/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14623706
This is not funny, climate change is causing thousands of heart attacks in healthy young men every day, and you're blaming it on the Covid vaccines, which are safe and effective and the only way out of this Global Pandemic, you should be ashamed.

>>14623690
New variants, waning immunity. I like how your graph starts right after the even bigger amount of deaths in February 2021. Now go back >>>/pol/

>>14623690
In Portugal, no increase in there is virtually deaths in no one left to Portugal due to vaccinate vaccination rate.

>>14623690
It's really easy to tell a lie, and much more complicated to tell the truth. Cherrypicking individual countries, and completely ignoring easily accessible data with large comparison cohorts of vaccinated vs unvaccinated like in the United States, is one of the ways antivaxxers tell simple lies that are much more difficult to correct. Such as the perpetual lie that vaccines not being completely perfect and life-long lasting somehow invalidates vaccination, which is patently retarded. Deaths increase as immunity wanes even with omicron, that is why boosters are recommended, but for some asinine reason antivaxxers think a far higher risk of death is preferable.

Let's compare with data from the United States for simplicity, as we had a lot of unvaccinated, to get an idea of what estimated deaths would've been without vaccination at all:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm
Contrast with more detailed data for the USA regarding omicron, booster vs two shot vs unvaccinated.
>During October–November [Delta, 2021], age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated persons were 53.2 compared with those in fully vaccinated persons with a booster dose and 12.7 compared with persons without a booster dose; these results represented crude VE against death of 98% and 92%, respectively.
For Omicron, there is a preliminary report on LA, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7105e1.htm
Death rate for omicron was still higher for the unvaccinated.

"Well what about portugal?" should be met with "...What about it?" Portugal has a much older population average than the United States does, 46.2 years mean average vs 38.6 years in the USA, for portugal 10% more of its population are over the age of 60. Without adjusting for such factors, for population demographics and other significant variables with infections, there can be no comparison. "Chart go uppy durr hurr" is how toddlers think about data, not adults. The picture is perfectly clear.

>>14623898
>>14623690
I'm not going to bother doing all the added work of adjusting statistics for age demographics to create an estimate, not least of which because antivaxxers see basic high school statistics as black magic. It is sufficient to know that we know, for a pretty damn high certainty, that unvaccinated persons in each age demographic are at a higher risk of hospitalization and death regardless of the variant. Antivaxxers can only deny reality like flat earthers, and deflect by making spurious comparisons without doing any of the actual work to make them like-for-like.

Same goes for dismissing CDC data, when they'd then need to simultaneously explain how most of the world's data agrees with the CDC data on the comparative risk for death and hospitalization. If, in fact, you did do the work to adjust for demographic factors and so on. All they have is lie, deflect, conspiracy. So really, "what about Portugal?"

>>14623782
>I like how your graph starts right after the even bigger amount of deaths in February 2021
What does that matter when the majority of the population wasn't vaccinated at that time?

>>14623898
>Deaths increase as immunity wanes even with omicron, that is why boosters are recommended
80% of Portugal is boosted, unless you're seriously recommending a booster shot every six months, which is indeed asinine.

>>14623940
>80% of Portugal is boosted, unless you're seriously recommending a booster shot every six months, which is indeed asinine.
Neat irrelevant remark. Now read the rest of my post.

>>14623950
Okay, I read it, so your solution is a booster every six months, yeah? Because efficacy falls apart if looking at current numbers, which even you'll admit. You had to go back to data that was collected within a couple of months of boosters being pushed out.

>>14623970
>Okay, I read it, so your solution is a booster every six months, yeah?
Didn't say anything about that. Your attempt to get me on your rhetorical rails has failed. Too bad, so sad. Completely irrelevant to what I wrote.
> Because efficacy falls apart if looking at current numbers, which even you'll admit.
Efficacy declines over time. It does not "fall apart". The study I posted showed even for two vaccinations they still had a 12.7 fold reduction in death risk in October-November.
>You had to go back to data that was collected within a couple of months of boosters being pushed out.
Ah, yes, the narcissistic mind-reading games. I did not "have to go back to" anything. I repeat, the unvaccinated are always worse off compared to the vaccinated. Inevitably immunity could wane enough that they would equalize in risk. Nothing I posted indicated when that was. That time scale will depend on a number of factors such as age demographics, prior health conditions, and so on. Nothing you're reaching for pertains to anything I wrote.

get boosted y'all

>>14623978
>Didn't say anything about that.
Then what is your solution when efficacy wanes, which is what you claimed was the cause of increased mortality? Either you boost every six months, or you let mortality go up.

>>14623990
>Then what is your solution when efficacy wanes
Whenever that happens, your best bet is probably to get boosted given risk of death is far higher for each age demographic. Whenever that optimal timing is. Talk to your doctor for more personalized care.

None of this had nor has fuck all anything to do with the topic or what I wrote.

>>14624004
not him but the chances of dying are already so low, and even lower with someone who has gotten covid antibodies either via infection or the vax... so why get boosted? seems like they just want more money.

>>14624004
So in your opinion, Portugal's issue is that not enough people lined up for the second booster?

>>14624010
>not him but the chances of dying are already so low, and even lower with someone who has gotten covid antibodies either via infection or the vax... so why get boosted? seems like they just want more money.
It's a free way to ensure minimizing risk. So why not? "My risk is already so low, why wear a seatbelt?" is kind of the same question to me.
>>14624011
>So in your opinion, Portugal's issue is that not enough people lined up for the second booster?
I already pointed out what the issue was with Portugal pertaining to OP's question. >>14623898
Your continued dishonesty is transparent.

>>14624015
You're comparing Portugal to other countries, while ignoring that Portugal has rising mortality while many do not. Why make any comparison? Why not just explain why Portugal is experiencing a rise in deaths? Age doesn't explain why they're just now deciding to start dropping dead. Your ostensible claim was waning immunity. So you believe they wouldn't be experiencing a rise in deaths if they received a second booster?

>>14624022
>Why make any comparison?
That is exactly my point in >>14623898.
>Age doesn't explain why they're just now deciding to start dropping dead.
Oh? You did the analysis? Let me see your data.
>Your ostensible claim was waning immunity.
That is one factor you'd have to consider. I listed some others in addition. There are more besides. Do you enjoy repeating me?
>So you believe they wouldn't be experiencing a rise in deaths if they received a second booster?
I'm psychic because here's what I wrote,
>>Cherrypicking individual countries, and completely ignoring easily accessible data with large comparison cohorts of vaccinated vs unvaccinated like in the United States, is one of the ways antivaxxers tell simple lies that are much more difficult to correct. Such as the perpetual lie that vaccines not being completely perfect and life-long lasting somehow invalidates vaccination, which is patently retarded.

Cherrypicking? Check. Ignoring easily accessible data to compare risks of unvaccinated and vaccinated? Check. Trying to imply that vaccines not perfect means don't get vaccinated? Check. Your usual antivaxxer. Gotta lie to antivax.

>>14623940
>What does that matter when the majority of the population wasn't vaccinated at that time?
Shows how much worse COVID was before vaccination. It's amazing how much cognitive dissonance you have.

>>14623712

>>14623690
Based on more recently available information (particularly from Harvard), it's been shown that there is neutralization escape from the antibodies of the vaccinated (see discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npQ1X0C3R8w ) as well as the previously infected (to different degrees). Being aware of that, I looked to see if the graph in your post matches up at all with surges in total cases in Portugal as well as when there were spikes in people getting boosted. As far as I can tell with a simple search, there was no reported spike in cases from March to May (see pic rel). The spikes from Jan-Feb and less so from May-July do seem to coincide with waves of new cases. It does make me wonder how there was a relatively large amount of COVID deaths from March to April with no spike in new cases, though. Was there a surge in boosters being administered in Portugal at that point in time? I couldn't immediately find any data like that online, so perhaps it's worth looking into if you care to.

>>14624283
forgot to attach the pic

>>14623690
>I just can't figure out how they're misrepresenting the data. How can this data be made to make sense, given that the Covid vaccines are safe and effective?
1/10 attempt at falseflaghing. "They" (You) should fuck right off to plebbit

>>14624248
Did you just flip the image? Why don't you go back to pol?

>>14624061
Is there a reason you refuse to give a direct answer to every single question?

>>14624138
>Shows how much worse COVID was before vaccination.
COVID mortality rates are falling in primarily unvaccinated countries.

>It's amazing how much cognitive dissonance you have.
It's amazing you're not aware that case fatality rates were falling before the vaccines were even available.

>>14625587
>COVID mortality rates are falling in primarily unvaccinated countries.
That doesn't even contradict what I said. But let's see the comparison. I bet unvaccinated countries have higher mortality rates than unvaccinated.

>It's amazing you're not aware that case fatality rates were falling before the vaccines were even available.
Nothing I said implied otherwise. You probably don't even understand the difference between mortality and CFR. You should just stop posting before you embarrass yourself further, /pol/tard.