• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

PhDeac said:
Jesus Christ dude. Are you this stupid? Read what I said. You're saying the best way not to get COVID is to get COVID.In order for someone to have "previously had COVID" they have "to get COVID."
Click to expand...

If Sartre had ever met you, No Exit would be about an online sports message board.
 
Don't brag about reading Sartre when you can't read a simple message board post.
 
…Protection against Delta was highest, however, among people who were both vaccinated and had survived a previous COVID infection, and lowest among those who had never been infected or vaccinated, the study found.

Nevertheless, vaccination remains the safest strategy against COVID-19, according to the report published in U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The results do not apply to the Omicron variant of the virus, which now accounts for 99.5% of COVID-19 cases in the United States.

"The evidence in this report does not change our vaccination recommendations," Dr. Ben Silk of the CDC and one of the study's authors told a media briefing.

"We know that vaccination is still the safest way to protect yourself against COVID-19," he said.

For the study, health officials in California and New York gathered data from May through November, which included the period when the Delta variant was dominant.

It showed that people who survived a previous infection had lower rates of COVID-19 than people who were vaccinated alone.

That represented a change from the period when the Alpha variant was dominant, Silk told the briefing.

"Before the Delta variant, COVID-19 vaccination resulted in better protection against a subsequent infection than surviving a previous infection," he said.

In the summer and fall of 2021, however, when Delta became the predominant circulating iteration of the virus in the United States, "surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection against the subsequent infection than vaccination," he said.

But acquiring immunity through natural infection carries significant risks. According to the study, by November 30, 2021, roughly 130,781 residents of California and New York had died from COVID-19.

The analysis did not include information on the severity of initial infection, nor does it account for the full range of illness caused by prior infection.

One important limitation to the study was that it ended before administration of vaccine booster doses was widespread.

Dr. Erica Pan, state epidemiologist for the California Department of Public Health, said in an email that the study "clearly shows" that vaccines provide the safest protection against COVID-19 and they offer added protection for those with prior infections.

"Outside of this study, recent data on the highly contagious Omicron variant shows that getting a booster provides significant additional protection against infection, hospitalization and death,” Pan said.
Click to expand...
 
Summary
What is already known about this topic?

Data are limited regarding the risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization after COVID-19 vaccination and previous infection.

What is added by this report?

During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge, vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death. Primary vaccination, additional doses, and booster doses are recommended for all eligible persons. Additional future recommendations for vaccine doses might be warranted as the virus and immunity levels change.
Click to expand...
 
Why is it everytime a conservative posts a scientific report claiming it refutes vaccine efficacy consensus, they always cherry pick data out of context from the research and interpret it their own way, instead of you know, reading scientific research the normal way and trusting the researchers own conclusion of the study *THEY WROTE THEMSELVES*
 
Medical research articles aren’t fucking choose your own adventure books
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Why is it everytime a conservative posts a scientific report claiming it refutes vaccine efficacy consensus, they always cherry pick data out of context from the research and interpret it their own way, instead of you know, reading scientific research the normal way and trusting the researchers own conclusion of the study *THEY WROTE THEMSELVES*
Click to expand...

I know you didn't include a question mark, but I assume that was a rhetorical question ?
 
BiffTannen said:
I know you didn't include a question mark, but I assume that was a rhetorical question ?
Click to expand...

Definitely a rhetorical - I know why they do it, Just ridiculous that they don’t expect anyone to actually double check their work.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Why is it everytime a conservative posts a scientific report claiming it refutes vaccine efficacy consensus, they always cherry pick data out of context from the research and interpret it their own way, instead of you know, reading scientific research the normal way and trusting the researchers own conclusion of the study *THEY WROTE THEMSELVES*
Click to expand...

Just a plug that checking out the data yourself to make sure it fits the conclusion is something people should be doing, as long as you are versed in evidence based practice and have a basic understanding of statistics. The conclusions written at the end of research papers are not always well supported by the data.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Definitely a rhetorical - I know why they do it, Just ridiculous that they don’t expect anyone to actually double check their work.
Click to expand...

Um, I posted a link to the study itself. You can read it yourself. I encourage you to do so. It's very short and very easy to understand, even for a caveman lawyer like myself.

If you do read it, and if you disagree that it concluded immunity from previous infection was stronger than immunity from vaccination during the time period of mid-summer to November, then I don't know what to tell you. Of course the conclusion has caveats (immunity from vaccination had likely begun to wane by that time period, the study doesn't tell us anything about relative immunities from Omicron, immunity from vaccination plus prior infection was even stronger, etc.) but don't let your policy preferences interfere with your understanding of the science.
 
WakeBored said:
I think you mean Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road, which was the first case in which the SCOTUS said that corporations had the same rights as people. That was in 1886.
Click to expand...

Ah yes the famously incorruptible Supreme Court of the Gilded Age. The same court that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson 12 years later. Taking a shit on the graves of the men who made these decisions is the only way I choose to honor them.
 
There are people with prior infection and without. For both groups, vaccination improves immunity. Somehow, he interprets that as supporting the argument against vaccine mandates.
The combination of arrogance and ignorance is astonishing.
 
It's almost as if lawyers cherry-pick what they need to make their argument and just keep hammering it.
 
Yeah that’s the job. Along with writing threatening letters.
 
Well if Ginni can help save the fetuses and stop the gays and transgendered from ruining america then its fine

you fucking people, man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top