population (Florida snowbirds and retiree). Also the definitions used for vaccinated. Also lockdowns. Also the typical capacity of the hospitals in an area.
It's a lot and most statistical research doesn't consider these kinds of variables past seeing if the model they selected passes some sanity checks in the numbers being spit out.
Scientists have become increasingly sloppy with the past couple decade's changes to academic culture and the move toward the Replicability Crisis.
Your unsupported opinions are noted.
This is similar to demanding to see a control group in a parachute test because you don't want to accept the science and engineering behind drag, atmospheric pressure, and gravitational force being responsible for the success of the parachute. The years of foundational education that even prime someone to search for empirically valid repeatable truth are lost on you.
My "opinions" are based on math, the actual laws of thermodynamics, and a foundational understanding of life sciences and chemistry that's pretty on point with the topic at hand. The blogs you point at are narrow views presented narrowly, ignorance feigned and leaving known knowns to a benefit of a doubt [see the control group for parachutes]. They distort high levels of certainty as not being 100% certain and therefore uncertain so they can say whatever they want really. Actually it's worse because they speak to mathematical models that can be initialized with assumptions based on the above and leaving certain things out.
For example, the recent one about unvaccinated drivers being far more likely to have accidents. Leaves out distance driven and it turns out the unvaccinated cohort had an order of magnitude more kilometers driven. It told us that people who drive 10 times more have more accidents. But we leave that part out saying, instead prefacing that "if we just look at people's vaccine status and adjust for age because we need to flatten that distortion because the boosted cohort is older, but we just do it person to person instead of adjusting for km commuted", well then we can create a sexy sounding study that feeds people's confirmation bias that those risk tolerant asshole crazies are killers on the road too and maybe they're so evil that they should probably pay more for insurance so they don't drive up the premiums of good people.
Your bloggers are publishing in a similar spirit.
Everyone's an expert on social media, unfortunately. Supporting links are one way of helping to identify discussions that enlighten.
Where have I pointed at a blog? I can't recall doing that offhand although I suppose it's possible. I don't want to go through all my past comments.
How hard would it be to support that comment?
TwoChodes Translation: ”I don’t have a clue what ItLivesInTheWind said, I’m an uneducated fat boomer that will double down and triple down on a failed vaccine that kills healthy kids”.
Keep grasping at straws Covid Nazi, attempting to cover up the blatant failure of the government mandated injections, knowing that the triple vaxed are dying at higher rates, the boosted are catching severe Covid a week after the booster, and you’re still too slow and too illiterate to understand the actual facts that u/itlivesinthewind brought up.
All of us here laugh at your low intellect.
We just want you to comply with your government and keep following your POLITICO fact checker Tuchodi. Get boosted often and soon.
Lots of unsupported opinions about a post full of unsupported opinions.