/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14583535]

Is there actually data that shows vaccinated people test positive less frequently than unvaccinated people?

[Anonymous No.14583543]

The data shows opposite. Vaxcattle are petrified of covid and always get tested. Unvaccinated don't care to get tested unless forced to.

[Anonymous No.14583549]

>>14583535
it isn't about testing negative, it's about mitigating effects so the health care system doesn't collapse

[Anonymous No.14583555]

>>14583549
so there is no data showing unvaccinated people test positive more?

[Anonymous No.14583629]

>>14583535
There are multiple variables that may contribute to both groups not being accurately represented.

A lot of people say unvaccinated are not fully represented because fewer proportions of them are testing relative to the vaccinated population. I'm not entirely sure of this, given unvaccinated working-age people probably have to complete weekly tests for work. Granted, not everyone works for hypochondriacs, and there's also the ability to fake test results on pdfs. Furthermore, for those who don't have to take the test for work, they most likely are testing if experiencing symptoms, which discounts the likely large number of people with asymptomatic infection.

Within the vaccinated population, they are likely only testing if they experience symptoms, since they don't generally need to test weekly unless they're paranoid schizos. So the sample of vaccinated coming in to test is more comprised of actually infected individuals with visible symptoms.

Lastly, iirc that data comes from Walgreens or CVS(?). It would be better to aggregate all the data from all testing providers.

Regardless, the pandemic has done nothing but make people agendapost for/against the vaccine with faulty data, flat out lie, and further displace any kind of social cohesion. What's particularly aggravating is the shameless changes of definitions particularly for being vaccinated. That, and people suddenly being nosy about your health history, particularly employers. Sets a really terrible precedent for the future.

[Anonymous No.14583634]

fake positive test results for a nonexistent virus only demonstrate that large numbers of people are gullible enough to trust the soience

[Anonymous No.14583643]

>>14583629
Your post was great until the end. Your personal health becomes very unpersonal when you infect others. The US Supreme Court long ago ruled that public good trumps personal health in Massachusetts v Jacobson

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1824/jacobson-v-massachusetts

[Anonymous No.14583646]

>>14583549
it doesn't do that either.

[Anonymous No.14583648]

>>14583549
>it isn't about testing negative
Nice to see vaxxoid paranoids finally admitting that they've been scammed.

[Anonymous No.14583649]

>>14583643
>Your personal health becomes very unpersonal when you infect others.
data doesn't show that unvaccinated people are more likely to infect others

[Anonymous No.14583652]

>>14583643
>The US Supreme Court long ago ruled
What if he doesn't live in a fascist corporatocracy?

[Anonymous No.14583653]

>>14583643
Does that mean I can slice off any blubber that oozes over into my airplane seat?

[Anonymous No.14583699]

>>14583643
1) The guy had to pay a fee instead of taking the vaccine. That's hardly comparable to the prior mandates that basically kept unvaccinated out of society if they didn't take it.
2) There has been no conclusive data suggesting that unvaccinated people are more likely to infect others relative to vaccinated. They're more likely to die, yes, but the idea of "the greater good" flew out the door when omicron rushed through the vaccinated population.
3) More of a personal nitpick from me but it's difficult to compare covid with smallpox, the latter being far more lethal and suppressed by effective inoculation that had been used for decades and provided neutralizing immunity.

[Anonymous No.14583720]

>>14583699
One other tangent to this point, Jacobson was cited in Buck vs. Bell in 1927 which resulted in forcibly sterilizing a mentally ill woman because they determined greater society would benefit from it. I know that's not directly related to covid, but that case set a precedent for tossing away your bodily rights if you were deemed to be a detriment to society.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200

[Anonymous No.14583751]

>>14583535
No, why would you expect that?

[Anonymous No.14583770]

>>14583648
How so?

[Anonymous No.14583771]

>>14583751
because my next job will probably make me get tested weekly for not being vaxxed

[Anonymous No.14583800]

>>14583771
lmao, gotta love performative measures. Have fun, anon.

[Anonymous No.14583801]

>>14583770
>How so?
Your own words:
>it isn't about testing negative
Now that you've fully admitted your mistake, just walk away.

[Anonymous No.14583811]

>>14583801
>Your own words
Not my post. I don't get the part about getting the vax to test negative, how would that work?

[Anonymous No.14583820]

>>14583811
The absolute state of the nonhuman hordes... There's no way I am talking to an actual person.

[Anonymous No.14583833]

>>14583820
It's a straightforward question, no reason to get upset anon.

[Anonymous No.14583843]

>>14583833
>I don't get the part about [x], how would that work?
that's not straightforward, it's vague and openended

[Anonymous No.14583853]

>>14583843
My bad: Why would you assume you're not going to test positive for Covid after getting the vaccine? That's a misunderstanding of what it's supposed to do.

[Anonymous No.14584055]

>>14583549
explain.

[Anonymous No.14584070]

>>14583646
>comparing amounts instead of rates
Oh no... it's retarded.

[Anonymous No.14584097]

>>14583549
It should collapse.
We need less boomers and more houses on the market.

[Anonymous No.14584155]

>>14584055
Redo that graph in patient-kilograms. People are far more obese now and take up more space so each person in a hospital now is a greater space burden than in the past.

[Anonymous No.14584161]

>>14584097
LOL, (((they))) will ensure there are enough immigrants so the demand for houses never drops.

[Anonymous No.14584179]

>>14584155
you think people got significantly fatter from 2019 to 2020? fuck off with that.

[Anonymous No.14584271]

>>14583643
>Your personal health becomes very unpersonal when you infect others.
And the vaccinated are becoming infected at a higher rate it appears, so I take issue with them being around me and potentially infecting me.

[Anonymous No.14584289]

Is this more /x/ nonsense or is this the start of the end of the two weeks?

[Anonymous No.14584297]

>>14584289
>Is this more /x/ nonsense or is this the start of the end of the two weeks?
Prions and amyloids have been postulated for a while. Alzheimer's is a beta amyloid disease, and it takes decades to manifest. The two weeks stuff was always nonsense, we're not going to have conclusive answers for a long time, and the time frame involved will make it hard to pin conclusive blame on the vaccines.

[Anonymous No.14584339]

>>14584070
Looks at the pie charts.

[Anonymous No.14584369]

>>14583549
If the vaccine doesn't make a vaccinated person less likely to contract or spread the disease, but just reduces the severity of symptoms, doesn't that make them more likely to spread the disease since they may not know they have it? To me it seems like an ineffective vaccine is worse than no vaccine when it comes to controlling the spread.

[Anonymous No.14584376]

>>14583543
"positivity rate" means percentage of tests that came back positive, so it should not matter how frequently these groups get tested. I am unvaccinated and I got tested when I had some cold symptoms to make sure that my family members with health issues would be safe. (It came back negative.) If the vaxxed are more likely to go get tested over milder symptoms, then wouldn't that make their susceptibility to covid look artificially lower? (Since they would be negative when going to get tested more of the time.) This is a very flawed study design, too many psychological factors.

[Anonymous No.14584383]

>>14584339
The pie charts show the proportion of vaccinated/nonvaccionated among outcomes, not the rate of outcomes among vaccinated/nonvaccinated, my illiterate /pol/tard friend. Do you need me to dumb it down even further for you?

[Anonymous No.14584407]

>>14583853
Well, until May 2021, the CDC defined vaccination as "The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease." Having immunity to covid would suggest testing negative for covid. You can perform whatever mental gymnastics you want, but you're lying if you say that's not what the intended and implied outcome of getting the covid vaccine originally was. We were told that getting the vaccine would help stop the spread of the virus. The spread of the virus is measured by the number of people testing positive. The CDC has since changed the word immunity to protection in their definition of vaccination, and the new reason to get vaccinated is to protect yourself from severe illness.

[Anonymous No.14584418]

>>14584407
>inb4 he replies with "nobody SAID getting the vaccine would stop the spread"

[Anonymous No.14584434]

>>14584369
efficiency of said vaccines aside do people really believe that vaccines somehow prevent the disease from spreading ? They really shouldn't get vaccinated then because they literally don't understand the first thing about it

[Anonymous No.14584604]

>>14583535
In order for one to have immunity against a disease, an immune response of some kind must occur.
Your graph only shows that viral matter was present, not actual severity.

[Anonymous No.14584647]

>>14584434
>do people really believe that vaccines somehow prevent the disease from spreading ?
presumably workplaces that institute a vax mandate do

[Anonymous No.14584771]

>>14584434
>efficiency of said vaccines aside do people really believe that vaccines somehow prevent the disease from spreading ?
Well an efficient vaccine, aka one that leads to sterilizing immunity, would reduce spread. These don't reduce infection rate, nor do they seem to reduce viral load (they may have early on, but that's no longer the case), so I see no reason they would prevent spread. We've had multiple outbreaks where I work since the vaccines were released, and every outbreak started with it spreading among the vaccinated first.

[Anonymous No.14585361]

>>14584407
Creating complete immunity to the disease was overly optimistic from the start, it was irresponsible of them to create the impression that this was a likely outcome, and of the media to reinforce that expectation, but that level of incompetence unfortunately the norm now. But you'd expect that in 2022 everybody would be aware by now that the vaccine won't prevent you from getting Covid - not so apparently.

[Anonymous No.14586044]

>>14584434
Yes I got banned off of social media platforms for saying this.

[Anonymous No.14586431]

>>14584771
>nor do they seem to reduce viral load (they may have early on, but that's no longer the case)
Not trying to sound like a snobby plebbitor but are there any articles or papers on this? I had a hard time finding anything on that, though I'm probably retarded.

[Anonymous No.14586476]

>>14584383
They always stop replying after being outed as retards

[Anonymous No.14586527]

>>14586431
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1

[Anonymous No.14586552]

>>14584383
You can eyeball the rate of outcomes among vaxxed/unvaxxed by comparing the bar graphs. You can also glean qualitative data from comparing the pie charts -- i.e. if vaccination had no effect at all, then all the pie charts should be identical.
Eyeballing the bar graphs, it seems like vaccination doesn't have a large effect on, for example, death, regardless of age confounding. There appear to be about 40K unvaxxed 70+ and 600K triple-vaxxed 70+; there appear to be about 20 unvaxxed 70+ deaths and 170 triple-vaaxxed 70+ deaths. So the death rate for unvaxxed 70+ is 0.05% and the death rate for triple-vaxxed 70+ is 0.028% -- so a relative risk reduction by 44% and an absolute risk reduction by 0.022%

[Anonymous No.14587695]

>>14583653
look at all those manlets surrounding this large king

[Anonymous No.14587698]

>>14584289
How is this any different from long-COVID brainfog?

not pro-vax, just tired of midwits who fail to see the EXTREMELY OBVIOUS parallels

[Anonymous No.14587708]

>>14584376
Except that the more you get tested, the more likely you are to have a false positive

[Anonymous No.14587782]

>>14583535
One of the rules was that vaccinated people were to be tested much less frequently than unvaccinated.

Something about random sampling and false positives can probably be investigated

[Anonymous No.14587942]

>>14586552
>You can eyeball the rate of outcomes among vaxxed/unvaxxed by comparing the bar graphs.
Yes, for example you can see that thereare about 15 times more fully vaccinated 70+ year olds than unvaccinated. Yet they account for only 8.3 times more deaths (you can calculate this directly from the pie chart, no need to eyeball). So unvaccinated 70+ are 1.8 times more likely to die. Your graph shows exactly what you claimed wasn't happening, my illiterate /pol/tard friend.

>if vaccination had no effect at all, then all the pie charts should be identical.
If vaccination had no effect at all, then all of the pie charts would show the percentages of unvaccinated and vaccinated in the population. But they don't.

[Anonymous No.14588032]

>>14587942
When I'm 70, I'll care about the effectiveness for 70 year olds but I'm nowhere close to being that decrepit so it's not relevant to me.

[Anonymous No.14588037]

>>14587698
Depends on what mechanism is causing each. One suggestion is that it is the spike protein that causes most of the long term problems. In that case, total spike load is what's relevant, especially if the spike on its own acts differently than the spike on a virus body. Good luck getting cleared for doing search on those possibilities.

[Anonymous No.14588063]

>>14583535
>>14583543
>>14583555
it SHOULD show vaccinated people as positive, because they're vaccinated

[Anonymous No.14588153]

>>14588032
No one cares what you care about your fot caught lying.

[Anonymous No.14588789]

>>14587942
The whole vaccine debate is now yelling about people over 60. The virus is literally inconsequential to anyone under 60 yet we have governments ruining educations and careers over booster shots. The only explanation is that they hate the populace

[Anonymous No.14588794]

>>14588153
Want to try that again in English? Also keep in mind that /sci/ isn't just you and one other person.

[Anonymous No.14588804]

>>14587942
>Yes, for example you can see that thereare about 15 times more fully vaccinated 70+ year olds than unvaccinated. Yet they account for only 8.3 times more deaths (you can calculate this directly from the pie chart, no need to eyeball). So unvaccinated 70+ are 1.8 times more likely to die.
That's exactly what I said, my innumerate smugboy. 44% relative risk reduction. What do you mean you can calculate this from the pie chart though? the pie charts aren't about 70+ year olds, they're about the entire population. Illiterate as well as innumerate, hate to see it
There seems to be absolutely no correlation with cases though -- in fact, for 70+ year olds the cases seem to be slightly higher for fully vaccinated, since those purple bars are the same height and the grey case bar is slightly less than the grey unvax bar
>If vaccination had no effect at all, then all of the pie charts would show the percentages of unvaccinated and vaccinated in the population. But they don't.
If the vaccinations had a positive effect, one would naively expect that at least 14% of deaths were unvaccinated

[Anonymous No.14588805]

>>14587698
Because long covid brainfog is bullshit

[Anonymous No.14588807]

>>14588789
if we don't make little billy wear a mask in school then little billy could pass on germs to his teacher who then goes to visit her grandfather and ends up killing the entire nursing home. Which is probably exactly what you want, grannykiller

[Anonymous No.14588815]

>>14588807
That's happened every flu season since the modern US was a thing

[Anonymous No.14588820]

>>14588815
We should have started requiring masks and mandatory flu shots during flu season ages ago

[Anonymous No.14588831]

>>14588820
They don't make a lick of difference and just cause more public distrust of public health

[Anonymous No.14588836]

>>14588820
We should have required high velocity cranial lead injections to everyone who said, "Flatten the curve" and then been done with this nothingburger.

[Anonymous No.14588844]

>>14588836
That's how we'd get four more years of trump. Do you want four more years of trump?

[Anonymous No.14589120]

>>14588844
If he can somehow become Prime Minister, sure, I could go for that.

[Anonymous No.14589656]

>>14583535
>Is there actually data that shows vaccinated people test positive less frequently than unvaccinated people?
No, all the data shows that vaccinated people get sick more, and boosted (vaccinated +extra shots) get sick even more.

[Anonymous No.14589663]

>>14584097
>more houses on the market.
BlackRock is buying them up for their people. They might rent them out to you for extra high prices, but you won't own them.

"You will own nothing and you better be happy about it." - WEF

[Anonymous No.14589668]

>>14588844
>Do you want four more years of trump?
he deserves 8 more years, since his first 4 were illegally hampered by the scummy deepstate.

[Anonymous No.14591759]

>>14589656
>absolute numbers

[Anonymous No.14591783]

>>14591759
15% of NZ's population hasn't received a single vaccine. There's no hospitalizations for the unvaccinated in several of those weeks. Of course you can argue the unvaccinated are already healthy and could avoid vaccination. In that case, why are we forcing the healthy to vaccinate if it's not needed?

[Anonymous No.14592333]

>>14583771
Find a different job

[Anonymous No.14592340]

>>14588789
The Russian leadership is killing their citizens in Ukraine. Americans are vaccinating them with experimental tech. The fuck is going on?

[Anonymous No.14592353]

>>14584434
They did for pre-omicron
Case example: months of lockdowns not lowering delta outbreak in sydney but a rapid vaxx program did

[Anonymous No.14592486]

>>14583771
They may not care. My company just went back to testing the unvaccinated. My superiors aren't even bothering to test me, we're just pretending the mandate doesn't exist. We've had multiple recent outbreaks that involved fully vaccinated employees, it's clear to everyone that vaccination status doesn't matter at this point.