COVID-19 Pandemic (Coronavirus)

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
45,062
Reputation
8,144
Daps
122,295
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
315,124
Reputation
-34,228
Daps
624,621
Reppin
The Deep State
:wow:

:mindblown:

They were off by 25x?! :damn: :dahell: :hhh:

They claimed 0.1%...when in reality is... 0.003%

They legit said 1 in 1000...when in reality its 0.03-in-1000 risk
:mindblown:

:stopitslime:




They claimed 1/1000...when the real number was


Fact Check-Pre-print study that claimed 1 in 1,000 risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccine was withdrawn due to miscalculation

Fact Check-Pre-print study that claimed 1 in 1,000 risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccine was withdrawn due to miscalculation
Reuters Fact Check
October 1, 20212:19 PMUpdated 17 hours ago
A pre-print study which claimed that there is a 1 in 1,000 risk of contracting a heart inflammation condition known as myocarditis has since been retracted due to a calculation.

The study which was conducted by researchers at The University of Ottawa Heart Institute, was featured in numerous blogs and social media posts as proof that the COVID-19 vaccine is unsafe for use.

“New Study Shows 1 in 1000 Develop Heart Inflammation After Covid Vaccination; Myocarditis and Other Related Heart Conditions Have Increased Death Rate Within 5 Years,” the headline of an article published on September 21 on The Gateway Pundit reads ( archive.is/t0XC3 ).

Examples of the claim shared on social media are viewable ( here ), ( here ), and ( here ).

Other links to blogs referencing the retracted study can be found ( archive.is/wip/aZzjV ) and ( archive.is/Lxnl2 ).

The study was first published on September 16 on the platform MedRxiv, a website that publishes studies that have yet to be peer-reviewed ( here ).

Studies go through a process known as peer-review where experts in a specific field analyze the piece to ensure its accuracy and to assess that it is of high academic standard ( here ), ( emory.libanswers.com/faq/24265 ).

The pre-print paper that has since been retracted is viewable in full ( archive.is/pvggn ).

The study had calculated an incidence rate of myocarditis in the Ottawa region post-vaccination by dividing the number of occurrences of the heart inflammation condition over a two-month period (June and July 2021) in Ottawa (32) by the total number of vaccinations in the area (reported as 32,379 in the pre-print).

The incidence rate of myocarditis, using these figures, equates to 10 for every 10,000 doses of the vaccine.

The pre-print paper had used an incorrect figure for the number of doses administered in Ottawa over that two-month period, however.

Between the week beginning May 30 and the week starting July 25, there had been 845,930 vaccines administered in the Ottawa region, according to data published by Ottawa Public Health, which is far greater than the figure used to calculate the incidence rate (32,379) ( here ). :mindblown:

The dominator (total vaccines administered over a two-month period in Ottawa) used to calculate the incidence rate of myocarditis in the pre-print study was approximately 25 orders of magnitude off the correct figure. ;gucci:

The study was then withdrawn on September 24 and in a statement the researchers said: "Our reported incidence appeared vastly inflated by an incorrectly small denominator (ie number of doses administered over the time period of the study). We reviewed the data available at Open Ottawa and found that there had indeed been a major underestimation, with the actual number of administered doses being more than 800,000 (much higher than quoted in the paper)” ( archive.is/UCKQK ).


“In order to avoid misleading either colleagues or the general public and press, we the authors unanimously wish to withdraw this paper on the grounds of incorrect incidence data,” they added.

The University of Ottawa Heart Institute released a statement saying that they were “sorry this error led to misinformation about the incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis” ( archive.is/wip/wJUnt ).

Meanwhile, numerous blog posts that reported on the study did not issue an update on these blogs regarding the retraction, nor did they mention that this study was a pre-print that had not been reviewed.

In response to the retracted pre-print, a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) sent Reuters a study released on September 3 which monitored adverse events following mRNA vaccines between December 14, 2020, and June 26, 2021, with data from Vaccine Safety Datalink. ( here ).

“Analyses of all ages combined did not detect a significant association between myocarditis/pericarditis and mRNA vaccines,” the report noted, although adding that there was evidence of “an association between mRNA vaccines and myocarditis/pericarditis in younger individuals”.

The latest CDC guidance states that young men are at greater risk of getting myocarditis after the second dose of an mRNA vaccine, although the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh risks ( here ).

VERDICT
Missing Context. A Canadian study had found that the incidence rate of myocarditis is 1 in 1,000 following an mRNA vaccine. The study has since been retracted due to an error making the above calculation, where the denominator was incorrect by a magnitude of roughly 25.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here.
 
Last edited:

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
315,124
Reputation
-34,228
Daps
624,621
Reppin
The Deep State
:ohhh:

FAgG1VoWEAMye96


























Vaccines beat natural immunity in fight against COVID-19

Vaccines beat natural immunity in fight against COVID-19
The best protection against COVID-19? Getting vaccinated, not waiting for illness to create natural immunity, says infectious disease expert Anna Durbin
h-h-vax-clinic-april21_090821_3000x2000.jpg

Katie Pearce

/ Sep 10

A common reason cited for not getting vaccinated against COVID-19—especially among the young and healthy—is "I trust my immune system" or some variation of that line. The same goes for those who have already had the virus and assume they've developed some natural immunity.

anna_durbin.jpg

Though the human immune system is indeed an extraordinary mechanism, it's not worth gambling with a disease as unpredictable and serious as COVID-19, says infectious disease expert Anna Durbin, a professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

"It's Russian roulette," she says. "Young people tend to think they're invincible. But it just takes that one slip and your entire life could change."

With the delta variant, we're seeing many more young people on ventilators in hospitals and dying, Durbin says. And declining the vaccine is more than just a personal decision: An infected person can easily transmit the virus to others, including immunocompromised people at higher risk for grave illness and children under 12 who can't yet access the vaccines.

During a conversation with the Hub, Durbin, a faculty member at the Center for Immunization Research, talked about some of the popular misconceptions surrounding natural immunity and the purpose of vaccines.

What would you say to someone who wants to put their faith in their own immune system with COVID-19?
It's not a good idea. Yes, natural infection does provide some immunity, so the next time you get that disease, you won't get as sick. But here's the problem: Your first encounter with that disease could go very wrong. With COVID-19, you could end up very ill, you could end up in the hospital, or you could die. We're seeing huge rates of hospitalizations and deaths, and you don't want to risk becoming one of those statistics. And there are other potential complications: You could lose your sense of taste and smell for months, you could develop long-haul COVID-19. It's an unpredictable disease, and we don't know how it's going to hit different people.

That's where the vaccines come in. Vaccines provide protection without any of the morbidities you can get with a natural COVID-19 protection. We don't have vaccines for things like the common cold because most people don't get very sick from that, so it's not worth the effort to make different vaccines for every different cold virus. But when we see viruses or other bacteria that can cause severe illness, like COVID-19, we need the protection of a vaccine to prevent the hospitalizations and deaths. Vaccines are the reason we no longer see so many other diseases that people suffered from in the past: smallpox, measles, polio, even chicken pox.

For those who have already had COVID-19 in the past, why would a vaccine still be necessary?
The vaccines still lower your risks. We have evidence showing that if you've been naturally infected with COVID-19 and you aren't vaccinated, your risk of getting reinfected with symptomatic disease is about 2.5–fold higher. When you introduce the vaccine to someone who's already had COVID-19, the body says, "Hey, I remember that, I'm going to stimulate the immune response so you're protected." You're pumping up your antibodies to higher levels so they can stop the virus before it enters your system.

"We're seeing some breakthrough infections among vaccinated people and will continue to, but that's expected and doesn't mean the vaccines are failing."
Professor, Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
So would someone who's had both COVID-19 and the vaccine have the most protection possible?
There's no doubt that natural infection confers immunity, and we're seeing some evidence—not surprising—that a previous COVID-19 infection plus vaccination provides more durable protection than simply vaccines alone. But that doesn't mean that vaccinated people should go out there and try to get infected. That risk just isn't worth taking as people, even young healthy people, can get very, very sick. We want to simply stop infections from happening, full-stop, to get this virus under control and prevent it from mutating further.

What if the response to that is "vaccinated people can transmit the virus, too," a fact now confirmed?
They can, but we have evidence showing that vaccinated people are less likely to both get infected and to transmit the virus, and may spread the virus for a shorter time.

Are antibody tests a reliable way for someone to assess their immunity to COVID-19?
There are a couple things that are flawed about that. First, antibody levels wane over time; that happens naturally. Second, these tests don't capture the full picture. Antibodies are just one part of the equation. They're not primarily responsible for preventing severe disease once you're infected—that's the job of your memory immune response, which remembers the pathogen it saw before and gears up to control infection. Then there's the whole other arm of your immune system called T-cells, whose job is to recognize the virus in your body, identify cells infected with the virus, and destroy those cells.

The antibody tests are designed to diagnose whether you've had the infection recently. They're not designed to tell you how your immune system is going to respond to COVID-19, or how well your vaccines are going to work.

What other misconceptions about immunity do you want to clear up?
I want people to understand that vaccination-induced immunity, like natural immunity, doesn't necessarily protect you from getting infected with COVID-19. The purpose of vaccinations is to prevent severe illness and death. So, yes, we're seeing some breakthrough infections among vaccinated people and will continue to, but that's expected and doesn't mean the vaccines are failing. Even with the delta variant, this is a success story because we're seeing vaccines for the most part do what they need to do.

Also, this topic of booster shots I think is a bit of a distraction right now. There's this idea out there that your immunity suddenly falls off a cliff at six or eight months. That's not what's happening. You still have that memory immune response, and that's why we're still seeing effectiveness against the delta variant.

The other thing I need to stress is that booster shots aren't going to stop delta. The only way we can do that is to have unvaccinated people get their initial vaccinations. That's the only way we're going to control not only delta but the emergence of other variants that could prolong or worsen this pandemic.
 
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
1,553
Reputation
556
Daps
3,981
Reppin
NULL
:lupe:How long did it take from the time you got it to when you started feeling bad?

got it @ 7... had a normal night of sleep, woke up feeling slightly achy :dwillhuh: and gradually got worse as the day went on. severe body aches :damn:, slight headache :shaq2:, cold sweats:sadbron:, pretty much no appetite. slept like shyt last night but started feeling better this morning, feel completely fine now :whew:
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
60,937
Reputation
9,113
Daps
168,245
A $100 vaccine incentive may have spurred 29,000 people in Harris County to get their first shot | Houston Public Media

A $100 vaccine incentive may have spurred 29,000 people in Harris County to get their first shot

A county public heath data analysis found roughly 28,700 people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn’t do so as of Sept. 18, the last day of available data.

PAUL DEBENEDETTO | POSTED ON OCTOBER 1, 2021, 8:08 AM

DSC07787-1-1000x667.jpg

Lucio Vasquez / Houston Public Media
Lina Hidalgo at a vaccination site in Spring Branch, on April 1, 2021.

About 29,000 Harris County residents who would otherwise go unvaccinated received their first shot in the last month and a half thanks to a $100 incentive, according to Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo.

A public heath data analysis shared with Houston Public Media found an uptick in vaccinations after Aug. 17, when Hidalgo announced that anyone getting a first shot at a Harris County Public Health vaccination site would receive a $100 cash card. That was followed by a second surge after the program was expanded on Aug. 26 to include any provider in the county.

The result, according to the county, was roughly 28,700 people getting vaccinated who otherwise wouldn’t do so as of Sept. 18 — the last day of available data. Hidalgo said she expected that number to be above 30,000 through Thursday, the last day of the incentive program.

“Thirty-thousand people would not have gotten the vaccine were it not for the program,” Hidalgo said. “That’s 30,000 people who almost have a 0% chance of dying from COVID, who have an extremely low chance of being hospitalized by it, and who have a much, much lower chance of transmitting COVID to their loved ones. So, I would say that’s a victory.”

The analysis looked at the seven-day average of first doses in Harris County and compared it to the collective average in Galveston, Brazoria, Montgomery and Fort Bend counties. Harris and the combined counties followed a similar pattern from July through mid-August, beginning to see a decline around Aug. 11.

But while those four counties saw their rates continue to decline, Harris County saw a noticeable increase from the beginning of the program through early September. Researchers then looked at the raw number totals in that gap between Harris and those surrounding counties to estimate the number of additional people who received their first shot.

HARRIS-COUNTY-VAX-CHART-1000x697.jpg

Data Provided By Harris County
*Chart data scaled to peak value for comparison.
What’s more, the analysis only counted Harris County residents, not those who traveled to Harris County from other areas, leading researchers to believe the analysis could be an undercount.

Getting a first shot doesn’t guarantee those people who participated will return for a second dose, though the county says its rate of follow-up is more than 96%. There is no incentive for a second shot.

The county originally spent $2.3 million to run the program through Aug. 31, pulling from $900 million in federal American Rescue Plan funds. Within its first week, county officials said the number of people looking to get vaccinated at county sites increased by more than 500%.

Nearly 76% of all eligible Harris County residents had received at least one dose of the vaccine as of Friday morning. That’s higher than the state of Texas as a whole, of which 71% of the eligible population has received at least a first shot. The total vaccination rate in Harris County is about 65%.

Hidalgo said she expected the fully vaccinated number to “catch up” in a matter of weeks.

“Very soon, 75% of our population will be fully vaccinated, and we’re seeing those hospital numbers drop at an accelerating rate,” Hidalgo said. “Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve had to recalibrate our projections on the kind of positive side, progress side. I think some of that, undoubtedly, we can attribute to vaccines.”

El Paso County announced on Sept. 20 that the city of El Paso was the largest in the state to reach what it called “herd immunity” — a 75% vaccination rate. Scientists have disputed that number, claiming the vaccination rate needed to naturally control the virus in a given area is closer to 85%.

That number also doesn’t account for unknown variants, which could continue to emerge without higher levels of vaccination, according to medical experts.

In a video released by the U.S. Department of State on Thursday, the president’s chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci stressed that an increase in the vaccination rate is an effective way of keeping those variants at bay.

“If you suppress the free distribution, spreading and transmission, the virus will absolutely do a very good job to prevent the emergence of mutations, which ultimately lead to the emergence of variants,” Fauci said.
 
Top