In article <sthlhh$f5u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >>>> In fact, I'm all for the shots too.
> >>>
> >>> many people would be happy to give you shots...
> >>
> >> I already got the Covid shots. Long ago.
> >
> > whoosh.
>
> Given nospam has no education to speak of, he can be forgiven for not
> realizing I didn't take his ad hominem bait, instead I took the high road.

that's not an ad hominem. in fact, i'm specifically referring to people
*other* than you.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2022 17:49:04 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> Given nospam has no education to speak of, he can be forgiven for not
>> realizing I didn't take his ad hominem bait, instead I took the high road.
>
> that's not an ad hominem. in fact, i'm specifically referring to people
> *other* than you.

I apologize then, given I had thought your ad hominem attack was aimed at me.

What remains salient is the problem isn't so much that people like Steve are
shamelessly ignorant of the facts - as many people are as ignorant as he.

The problem is when these ignorant people like Steve advocate _forcing_
others to do things because he, in his immense ignorance, is afraid of them.

Besides, whatever happened to Steve's so-called _Principles_ oft-quoted as:
*My Body My Choice*

On 03/02/2022 13:00, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:42:16 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>
>>> Again, I won't call you an idiot because maybe you didn't look hard enough.
>>> But it's there. (I'll even tell you on what page if you still can't find it
>>> but someone with a reputed PhD in the sciences should be able to comprehend
>>> a simple slideshow for the hoi polloi Chris.)
>>
>> Go on then.
>
> Hell, a simple "control-f" for "0.002%" should have found it Chris.

Nope not there.

> Stop claiming that I don't have context when you can't even find "context"
> which is right in front of your eyes on page 20 of the slide set I gave you.

Nope. For reference, this is slide 20:
https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp

And this is the original link you shared:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf

Please show your workings on how you got 99.998% COVID survival or
0.002% mortality in kids from those slides?

> You are indicative of what's wrong with people like Steve and nospam.
> You don't even realize how utterly incapable you are of evaluating Covid.
> And that's fine.
>
> As long as you don't _force_ others to think the wacko ways that you do.
>
> I snipped the rest of the stuff that you copypasted since

....it blows your argument out the water.

Are you really stooping that low? Deleting stuff you can't deal with.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:59:29 +0000, Chris wrote:

> Nope. For reference, this is slide 20:
> https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp
>
> And this is the original link you shared:
> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf
>
> Please show your workings on how you got 99.998% COVID survival or
> 0.002% mortality in kids from those slides?

Hi Chris,
To your credit, you are the only one who looked at the CDC cite (AFAIK).

So I'll take a look at your slide to make sure it's the right one.
<https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>

Yep. That's the right slide.
> ...it blows your argument out the water.

I'm having trouble responding to you because you say you have a PhD and yet
you can't _see_ the number which is right in front of your face on that
slide.

That's troublesome Chris because it's as plain as they can make it.
They're even _pointing_ to it for Christ sake, Chris.

What more can you hope for when the CDC is _highlighting_ it in red!
> Are you really stooping that low? Deleting stuff you can't deal with.

I'm tired of repeating what I've already proven to you.
Especially since I gave you the slide set and you can't find it.
Then I gave to the exact page, and you _still_ can't find it.
Even though the CDC _highlighted_ it in red for Christ sake, Chris.

Anyone with a PhD would be able to _see_ that Chris.
The CDC practically handed it to you (they wrote it in RED Chris!).

You can't ask for more than that.
And yet, you still don't see it?

I won't call you an idiot because at least you're _trying_.
But I will have to tell you to LOOK. Look. Look.

It's there.
Right in front of your face.
HINT: The CDC is _pointing_ to it, in read Chris!

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:59:29 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>> Nope. For reference, this is slide 20:
>> https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp
>>
>> And this is the original link you shared:
>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf
>>
>> Please show your workings on how you got 99.998% COVID survival or
>> 0.002% mortality in kids from those slides?
>
> Hi Chris,
> To your credit, you are the only one who looked at the CDC cite (AFAIK).
>
> So I'll take a look at your slide to make sure it's the right one.
> <https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>
>
> Yep. That's the right slide.

Right. Neither of the numbers you quote are there. Anyone can see that. You
must have done a calculation based on the numbers on the slide. Answer the
question and show your workings. It shouldn't be hard for someone so
brilliant as you.

> I'm tired of repeating what I've already proven to you.

Stamping your feet and telling everyone what a genius you are is not proof.
You've shown no proof for any of your claims.

You can keep trying to dodge and change the subject, but it doesn't work.

On 2/3/2022 6:17 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:59:29 +0000, Chris wrote:
>
>> Nope. For reference, this is slide 20:
>> https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp
>>
>> And this is the original link you shared:
>> https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf
>>
>> Please show your workings on how you got 99.998% COVID survival or
>> 0.002% mortality in kids from those slides?
>
> Hi Chris,
> To your credit, you are the only one who looked at the CDC cite (AFAIK).
>
> So I'll take a look at your slide to make sure it's the right one.
> <https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>
>
> Yep. That's the right slide.
>
>> ...it blows your argument out the water.
>
> I'm having trouble responding to you because you say you have a PhD and yet
> you can't _see_ the number which is right in front of your face on that
> slide.
>
> That's troublesome Chris because it's as plain as they can make it.
> They're even _pointing_ to it for Christ sake, Chris.
>
> What more can you hope for when the CDC is _highlighting_ it in red!
>
>> Are you really stooping that low? Deleting stuff you can't deal with.
>
> I'm tired of repeating what I've already proven to you.
> Especially since I gave you the slide set and you can't find it.
> Then I gave to the exact page, and you _still_ can't find it.
> Even though the CDC _highlighted_ it in red for Christ sake, Chris.
> On page 20, I see a comparison of 2021 Covid rates to 2019 flu rates.
This is a little misleading as during 20/21 there were many mitigations
implemented to reduce the impact of covid; masks, remote classes,
quarantines, etc. None of that was done during 2019.

If you look at page 15, you can observe the impact those mitigation
efforts had on the flu. If you compare 20/21 flu rates to 20/21 covid
rates, you'll see covid is much worse. Since the graph on page 15 is for
hospitalizations, it reflects the more serious infections.

> Anyone with a PhD would be able to _see_ that Chris.
> The CDC practically handed it to you (they wrote it in RED Chris!).
>
> You can't ask for more than that.
> And yet, you still don't see it?
>
> I won't call you an idiot because at least you're _trying_.
> But I will have to tell you to LOOK. Look. Look.
>
> It's there.
> Right in front of your face.
> HINT: The CDC is _pointing_ to it, in read Chris!

On 2/4/2022 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> You can keep trying to dodge and change the subject, but it doesn't work.

It keeps him busy.

Seriously, this is one instance where the statistics are clear. In
normal times, annual death rates are pretty constant from year to year.
In pandemic times they are not.

Look at the excess deaths each year. What has happened in both the U.S.,
and in some other countries, has been under-counts of deaths attributed
to Covid. Sometimes this has been driven by politics, sometimes it has
been caused by inconsistent protocols, sometimes it was caused because
the deceased was never tested for Covid.

In 2020 and 2021 there were 1,143,854 excess deaths in the U.S.
according to the National Center for Health Statistics. This is about
302,000 more excess deaths than were attributed to Covid. In normal
years there are still sometimes excess deaths but it's in the tens of
thousands, not hundreds of thousands, "For the non-pandemic years
2016-2019, excess deaths averaged 36,000 per year." So, factoring in the
average yearly pre-pandemic number of excess deaths,
1,143,854-36,000=1,107,854 excess deaths in 2020 and 2021.

There were no factors other than Covid that would have caused so many
excess deaths. Hence, to find the most accurate number of Covid deaths,
divide the number of excess deaths by the U.S. population.

1,107,854/329,500,000=0.336%.

A popular alt-right talking point is that many of the people that died
from Covid had underlying conditions and simply died sooner because of
Covid. But people live with underlying conditions for years, sometimes
decades. What we should eventually see, once the pandemic is over, are
slightly lower death rates for the next ten years or so since so many
people died prematurely and won't be included in death counts for later
years.

On 2/4/2022 7:40 AM, joe wrote:

<snip>

> If you look at page 15, you can observe the impact those mitigation
> efforts had on the flu. If you compare 20/21 flu rates to 20/21 covid
> rates, you'll see covid is much worse. Since the graph on page 15 is for
> hospitalizations, it reflects the more serious infections.

Ironically, the precautions taken for Covid greatly reduced flu rates
and flu deaths. Still, nothing gets around the fact that we've lost
about 0.34% of the U.S. population due to Covid.

On 02/02/2022 19:20, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-02-02 9:50 a.m., sms wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 3:23 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2022 19:44, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 09:28:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let me highlight it for you:
>>>>
>>>> The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something"
>>>> which then
>>>> causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.
>>>
>>> How else does it "induce immunity" then? It may not be explicit but
>>> it is clear to all but the narrowest of interpretations.
>>
>> Of course that's exactly what the vaccinations do. It's also true that
>> having Covid generates immunity for a short period of time, but not as
>> long as a vaccination's effects last.
>
> I would tend to disagree with that.
>
> Vaccines by definition work by inducing the immune response that getting
> the disease would induce.
>
> So how would getting the disease NOT produce the same effect?

Well the vaccine is only partially like the virus. For COVID it only
contains the Spike protein so any raised antibodies will only recognise
that bit of it. An immune reaction to the actual virus would raise
antibodies over the whole of the virus. Also the vaccine dose is lower
than a full-blown infection.

So in theory the viral antibodies will be recognise the better than the
vaccine. Obviously the downside of getting the virus is the risk of
serious illness which is effectively non-existent with the vaccine.

On 2/4/2022 8:15 AM, sms wrote:
> On 2/4/2022 12:26 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You can keep trying to dodge and change the subject, but it doesn't work.
>
> It keeps him busy.
>
> Seriously, this is one instance where the statistics are clear. In
> normal times, annual death rates are pretty constant from year to year.
> In pandemic times they are not.
>
> Look at the excess deaths each year. What has happened in both the U.S.,
> and in some other countries, has been under-counts of deaths attributed
> to Covid. Sometimes this has been driven by politics, sometimes it has
> been caused by inconsistent protocols, sometimes it was caused because
> the deceased was never tested for Covid.
>
> In 2020 and 2021 there were 1,143,854 excess deaths in the U.S.
> according to the National Center for Health Statistics. This is about
> 302,000 more excess deaths than were attributed to Covid. In normal
> years there are still sometimes excess deaths but it's in the tens of
> thousands, not hundreds of thousands, "For the non-pandemic years
> 2016-2019, excess deaths averaged 36,000 per year." So, factoring in the
> average yearly pre-pandemic number of excess deaths,
> 1,143,854-36,000=1,107,854 excess deaths in 2020 and 2021.

In Russia, the situation is even worse. Russia has a population of 144.1
million and has had at least 995,000 excess deaths during the pandemic,
or 0.690% of the 144.1 million population. This is compared to the U.S.
per-capita death rate of 0.336%. That's more than twice as many deaths
per-capita.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Alan wrote
>> sms wrote
>>> Chris wrote
>>>> Andy Burnelli wrote
>>>>> Chris wrote

>>>>>> Let me highlight it for you:
>>>>>
>>>>> The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something"
>>>>> which then
>>>>> causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> How else does it "induce immunity" then? It may not be explicit but
>>>> it is clear to all but the narrowest of interpretations.
>>>
>>> Of course that's exactly what the vaccinations do. It's also true that
>>> having Covid generates immunity for a short period of time, but not as
>>> long as a vaccination's effects last.
>> I would tend to disagree with that.
>> Vaccines by definition work by inducing the immune response that
>> getting the disease would induce.
>> So how would getting the disease NOT produce the same effect?

> Well the vaccine is only partially like the virus. For COVID it only
> contains the Spike protein so any raised antibodies will only recognise
> that bit of it.

Not all of the vaccines are like that. Some are traditional killed or
inactivated covids.

> An immune reaction to the actual virus would raise antibodies over the
> whole of the virus. Also the vaccine dose is lower than a full-blown
> infection.
>
> So in theory the viral antibodies will be recognise the better than the
> vaccine. Obviously the downside of getting the virus is the risk of
> serious illness which is effectively non-existent with the vaccine.

On 2/4/2022 8:26 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> So in theory the viral antibodies will be recognise the better than the
> vaccine. Obviously the downside of getting the virus is the risk of
> serious illness which is effectively non-existent with the vaccine.

Yet the CDC, and other health organizations, have stated that the
"natural immunity" from contracting the disease lasts a much shorter
time than the immunity from the vaccine.

From
<https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination>
• More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective
antibodies
• Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
• Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural
immunity plus vaccination

On 2/4/2022 10:22 AM, sms wrote:
> On 2/4/2022 7:40 AM, joe wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If you look at page 15, you can observe the impact those mitigation
>> efforts had on the flu. If you compare 20/21 flu rates to 20/21 covid
>> rates, you'll see covid is much worse. Since the graph on page 15 is
>> for hospitalizations, it reflects the more serious infections.
>
> Ironically, the precautions taken for Covid greatly reduced flu rates
> and flu deaths. Still, nothing gets around the fact that we've lost
> about 0.34% of the U.S. population due to Covid.

Yes, the US is #1 when it comes to infections and deaths. Those are not
statistics that one should be proud of.

It is a result of people refusing science and thinking only of
themselves and not their impact on others.

"my body, m choice" means I don't care if I cause one serious illness or
death.

On 2/4/2022 8:47 AM, joe wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, the US is #1 when it comes to infections and deaths. Those are not
> statistics that one should be proud of.

Per-capita, the U.S. is not #1. Not sure who is #1, it's difficult to
get data from some countries, and some countries are hugely
under-reporting. China's official death count is less than 5000 while
the actual death count is estimated at 1.7 million (0.121%). Russia
(0.691%) is much worse per-capita than the U.S. (0.336%).

> It is a result of people refusing science and thinking only of
> themselves and not their impact on others.

Sadly, there are a lot of low-information people in every country, but
it seems like the U.S. has an disproportionately large number of people
that want to be ignorant, are proud of it, and want others to be equally
ignorant. No one has ever seen anyone work as hard to be ignorant as our
favorite troll.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always
been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread
winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the
false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as
your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

Back to the original subject line, I'm glad to see so many large
corporations taking steps to encourage vaccinations. I've seen the
positive effect of these policies in the companies that my friends and
relatives work for. When it comes down to keeping your job versus
admitting that you were just refusing a vaccine to "own the libs" they
will usually get vaccinated. Unfortunately, some companies are stubborn,
and refuse to comply with certain health and safety mandates. In San
Francisco, one popular fast food restaurant, eliminated in-person dining
rather than comply with a rule that diners eating inside had to be
vaccinated.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>> Alan wrote
>>> sms wrote
>>>> Chris wrote
>>>>> Andy Burnelli wrote
>>>>>> Chris wrote
>
>>>>>>> Let me highlight it for you:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something"
>>>>>> which then
>>>>>> causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> How else does it "induce immunity" then? It may not be explicit but
>>>>> it is clear to all but the narrowest of interpretations.
>>>>
>>>> Of course that's exactly what the vaccinations do. It's also true that
>>>> having Covid generates immunity for a short period of time, but not as
>>>> long as a vaccination's effects last.
>>> I would tend to disagree with that.
>>> Vaccines by definition work by inducing the immune response that
>>> getting the disease would induce.
>>> So how would getting the disease NOT produce the same effect?
>
>> Well the vaccine is only partially like the virus. For COVID it only
>> contains the Spike protein so any raised antibodies will only recognise
>> that bit of it.
>
> Not all of the vaccines are like that. Some are traditional killed or
> inactivated covids.

Correct. That's why I mentioned COVID specifically.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/2022 8:26 AM, Chris wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> So in theory the viral antibodies will be recognise the better than the
>> vaccine. Obviously the downside of getting the virus is the risk of
>> serious illness which is effectively non-existent with the vaccine.
>
> Yet the CDC, and other health organizations, have stated that the
> "natural immunity" from contracting the disease lasts a much shorter
> time than the immunity from the vaccine.
>
> From
> <https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination>
> • More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective
> antibodies
> • Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
> • Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural
> immunity plus vaccination

Interesting. Although that's quite a small study; only 72 patients. This
one has 1000 and although ~50% had immunity at hospital immunity kept
increasing to ~90% at 21 days. Although, they could only follow up 47
patients for the full three weeks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313071

On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 07:18:30 +1100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Alan wrote
>>>> sms wrote
>>>>> Chris wrote
>>>>>> Andy Burnelli wrote
>>>>>>> Chris wrote
>>
>>>>>>>> Let me highlight it for you:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CDC definition does _NOT_ describe injection of "something"
>>>>>>> which then
>>>>>>> causes your body to create the antigen. It just doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How else does it "induce immunity" then? It may not be explicit but
>>>>>> it is clear to all but the narrowest of interpretations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course that's exactly what the vaccinations do. It's also true
>>>>> that
>>>>> having Covid generates immunity for a short period of time, but not
>>>>> as
>>>>> long as a vaccination's effects last.
>>>> I would tend to disagree with that.
>>>> Vaccines by definition work by inducing the immune response that
>>>> getting the disease would induce.
>>>> So how would getting the disease NOT produce the same effect?
>>
>>> Well the vaccine is only partially like the virus. For COVID it only
>>> contains the Spike protein so any raised antibodies will only recognise
>>> that bit of it.
>>
>> Not all of the vaccines are like that. Some are traditional killed or
>> inactivated covids.
>
> Correct. That's why I mentioned COVID specifically.

I was talking about covid vaccines.

As I told you before, all of Russia, China and India
have traditional killed or inactivated covids.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 16:26:14 +0000, Chris wrote:

>> So how would getting the disease NOT produce the same effect?
>
> Well the vaccine is only partially like the virus.

Chris,

I only see Alan Baker's posts when people like you respond to him.

Do you realize Alan Baker has a 40 IQ and a first grade reading level?

Of course he can't figure out the astoundingly _huge_ difference between:
a. The immune response from getting the shot (depends on which shot)
b. The immune response from getting the disease (depends on many factors)

> For COVID it only
> contains the Spike protein so any raised antibodies will only recognise
> that bit of it.

Good.
Very good Chris.
I'm impressed.

BTW, it's not "the" spike protein, IMHO, so much as a trimeric glycoprotein.

> An immune reaction to the actual virus would raise
> antibodies over the whole of the virus.

Oooooh. Again, impressive.
Since you know that, maybe you can learn more?

The immune reaction to the _disease_ is _TREMENDOUSLY_ different than from a
single spike protein (which itself, elicits more than a reaction to just
that but I won't go there as it's too complex for you to get just yet).

When you get the disease, a shit ton of other things happen, all biologic,
each of which elicits different (and rather complex) immune responses.

In short, the immune system reacts _COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY_ to the disease,
versus to a single antigen, whereas what matters perhaps more greatly is
what happens in the near and far future due to variation & senescence?

> Also the vaccine dose is lower
> than a full-blown infection.

Well, maybe. Probably. Actually, almost certainly, but not necessarily so.

What's _different_ isn't so much the "dose" but the unfathomably tremendous
complexity of the response to the full-blown disease versus to the shot.

Nonetheless, what's interesting is that the _amount_ of the shot doesn't
really seem to matter as much as one might intuitively "think" it would.

Take a look at this paper which most people here can't possibly comprehend.
*Different dose regimens of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein*
<https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003769>

They gave test subjects
a. 5-ug NVX-CoV2373, or
b. 25-ug NVX-CoV2373, or
c. Placebo

It didn't matter all that much the amount that was injected in the shot.

> So in theory the viral antibodies will be recognise the better than the
> vaccine. Obviously the downside of getting the virus is the risk of
> serious illness which is effectively non-existent with the vaccine.

All this is actually correct, in so much as it's sophomoric, but still,
that's a _lot_ better than what most people could intuit, Chris.

Kudos to you.

Fundamentally, as I see it, the shot gives you protection based on a
glycoprotein being what it is, which is fine - but, two things are important
moving forward with _NOBODY_ has ever told you prior to me telling it now.

1. As the virus mutates (and yes, it mutates slowly for a large RNA virus
but it _will_ mutate), the shot becomes less effective and the disease
stands a greater likelihood of remaining more effective (due to the
complexity of the disease response and the naivety of the shot response).

2. As people age, the immune system synesces, again causing the reaction to
the shot to be less effective (AFAICT) than the reaction to the disease
would have been.

Notice the assessment, knowing that most people are already innately immune
to Covid symptoms, Chris, that for most people, you're dumbing down the
immune response (aka, you're making it more likely a variant will harm you
and you're making it more likely as you age that you'll be harmed by it).

I doubt you'll comprehend what I stated above, but that's one of the things
that nobody will tell you who doesn't understand a shit ton about the immune
system.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 08:15:22 -0800, sms wrote:

>> You can keep trying to dodge and change the subject, but it doesn't work.
>
> It keeps him busy.

I can't communicate with people _this_ incredibly stupid.
Can you?

One claims to have an EE (Steve), the other a PhD (Chris).
And yet, they don't have a fifth-grade comprehension of decimal math.

Will someone please tell the ignorant iKooks what percentage this is.
*Crude rate per 100,000 === 0.2*

There's no way I can drop down to their level (including Steve) if they
can't even figure out what the percentage is of that number from this slide.
<https://i.imgur.com/11zdaKC.png>

Which is found in this CDC dumbed-down for the hoi polloi document:
<https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>
--
This proves that the iKooks, and Steve, are at the kindergarten level.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 08:26:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Right. Neither of the numbers you quote are there. Anyone can see that. You
> must have done a calculation based on the numbers on the slide. Answer the
> question and show your workings. It shouldn't be hard for someone so
> brilliant as you.

You say I'm wrong for stating a fact that comes _directly_ from the CDC,
Chris.

That's OK, because you are ignorant, so I have to spoon feed you facts.

I gave you the slide set, and you're _still_ confident that I'm wrong.
< <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>>

I give you the exact page, and you're _still_ so confident I'm wrong.
<https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>

And yet the math is right there in your face.
*Crude rate per 100,000 === 0.2*

How the hell does an _adult_ converse with people as stupid as you, Chris?

Holy shit.
Chris. Are you and Steve _really_ that dumb?

Look at the slide Chris.
<https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>
Look.

What the hell do you think the percentage is when they say it's
*Crude rate per 100,000 === 0.2*

Holy Shit.
You can't possibly have a PhD, Chris.

This is child's stuff.
Move the decimal place to where it belongs, Chris.

Move it.

>
>> I'm tired of repeating what I've already proven to you.
>
> Stamping your feet and telling everyone what a genius you are is not proof.
> You've shown no proof for any of your claims.

Holy Shit. Are you iKooks _really_ that incredibly stupid, Chris?
How can you be that stupid?

Nobody is that stupid, Chris.
Even Alan Baker can figure out how decimal places work, can't he?

It says on that slide EXACTLY what I said it says and you can't fathom it?
<https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>

There is no way I can dumb it down any more than that for you or Steve.
*Crude rate per 100,000 === 0.2*

Do you know how decimal places work, Chris?
I can't even believe you and Steve are _that_ stupid.
> You can keep trying to dodge and change the subject, but it doesn't work.

The CDC already dumbed it down for all of us Chris.
It's up to you to comprehend what the CDC highlighted. Not me.

It's not me dodging when I've said the _same_ thing and you can't see it.
I can't dumb it down any more than that if you & Steve can't comprehend:
*Crude rate per 100,000 === 0.2*

Holy shit Chris.
You say you have a PhD, right?
a. I gave you the percentage
b. I gave you the slide set
c. I gave you the page

And you _still_ can't figure it out?
There's no way you have even the equivalent of a high school degree, Chris.
Nobody is that stupid.

You guys frustrate me because you're so stupid I can't converse with you.
It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't so incredibly CONFIDENT in your
stupidity.

You say I'm wrong for stating a fact that comes _directly_ from the CDC,
Chris.

That's OK, because you are ignorant, so I have to spoon feed you facts.

I gave you the slide set, and you're _still_ confident that I'm wrong.
< <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>>

I give you the exact page, and you're _still_ so confident I'm wrong.
<https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>

And yet the math is right there in your face.
*Crude rate per 100,000 === 0.2*

How the hell does an _adult_ converse with people as stupid as you, Chris?

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 08:27:51 -0800, sms wrote:

> In Russia, the situation is even worse. Russia has a population of 144.1
> million and has had at least 995,000 excess deaths during the pandemic,
> or 0.690% of the 144.1 million population. This is compared to the U.S.
> per-capita death rate of 0.336%. That's more than twice as many deaths
> per-capita.

Steve,

You say I'm wrong.
That's ok.

All ignorant people like you _hate_ facts.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect your entire belief system isn't _based_ on any facts, Steve.
But what's odd is how _confident_ you are that I'm wrong in the CDC facts.

Even though they are right there, in front of your face, Steve.
How could you _miss_ them, Steve?

Impossible, right?
And yet, you're so confident that the facts are wrong.

Holy shit.

I gave you the slide set, and you're _still_ confident that I'm wrong.
< <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>>

I give you the exact page, and you're _still_ so confident I'm wrong.
<https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>

And yet the math is right there in your face.
*Crude rate per 100,000 === 0.2*

How the hell does an _adult_ converse with people as stupid as you, Steve?

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 20:32:35 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/4/2022 8:26 AM, Chris wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> So in theory the viral antibodies will be recognise the better than the
>>> vaccine. Obviously the downside of getting the virus is the risk of
>>> serious illness which is effectively non-existent with the vaccine.
>>
>> Yet the CDC, and other health organizations, have stated that the
>> "natural immunity" from contracting the disease lasts a much shorter
>> time than the immunity from the vaccine.
>>
>> From
>> <https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination>
>> More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective
>> antibodies
>> Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
>> Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural
>> immunity plus vaccination
>
> Interesting. Although that's quite a small study; only 72 patients. This
> one has 1000 and although ~50% had immunity at hospital immunity kept
> increasing to ~90% at 21 days. Although, they could only follow up 47
> patients for the full three weeks.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313071

Facts first. Only a fool responds to the data without reading it first.
Note: Neither Chris nor sms can do basic math as we showed with the
percentages from Covid where both vehemently denied all facts from the CDC
and they were oh, so very confident, and yet, they blew their fifth grade
math since neither knows how to move a decimal point - which isn't so bad -
except I gave them the answer and they _still_ couldn't figure out what
happens to a decimal point when you turn a rate into a percentage.

Jesus Christ.
Who on earth is that stupid?

How can anyone _communicate_ with people _that_ incredibly stupid.

Nonetheless, let's look at that paper that Chris noted, shall we?

0. We have to start out with what antibody "seroconversion" response means,
which essentially is the inflection point between infection and when
antibodies become present in the blood.
See <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302069/>
*SARS-CoV-2 Seroconversion in Humans*

1. Seroconversion among COVID-19 patients admitted in a dedicated COVID
hospital: A longitudinal prospective study of 1000 patients
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313071/>

2. "The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 is complex", which is an
understatement akin to Hirohito's radio address at the end of WWII.

3. The study was conducted for three months in summer of 2020 where they
studied serial antibodies immunoglobulin G & M (the rest, unsaid, are A, E,
and D) on middle aged patients.

4. Given most people are immune to covid symptoms, it's not surprising that
68% of the patients had mild symptoms (since they're of the few people who
_do_ get sick, roughly about 68% of 40%).

5. About 20% were moderate (note that's 20% of about 40%).

4. About 12% were severe (again, it's 12% of about 40%).

5. Seroconversion happened around 8 to 10 days (from when? admission? or the
calculated infection date?), depending on whether they looked at IgM or IgG.

6. At discharge 9 days later, half the people had "detectable" Ab.

That's it?
Nothing else?

WTF?

7. Anyway, let's get to the conclusion:
a. Antibody titres increased during the observation period (duh).
b. Asymptomatic/mild cases had later detectible antibody titres.
c. Severe/Moderate cases had earlier detectible antibody titres.

8. Hmmmm... where the hell did the asymptomatic cases come from?
What the hell were they doing in a Covid hospital?

Edit. Later on we learn "Only cases with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19
using molecular diagnostic (Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
(RT-PCR) or Rapid Antigen Test) were admitted to the hospital."

9. The spike glycoprotein and the nucleocapsid are the main antigens of
Covid (duh) where the good news is there is good correlation between
antibodies to them.

10. This is a key sentence!
" SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have enabled researchers to examine naturally
acquired immunity to COVID-19. "

That's to be expected, by the way, as it would be a shock otherwise.

11. The next sentence isn't shocking in the least as it always happens
(except with rabies).
"There were reports published highlighting that a small proportion of
COVID-19 cases may not develop antibodies."

12. The antibody response correlates with viral load (duh).

13. Patients were tested for antibodies every 3 days.

14. Asymptomatic & others were discharged on the 10th day (so only three
samples were taken).

15. "The data were collated in MS Excel."
WTF? Do we really need to know that?
That's sophomoric for a scientific paper since it's meaningless to the
study. Did they use green pens or blue pens?

16. 1000 patients and 4000 tests, which is about right given a test every
three days.

That's about it.
Now that I've read the facts, I have to go back to see what the moron Steve
and moron Chris (who can't even do basic decimal math) made of it.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 08:26:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> Right. Neither of the numbers you quote are there. Anyone can see that. You
>> must have done a calculation based on the numbers on the slide. Answer the
>> question and show your workings. It shouldn't be hard for someone so
>> brilliant as you.
>
> You say I'm wrong for stating a fact that comes _directly_ from the CDC,
> Chris.
>
> That's OK, because you are ignorant, so I have to spoon feed you facts.
>
> I gave you the slide set, and you're _still_ confident that I'm wrong.
> <
> <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>>
>
> I give you the exact page, and you're _still_ so confident I'm wrong.
> <https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>
>
> And yet the math is right there in your face.
> *Crude rate per 100,000 === 0.2*

I was worried that was what you were referring to...

You've made three mistakes.

1. 0.2 per 100,000 is 0.0002 per 100 or 0.0002%. Not 0.002% as you claim.
2. this is a "crude rate" not a case fatality rate which is the better way
to assess risk of death as I'm sure you know. The CFR as shown in an
earlier slide appears to be 0.6% for 5-11 kids.
3. Minor point but the table is 2019 data whereas the COVID numbers are a
20/21 12-month period so not directly comparable. Could be higher/lower.

Not Joe <notjoe@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-02-03 9:09 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:18:50 -0800, sms wrote:
>>
>>> It matters a lot in finance, marketing, sales, engineering, law,
>>> government affairs, marketing, etc., as well.
>>>
>>> When someone isn't interested in facts the proper use of language does
>>> not serve them well, we certainly saw that with 45, and we see it with
>>> our favorite nym-shifting troll as well.
>>
>> I find it interesting that Steve doesn't even have an education in
>> {genetics,immunology,virology} and yet, he wants to _force_ people to get a
>> shot that, clearly, many of them don't want.
>
> I find it interesting that you won't actually tell us what degrees you hold.

"EE" apparently which I assume is electronic engineering, but who knows? He
also mentioned "college degrees" so maybe not actually any degrees, then.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:43:11 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>> Our favorite troll is lying again. I have never said that anyone that
>> doesn't want to be vaccinated should be forced to do so.
>
> Steve,
> If the risk is losing your job, that is _force_ by another means.

It's motivation. Freedom of choice is not without consequences. No-one is
limiting your choice.

> Steve, the science is that the risk of _not_ dying from Covid is over 99%.
> For children, it's two orders of magnitude _less_ than that.

Wrong. You didn't do the math (sic).