Science/Environment Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - HCQ doesn't work - Part 3

[Chief]

This thread is continued in Part 4:

Science/Environment - Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 4

This is part 3 of this thread. Part 2 is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/wuhan-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-declared-part-2.1238728/ --------------- It looks like it began in wild animals being sold for human consumption, and once again the consequences of this stupidity is...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient.

The margin for error is so narrow though. 1/10 isnt anywhere near good enough when you are battling a 0.12 to 0.15% hospitalisation rate. 95% efficacy isnt enough. Hell even 99% is a tad worrisome.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

They’re not trustworthy because they’ve updated their definition?

I guess we can’t trust anything that changes over time with new information in that case.

Im OK with the updated definition if it followed any actual protocols and wasnt just randomly changed because it suited the agenda at the time. Science is supposed to be exact. I dont really think anything thats happened so far proves it to be exact.

All medical definitions should be rigorously studied, peer reviewed and I think in a case like this justified with science. I dont see that here

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

The implication is that, in an encounter where an unvaccinated person would definitely get the virus, a vaccinated person is a 95% chance of not getting it (so 5% chance of getting it).
In stage 3 trials of the Pfizer vaccine, ~22k people received the vaccine and ~22k received a placebo. It is reasonable to expect across 22,000 people (who were assigned to the groups randomly), that the level of exposure to the virus would be roughly equal. A 0% effective vaccine would mean the same number of people in each group would get coronavirus in the time of the trial. 100% effective would mean no one in the vaccine group would get it at all.
The data they got from the Pfizer trial is pretty clear.
Vaccine group infections: 8
Placebo group infections: 162

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

One thing I truly dont understand here is

WTF is >55?

The death fatality rate difference between 55 year olds and 85 year olds is astronomically large. The data is way too stretched out in those studies. The graphing needed to be done over a 55-60, 60-65 type age grouping.

The >55 is a bit like say measuring heart disease in men between 75kg to 200kg. The 75kg bracket is going to greatly change and improve the numbers of those in say the 200kg category and vice versa to the point the data isnt really accurate

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

If tens of millions have now taken the vaccine, we simply need to know the data about infection rates, like right now now

CDC and co should have a graph of recipients/cases/deaths for those vaccinated

Can anyone give a logical reason why it cant and shouldnt have happened by now?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient.

Severe COVID-19 Cases​

​

In the final analysis of the evaluable efficacy population (7 days), four participants had severe COVID-19 disease at least 7 days after Dose 2 (one subject who received BNT162b2 and three participants who received placebo).​

https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

No conclusions can be drawn from such sparse data.

 

[HTT]

One thing I truly dont understand here is

WTF is >55?

The death fatality rate difference between 55 year olds and 85 year olds is astronomically large. The data is way too stretched out in those studies. The graphing needed to be done over a 55-60, 60-65 type age grouping.

The >55 is a bit like say measuring heart disease in men between 75kg to 200kg. The 75kg bracket is going to greatly change and improve the numbers of those in say the 200kg category and vice versa to the point the data isnt really accurate

75kg is a totally healthy weight for most people. Given a physical peak age in the late 20s, by 55 you’ve likely been generally heading downhill for nearly 30 years! Of course many people this age maintain good exercise but are far from their former selves. Perhaps a better comparison would be 100kg+. For some people that’s a healthy weight but for many it’s pushing it.
Semantics aside I think your question is best directed to those who have studied this at university. My guess would be that there isn’t enough data at those intervals for a meaningful conclusion to be drawn, and this vaccines resembles other vaccines enough to reasonably predict its efficacy to follow theirs across varying age groups.

Beyond that, while it has not been proven the vaccine stops infection, it seems likely it does and that would mean even those left vulnerable after vaccination (or unvaccinated entirely) will be protected. At R0 of 2.6, a population 70% immune will lead to an R(eff) of 0.78. The that’s below 1 it’s enough to mean any introduction of the virus simply can’t spread far.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Severe COVID-19 Cases​

​

In the final analysis of the evaluable efficacy population (7 days), four participants had severe COVID-19 disease at least 7 days after Dose 2 (one subject who received BNT162b2 and three participants who received placebo).​

https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

No conclusions can be drawn from such sparse data.

Yeah agree its way to sparse. But I didnt bring it up.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

75kg is a totally healthy weight for most people. Given a physical peak age in the late 20s, by 55 you’ve likely been generally heading downhill for nearly 30 years! Of course many people this age maintain good exercise but are far from their former selves. Perhaps a better comparison would be 100kg+. For some people that’s a healthy weight but for many it’s pushing it.
Semantics aside I think your question is best directed to those who have studied this at university. My guess would be that there isn’t enough data at those intervals for a meaningful conclusion to be drawn, and this vaccines resembles other vaccines enough to reasonably predict its efficacy to follow theirs across varying age groups.

Beyond that, while it has not been proven the vaccine stops infection, it seems likely it does and that would mean even those left vulnerable after vaccination (or unvaccinated entirely) will be protected. At R0 of 2.6, a population 70% immune will lead to an R(eff) of 0.78. The that’s below 1 it’s enough to mean any introduction of the virus simply can’t spread far.

A 55 year old is not comparable to a 85 year old no matter how much spin you put on it

It seems likely isnt a good enough answer. If I sold a car and you said "Does it work" and I said "It seems likely", will you just buy my car no other questions asked? You seem to think this standard of proof is OK so surely you would just buy it?

I 100% agree the data isnt enough and is s**t. Im not the one however willing to justify decisions on said s**t data. Id rather just get data that isnt s**t and then make a decision

Im not ruling out the vaccine will work or not, im just ruling that the current data isnt enough to make a decision on. When we are saying 1 out of 10 when making a decision on 12 billion injections, I think thats a fair summation to make

 

[Ned_Flanders]

If tens of millions have now taken the vaccine, we simply need to know the data about infection rates, like right now now

CDC and co should have a graph of recipients/cases/deaths for those vaccinated

Can anyone give a logical reason why it cant and shouldnt have happened by now?

Tens of millions havent taken a vaccine - only 4.5m according to this.



and the issue with this data is:

1) the USA and UK numbers are nearly all only in recent weeks - too soon to get the data response you are wanting. we should be getting this in coming months however.

2) the chinese number is the release they have for 5 vaccines as a part of their massive stage 3 trials. the five are not officially signed off yet.

3) rollout is still in early stages, with most countries still yet to vaccinate even 1% of their population

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Tens of millions havent taken a vaccine - only 4.5m according to this.

View attachment 1033557

and the issue with this data is:

1) the USA and UK numbers are nearly all only in recent weeks - too soon to get the data response you are wanting. we should be getting this in coming months however.

2) the chinese number is the release they have for 5 vaccines as a part of their massive stage 3 trials. the five are not officially signed off yet.

3) rollout is still in early stages, with most countries still yet to vaccinate even 1% of their population

View attachment 1033559

4.5 million is too small a sample size but 44,000 is OK? Its not logical

4.5 million needs to be up on a web page with each case or death put up the second it happens. Its much more important then any other data you could be collecting right now in a place like the US.

Issue is, would they tell the truth? If 10 of those 4.5 million people die from Covid tomorrow would they tell you?

 

[Frank Bunn]

But their definition is bullshit, isn't it? They deliberately omitted one of the accepted causes of heard immunity and changed their definition.

Utter dishonesty. How can you defend this?

Next you'll be claiming that big Pharma and vax manufacturers are ethical honest organisations.

The World Economic Forum (Great Reset etc) was spruiking mRNA vaccines against SARS-Cov-2 back in January when very little was known about the virus and the global totals were 800 confirmed cases and 26 deaths.

Another thing that suss was that the main study that determined Hydroxychloroquine was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 was paid for by the University of Oxford and  the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation! No conflict of interest there

 

[Ned_Flanders]

4.5 million is too small a sample size but 44,000 is OK? Its not logical

4.5 million needs to be up on a web page with each case or death put up the second it happens. Its much more important then any other data you could be collecting right now in a place like the US.

Issue is, would they tell the truth? If 10 of those 4.5 million people die from Covid tomorrow would they tell you?

the 4.5m is mostly scattershot with no follow up. the 44k is selected to meet appropriate trial criteria and have extensive follow up and review to evaluate effects.

as for moving forward, any data will be dependant upon publicly available records. If (for example), i was vaccinated in the USA and I died in Australia, how would any of my Australian medical peeps have any idea i had the vaccine?

and if I died in America, given the decentralization of data, how would they know if I was injected in New York but died in Texas?

unless there is a central database recording everyone who gets a vaccine, you're relying on the patient or their family advising of their vaccination status. and given the fear of Big Brother in the USA in particular, good luck getting that database built and accessible to every doctor and coroner in the USA.

 

[Rob R]

4.5 million is too small a sample size but 44,000 is OK? Its not logical

4.5 million needs to be up on a web page with each case or death put up the second it happens. Its much more important then any other data you could be collecting right now in a place like the US.

Issue is, would they tell the truth? If 10 of those 4.5 million people die from Covid tomorrow would they tell you?

I think a lot of those 4.5 million have only had the first of the two required doses so their data wont be meaningful for a few weeks yet.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Frank Bunn]

One thing I truly dont understand here is

WTF is >55?

The death fatality rate difference between 55 year olds and 85 year olds is astronomically large. The data is way too stretched out in those studies. The graphing needed to be done over a 55-60, 60-65 type age grouping.

The >55 is a bit like say measuring heart disease in men between 75kg to 200kg. The 75kg bracket is going to greatly change and improve the numbers of those in say the 200kg category and vice versa to the point the data isnt really accurate

In the UK the average age of someone who dies from coronavirus is older than the average life expectancy.

The average age at death for those who died with Covid-19 in Scotland was 79 for men and 84 for women. Elsewhere in the NRS report it showed that life expectancy in Scotland is 77.1 for males and 81.1 for females.​

​

The report says the age profile of those dying with Covid was significantly older than that for deaths in general.​

Covid death figures: 10 things we've learned

The average age of those who died with Covid-19 in Scotland and other details from a new official report.

www.bbc.com

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

the 4.5m is mostly scattershot with no follow up. the 44k is selected to meet appropriate trial criteria and have extensive follow up and review to evaluate effects.

as for moving forward, any data will be dependant upon publicly available records. If (for example), i was vaccinated in the USA and I died in Australia, how would any of my Australian medical peeps have any idea i had the vaccine?

and if I died in America, given the decentralization of data, how would they know if I was injected in New York but died in Texas?

unless there is a central database recording everyone who gets a vaccine, you're relying on the patient or their family advising of their vaccination status. and given the fear of Big Brother in the USA in particular, good luck getting that database built and accessible to every doctor and coroner in the USA.

Which is absurd and wrong. May as well give everyone a blue M&M if you just gonna inject and blindly hope its OK.

You do know what a medical record is right and what its use is? You do know they want to give out vaccination cards right?

Yesterday in Sydney they classified a person who had Covid in March, but died yesterday from lung issues as a Covid death. The data is there, its just a will and want to use it

Everything you are saying is "lets avoid the research and effort" because it may create a uncomfortable truth. We probably need to work a bit harder then that dont we?

We need to track the safety of people with coronavirus, but once you have a vaccine, tough s**t and good luck? Not a great way to operate im afraid

 

[HTT]

A 55 year old is not comparable to a 85 year old no matter how much spin you put on it

It seems likely isnt a good enough answer. If I sold a car and you said "Does it work" and I said "It seems likely", will you just buy my car no other questions asked? You seem to think this standard of proof is OK so surely you would just buy it?

I 100% agree the data isnt enough and is sh*t. Im not the one however willing to justify decisions on said sh*t data. Id rather just get data that isnt sh*t and then make a decision

Im not ruling out the vaccine will work or not, im just ruling that the current data isnt enough to make a decision on. When we are saying 1 out of 10 when making a decision on 12 billion injections, I think thats a fair summation to make

You’re aware that 55+ means 55+ and not just 55 right? Very old people have received the vaccine and have received the placebo. If there’s a difference in efficacy it hasn’t been enough to seriously impact the final data. This is where hundreds of years of research comes in, and I advise you seek consultation with actual experts on this topic to gain trust.

I say ‘it seems likely’ in relation to the virus stopping infection. I say that because pretty much every expert who gives an opinion says they expect it to. Im not sure what probability to put on it, because I haven’t studied the topic, I can only go off what people who have say.

As for a probability to put on the vaccine stopping disease, that’s in the results I linked. 95% confident that it’s between 90.3 and 97.6% effective. That means 97.5% confident it’s greater than 90.3% effective and most of the remaining 2.5% is just below 90.3.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

You’re aware that 55+ means 55+ and not just 55 right? Very old people have received the vaccine and have received the placebo. If there’s a difference in efficacy it hasn’t been enough to seriously impact the final data. This is where hundreds of years of research comes in, and I advise you seek consultation with actual experts on this topic to gain trust.

I say ‘it seems likely’ in relation to the virus stopping infection. I say that because pretty much every expert who gives an opinion says they expect it to. Im not sure what probability to put on it, because I haven’t studied the topic, I can only go off what people who have say.

As for a probability to put on the vaccine stopping disease, that’s in the results I linked. 95% confident that it’s between 90.3 and 97.6% effective. That means 97.5% confident it’s greater than 90.3% effective and most of the remaining 2.5% is just below 90.3.

Id like a exact definition as opposed to a blanket "aware" statement. Its easy enough to achieve, so why not just achieve it? Adding the 55-60 year old categories in your output is like 3 hours of someones life? Why wouldnt you make it available?

Im not sure isnt a answer. It should have a exact answer. I dont have it, you dont have it, scientists dont have it. Its not good enough. We demand a exact answer for so much meaningless stuff but not for DNA altering medicine? It makes no sense

If 30% of people were dieing the 90.3% is OK as we are getting ahead of the virus. When the virus has a 1.65% rate and that is being extremely generous given all the unconfirmed cases US is likely to have, 90.3% doesnt seem to be that great a number. I mean no one really has answered my initial question so please do

If a big portion of people dieing fall into the 9.7% non effective rate, what do we do?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Which is absurd and wrong. May as well give everyone a blue M&M if you just gonna inject and blindly hope its OK.

You do know what a medical record is right and what its use is? You do know they want to give out vaccination cards right?

Yesterday in Sydney they classified a person who had Covid in March, but died yesterday from lung issues as a Covid death. The data is there, its just a will and want to use it

Everything you are saying is "lets avoid the research and effort" because it may create a uncomfortable truth. We probably need to work a bit harder then that dont we?

We need to track the safety of people with coronavirus, but once you have a vaccine, tough sh*t and good luck? Not a great way to operate im afraid

I'm aware that noone follows up with me after any vaccine I've had, ever. With this being the largest vaccination program on the planet ever, do you think 6 billion people will have monthly medical checks and reviews post vaccination to confirm their status?

As for records, even in Australia your medical records are isolated with your GP unless you give them approval to upload them to the new shared access system. In the USA it's even worse.

Be realistic - there are not the resources for the follow up reviews you want, and the tin foil hat brigade is fighting against information being shared globally

Your view will probably get a better hearing on the conspiracy nutbagger looney tunes board, where they think this is a fake vaccine to sterilize or mind control the entire population via microchips

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

I tend to think peoples approach to the vaccine should lead to changes. First one is, why have expiry dates on food? Seems like a massive waste of time at present if you we are just going to throw s**t into our body under the "im not sure but I think" category, we probably should just let people make their own judgements. May as well just sniff it and say "Im not sure if its off but I think its OK". At the same time we would then also put in legal disclaimers for the supermarkets saying "If the food is off, tough s**t, no refund or anything"

All this okay?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I tend to think peoples approach to the vaccine should lead to changes. First one is, why have expiry dates on food? Seems like a massive waste of time at present if you we are just going to throw sh*t into our body under the "im not sure but I think" category, we probably should just let people make their own judgements. May as well just sniff it and say "Im not sure if its off but I think its OK". At the same time we would then also put in legal disclaimers for the supermarkets saying "If the food is off, tough sh*t, no refund or anything"

All this okay?

We have expiry dates on food because salmonella, Listeria, and so on kill people.

Rotten dairy product and meat products kill people. Only an idiot would advocate equating consuming them to having an FDA approved vaccine

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

I'm aware that noone follows up with me after any vaccine I've had, ever. With this being the largest vaccination program on the planet ever, do you think 6 billion people will have monthly medical checks and reviews post vaccination to confirm their status?

As for records, even in Australia your medical records are isolated with your GP unless you give them approval to upload them to the new shared access system. In the USA it's even worse.

Be realistic - there are not the resources for the follow up reviews you want, and the tin foil hat brigade is fighting against information being shared globally

Your view will probably get a better hearing on the conspiracy nutbagger looney tunes board, where they think this is a fake vaccine to sterilize or mind control the entire population via microchips

So when it comes to the disease, we cant compare it to the flu, its more serious. When it comes to the vaccine, its just like the flu vaccine so why follow up? It is hypocrisy. Im happy to go with you on the more serious then the flu, but the vaccine needs to be more serious then the flu too. You cant have it both ways to suit your ego

In any case, I wasnt aware you received a card when you got a flu vaccine?, I wasnt aware we counted every flu vaccine individually? I wasnt aware state governments had legislation being drawn up to define your movements based on a flu vaccination either? Its simply not the same. The burden of responsibiltiy is higher here so the government needs to act like it

Your GP collects your recordsincluding your vaccination history. If the records are not useable, why would they even exist? They exist for a reason. When you die, your death is counted as a stat and a death certificate is done. Do you think in US they just say "he died" and drop him into a hole? No, they define the death. Im just saying when they do the definition and the cause is Covid, say whether they have been vaccinated or not. Its a pretty small step

We are willing to follow up where each covid case farted but not there actual health status, what drugs they take, what vaccinations they do and dont have?

For someone who believes this is a hellacious disease, your ability to flip flop between the "who cares" to "lock everyone up" is pretty remarkable

My position is simple. Treat the vaccine as seriously as you treat the virus. Its a fairly basic position id hope

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

We have expiry dates on food because salmonella, Listeria, and so on kill people.

Rotten dairy product and meat products kill people. Only an idiot would advocate equating consuming them to having an FDA approved vaccine

Medicine and drugs never kill people. Ever.

 

[Deliverance]

Although everyone should be eating slightly rotten fruit. Good for your gut bacteria.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Although everyone should be eating slightly rotten fruit. Good for your gut bacteria.

You can come to my shop and buy what you want. If you get salmonella poisoning, tough s**t. Fix it yourself and leave me alone

 

[Corpuscles]

Id like a exact definition as opposed to a blanket "aware" statement. Its easy enough to achieve, so why not just achieve it? Adding the 55-60 year old categories in your output is like 3 hours of someones life? Why wouldnt you make it available?

Im not sure isnt a answer. It should have a exact answer. I dont have it, you dont have it, scientists dont have it. Its not good enough. We demand a exact answer for so much meaningless stuff but not for DNA altering medicine? It makes no sense

If 30% of people were dieing the 90.3% is OK as we are getting ahead of the virus. When the virus has a 1.65% rate and that is being extremely generous given all the unconfirmed cases US is likely to have, 90.3% doesnt seem to be that great a number. I mean no one really has answered my initial question so please do

If a big portion of people dieing fall into the 9.7% non effective rate, what do we do?

I think I may have misled some people by questioning the meaning of the 95% !
Thanks again to all who replied with better understanding and information

My interpretation/understanding prior to reading the document CrankyHawk provided and better later explanation offered by harrythetiger (htt)
was WRONG or incorrect

The study does not show that circa 5% will still get it.
Across the whole study only 0.3% actually became infected.
As htt explained previous page - the reduction in the expected number of cases (no vaccine ), will be reduced on average by 95% after receiving vaccine.
It is a measure of how effective the vaccine is, NOT what percentage of the population will get it anyway

Re the age groups click on table 3 of the document. It shows better demographic breakdown of age groups.
You will note in the over 75 age group the results were deemed 100% effective because no one in that small sample (about 800 each group) that got the vaccine became infected.

What they are saying is if the incidence of infection throughout a whole population is reduced by circa 95% (by vaccine) there will be much less cases, but some who are unfortunate to encounter still it will become sick.


.