Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Encourages Kernel Developers & Everyone To Get Vaccinated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Then mind explaining how highly-vaccinated areas of the world are seeing a steep decline in infections since the vaccines? What's misleading about raw data that correlates to the availability of the vaccine?
    I'm glad you brought this up, while my background is in the medical field, and my degrees have medical field relevance and I work for a large medical lab, my job is actually analyzing data.

    One of the mistakes that many people make is in believing that correlation is the same as causation and it's something I have to fight with people at work all the time because they see 2 trends and thus a correlation and they can't understand that it doesn't necessarily mean that one is causing the other.

    Mind you, I have never said that the COVID-19 vaccines do not work, I believe the efficacy claims regarding the COVID-19 vaccines, I have no doubt that they work to the degree of effectiveness the manufactures claim.

    I do however have serious reservations about potential long term side effects, and I suspect that some of these side effects may mimic the long term effects of COVID-19 infections.

    As for the supposed correlation you mentioned, I have not seen the data myself, but let's assume for the sake of argument that such a correlation exists.

    It could be that people that get vaccinated are simultaneously also the type of people who are more likely to wear 2 masks all the time, more likely to wash their hands and engage in more aggressive social distancing, perhaps they are more likely to also embrace other health enhancing practices, such as healthier eating, more exercise, more Zinc and vitamin C.

    In other words, while I have no doubt that the vaccines are greatly increasing peoples' resistance to the virus, I think that there may be secondary behavior factors that need to be also accounted for.

    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    If the reason you're mentioning this is because "I'm healthy enough to a point where if I get infected again, I'll be fine", you're still following the logic of everyone else who refuses vaccination. As has been said over and over again, the primary goal is to eliminate the disease and protect society. That's why healthy people who have a near-0% chance of death should (and some do) take it.
    I hate to break this to you, but we will never get rid of this disease or this virus. Coronaviruses, there's at least 200 variants that I am aware of, have been around since at least 8,000 BC, that's 10,000 years. We are never getting rid of them, and I have no doubt that the COVID-19 vaccine will be something that's done every years like the Flu vaccine.

    This is one of the reasons I bought all that Pfizer stock.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
      What you basically just said is that you do not have a rebuttal for my statement.
      You are delusional at this point.

      Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
      For instance, Measles, before the vaccine, there were between 3-4 million people that were infected every year, 48,000 hospitalizations and only 400-500 deaths per year. The Measles vaccine didn't save "hundreds of millions lives", it saved, at most, 26,500 because the first Measles vaccine was available in 1968, which is 53 years ago and at a max of 500 deaths per year, that works out to 26,500 potential deaths.
      Come on, why are you so obtuse? Measles was 20 millions per years not 3 millions. 500 deaths per years? Do we live in the same world? Even in 2018 there were close to 150.000 deaths related to Measles. In 1990 it was close to 550.000 deaths. In 1980 it was close to 2.600.000 deaths. Where the hell do you get your number from?

      Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
      There are about 310 million people in the U.S., about 175 million have had at least 1 dose and 146 million are fully vaccinated.and in New York State, 70% of the population has received at least the first dose:
      Now I get it. I should have assume you would only speak for the US. Logical, after all, given your mindset, to only speak about your privileged situation.

      Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
      Herd immunity is here, time to stop living in fear and start living again.
      So, you live in a place where a majority of people are vaccinated and you had already COVID yourself, yet you use an anti COVID vaccine rhetoric.
      Brilliant.

      Comment


      • Qaridarium As Energy = planck's constant x frequency such 0-20Hz "weapons" would have a theoretical maximum energy of 6.626*10-34 * 20 =~ 1.2*10-32 J per photon and a wavelength of 340m. This is not only incredibly weak (13 orders of magnitude too weak to change chemical bonds [6*10.19J]). Such waves pass right through humans without interacting with them.
        Further, magnetic fields are incredibly benign. You can levitate a frog in a magnetic field of 16 telsa (1 mio times the earth's magnetic field) without harming it. MRIs also don't harm people despite pumping several kiloWatts of energy in the form of a magnetic field through them. The electrical conduits in your house produce 50Hz radiation btw. People have been fine for decades living near that.

        Originally posted by Qaridarium
        you are believe conspiracy shit you believe that magnetic wave weapons only operate at 2,4ghz or 5ghz or 60ghz... thats high frequencies and aluminium does work for these frequencies... (...)
        there is an interview with Dr Horton and a NSA guy about low frequency microwave weapons.... (...)
        The thing is, any frequency lower than 1.5Ghz by definition isn't a microwave anymore. You and the "NSA" guy are contradicting yourselves.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by bridgman View Post

          I don't think anyone has said that "you are fully protected if you take it". Efficacy ranges from ~50 to ~90% depending on the vaccine and the study, ie if you were to expose two similar groups to the same viral load the vaccinated group would have between 50% and 90% fewer infected people able to further spread the virus.

          In addition to efficacy numbers there are also efficiency measurements, ie the ability of the vaccine to prevent serious infection, measured in the same way. Efficiency numbers tend to be higher (67% to 97%) but still never reach 100%.

          The primary reason for getting vaccinated is for community benefit - if a large enough percentage of people are vaccinated then the virus tends to die out (R0 < 1) because it can not find enough suitable hosts to continue propagating and mutating. In the absence of a vaccine you can achieve similar results via masks, distancing, lockdowns etc... but the impact on everyday life is pretty severe and so vaccines (when available) are considered the best way to deal with diseases that are both contagious and dangerous.

          Simply getting yourself vaccinated never fully protects you though - even if you are fully vaccinated with the most effective vaccines you will eventually get sick if exposed to the virus for long enough and may still die from it. Having a sufficiently large percentage of people vaccinated (in both your area and any areas that you accept travelers from) is the only workable way to keep the virus under control that we know of today.

          Vaccination is a community exercise not an individual exercise, although individual vaccination does improve your odds.
          I am not a medical doctor so can't explain to you in detail, but maybe someone else can - anyway, let's read this study:
          https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...069-0/fulltext

          So basically pharma companies are publishing RRR ratio, instead of ARR ratio. Study explains:
          RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine
          absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population.


          absolute risk reduction (ARR) number for vaccines are:
          1.3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
          1.2% for the Moderna–NIH
          1.2% for the J&J
          0.93% for the Gamaleya
          0.84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech

          Yes, that's about 1% less risk of Covid-19 when you take the vaccine.
          Advertised numbers (RRR) are not showing entire picture.

          I can't explain how this works, but it's an alarming find.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
            Come on, why are you so obtuse? Measles was 20 millions per years not 3 millions. 500 deaths per years? Do we live in the same world? Even in 2018 there were close to 150.000 deaths related to Measles. In 1990 it was close to 550.000 deaths. In 1980 it was close to 2.600.000 deaths. Where the hell do you get your number from?
            So you can't follow the links I posted and Google doesn't work on your computer.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_measles

            https://www.webmd.com/children/vacci...table-diseases

            What it is: A highly contagious viral infection that involves the respiratory system, including the lungs and breathing tubes.
            How you get it: The measles virus gets into the air when someone who has it coughs or sneezes. It can also last for up to 2 hours on something they touched. Most people who aren't immune -- 90% -- will get it if they are near an infected person.
            Why it’s serious: Measles can cause pneumonia, brain swelling, and death. Before the vaccine, 3 million to 4 million people in the U.S. got measles each year, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 400-500 died.
            Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
            Now I get it. I should have assume you would only speak for the US. Logical, after all, given your mindset, to only speak about your privileged situation.
            Ah, the liberal pussy word du jour rears it's head, I'm also white, maybe it's my non-existent "white privilege".

            Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
            So, you live in a place where a majority of people are vaccinated and you had already COVID yourself, yet you use an anti COVID vaccine rhetoric.
            Brilliant.
            No, what is "brilliant" (<-- please note the sarcasm) is your lack of ability to understand what you read.

            Nowhere did I use "anti COVID vaccine rhetoric", I explained my reasons for not getting vaccinated against COVID-19 and i also expressed the opinion that if one is opposed to being vaccinated it doesn't necessarily make him/her an "antivaxxer".

            Learn how to understand what you read.
            Last edited by sophisticles; 17 June 2021, 11:25 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
              So you can't follow the links I posted and Google doesn't work on your computer.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_measles
              https://www.webmd.com/children/vacci...table-diseases
              "In 2011, the WHO estimated that there were about 158,000 deaths caused by measles. This is down from 630,000 deaths in 1990."

              Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
              Ah, the liberal pussy word du jour rears it's head, I'm also white, maybe it's my non-existent "white privilege".
              I am not familiar with the terms, must be an American thing.
              The privileges doesn't refer to your skin, or whatever, just the fact that you live somewhere with a high vaccination rate, which is, in my book, a privilege.

              Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
              No, what is "brilliant" (<-- please note the sarcasm) is your lack of ability to understand what you read.
              You just pass me a link which describe the million of deaths of measles, and you tell me I don't understand what I read.
              But what can I do if you don't make the difference between the deaths in the USA (500 per years) and the deaths in the world (millions).
              And don't tell you were only speaking of the USA since the beginning, you were clearly referring to the moment I said "vaccines save hundred of millions".

              Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
              Nowhere did I use "anti COVID vaccine rhetoric", I explained my reasons for not getting vaccinated against COVID-19 and i also expressed the opinion that if one is opposed to being vaccinated it doesn't necessarily make him/her an "antivaxxer".
              Learn how to understand what you read.
              Whatever suits your boat.
              "i also expressed the opinion that if one is opposed to being vaccinated it doesn't necessarily make him/her an "antivaxxer""
              Brilliant, again.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by piorunz View Post
                So basically pharma companies are publishing RRR ratio, instead of ARR ratio. Study explains:
                RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine
                absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population.


                absolute risk reduction (ARR) number for vaccines are:
                1.3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford
                1.2% for the Moderna–NIH
                1.2% for the J&J
                0.93% for the Gamaleya
                0.84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech
                Hello friend, I am not a medical expert but I can explain this one (because it is probability, not medicine).
                "RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population."
                Basically, if the chance of being infected with the real virus is small, it doesn't really matter (from a statistical point of view) if you are vaccinated or not, the absolute numbers will be small.
                So, if you consider that a population have only, let's say , 1% chance to be infected, the ARR can only be a small number, because the attack rates without a vaccine would already be low.
                This is great and all, but the "attack rates without a vaccine" is not something you can easily measure, and you don't want to wait for the epidemic to be at its peak just so you can measure this number. So, yeah, the ARR is a good measurement for when you should vaccine, in particular for recurring diseases, but in my opinion it makes little sense in the case of a global pandemic, because the "attack rates without a vaccine" is not something you want to take the time to measure.
                Last edited by WeAreDoomed; 17 June 2021, 03:40 PM. Reason: typo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by piorunz View Post
                  I am not a medical doctor so can't explain to you in detail, but maybe someone else can - anyway, let's read this study:
                  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...069-0/fulltext
                  Interesting (if strange) article. It seems to gloss over the fact that we blew past the 1% "risk of getting COVID-19" numbers that the article seems to be based on months ago... using the US as an example over 10% of the population has already tested positive for COVID-19.

                  The article is technically correct, in the sense that if there is little or no COVID-19 in your area then the risk reduction associated with getting vaccinated is much lower in the short term, and a number of first-world countries that were able to get COVID-19 under control by early lockdowns and contact tracing did not treat vaccination as an urgent priority.

                  On the other hand it is totally misleading in the sense that it replaces "portable" numbers (RRR) with totally situation-specific numbers (ARR) and implies that the ARR numbers are somehow more relevant to vaccine effectiveness.

                  If the article had been more clear that it was talking about vaccine "value" (is it worth it for country X to spend a bazillion dollars buying and administering vaccines) when they already have COVID-19 under control by other means ?) then that would have been OK, but it seems to be written in a somewhat sensationalized style and I'm actually a bit surprised that Lancet published it.

                  The big question IMO is whether any countries/states/regions are willing to keep tight travel restrictions in place until enough of the world has been vaccinated and they have effectively zeroed out COVID-19 activity in their own area via lockdowns / contact tracing / quarantines. If yes, then ARR might be a reasonable metric for whether to vaccinate or not. I have not seen any countries willing to take that gamble, however.

                  The problem is that (as experience has shown) even a single infected individual arriving in an area can trigger a major outbreak and in that area the risk number can shoot up close to 100% - and then ARR is pretty much equal to RRR anyways.

                  On a personal level, the same math applies. If you live out in the woods, never socialize, never go to the city, cut your own hair and grow/hunt all your own food then your personal ARR is very low you could make a very good argument that vaccination does not reduce your risk enough to bother.

                  The problem is that ARR is one of those things that makes more sense for large populations than for individuals - the arrival rate in your area of infected people might be sufficiently low that a government might consider a low ARR to be acceptable, but if that infected individual happens to be visiting you and results in one of your family members dying then knowing that "averaged across the whole country it's not so bad" won't make you feel any better.

                  EDIT - what WeAreDoom said
                  Last edited by bridgman; 17 June 2021, 05:23 PM.
                  Test signature

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Qaridarium
                    ok ... i have read articles about vaccined people become "magnetic" and are not allowed to get a MRI/fMRT...
                    so what if there are magnetic nano particles in the vaccine...
                    There are no magnetic nano particles in vaccines, it just doesn't make sense. It is quite sad in a way since I would have loved doing tricks after getting my shots, but no, just boring attenuated viruses or mrna or whatever. To think it started because some people were able to make spoon(s) stick to their body after a shot... But you know, a little sebum is all it takes.
                    So no, the articles about vaccines and MRI are just jokes. I don't know if it will make you feel any better, but magnetic anomalies are not a thing after taking a vaccine shot.

                    For the rest of your post, please don't take it the wrong way, but you should share your story with your family and close friends, they might be able to help.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by sdack View Post
                      This means little. You may only did not get any symptoms, or you got indeed lucky. You are merely ignorant and possibly got many people around you sick.

                      And vaccination works, or we would have more infections than before, especially with the latest mutation.
                      I serious find it shocking, that you seem to repeat only the nonsense the main stream mediia shows us.

                      Do you know the difference between a positive pcr test and an infection ?

                      Do you know this is a new type of vaccine ? Tested by a lot of people who trust their government and that in many countries, they had to put up an emergency law, to be able to do this?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X