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 sdack View Post
    Actually one can somewhat speculate about what education you have after reading your comments. I certainly have an idea.
    That explains how you come to your other conclusions you try to get some "feelings" about things and then assume this feelings represent the truth or science.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
      That explains how you come to your other conclusions you try to get some "feelings" ...
      It is not a feeling. You talk a lot of rubbish and when asked about your education do you evade the question. Yet, the topic was about the know-how missing in other countries for making the vaccine, and educated people are fundamental to solving this problem. It is simply my experience that people who have little education also know little about education.

      Do you now want to continue playing the hurt sheep that never had a chance to go to school, or do you actually want to talk about about the problem of the missing know-how? The choice of where this discussion is going is up to you.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WeAreDoomed View Post
        Well, according to Nietzsche, living indeed is suffering, so every humans are miserable, I though you would know that, this is common knowledge after all.
        You see, that's the problem with hypothesis, you can formulate two, and yet they can both be wrong .
        *lol* No. Living certainly is not simply suffering. Nietzsche should only ever be read with the time period in mind in which he lived. He did not see any of the two world wars for instance. Maybe if he had he would have had an idea of what suffering means. Only he himself suffered from mental illness and used drugs afaik, which I imagine will make one believe that suffering is all there is in life. Nor do I believe that you suffered when you quoted Nietzsche and made your comment. Or did you?

        Comment


        • We’re used to hearing about the ‘efficacy’ of vaccines. “Trials show the vaccine is 90% effective,” for example. But what does that actually mean?

          It means that if the risk in the unvaccinated group was (say) 1% and in the vaccinated group (say) 0.1%, then the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is 0.9/1 = 90%. This is the number for efficacy quoted in studies.

          But the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) in this example is 1-0.1 = 0.9%. For an individual, this is the important number, because it tells you by how much your risk should be lowered by being vaccinated. That must then be compared to the risks from the vaccine.

          And you need to ask: is that the risk reduction of merely testing positive? Mild symptoms? Severe disease? Death? It’s not always clear.

          For most people, the ARR for Covid vaccines is extremely low, because for most people, the risk to begin with is very low. Because they sound far less impressive, you rarely hear ARRs quoted. Yet they are crucially important. This Lancet study shows the ARRs for cases (not deaths) for the various vaccines based on clinical trials. These are as follows:

          Pfizer: 0.8%
          J & J: 1.2%
          Moderna: 1.2%
          AstraZeneca: 1.3%

          For younger age groups, it is far lower than this. Furthermore, younger people are far less likely to have serious symptoms so the ARR for serious illness and death is lower still.

          Let’s have a look at the ARR for children.

          In the UK, the probability of a child of school age dying of Covid in a 12 month period (the time vaccine antibodies might be expected to last) is about 1 in 700,000.

          Other things being equal, this means 700,000 children need to be vaccinated in order to prevent 1 child Covid death. Leaving aside the absurd cost (ie huge profits to pharmaceutical companies), just one blood clot or other vaccine-induced death in 700,000 vaccinations would cancel out the benefit. Never mind the unknown long-term effects.

          Yet impressive-sounding headlines like “Covid vaccine is 100% effective in kids ages 12 to 15” say nothing about the almost zero ARR.
          Understanding Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) - not just the quoted efficacy - is key to weighing up the pros and cons of the vaccine for different people. For many, the vaccine risk won’t be worth the near-zero Covid risk reduction.

          And it’s the ARR for deaths and serious illness, not ‘cases’ and mild symptoms, that matter.

          Always look past the headlines.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by piorunz View Post
            [...]
            It means that if the risk in the unvaccinated group was (say) 1% and in the vaccinated group (say) 0.1%, then the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is 0.9/1 = 90%. This is the number for efficacy quoted in studies.[...]
            [ARR]These are as follows:
            Pfizer: 0.8%
            J & J: 1.2%
            Moderna: 1.2%
            AstraZeneca: 1.3%
            [...]Always look past the headlines.
            Why are you ignoring the answers given to you on page 41? You really think nobody would notice your copy and paste from 10 pages ago?
            RRR don't change, ARR are changing during a pandemic, this is easy to understand. The ARR you show here come from the beginning of the pandemic, so of course there are small, why don't you calculate them during the peak of the pandemic? Also the calculation here is for the whole population, the ARR is higher if you focus on exposed group (typically seniors).

            Last edited by WeAreDoomed; 21 June 2021, 06:58 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
              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.
              Please explain.

              It seems to me that the vaccines should be a lot safer, since they target only a small number of highly-selected viral proteins, contrary to whatever your immune system happens to train on, when you actually do get the virus.

              Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
              This is one of the reasons I bought all that Pfizer stock.
              So, you do have faith in the safety and efficacy of their vaccine! Either that, or you're betting on a "cure", which will probably be just another monoclonal antibody treatment - kinda like what the vaccines help your body create.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Qaridarium
                then you say MRIs proof humans are resistant to low frequency magnetic fields then you put metall into your body (magnetic nano particles in the vaccine) and you are no longer allowed to have an MRI if you do it anyway you will get burned inside and die.
                So, you're saying that nearly 70% of Americans can no longer get MRIs (and probably comparable numbers of Brits and Israelis)? That seems unlikely.

                It should be pretty easy to find out, by scheduling a MRI appointment. See how long the wait time is, and see if they take you even if you're vaccinated. You could also stand outside a MRI center and ask people leaving if they got a MRI and were vaccinated.

                I'm not saying you should do these things, just that the claim is easily testable without directly experimenting on a vaccinated person.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gps4life View Post
                  I serious find it shocking, that you seem to repeat only the nonsense the main stream mediia shows us.
                  What if it's not wrong? Even if you don't trust MSM on some things, they would lose credibility with the public if they lied about everything.

                  Originally posted by Gps4life View Post
                  Do you know the difference between a positive pcr test and an infection ?
                  That's why you see test results being tracked along with hospitalizations and deaths. When test positivity spikes, hospitalizations soon follow. And then, after that, deaths also spike. So, test positivity doesn't need to be 100% accurate to be a useful leading indicator.

                  Originally posted by Gps4life View Post
                  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?
                  Because there's been enough testing to show that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Emergency use authorizations exist precisely for this sort of scenario.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by piorunz View Post
                    For example: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistic...ekly-file.xlsx
                    That shows you that 87,213 Covid deaths within 28 days of a positive test have been recorded in England hospitals. Of these 83,624 all died of other serious pre-existing conditions, but they were recorded as Covid deaths anyway. It means, 3,589 people have died OF Covid-19, not WITH Covid and many other illnesses.

                    3589 people out of 56 million.

                    That's government data. Maybe "fact check" that.
                    One thing to note is that vulnerable populations were the first to get vaccinated and that data is from just a few weeks ago. Therefore, we should expect Covid deaths to be down. That's the effect of the vaccine that you're seeing!

                    Also, Covid & other illnesses stress weak and vulnerable. It causes organ damage that can exacerbate their existing health conditions. So, it seems fair to me that if their health condition deteriorated while they had Covid, that it should be listed as a contributing factor.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                      Next absurd claim that it can die out, this zero Covid bullshit we hear since the beginning, we would need china level dictatorship worldwide in every country to maybe have a slight chance to get there.
                      That's not true. Australia, New Zealand, and many Asian countries have done a fantastic job of controlling the outbreak, even before there was a vaccine. The formula is quite simple. Once the numbers get low enough, then testing, contact tracing, and quarantining infected and exposed individuals could be used to stomp out any embers, before they turn into flareups. And if we have herd immunity and what appear to be effective antibody treatments, the duration of quarantining can be shortened and level of compliance needn't be as high.

                      Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                      And Bill Gates refused even to give the patent free to make the vaxxine in "3rd world" countries...
                      He doesn't own any of these patents, so they're not his to give. His point was that the mRNA vaccines are new technology and simply giving away the patents wouldn't mean that others will be successful in making them. If you want to scale up the production of the vaccines, a better way to do that is have the companies which created them license the IP and technology to partners, and work with them to help them implement it successfully.

                      Originally posted by blackiwid View Post
                      It's very similar in many ways (not all) to the flu so how well do we do in getting rid of the flu? It's seasonal it will come back every year so we have to learn to live with it for probably forever...
                      A few key differences:
                      • The flu virus mutates more rapidly, due to having a second method of introducing mutations
                      • Flu has animal reservoirs, most notably in birds which tend to migrate, you know?
                      • There are several strains of flu virus, and the vaccines that we've been using are practically limited to targeting just a few. This introduces the added variable that the producers have to basically guess which strains to target about 8 months in advance of cold & flu season
                      • New vaccine technology has the potential to enable much more effective flu vaccines. Watch this space!
                      Still, you might be correct that at least some people end up having to take annual Covid vaccine booster shots. Maybe it'll even get mixed in with the flu shot. We'll see.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X