CDC Study Counts People Hospitalized within 14 days of receiving the Vaccine as "Unvaccinated"

***disclaimer*** I just stumbled on this elsewhere I do not know the validity of this and I am still researching.

CDC Study Counts People Hospitalized within 14 days of receiving the Vaccine as "Unvaccinated"

www.cdc.gov...

Persons were considered fully vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines) or after 1 dose of the single-dose Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine; partially vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the first dose and

Part 2

Looks legit so far pertinent info is on page 3 of the .pdf

Will get an image?

Should we infer that those vaccinated don't get full protection for 2 weeks, cause that's the only other explanation that makes sense other than manipulating vaccinated hospitalizations to look like unvaccinated ones?

a reply to: putnam6

CDC Study Counts People Hospitalized within 14 days of receiving the Vaccine as "Unvaccinated"

Incorrect.

Check out the the tables in your source. Fully, Partial, Un. It appears in all the data representations.

originally posted by: putnam6
Part 2

Looks legit so far pertinent info is on page 3 of the .pdf

Will get an image?

Should we infer that those vaccinated don't get full protection for 2 weeks, cause that's the only other explanation that makes sense other than manipulating vaccinated hospitalizations to look like unvaccinated ones?

Yes, 2-3 weeks before full protection..so they say. The optics are not good, but I can understand this, it should be noted they got the shot, I imagine it is?

Okay check this out and then explain what I am missing? under the abbreviations on page 3 at the bottom of the table how many of those 30,000 vaccinated were vaccinated just less than 14 days. And remember it's late here LOL, one reason I need a proof reader

Persons were considered fully vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the second dose in a 2-dose series (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines) or after 1 dose
of the single-dose Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) COVID-19 vaccine; partially vaccinated ≥14 days after receipt of the first dose and

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: putnam6
Part 2

Looks legit so far pertinent info is on page 3 of the .pdf

Will get an image?

Should we infer that those vaccinated don't get full protection for 2 weeks, cause that's the only other explanation that makes sense other than manipulating vaccinated hospitalizations to look like unvaccinated ones?

Yes, 2-3 weeks before full protection..so they say. The optics are not good, but I can understand this, it should be noted they got the shot, I imagine it is?

Not a fan of the legalize verbiage "considered fully vaccinated" this sounds like an arbitrary number decided at a board meeting and not in a research setting. Like they could quantify it so they went with the considered.

Considering they said 2 Weeks, considering they said to get a vaccine no mask, for you afterward, it's easy to consider they might not know exactly what is gonna happen. Some would consider they are just using educated guesstimates

a reply to: putnam6

Your truncated posts make it impossible to understand what you are asking.

a reply to: putnam6

Not a fan of the legalize verbiage "considered fully vaccinated" this sounds like an arbitrary number decided at a board meeting and not in a research setting.

It has been the case from the get go. From the clinical trials.

You don't get full immunity the day you get sick and you don't get full immunity as soon as you get vaccinated. With any vaccine.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: putnam6

Not a fan of the legalize verbiage "considered fully vaccinated" this sounds like an arbitrary number decided at a board meeting and not in a research setting.

It has been the case from the get go. From the clinical trials.

You don't get full immunity the day you get sick and you don't get full immunity as soon as you get vaccinated. With any vaccine.

Yes but you are vaccinated, that is why all the reports say 30,000 unvaccinated weren't unvaccinated. IT FUDGES THE NUMBERS but you know that's my point and it is California after all

Not to mention now we are taking 14 days off at the beginning of the vaccinations because it isn't effective and studies in Israel show some vaccines losing effectiveness in four months. So we vaccinated and have full protection for 3 and 1/2 months. Of course, we still have to wear masks etc,

Vaccine protection is a rather fragile illusion

a reply to: putnam6

that is why all the reports say 30,000 unvaccinated weren't unvaccinated.

No they don't. The report you linked doesn't. But how do you know "they" are including partially vaccinated?

So we vaccinated and have full protection for 3 and 1/3 months.

8 months is what they are saying for a "booster."

Of course, we still have to wear masks etc,

Yeah. Delta sucks.

a reply to: putnam6

Considering they said 2 Weeks, considering they said to get a vaccine no mask, for you afterward, it's easy to consider they might not know exactly what is gonna happen. Some would consider they are just using educated guesstimates

Here, right off the bat, they said there would be 2, or maybe 3 weeks before full protection..makes sense to me. It never changed the mask or not deal, that was universal, I think we got a month and a half in of no mandatory masks..and starting tommorow, right back into it.

As for guesstimates, for sure they are, but I think due to trials they can reasonably know about something like that. It's longer term stuff that the question.

a reply to: putnam6

Since the vaccination rate is slowing down, probably +99% of those who are vaccinated, got vaccinated more than 14 days ago.

Just thinking out loud, fwiw.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: putnam6

Not a fan of the legalize verbiage "considered fully vaccinated" this sounds like an arbitrary number decided at a board meeting and not in a research setting.

It has been the case from the get go. From the clinical trials.

You don't get full immunity the day you get sick and you don't get full immunity as soon as you get vaccinated. With any vaccine.

the problem is the CDC, local, state and federal government (along with their covid mandate supporters) have been playing word games and outright skullduggery to keep the covid numbers up/ mandates in effect

for example remember the CDC openly stated on their website early in the "pandemic " that you can code a death as "covid if you suspect or have symptoms of covid . NO TESTING REQUIRED"
now buried on page three (maybe four) that only SIX PERCENT of listed covid deaths were "due to covid (or major reason)"

that would reduce the current covid deaths (btw over a year and half numbers) to about 35,000.. tragic but around half of the average common flu deaths in previous years.

in the beginning states would only test you for covid under daconian limitations.. like only those in hospitals and in essence dying .
thus making the initial fatality percentage much greater than it was.

now IL and others list any positive test or reasonable suspicion (aka BEING TESTED) as new covid case.. but dont update when the covid test is negative...
much less test for the regular flu / other causes (this has happened to me personally)

then add that all "covid mandate" governors IGNORE the facts of
a. over 80 percent have covid, recover, and never knew it due to symptoms so mild (some even didnt have it) AND RECOVERED without medical intervention.
b. the survival rate overall is 99.7 or greater
c. most that have died had other medical compromising conditions that most serious pathogens could kill them
d. that CHILDREN have the lowest infection rate, transition rate and the LOWEST DEATH RATE of any group.

that we continue to demand masks that most are NOT MEDICALLY CERTIFIED to stop viruses and covid
that those that are are most of the time in public use are put on/worn in such a way no negate the effectiveness thus making them worthless.

we continue to do such counter productive things like
putting people into nursing homes (heard of NY) that were INFECTED
banning churches but not casinos
banning public gathering of all types ... unless its a floyd memorial, a "protest" against the police, a democratic celebration that biden won, ect.
we close hairdressers/barbers, restaurants, travel out of state (even if your own property), travel out of the country.
but its ok for mayors, gov, rich and politicians of all stripes to do such.

we keep a whole classroom full of kids home because one tested positive for covid for two weeks.
but a few people die from the vaccine and we are told to wait "until we have all the facts"

we have daily told by press, experts, politicans we have an FDA APPROVED VACCINES when (until recently) they WERE NOT.

we have them claim we need to take the vaccine to have "life get back normal", but now still requiring masks, closing things, and masking children (some of which are vaccinated) .

we now have the claim vaccines are to stop the virus when THEY WERE NEVER AND CAN NEVER BE for that ...

so this idea that they would play word games to list recently vaccinated as "non vaccinated" to bolster the claim its the "unvaccinated fault" to whats happening is not so far fetched...

in dealing with covid from start to now has not been based on SCIENCE but ADGENDA...
pure and simple


scrounger

FWIW as well 11,309 of those 30,000 unvaccinated were ages 16-17 how long did they have an opportunity to get vaccinated from May 1–July 25, 2021. Were they even eligible to get vaccinated yet?

Again it inflates the numbers of those unvaccinated artificially, but it sounds good in a 14 second sound bite, remove those 11,000 and the disparity lessens to 19,000 to 10,000

a reply to: scrounger

for example remember the CDC openly stated on their website early in the "pandemic " that you can code a death as "covid if you suspect or have symptoms of covid . NO TESTING REQUIRED"

Sort of. Here is the exact wording

In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for
COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible.

www.cdc.gov...

So it would be recorded as "probable or presumed", based upon the physicians judgement. In the early days, testing was not readily available and it was important to try to figure out the extent of infection.

now buried on page three (maybe four) that only SIX PERCENT of listed covid deaths were "due to covid (or major reason)"

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that someone didn't die because of COVID. Diabetics who weren't dying probably wouldn't have, if it weren't for COVID. Heart patients who were doing OK probably would have kept doing OK. In fact, the numbers from 2020 support this. Something caused a lot more people to die than in other years. That's for sure. I think COVID is the prime candidate. What do you think it might have been?

a reply to: putnam6

Were they even eligible to get vaccinated yet?

Yes. The Pfizer vaccine has always been available to those 16 and older. Vaccination was available for everyone from May, pretty much.

a reply to: putnam6

with respect show me where states and feds are reporting "presumed or probable" deaths from covid

along with death certificates being listed as "possible" covid deaths
hell PA alone had to change death certificates when a lawsuit was filled.

I cant seem to find them in any public reporting be from city, state or fed.

add to it you glossed over they are now reporting only six percent of reported covid deaths it was the cause (or main cause).


add to that the states reporting suspected new covid cases as NEW COVID CASES.
hell IL alone does not "change" their findings when results come back negative.

im sorry but the past AND CONTINUED word games, data manipulation, and outright LIES you cant now claim this is on the up and up for listing who is "non vaccinated"

scrounger

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: putnam6

Not a fan of the legalize verbiage "considered fully vaccinated" this sounds like an arbitrary number decided at a board meeting and not in a research setting.

It has been the case from the get go. From the clinical trials.

You don't get full immunity the day you get sick and you don't get full immunity as soon as you get vaccinated. With any vaccine.

I would argue that the only time you have full immunity is when you're dead. Full is a loaded word, especially for Joe Public.

I think a better term is peak, because it's not static and doesn't persist.

a reply to: scrounger
I think you meant to reply to me.

Generally the deaths are reported as "Covid associated."

Death certificate data takes quite a while to compile actually, that's not the data we see in the "daily reports."

I cant seem to find them in any public reporting be from city, state or fed.

I just showed you the CDC data for 2020.

add to that the states reporting suspected new covid cases as NEW COVID CASES.

No, they aren't. They are reporting positive test results.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

No argument.
I'll see if I can remember to use that term when appropriate.

I suppose "fully vaccinated" is more accurate. That's the term that's actually used.