Minnesota Covid data vaccinated vs unvaccinated

a reply to: Itisnowagain

From the Lancet piece you found in the Guardian:

The SAR in household contacts exposed to the delta variant was 25% (95% CI 18–33) for fully vaccinated individuals compared with 38% (24–53) in unvaccinated individuals...

Fully vaccinated individuals with delta variant infection had a faster (posterior probability >0·84) mean rate of viral load decline (0·95 log10 copies per mL per day) than did unvaccinated individuals with pre-alpha (0·69), alpha (0·82), or delta (0·79) variant infections.

Interpretation

Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance...

So although, as the Guardian said, the vaccines made little difference to household infections of the Delta variant, it would make a difference to community spread.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Personally I chose to get vaxxed because it originally prevented illness/transmission.

You didn't choose to get vaxxed because it 'originally prevented transmission'.

You were told a lot of things that were not true.......it never did prevent transmission.

That's why some people are waiting......for the trial results......because no one knows what the vaccine is capable of.

I just love the way you push these vaxs......and then say 'I don't believe in mandates' and 'I won't have a booster'.

I just read about Dr. Sohrab Lutchmedial.

It looks like being vaccinated dramatically reduces transmission.

www.newscientist.com...

Yea not gonna lie I take anything for established UK media with a grain of salt. AS has been mentioned perhaps there is something else that drives cases on a local and even a state level. Again how does unvaxxed Georgia with 13% fewer vaccinated persons have significantly fewer cases? Georgia's population is double Minnesota's. It's a logical conclusion that natural immunity is at least playing some part, cause Georgia has been opened up with no restrictions for a while. Just highlights ANOTHER reason why national mandates and restrictions are BS.

To me, it just goes through waves, and sooner or later everybody takes the hit, and then it goes away.

Secondly, the question at least for me if the difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed is so small, its insignificant statistically

I think there are a huge number of variables that affect covid cases & outcomes between locations and naturally immunity absolutely plays a major part.

The numbers just show that the number of cases and serious outcomes are dramatically reduced amongst the vaccinated.

ETA and I would agree that in most cases local more targeted measures are better than a national one size fits all strategy.

well again the difference in. The high in cases before vaccines 7 day average nationally was 250,468 on January 8th,

The high of170,590 cases on a 7-day average nationally post vaccines on September 13th. 80,000 case difference that said in Alabama for instance cases peaked higher after vaccinations than the previous high. To me this is the point we have enough data points now to see what may of may not work at a state or city level.

Working on the state-to-state differences I'm already seeing states that post-vaccine high is actually higher than the pre-vaccine high. Like with the national picture of hotpots for cases per 100,000 generally the southeast least vaccinated show lighter fewer cases than the northeast or midwest and both those areas again generally have much higher vaccination rates. SO when I hear the blanket statement vaccine lessen cases while it may be correct on a national level YMMV at the state, county, and city level.

usafacts.org...

Problem is if you are looking a comparing one location to another, or one time period to another you are ignoring all those other variables.

What restrictions were in place, were they enforced, what variant of covid, what was base level of infections at start of the period, what was happening on neighboring areas etc.

High level look at overall cases doesnt really answer how effectivective a vaccine is or isn't.

Funny how you omitted that I said I'm working on the same thing state to state I've already seen 4 I'm through the I's BTW $ states where post-vaccination case totals are higher than the state's previous peak(s) others are equal or just below those totals. I can even go down the county level.

I didn't omit it, I posted out comparing overall cases location to location doesn't give you an answer. You can do 2 locations you can do 200 it still doesn't give you an answer.

So your assertion is if cases are higher than the previous high in certain states after the vaccines it doesn't show the lack of effectiveness of said vaccine? my first impression is you are trying to live up to your screen name but aI seem to recall you are much more intelligent than that.

I'm going to load each state I've done so far and you tell me if you have skeptical conclusions, keep in mind I'm working on a complete presentation but this is a sneak peek

Generally, if you see a pink line spike approaching the pre-vaccine peak(s) in the state, it's damn near ignorant to say vaccines lower cases. Hell both Bama and Alaska the first two states both have higher case totals than the pre-vaccine high

6 states out of 8 so far have higher case total post vaccines than pre vaccine

Kentucky's post-vaccine highpoint is nearly 1000 persons per 7 days average than the pre-vaccine high

originally posted by: mufuzzballs
The vaccine is a bandaid. It does not offer a cure and a way out of pandemic. The only way out is natural immunity. Either you take the vax and then catch the bug, or you don't take the vax and catch the bug.

The data clearly shows the second option is significantly more risky the older you get.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Personally I chose to get vaxxed because it originally prevented illness/transmission.

You didn't choose to get vaxxed because it 'originally prevented transmission'.

You were told a lot of things that were not true.......it never did prevent transmission.

That's why some people are waiting......for the trial results......because no one knows what the vaccine is capable of.

I just love the way you push these vaxs......and then say 'I don't believe in mandates' and 'I won't have a booster'.

I just read about Dr. Sohrab Lutchmedial.

It looks like being vaccinated dramatically reduces transmission.

www.newscientist.com...

Yea not gonna lie I take anything for established UK media with a grain of salt. AS has been mentioned perhaps there is something else that drives cases on a local and even a state level. Again how does unvaxxed Georgia with 13% fewer vaccinated persons have significantly fewer cases? Georgia's population is double Minnesota's. It's a logical conclusion that natural immunity is at least playing some part, cause Georgia has been opened up with no restrictions for a while. Just highlights ANOTHER reason why national mandates and restrictions are BS.

To me, it just goes through waves, and sooner or later everybody takes the hit, and then it goes away.

Secondly, the question at least for me if the difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed is so small, its insignificant statistically

I think there are a huge number of variables that affect covid cases & outcomes between locations and naturally immunity absolutely plays a major part.

The numbers just show that the number of cases and serious outcomes are dramatically reduced amongst the vaccinated.

ETA and I would agree that in most cases local more targeted measures are better than a national one size fits all strategy.

well again the difference in. The high in cases before vaccines 7 day average nationally was 250,468 on January 8th,

The high of170,590 cases on a 7-day average nationally post vaccines on September 13th. 80,000 case difference that said in Alabama for instance cases peaked higher after vaccinations than the previous high. To me this is the point we have enough data points now to see what may of may not work at a state or city level.

Working on the state-to-state differences I'm already seeing states that post-vaccine high is actually higher than the pre-vaccine high. Like with the national picture of hotpots for cases per 100,000 generally the southeast least vaccinated show lighter fewer cases than the northeast or midwest and both those areas again generally have much higher vaccination rates. SO when I hear the blanket statement vaccine lessen cases while it may be correct on a national level YMMV at the state, county, and city level.

usafacts.org...

Problem is if you are looking a comparing one location to another, or one time period to another you are ignoring all those other variables.

What restrictions were in place, were they enforced, what variant of covid, what was base level of infections at start of the period, what was happening on neighboring areas etc.

High level look at overall cases doesnt really answer how effectivective a vaccine is or isn't.

Funny how you omitted that I said I'm working on the same thing state to state I've already seen 4 I'm through the I's BTW $ states where post-vaccination case totals are higher than the state's previous peak(s) others are equal or just below those totals. I can even go down the county level.

I didn't omit it, I posted out comparing overall cases location to location doesn't give you an answer. You can do 2 locations you can do 200 it still doesn't give you an answer.

So your assertion is if cases are higher than the previous high in certain states after the vaccines it doesn't show the lack of effectiveness of said vaccine? my first impression is you are trying to live up to your screen name but aI seem to recall you are much more intelligent than that.

I'm going to load each state I've done so far and you tell me if you have skeptical conclusions, keep in mind I'm working on a complete presentation but this is a sneak peek

Generally, if you see a pink line spike approaching the pre-vaccine peak(s) in the state, it's damn near ignorant to say vaccines lower cases. Hell both Bama and Alaska the first two states both have higher case totals than the pre-vaccine high

6 states out of 8 so far have higher case total post vaccines than pre vaccine

Maybe I haven't made my point clearly. Looking at the change in cases before and after doesn't tell if the vaccine is effective or not

For example where I live the number of cases has absolutely went up, and we have a very high level of vaccine uptake.

However in line with the increased number of vaccinated people have also removed virtually all of the previous restrictions reducing spread. We are also approaching what you would expect to be a peak period with more people indoors and the variant is more infectious.

On order to see if the vaccine works are not you need to compare similar populations (time/location/demigraphics) one vaccinated and one not. When this is done studies consistently show lower cases and much lower serious cases.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

One more prof that the virus will not kill humanity and is not as deadly as any other virus due to age related issues.

Wow the hoax pandemic was that just a hoax.

How do you like that fact.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Personally I chose to get vaxxed because it originally prevented illness/transmission.

You didn't choose to get vaxxed because it 'originally prevented transmission'.

You were told a lot of things that were not true.......it never did prevent transmission.

That's why some people are waiting......for the trial results......because no one knows what the vaccine is capable of.

I just love the way you push these vaxs......and then say 'I don't believe in mandates' and 'I won't have a booster'.

I just read about Dr. Sohrab Lutchmedial.

It looks like being vaccinated dramatically reduces transmission.

www.newscientist.com...

Yea not gonna lie I take anything for established UK media with a grain of salt. AS has been mentioned perhaps there is something else that drives cases on a local and even a state level. Again how does unvaxxed Georgia with 13% fewer vaccinated persons have significantly fewer cases? Georgia's population is double Minnesota's. It's a logical conclusion that natural immunity is at least playing some part, cause Georgia has been opened up with no restrictions for a while. Just highlights ANOTHER reason why national mandates and restrictions are BS.

To me, it just goes through waves, and sooner or later everybody takes the hit, and then it goes away.

Secondly, the question at least for me if the difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed is so small, its insignificant statistically

I think there are a huge number of variables that affect covid cases & outcomes between locations and naturally immunity absolutely plays a major part.

The numbers just show that the number of cases and serious outcomes are dramatically reduced amongst the vaccinated.

ETA and I would agree that in most cases local more targeted measures are better than a national one size fits all strategy.

well again the difference in. The high in cases before vaccines 7 day average nationally was 250,468 on January 8th,

The high of170,590 cases on a 7-day average nationally post vaccines on September 13th. 80,000 case difference that said in Alabama for instance cases peaked higher after vaccinations than the previous high. To me this is the point we have enough data points now to see what may of may not work at a state or city level.

Working on the state-to-state differences I'm already seeing states that post-vaccine high is actually higher than the pre-vaccine high. Like with the national picture of hotpots for cases per 100,000 generally the southeast least vaccinated show lighter fewer cases than the northeast or midwest and both those areas again generally have much higher vaccination rates. SO when I hear the blanket statement vaccine lessen cases while it may be correct on a national level YMMV at the state, county, and city level.

usafacts.org...

Problem is if you are looking a comparing one location to another, or one time period to another you are ignoring all those other variables.

What restrictions were in place, were they enforced, what variant of covid, what was base level of infections at start of the period, what was happening on neighboring areas etc.

High level look at overall cases doesnt really answer how effectivective a vaccine is or isn't.

Funny how you omitted that I said I'm working on the same thing state to state I've already seen 4 I'm through the I's BTW $ states where post-vaccination case totals are higher than the state's previous peak(s) others are equal or just below those totals. I can even go down the county level.

I didn't omit it, I posted out comparing overall cases location to location doesn't give you an answer. You can do 2 locations you can do 200 it still doesn't give you an answer.

So your assertion is if cases are higher than the previous high in certain states after the vaccines it doesn't show the lack of effectiveness of said vaccine? my first impression is you are trying to live up to your screen name but aI seem to recall you are much more intelligent than that.

I'm going to load each state I've done so far and you tell me if you have skeptical conclusions, keep in mind I'm working on a complete presentation but this is a sneak peek

Generally, if you see a pink line spike approaching the pre-vaccine peak(s) in the state, it's damn near ignorant to say vaccines lower cases. Hell both Bama and Alaska the first two states both have higher case totals than the pre-vaccine high

6 states out of 8 so far have higher case total post vaccines than pre vaccine

Maybe I haven't made my point clearly. Looking at the change in cases before and after doesn't tell if the vaccine is effective or not

For example where I live the number of cases has absolutely went up, and we have a very high level of vaccine uptake.

However in line with the increased number of vaccinated people have also removed virtually all of the previous restrictions reducing spread. We are also approaching what you would expect to be a peak period with more people indoors and the variant is more infectious.

On order to see if the vaccine works are not you need to compare similar populations (time/location/demigraphics) one vaccinated and one not. When this is done studies consistently show lower cases and much lower serious cases.

LOL you seriously think there is no value in seeing this data as it is right now? then WITF do they compile this? IF IT MEANS NOTHING. Makes no sense my friend, and I indeed know you are much much more intelligent than that. LOL, we have crossed paths in the past. Step back and think what's that term? ..... critically

a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Then why a booster shot, you know why? because they are crap they never were mean to fix anything and this virus will do as any other virus before, it will die out and people will get natural immunity.

The only ones getting anything out of this jabs is big pharma and all those behind the hoax.

Because is not about the virus, but what is been injected in people in some of the darn jabs Consider yourself lucky that you were no one of the targets, for the experiment agenda.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: ScepticScot

Then why a booster shot, you know why? because they are crap they never were mean to fix anything and this virus will do as any other virus before, it will die out and people will get natural immunity.

The only ones getting anything out of this jabs is big pharma and all those behind the hoax.

Because is not about the virus, but what is been injected in people in some of the darn jabs Consider yourself lucky that you were no one of the targets, for the experiment agenda.

Cool story. Let me know if you sell the movie rights.

Meanwhile back in reality.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

You pretty much said vaccines lower cases period, now you are saying you need pristine lab data and not real-world data. You may live in a pristine lab but most of us live in the real world.

FWIW I know from your past threads even you don't EVER EVER admit you may be wrong much less actually admit you are wrong. But you keep doing you it obviously works for you.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

You pretty much said vaccines lower cases period, now you are saying you need pristine lab data and not real-world data. You may live in a pristine lab but most of us live in the real world.

FWIW I know from your past threads even you don't EVER EVER admit you may be wrong much less actually admit you are wrong. But you keep doing you it obviously works for you.

Happy to admit I am wrong when I am. Its a rare occurrence and I love the novelty.

It's not about pristine lab data The studies showing the effectivness of the vaccines use real world data.
They just use it correctly .

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

You have explained like a skeptic, how about showing with empirical data.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

You pretty much said vaccines lower cases period, now you are saying you need pristine lab data and not real-world data. You may live in a pristine lab but most of us live in the real world.

FWIW I know from your past threads even you don't EVER EVER admit you may be wrong much less actually admit you are wrong. But you keep doing you it obviously works for you.

Happy to admit I am wrong when I am. Its a rare occurrence and I love the novelty.

It's not about pristine lab data The studies showing the effectivness of the vaccines use real world data.
They just use it correctly .

LOL got any links or is it all in your skeptical head....

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

You have explained like a skeptic, how about showing with empirical data.

We are taking about your methodology, not the data.

What your doing isn't a valid way of measuring vaccine effectiveness.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

You pretty much said vaccines lower cases period, now you are saying you need pristine lab data and not real-world data. You may live in a pristine lab but most of us live in the real world.

FWIW I know from your past threads even you don't EVER EVER admit you may be wrong much less actually admit you are wrong. But you keep doing you it obviously works for you.

Happy to admit I am wrong when I am. Its a rare occurrence and I love the novelty.

It's not about pristine lab data The studies showing the effectivness of the vaccines use real world data.
They just use it correctly .

LOL got any links or is it all in your skeptical head....

Multiple studies here

www.cdc.gov...


From the UK

www.gov.uk...

If you prefer non governmental sources.

www.ndm.ox.ac.uk...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

You pretty much said vaccines lower cases period, now you are saying you need pristine lab data and not real-world data. You may live in a pristine lab but most of us live in the real world.

FWIW I know from your past threads even you don't EVER EVER admit you may be wrong much less actually admit you are wrong. But you keep doing you it obviously works for you.

Happy to admit I am wrong when I am. Its a rare occurrence and I love the novelty.

It's not about pristine lab data The studies showing the effectivness of the vaccines use real world data.
They just use it correctly .

LOL got any links or is it all in your skeptical head....

Multiple studies here

www.cdc.gov...


From the UK

www.gov.uk...

If you prefer non governmental sources.

www.ndm.ox.ac.uk...

LOL the CDC and UK Government? Now imagine if you applied your skeptical eye in that direction. I guess your skepticism has its limits. I imagine you are all for vaccine passports as well

I always use reports from departments and governments that have pushed a narrative from it's inception, yea it isn't gonna be biased at all, noi to mention these "credible sources" have moved the goalposts the last 19 months pretty much like you did there Laddie

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: putnam6

I have explained exactly why what your doing doesn't tell you if the vaccines are effective.

It's entirely up to you if you want to accept that.

You pretty much said vaccines lower cases period, now you are saying you need pristine lab data and not real-world data. You may live in a pristine lab but most of us live in the real world.

FWIW I know from your past threads even you don't EVER EVER admit you may be wrong much less actually admit you are wrong. But you keep doing you it obviously works for you.

Happy to admit I am wrong when I am. Its a rare occurrence and I love the novelty.

It's not about pristine lab data The studies showing the effectivness of the vaccines use real world data.
They just use it correctly .

LOL got any links or is it all in your skeptical head....

Multiple studies here

www.cdc.gov...


From the UK

www.gov.uk...

If you prefer non governmental sources.

www.ndm.ox.ac.uk...

LOL the CDC and UK Government? Now imagine if you applied your skeptical eye in that direction. I guess your skepticism has its limits. I imagine you are all for vaccine passports as well

I always use reports from departments and governments that have pushed a narrative from it's inception, yea it isn't gonna be biased at all, noi to mention these "credible sources" have moved the goalposts the last 19 months pretty much like you did there Laddie

No goal posts moved at all. The data shows the vaccines are effective and I have provided multiple studies to demonstrate.

Now if you a 'credible source' to show otherwise then please share.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Misuse of statistics - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Duo writes about how health statistics can mislead | Association of Health Care Journalists
healthjournalism.org...

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: ScepticScot
Misuse of statistics - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Duo writes about how health statistics can mislead | Association of Health Care Journalists
healthjournalism.org...

Yes just comparing Covid cases before and after vaccination by state would be highly misleading.

I am glad you agree.

a reply to: ScepticScot
I am not agreeing....
Just showing how data is not truth.

A 2009 investigative survey by Dr. Daniele Fanelli from The University of Edinburgh found that 33.7% of scientists surveyed admitted to questionable research practices, including modifying results to improve outcomes, subjective data interpretation, withholding analytical details and dropping observations because of gut feelings…. Scientists!

Misleading Statistics & Data – News Examples For Misuse of Statistics
www.datapine.com...