@selea

The data on anything related to COVID is too new to ever make any real absolute assertions. But yea recent data suggests the patterns we thought we saw suggesting limited protection were post hoc procter hoc and in fact the viral load of people who are vaccinated is exactly the same with delta as unavaccinated.

@phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix The swiss scientific Covid task force just announced that, according to their data, the vaccine *does* hinder transmission. By 95% just after the vaccination, going down to 66% 6 months later. The main reason they gave was that vaccinated people are less likely to contract the virus if exposed to it.

Caveat: This is specific to Biontech and Moderna.

@p2501
I care less about what conclusion any group concludes, considering the pressure for bias, and more with how they determined it. Did they show viral load or make assumptions vulnerable to the previously mentioned fallacy?
@selea @phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix As I said, the main reason given was that vaccinated people are less likely to contract the virus in the first place. Viral load is not the only factor in play.

@p2501
Giving a reason and proving the reason are two very different things. Without seeing their data and how they concluded it to determine if it suffers from the early fallacy it doesnt mean much to me.
@selea @phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix The study has been reviewed, but not yet publicised, so I can't help you there. I trust that you'll read it carefully and unbiased once it's available in full.

I should point out, though, that reality seems to agree: Infection numbers in Switzerland are rising considerably slower than last year in spite of Delta and in spite of the countermeasures being milder. Hospitalisations even (much) more so.

@p2501
The problem with that inference is that you could just as easily explain it as people having built natural immunity to delta via previous infections (even asymptomatic ones). This is why direct evidence (like viral loads) trumps any evidence based off of patterns in the population

And yes since i suggest people get vaccinated and at the same time am saying that the vaccine appears useless against delta, this would suggest i am approaching it in an unbias way
@selea @phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix Unlikely. According to several antibody studies, not nearly enough people got in contact with the actual virus to explain the slow down.

Also: The incidence numbers are much higher among unvaccinated than among vaccinated.

Yes, I know it sounds circumstantial. But medicine isn't an exact science. That's not meant as an insult. That's just a fact.

@p2501

I explained earlier why the higher incidence among unvaccinated is a post hoc procter hoc fallacy

@selea @phoenix

@freemo @selea @phoenix Yes, as I said, it's just circumstantial evidence. Like most things in medicine.

For instance: There is so far no definite evidence that higher viral load leads to higher infectiousness. 😉 It likely does, though.

Well, anyway, I think this went on for long enough. Agree to disagree?

@p2501
Yes, but there are some things that are direct measures like viral load. Thus why i am relying on what few direct measures we have to draw conclusions and avoid fallacy
@selea @phoenix

@p2501 @selea @phoenix
But yea feel free to disengage no worries.

@p2501 @freemo @selea @phoenix i wonder how someone even attempts to test transmission rates in laboratory conditions.

animal models?

@icedquinn
Thats kinda my point, its hard enough in a lab. So when any groub claims to have a definitive answer rather than just data and a shrug im already highly suspect.

We have some direct data, like viral load studies. And that siggests a narrative. But thats all we have and anyone who claims we have solid proof of this kind of stuff is suspect as shit.

@phoenix @p2501 @selea

@freemo i would have liked to see regular PCR (25 cycle) results like say once a week. but pfizer didn't do that. they just looked at the covid mortality after 6 months was 1 instead of 2, and then ignored all cause mortality went from ~15 to 20, basically trading 1 covid death for 5 heart attacks.

apparently the FDA decided this was a good deal, and now we see all these news stories about people dying "and we don't know why."

if they had done said tests it would have shown either sterilizing effects (good) or that it didn't help transmission (likely, and bad) but AFAIK all the vaccine trials do a general "less people died after X time, therefore it's good, and we're going to just assume apropos of handwaving that it stops transmission."

ivermectin studies in the NIH registry have exactly been required to prove PCR- results throughout, not simply that there were "less deaths." for some reason vaccines are held to a lower standard than antivirals.

@phoenix @p2501 @selea

@icedquinn

The main problem with the vaccines is pretty much that. Assumptions based on poor data, and a clear agenda. Scientific rigor went out the window for much of the vaccine process.

@phoenix @p2501 @selea

@freemo i'm not sure how good the science for any vaccine is. someone FOIA'd the CDC for their records on A/B tests on children and had to sue them to get a response: "returned no results."

i looked in to a few in the past and they always cried ethics concerns as to why they didn't have to run a challenge test. so they advertise efficacy on an antibody protein marker, not live contact prevention.

nobody outside the vaccine industry is allowed to do this shit. they HAVE to work on live patients or they don't get approval.

@phoenix @p2501 @selea

@freemo the last i'll say is it looks like they do (at least, some) reduce mortality, but the adjuvants swap that mortality for something else. sometimes the trade might be worth it. one study showed the MMRs did reduce mortality by 40%, but the amount of severe neurological events went up 400%. and as mentioned, they don't actually prove transmission protection.

my current pet theory is they never did, they just suppressed the symptoms of things down to "flu-like symptoms" and since only sex workers are submitted to this level of constant testing, we didn't know that. there were always huge pushes "because herd immunity" that served to mask that they did not prevent transmission. but data shows they do reduce mortality.

which is a weird claim/observation, since it pisses off both the extremes.

@p2501 @phoenix @selea

@icedquinn

Most vaccines arent tainted by a overwhelming political agenda. Everyone is so fervent out of fear that any realistic evaluation of the situation may weaken confidence in vaccines and the medical community.

@phoenix @p2501 @selea

@freemo questioning their efficacy as a civilian has always been forbidden.

@phoenix @p2501 @selea

@selea @freemo @phoenix Are you serious? There have been more deaths in 2021 than in 2020, everywhere where people are the most vaccinated.
They are not just useful, they're harmful.

@xarvos

Again, hard to say anything with certainty. But the viral load would suggest not. There is no reason to think that you could have the same viral load and somehow reduce tranmission.

@phoenix