The reason I originally posted the University of Wisconsin example was to point out the fundamental illogic of this debate as it appears here. The Wisconsin folks, we have to assume, are intelligent people: they wouldn't be at the University otherwise. Some number of them, for reasons we do not know, have decided not to get the vaccine, but we must assume that their reasons make as much sense to THEM as ours do to any one of us. They can probably spout numbers, statistics, trends, etc. as impressively as any of the folks who post here, and I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that they're just as sure they are right as any of the folks here.

The only rational argument that the pro-vaccine people can offer up is, basically, preponderance of the evidence. But even that is suspect: we see scary numbers of people being diagnosed with the Delta variant of COVID, but the evidence as to the death rate of that variant is all over the board: do a Google search and see what you come up with. As they say, figures lie and liars figure. The ONLY common "argument" I've seen here is, basically, that they're wrong because they a) don't have the correct information, b) have been lied to, c) are stupid, or d) you fill in the blank.

The irony is that they, as in the folks at U of W, can say the exact thing about any person here, with as much (or as little) accuracy.

So who gets to decide which arguments are based on "emotion and misinformation" and which are not?

Hey Ocala, Why you hanging around this forum anyway??
 

Mind you own (neighborhood) business.

(EDIT: My unhelpful comment removed)

That one sentence sums it up for me.

There seems to be three sides to the vaccination discussion: vaccinated, unvaccinated, and dead. Since the vast majority of the dead are coming from the unvaccinated camp, choosing to be vaccinated is the safer place to be.

Here’s the adjustment you deny you made.

blueash quote
“The chart the OP posted reports that 36% of Black folks have received at least one dose, thus 64% have not. As they represent 12% of the US population, per the same KFF report, that means that unvaccinated Blacks are 7.6% of the US population. 41% of whites have not received any shots. Whites are 61% of the US population. “
——————————————

The link you offered as proof is just a puff piece. You should read it because you appear to have no idea what it says. The percentages are raw and not adjusted as you did above for the blacks. Also the methodology of the poll is missing so it’s accuracy cannot be determined. There is no R*2 given or t or F tests. The population, frame and sampling method is missing. It is written just as a hit piece on Republicans under the guise of ongoing research.

You said it yourself it IS approved by the CDC who is the only agency that can approve it for emergency use, in place of the FDA. I did NOT say it was FDA approved, I said it was approved, which it is. Approved as in authorized by the Government agency that can.

But, yes, let's play word games while people are dying because we are playing word games. That is what good patriots that love their country and fellow Americans do, play word games while our countrymen die.

My questions to CDC are what is the hospitalization and death rate for Delta?
 

A few questions I have for CDC are:
What is death rate of Delta variant. If you look at #s, it's low. Viruses mutate, typically getting more infectious, but less serious with each change.

What is science behind requiring vaccinated people to wear masks? Breakthrough % is .003%. There are 2 studies re breakthroughs; 1 rejected bc it is based on vaccine NOT used in US & a small study out of Houston, that is still under review.
Why are kids being masked?
The vaccine hasn't been tested on pregnant women. Shouldn't they, others that Dr's advise not get vaccinated, people with natural immunity & children under 12 be eliminated from vaccine goals.
Why not seek to understand why people aren't getting vaccinated? Why aren't blacks getting vaccinated...bc our VP has repeatedly told them medical community is racist?
Why is CDC silent on # of covid cases, unvaccinated people coming across our border?
Shouldn't the gov answer those questions?




The

The CDC has known since at least last November, that the PCR test were counting flu a
 

The CDC has know since at least last Nov that the PCR test was picking up the flu virus as Covid. However, not announced until this week, and labs have until 12/31 to replace them. Don't they owe us an estimate as to how many Covid cases were miscalculated? Also, is it coincidental that testing reco changes the day after Gates/Soros buys the reco test replacement co?

Also, why zero talk about theraputics? Not enough $, eliminates fear advantage/distraction or don't they work?

Why not transparency?

I told you all so...............:popcorn:

CDC mask decision followed stunning findings from Cape Cod beach outbreak - ABC News


Wait............

Told us WHAT?????

Here's the quote from the director of the CDC cited in YOUR article---

"Information on the delta variants from several states and other countries, indicate that in rare occasion some vaccinated people infected with a delta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread the virus to others," she added. "This new science is worrisome and unfortunately warrants an update to our recommendation."

So the question remains, why require masks in vaccinated people for such a "rare" event. Are they not revealing something, or are they just plain alarmists?

I think that current statistics will soon show that it is indeed causing vaccinated people to get sick with a "mild flu".

I have received a text from someone I trust that he has just tested positive for Covid after attending a group at a rec center here. He was notified that one person tested positive in the group and caught it from another in the group. The person I know had had both shots for Covid and is feeling "mild flu symptoms".

The graphs are showing high numbers hospitalized but they are much younger and most are from unvaccinated people. Most of us don't want to get even "mild flu symptoms". Most of us don't want anyone to get sick because of us either.

Well GG, this is a personal, not professional opinion, but i think the agenda of the powers that be is to force everyone back into wearing masks for God knows what reason. Therefore, the "statistics" they are going to present and the manner in which they present them may be biased. They will have the ability to "cherry pick" what they tell the public. Remember, "statistics don't lie, people lie with statistics"

I'm looking forward to what the CDC has to say today, and see if it is different (or backtracked) from what they said Tuesday. If so, it would suggest (not conclusively prove) that they are going along with a political agenda and not the science of epidemiology

COVId is nothing but political. Yes I can conclusively prove it. COVID just didn't happen.

Well, that would be quite an accomplishment. Go for it. Care to share your "proof" (no conspiracy theory websites please)?

Certainly everyone should be awaiting your “conclusive proof” about the politics of the virus.

The implication of your post, by questioning why you don’t see answers, is that there is some nefarious reason for the “silence”, when if fact there is no silence. The are answers, there is information, there are answers to all your questions.

They might not be the answers you want to hear, and you may need to carefully read the answer several times to get what they are saying.

In general their answers have been like, it is difficult to get precise numbers or death rates because things like testing has been curtailed (think political). So, any numbers we (CDC) have are based on limited data and the numbers are probably low do to under reporting.

The CDC is cursed when it prematurely makes announcements on preliminary data, and they are accuse of “hiding the truth” or lying when the hold off making announcement until they have solid valid data, and then they are accused of political flip flopping when new data shows things are different or changing.

There is definitely a political agenda to discredit the CDC. And this is clearly shown when you look at who trusts the CDC and who doesn’t.

So, you believe in a nefarious agenda that you can’t figure out, but are sure it exists…

[QUOTE=golfing eagles;1980591]
I'm looking forward to what the CDC has to say today, and see if it is different (or backtracked) from what they said Tuesday. If so, it would suggest (not conclusively prove) that they are going along with a political agenda and not the science of epidemiology[/QUOTE

I posted a link to the CDC report in another thread. The assertion that this is some sort of political stunt is laughable. Our government is not the only one on earth sounding the alarm

Here is a well written article about Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world, and it includes links to actual studies they are doing. Israel is reimposing indoor mask guidelines.

Attachment 90253

COVID-19 Case Data in Israel: A Troubling Trend?

[QUOTE=S=kBlogW;1980626]Not a political "stunt" by any means. I suggested that the data can be presented in such a way as to bias the public toward a desired political agenda, or not. Let's see. Please read carefully, I admit that I sometimes write in such a way that not all can understand.

Seems to me that a whole lot of people are getting hysterical over the "Delta" but have not chose to look at the death rate lately. Just because it is very contagious, does not equate to being as deadly. Maybe that will change, but right now the death rate is very low.

"FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine
FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine"

Hmmm, isn't "authorized" a synonym for "approved?"
Would the vaccines be released without approval? Would our gov. approve of an "unapproved" medication?

Sorry, but giving the suggestion that the vaccine is NOT approved is a dog that don't hunt. If one needs an excuse for their fear, I guess that might convince some.

CERTAINLY A VERY strong statement you make, but still waiting for the conclusive proof you talk of.

Will you be standing tall and advising us of this proof, or simply walk into the sunset ?

Excuse me…..I said STATEMENT you owed the forum…….it is an ACCUSATION for which you need to give your “conclusive” proof.

This is very true. Unfortunately at this point in time, the death rate is almost impossible to calculate because of all the testing being shut down. So, as the CDC said a couple of days ago, they have to assume the numbers they are getting are seriously underreported.

Which if the number of cases is seriously underreported, then the death rate is actually overestimated. But, see that is an assumption - science really tries to avoid assumptions. And without good data it is very hard to come to good conclusions.

He won't. EVERY single post he makes contact with misinformation that has been banned on various outlets because they have been PROVEN wrong over and over again. Don't bother feeding the troll. It doesn't work. It just gives them pleasure at being responded to.

EDIT: Byte1, I am not referring to you, but to the post, you were referring to:

EDIT: Grr, all that below is sort of wrong - sigh. My bad: From the FDA itself - sigh...

"On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued the first emergency use authorization (EUA) for a vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older."


EDIT: The below is partially wrong and partially right.

Hmm, interesting, I don't want to waste my time researching this because it is just more MISINFORMATION.

But, it seems I recall that the FDA can not give "emergency use authorization" that is the domain of the CDC. When something is needed NOW and can't wait for the FDA to finish all its paperwork, the CDC can be requested to evaluate and approve a EUA. If granted by the CDC the drug (or whatever) can then be used in the specified situations. the CDCs EUA was/is posted on their website. It has expired. But, is being discussed being reissued based on how long the FDA believes it is going to need to finish it's paperwork. The FDA has given NO indication it is not going to authorize it, just the opposite.

So, it is just playing word games, technically the FDA has not approved it. implying it is not safe. When the reality is the CDC went through exhaustive testing (some failed) to come to the EUA they authorized. Obviously, not everything the FDA would do was done - because it was an emergency. So, we are not sure if all technicians working on the production were/are certified. But about the efficacy and short-term safety, there is NO doubt period.

So, this is one more of those bits of "misinformation" that are putting people's lives at risk, resulting in deaths.

Sadly, I do think most of the people we see posting misinformation here, actually believe it. Which makes it even more dangerous.