Then why do you promote Ivermectin if that's the case, you have no problem promoting quackery which doesn't meet your own criteria but for vaccines you are very vocal about it.
Quit your bullshit.
81 Research Studies Confirm Natural Immunity to COVID ‘Equal’ or ‘Superior’
- Thread starter exlib
- Start date
Then why do you promote Ivermectin if that's the case, you have no problem promoting quackery which doesn't meet your own criteria but for vaccines you are very vocal about it.
Quit your bullshit.
The rate of breakthrough cases reported among those fully vaccinated is below 1% in all reporting states, ranging from 0.01% in Connecticut to 0.54% in Arkansas... the reason why some people use the 0.5% stat is that it's the worst number.
I posted the below breakthrough rates chart several months ago when it really wasn't important to me because I'm more concerned about Covid Hospitalization, ICU Admission, and Deaths due to the fact that it's the data that results in the extreme restrictions / public health guidelines in comparison to Infections...in the United States and Canada.
- Canada chart not shown below but it has similar like data for its Provinces.
There are other data statistics that are subscription based and only accessed by hospitals and states public health agency that get more into the different groups of breakthrough rates (e.g. ethnicity, county, age, type of vaccine, co-morbility, etc).
I don't know what state you're in but you may try contacting your state's public health agency for how to get access to that data if it's not public.
The group data that I'm the most interested in...right now is not being kept. That's the body/fat index (Body mass index BMI) of Covid patients that are hospitalized while the U.S. has one of the highest (top 20) for Obesity Rates @ 36.20 in 2016 in the world.
wrbtrader
Last edited:
Clinical Trials for vaccines do not take 5 years - you are pushing nonsense.
As with all vaccines the Phase 3 trials and presentation of the data takes under a year. Only 6 months of post vaccination follow-up data are required for full vaccine approval.
Aaron Rodgers was asked the same by a reporter when he stated he's using Ivermectin for his Covid illness because there's not enough research about Covid Vaccines.
Rodgers ignored the reporter and then responded to another reporter's questions about if he's taking the other antiviral drug treatments with Ivermectin. He was but I don't remember what they were but I would suspect it was the same as Joe Rogan.
wrbtrader
These are just slow people, nothing can be said and done to change their minds.
That KF database is not tracking breakthrough infections of people who had vaccinations. Most of not all of the states are reporting a different fact.
From what I read it is tracking breakthroughs on any given day.
So x.1 percent of the vaccinated are infected on the specific day of a test.
But what if tested them every day for a year or you tested their blood on a periodic basis? A proper statistical look shows more like 15% after antibodies wane.
From what I read it is tracking breakthroughs on any given day.
So x.1 percent of the vaccinated are infected on the specific day of a test.
But what if tested them every day for a year or you tested their blood on a periodic basis? A proper statistical look shows more like 15% after antibodies wane.
Last edited:
The CDC and KFF data IS TRACKING the breakthrough cases of people who are vaccinated. There are entire sections and tables dedicated to this. This is the largest publicly available database on Covid vaccinated breakthrough cases on the face of the earth. Yet this reality you keep pushing nonsense - whining about nonsense which is meaningless in the context of what the database provides. It shows people were vaccinated and then tested positive for Covid -- very clear & obvious to rational people.
You do not comprehend the argument.
It tracks those who test positive after a test on a particular day.
What about 2 weeks before or 2 weeks after? What about 2 months before or 2 months after?
That KF database would find only a small subset of those who test positive within a year of being vaccinated.
Do you comprehend the difference? It could be millions of people.
As I told you it does matter that its a large database it can not yield an accurate breakthrough rate as it is not tracking that data needed to produce a real breakthrough rate.
If you keep pretending the breakthrough rate is .5 percent without proper data you are anti science.
Other studies show much higher breakthrough rates.
It tracks those who test positive after a test on a particular day.
What about 2 weeks before or 2 weeks after? What about 2 months before or 2 months after?
That KF database would find only a small subset of those who test positive within a year of being vaccinated.
Do you comprehend the difference? It could be millions of people.
As I told you it does matter that its a large database it can not yield an accurate breakthrough rate as it is not tracking that data needed to produce a real breakthrough rate.
If you keep pretending the breakthrough rate is .5 percent without proper data you are anti science.
Other studies show much higher breakthrough rates.
Last edited:
You are just tossing nonsense into the discussion which has nothing to do with the context or reality of the how vaccinated breakthrough rates are calculated. You are pushing the anti-vaxxer theory that there are millions of magically undetected vaccinated breakthrough cases --- because of magically hidden infections due to not testing every person every single day. This is pure anti-vaxxer bullshiat used to claim vaccines don't work-- which has already been debunked in fact checks.
Definitions are very important to science, obviously not to those who post propaganda.
Infection rates are not magically hidden.
They are available to public health officials and researchers who wishes to test blood samples of a useful set of people.
Similar studies have been done with respect to overall infection rates which turned out to be 5x higher than the rate being published.
Infection rates are not magically hidden.
They are available to public health officials and researchers who wishes to test blood samples of a useful set of people.
Similar studies have been done with respect to overall infection rates which turned out to be 5x higher than the rate being published.