I missed any refererence to weekly. If there was one, I’m sorry I missed it… I had been assuming a 1 per 1000 average daily rate there.
Most of the references I’ve seen are to 7 day average of daily rates, though I do now see the cdc ranges are defined based on weekly cases…
If you think that article is nonsense, then you agree the study itself is nonsense. Because that entire article is just describing the methodology used for the study. It really isnt making any arguments, besides calling out the fallacies. I admit I’m not digging into the study, but there’s not even a mention of if those hospitalized persons who “have covid-like symptoms” were even in the hospital because of those symptoms.
That makes it even worse, because this claim makes it more likely that a lot of the vaccinated are also previously infected.
How do you get such a pool? That is what the research is supposed to be - identifying the unvaccinated but previously infected, and the vaccinated who’ve never been infected, and then looking at how many of each end up in the hospital with covid. By all appearances, their “research” was figuring out how to arrive at the desired conclusion.
I dont know about anyone else, but I’ve been talking about the number of people infected at any given time. Not the number of new infections each day. The number of new cases per day is only .22 per 1,000. Thus, I get my 3-per-1,000 number of people who are sick at any one time, based on the 10-14 day recovery period for each of those new cases.
And that .22 new cases per day (per 1,000) would yield 80 sick people per 1,000 in a year. Which, again, is no where near all of them, as you claimed.
Ymmv, tx (just picking the state at random) has been at ~1/1000 per day nearly five months out of the last year.
Yeah, he’s trolling the pro-vaccine crowd but OTOH, the other side doesn’t seem like they’re doing much science and doing a lot more mandates and propaganda instead of laying out the scientific basis for the cause.
Take kids right? Myocarditis is like 1 in 5-10k cases, so Pfizer does a study with 2000 kids, finds no cases of it, and the FDA declares it “safe”. This is clear BS - it’s not even clear it’s safer for healthy kids, but a 0.02% chance of some serious heart condition is not “safe”. Worth it? May well be, but the UK isn’t even recommending it for kids and leaving that as a personal medical decision while you know part of CA is going to mandate every school kid aged 5+ get vaccinated or else they’ll sic CPS on the parents just as soon as the CDC gives the green light following the FDA.
In the US, 0.0005% of these younger kids have been classified as a covid death (under 200 out of nearly 30M population), and while certainly not every kid has had covid, a decent fraction likely have. It wouldn’t take more than a 1/20 chance of death related to myocarditis to make the vaccine more deadly than covid in aggregate, and since the average kid who died “from Covid” had like 2-3 other serious health issues, you could easily see the covid risk for a healthy kid to be an order of magnitude lower than this.
All this is by way of saying the Biden approach to vaccine policy has been a dictatorial rather than a scientific one, so a little trolling is probably in order, especially since there are definitely anecdotal examples of people who had recent vaccines and the medical staff refusing to consider it as remotely possible that it could be related to whatever weird health issue suddenly happened and declaring them psychotic instead. So you figure not all the bad vaccine cases are getting reported so having someone keep an eye out for stuff like this is probably worthwhile even if you read it with a big grain of salt.
Okay? I’m just using the national numbers.
And you still havent even tried to explain how a 1 per 1000 rate means pretty much everyone will be infected in under a year as you claimed…
Don’t you? I think the pool would have to be HUGE to find a significant number of them who were later hospitalized. Much like the pool of all the vaccinated is huge compared to those who were later hospitalized with a breakthrough.
All I see in the article is the use of fallacies to make the research claims look like fallacies. For example:
Are oranges bigger than apples? Sure, but it has nothing to do with anything.
I don’t disagree with this, but at the same time I’m not convinced yet that this “research” is totally wrong. There’s often more than one way to solve a problem.
That’s pretty much the point. Those results wouldnt allow them to declare “5x more likely!”; at best they’d be stuck admitting that there isnt a statistically significant difference.
Isn that also the point? Those are the numbers used to reach the “5x more likely” conclusion. It is all apples and oranges if you are starting with the people who are hospitalized. When declaring how likely it is to be hospitalized, you need to start with the larger population that is not hospitalized.
At this point, it’s virtually impossible to get a clean sample of vaccinated people who havent been previously infected. Since, as you previously noted, lots of people have likely been sick but never formalized it with a test.
I’m still not understanding the whole argument about the vaccine protecting you better, anyways. It doesnt protect you, your immune system is what protects you. And your immune system learns from either the vaccine or the previous infection - and the vaccine’s entire purpose is to mimic the previous infection to produce the same immune system reaction. The only reason there should be any significant difference is if those who were previously infected were in fact not previously infected.
Earlier this morning Dr Ben Carter was talking about the 5-11 age children and Covid vaccination. (Not necessarily on your topic)
I consider his opinion valid. But he doesn’t agree with some of the studies that are happening today. His idea is simply put. “ The cure is worse than the illness” Young children can cope with Covid easily and taking the vaccine can possibly cause serious illness.
I’m thinking of talking to my grandson about his 5 year old little boy. What to do??
Dr Ben Carson
Offer your opinion, then respect their decision.
But that isn’t what they declared – this one was not about the likelihood of hospitalization. They said that of those hospitalized with respiratory (basically) symptoms (THE SAMPLE), the proportion of breakthrough cases (positive after vax) is ~5x smaller than the proportion of reinfections (positive after prior infection without vax).
They then declared that this shows that vaccines are better than prior infection at preventing another infection. Like you I question this, I even put the 
emoji after the link, because I wasn’t sure what to make of it. It doesn’t make sense to me why a vaccine may be better and I was hoping to see an explanation. Perhaps the fact that it’s a double dose – that’s like two small infections in a row. Or perhaps the vaccine evokes a stronger immune response in more people than the virus (because lots of people don’t even know they were sick and most get away with only mild symptoms). Anyway, this all warrants further studies 
.
Yet the first sentance of the link…
A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that vaccination provides better protection against hospitalization with COVID-19
I dont care why, I’m saying that you cannot determine how well one prevents a re-infection requiring hospitalization when you start your study with people who are already hospitalized.
CDC finds that the vaccines protect people against dying from non-covid causes in the time after their vaccine, at least in aggregate. Presumably the mechanism is that covid might not kill you but might cause heart issues or something that causes you to be more likely to die sooner after you recover and that those effects are smaller in people who were vaccinated.
Standardized mortality rates (SMRs) (deaths per 100 person-years) were calculated and compared with a rate ratio test between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups
Low SMR numbers are better.
After excluding COVID-19–associated deaths, overall SMRs after dose 1 were 0.42 and 0.37 per 100 person-years for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, respectively, and were 0.35 and 0.34, respectively, after dose 2 (Table 2). These rates were lower than the rate of 1.11 per 100 person-years among the unvaccinated mRNA vaccine comparison group (p <0.001). Among Janssen vaccine recipients, the overall SMR was 0.84 per 100 person-years, lower than the rate of 1.47 per 100 person-years among the unvaccinated comparison group (p <0.001). Among persons aged 12–17 years, SMRs were similar among the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients and unvaccinated comparison groups (p = 0.68 after dose 1 and 0.89 after dose 2). SMRs were also similar between Janssen vaccine recipients and unvaccinated comparison groups among Asian persons (p = 0.11). Among other subgroups defined by vaccine received, age, sex, and race and ethnicity, COVID-19 vaccine recipients had lower SMRs than did their unvaccinated counterparts (p <0.05).
These numbers suggest that MRNA was most protective, PFE almost as good, and JNJ definitely not as good. Not enough kids were dying of anything to prove the vaccines helped them, at least on an “avoiding dying” basis (possibly covid recovery or side effects could be more mild with a vaccine but that doesn’t look for this).
I’d assume the mechanism is simply that the vaccine gives your immune system a head start for when exposed to the virus; it’s the time your immune system spends “figuring out” a new virus that allows it to wreak havoc in your body. I didnt really think a study was necessary to determine this effect?
I’d expect those recovered from a previous infection would see similar results.
They weren’t looking at dying from covid, they were looking at dying from other stuff. Why else would you think more unvaccinated people were dying from non-covid causes these days?
Right - but isnt the premise that the virus permanently damages your body in various (both noticable and silent) ways, and without that damage people will live longer?
Or are they saying that someone requiring a quadruple bypass can get vaccinated and no longer be at risk of a heart attack, or that the vaccine keeps cancer patients alive longer?
Yes, I think that’s the premise. Also, I suppose, that the microchip side effects seem not to be killing people more than the reduced covid risk factors.