USA COVID-19 Vaccination Updates

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,920
2,708
1
This one is very interesting. I hope it's accurate.

Interesting TWIST on reporting the data:

  • 1,594,695 laboratory-confirmed breakthrough cases of COVID-19 among fully-vaccinated people in New York State, which corresponds to 11.9% of the population of fully-vaccinated people 12-years or older.
  • 56,868 hospitalizations with COVID-19 among fully-vaccinated people in New York State, which corresponds to 0.4% of the population of fully-vaccinated people 12-years or older.

1.5 million breakthrough cases is more than 25% of the TOTAL cases in NY state since the start of Covid. And more than 50% of total cases in the last 12 months. My guess is the total is way low since those who were vaxxed didn't test last summer. Also it doesn't match other numbers from other more reliable sources.
 
Last edited:

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,207
56,105
1
This one is very interesting. I hope it's accurate.

I believe we are now battling what is the normal flu. I don't think the latest strains of COVID are any worse than historical flus.

What does the future hold? Nobody knows. But what is scary is that the govts, media and medical industry have as little credibility as Milli Vanilli.
 

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,920
2,708
1
I believe we are now battling what is the normal flu. I don't think the latest strains of COVID are any worse than historical flus.

What does the future hold? Nobody knows. But what is scary is that the govts, media and medical industry have as little credibility as Milli Vanilli.
Girl you know its true!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNit07

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,207
56,105
1
Girl you know its true!
giphy.gif
 

Cletus11

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2003
11,775
8,156
1
I believe we are now battling what is the normal flu. I don't think the latest strains of COVID are any worse than historical flus.

What does the future hold? Nobody knows. But what is scary is that the govts, media and medical industry have as little credibility as Milli Vanilli.
fun fact, the first concert that I ever went to was Young MC and Milli Vanilli in Allentown/Lehigh area. It was about 6 months before the scandal broke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax

Grass

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 31, 2001
2,723
2,464
1
50
South San Francisco
I believe we are now battling what is the normal flu. I don't think the latest strains of COVID are any worse than historical flus.

What does the future hold? Nobody knows. But what is scary is that the govts, media and medical industry have as little credibility as Milli Vanilli.
I had it three weeks ago. Vaxxed (not boostered). Mine was a step below the flu. The flu usually kicks my a** due to the fever. I don't do well battling a fever. Thank God I only head slight chills, body aches and a headache. The headache was the worst part for me. It took me a solid 10 days to get my energy back. Not sure if it was Covid related or if I got used to being lazy. We are also wearing masks at the office again here in San Francisco due to our safety director panicking over a small outbreak in our office. We all made it back unharmed, but alas we are wearing masks again.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
I believe we are now battling what is the normal flu. I don't think the latest strains of COVID are any worse than historical flus.

What does the future hold? Nobody knows. But what is scary is that the govts, media and medical industry have as little credibility as Milli Vanilli.

..and yet there are still ~120k dying per year due to covid based on current lower numbers projected into the future, a lot more than a typical flu year during which ~35k die.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,207
56,105
1
..and yet there are still ~120k dying per year due to covid based on current lower numbers projected into the future, a lot more than a typical flu year during which ~35k die.
I am not sure. are you talking "with" or "of". I think the stats you are looking at are "with". This is something we didn't really test for prior to COVID. in many cases, especially the elderly, if someone died of the flu it was called pneumonia or congestive issues. We aren't comparing apples to apples.
 

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,920
2,708
1
I am not sure. are you talking "with" or "of". I think the stats you are looking at are "with". This is something we didn't really test for prior to COVID. in many cases, especially the elderly, if someone died of the flu it was called pneumonia or congestive issues. We aren't comparing apples to apples.
When you take away "with" covid then the numbers make covid look like the flu. Of course if you add "with" the flu then the Flu looks like covid!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,207
56,105
1
When you take away "with" covid then the numbers make covid look like the flu. Of course if you add "with" the flu then the Flu looks like covid!
Agreed...but we never tracked the flu with this level of scrutiny before. I've known people who died of "natural causes". they had COPD and caught a cold. Was it the COPD or was it the cold? Fact is, the body couldn't process the excess body fluids. today, if someone with COPD dies and happens to test positive for COVID, it is considered a "by COVID" death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
I am not sure. are you talking "with" or "of". I think the stats you are looking at are "with". This is something we didn't really test for prior to COVID. in many cases, especially the elderly, if someone died of the flu it was called pneumonia or congestive issues. We aren't comparing apples to apples.

lol... you guys are so predictable. I'd love to see some of your facts/evidence that support the "with" and "of" talking point on which you base your opinion, @PSUEngineer89 and I have agreed that the excess death numbers shoot that talking point out of the water.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,207
56,105
1
lol... you guys are so predictable. I'd love to see some of your facts/evidence that support the "with" and "of" talking point on which you base your opinion, @PSUEngineer89 and I have agreed that the excess death numbers shoot that talking point out of the water.
OK, whatever.

June 1 2022
 

bcspsu

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2001
650
1,311
1
OK, whatever.

June 1 2022
Last year, Alameda County in California admitted that their numbers were inflated, and that's just one example.

Also, you're right about how the flu, which just is another corona virus, never has been treated with the level of scrutiny with which this virus, which now is going on three years old, has been treated. I'm still amazed that teams are still under protocols for this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,920
2,708
1
Agreed...but we never tracked the flu with this level of scrutiny before. I've known people who died of "natural causes". they had COPD and caught a cold. Was it the COPD or was it the cold? Fact is, the body couldn't process the excess body fluids. today, if someone with COPD dies and happens to test positive for COVID, it is considered a "by COVID" death.
That was my point as well, if we tracked the flu like covid no one would leave their house. Up until two years ago I never heard of a flu test. I'm sure they were always there. But if I started throwing up I knew I had the flu. And for most people covid wasnt as bad as the flu---even when not vaxxed!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax

Cletus11

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2003
11,775
8,156
1
Last year, Alameda County in California admitted that their numbers were inflated, and that's just one example.

Also, you're right about how the flu, which just is another corona virus, never has been treated with the level of scrutiny with which this virus, which now is going on three years old, has been treated. I'm still amazed that teams are still under protocols for this.
Massachussets also revised some of their fatality data as they were counting people that had Covid weeks and months before dying as Covid deaths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,207
56,105
1
Massachussets also revised some of their fatality data as they were counting people that had Covid weeks and months before dying as Covid deaths.
that's right...it was the "with" and "from" argument. people that died in a motorcycle accident got counted as a COVID death. That case got people to start looking closer and realized anyone who tested positive was counted as a COVID death. And we know how those tests, at least early on, were very unreliable. Even coach CJF lamented on how many players were testing positive. They ended up adopting a policy to test once, if positive, test again. If conflicting, one + and one -, to test a third time. But the average + test was not retested for normal people.

I also believe that there was govt money when someone was + or died who was + so there may have been a finger on the scale.

gym-scale.gif
 

Cletus11

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2003
11,775
8,156
1
lol... you guys are so predictable. I'd love to see some of your facts/evidence that support the "with" and "of" talking point on which you base your opinion, @PSUEngineer89 and I have agreed that the excess death numbers shoot that talking point out of the water.
I don't think anybody is saying that Covid has not caused any excess deaths, the question is how many. My guesstimate based on the information from other countries that track 'with' and 'from' better, Alameda county review, Massachusetts, article, and some random other tidbits of information that I read over the past 18+ months is that probably Covid deaths are between 20-35% over accounted for being 'With' instead 'Of' covid. I would go further to say that another 10-15% of Covid deaths were really people essentially on their death bed and that they might have died of Covid but if they did not die of Covid, would have died of their age/co-morbidity within a few months.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,207
56,105
1
I don't think anybody is saying that Covid has not caused any excess deaths, the question is how many. My guesstimate based on the information from other countries that track 'with' and 'from' better, Alameda county review, Massachusetts, article, and some random other tidbits of information that I read over the past 18+ months is that probably Covid deaths are between 20-35% over accounted for being 'With' instead 'Of' covid. I would go further to say that another 10-15% of Covid deaths were really people essentially on their death bed and that they might have died of Covid but if they did not die of Covid, would have died of their age/co-morbidity within a few months.
to this day, the average age of a person who died of COVID is over the life expectancy age in the state of Ohio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and bison13

Cletus11

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2003
11,775
8,156
1
to this day, the average age of a person who died of COVID is over the life expectancy age in the state of Ohio.
be quiet, that is the secret the CDC and government doesn't want you to know.

as for Omicron and vaccine effectiveness, we don't have any real good data but I think it basically is not doing much anymore just from what we hear out of the CDC.

Against Alpha....very effective, and a lot of talk by the CDC and rightfully so. basically stopped infection/transmission 90%+.

Against Delta...less effective against infection/transmission but still some, and data showing it helped a lot against hospitlization/deaths.

Against Omicrcon....we know it has little effect against infection/transmission and we hear nothing at all like we did with Alpha and Delta. Some data coming out with recent months (so any data that uses the entire subset is skewed due to Alpha and Delta effectiveness)that only has Omicron as the main variant of infection is showing the vaccine really is doing nothing at this point against it. And when we hear articles about the booster it is about antibody counts, but antibody counts against an Alpha variant that does not exist is about worthless. So the way they are talking about vaccines now and not talking about keeping out of hospital or only talking about antibody counts tells me that vaccine and Omicron is about worthless.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
I don't think anybody is saying that Covid has not caused any excess deaths, the question is how many. My guesstimate based on the information from other countries that track 'with' and 'from' better, Alameda county review, Massachusetts, article, and some random other tidbits of information that I read over the past 18+ months is that probably Covid deaths are between 20-35% over accounted for being 'With' instead 'Of' covid. I would go further to say that another 10-15% of Covid deaths were really people essentially on their death bed and that they might have died of Covid but if they did not die of Covid, would have died of their age/co-morbidity within a few months.
Your 10-15% "guess" is not unreasonable but I think your 20-35% guess is. You have to have something more/better than random tidbits. You'd think, considering the massive cottage industry of data-twisting studies available these days, would have come with SOMETHING by now that supports the "with" and "from" argument. I'm not arguing that this argument is totally wrong or nonexistent, I just believe that the excess death numbers show/prove that it's insignificant.
 

Cletus11

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2003
11,775
8,156
1
Your 10-15% "guess" is not unreasonable but I think your 20-35% guess is. You have to have something more/better than random tidbits. You'd think, considering the massive cottage industry of data-twisting studies available these days, would have come with SOMETHING by now that supports the "with" and "from" argument. I'm not arguing that this argument is totally wrong or nonexistent, I just believe that the excess death numbers show/prove that it's insignificant.
Here you go. So some pretty good examples.


 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
Here you go. So some pretty good examples.



I'm aware of those, they were already mentioned. They are one-off data adjustments, hardly valid indicators of widespread nationwide reporting errors. You've got a long way to go to get to 350k wrongly reported deaths, and again, how do you explain those 350k as excess deaths.
 

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
353
1,140
1
How does one know the death count when it hasn't been a fixture on the MSNBC or CNN screen for a year and half? The CDC is captured and their data is deeply flawed. If you want transparency, you have to look elsewhere like the UK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

bcspsu

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2001
650
1,311
1
I'm aware of those, they were already mentioned. They are one-off data adjustments, hardly valid indicators of widespread nationwide reporting errors. You've got a long way to go to get to 350k wrongly reported deaths, and again, how do you explain those 350k as excess deaths.
It's like when the one Supreme Court judge said that he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. After two and half years of this garbage, you'd have to be either intellectually naive or intentionally dishonest to believe that the reported numbers have not been enlarged for nefarious purposes.

Also, with all of the other existing and impending problems that this country now is facing because of absolutely terrible and incompetent leadership, this virus and its million or so strains are very low on the list. When people have to make decisions about putting gas in their cars or buying food, a virus that now is almost three years old and has become endemic becomes a less important.

Finally, what I do now is believe the exact opposite about what the so-called "experts" tell me about this virus, and that usually leads to the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psualt and bison13

Cletus11

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2003
11,775
8,156
1
I'm aware of those, they were already mentioned. They are one-off data adjustments, hardly valid indicators of widespread nationwide reporting errors. You've got a long way to go to get to 350k wrongly reported deaths, and again, how do you explain those 350k as excess deaths.
so when presented with a few places that actually did a deep dive into the numbers you just pass them off as outliers. I guess that is up to you to believe that these are exception and not the rule. And the fact that both hospitals and families had economic incentive to code Covid as the reason for death also would have nothing to with inflating some numbers. again, up to you to not believe it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

bison13

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2007
7,512
6,675
1
so when presented with a few places that actually did a deep dive into the numbers you just pass them off as outliers. I guess that is up to you to believe that these are exception and not the rule. And the fact that both hospitals and families had economic incentive to code Covid as the reason for death also would have nothing to with inflating some numbers. again, up to you to not believe it.
I guess about every month or two I need to repeat what my buddy from the national Institute of health told me, that by the time you account for the decrease in average deaths from things like the flu and respiratory failure etc. that the actual Covid deaths ran about 30 to 40% of what the media tells you. And this is a guy who was one of the people first working on mRNA vaccines when it was at the University of North Carolina.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
so when presented with a few places that actually did a deep dive into the numbers you just pass them off as outliers. I guess that is up to you to believe that these are exception and not the rule. And the fact that both hospitals and families had economic incentive to code Covid as the reason for death also would have nothing to with inflating some numbers. again, up to you to not believe it.

They didn't do a deep dive and correct faulty numbers, they adjusted the way they were counting. In Almeda's case, in order to be consistent with other counties in CA, in MA's case in order to be consistent with CDC requirements. Once again, you can't reasonably explain away the excess death numbers.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
I guess about every month or two I need to repeat what my buddy from the national Institute of health told me, that by the time you account for the decrease in average deaths from things like the flu and respiratory failure etc. that the actual Covid deaths ran about 30 to 40% of what the media tells you. And this is a guy who was one of the people first working on mRNA vaccines when it was at the University of North Carolina.

Sorry, that bolded statement doesn't make sense and it's certainly not an explanation for EXCESS death numbers.
 

bison13

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2007
7,512
6,675
1
Sorry, that bolded statement doesn't make sense and it's certainly not an explanation for EXCESS death numbers.
Yes it does. Because over the past three years there’s been a lower than average amount of deaths for the flu respiratory failure etc. So if you adjust them to their average yearly totals taking those deaths out of the Covid totals you’re already taking away a third of the deaths attributed to Covid.
 

Agoodnap

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2015
3,236
4,577
1
Sorry, that bolded statement doesn't make sense and it's certainly not an explanation for EXCESS death numbers.
The initial alpha covid and also the beta strains were indeed very dangerous especially to unhealthy older adults. Perhaps you should start a "excess" death count from Omicron to the present and consider that almost all of the hospitalizations now are because those entering the hospital are real sick from other things yet they get tested upon entering the hospital. These other things are most likely because they hadn't gotten any health care for 2+years and are now in trouble.

So I get it, the excess deaths early on were indeed covid. Now however, any excess deaths are the result of little to no health care being available.

It would be nice if "89" would refresh his model. I'd like to see the data modified so that (actual deaths = predicted deaths) for the data from January 2020 through December 2021. This way we could see excess deaths from Omicron till now without the model using the early covid data to predict the future.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
The initial alpha covid and also the beta strains were indeed very dangerous especially to unhealthy older adults. Perhaps you should start a "excess" death count from Omicron to the present and consider that almost all of the hospitalizations now are because those entering the hospital are real sick from other things yet they get tested upon entering the hospital. These other things are most likely because they hadn't gotten any health care for 2+years and are now in trouble.

So I get it, the excess deaths early on were indeed covid. Now however, any excess deaths are the result of little to no health care being available.

It would be nice if "89" would refresh his model. I'd like to see the data modified so that (actual deaths = predicted deaths) for the data from January 2020 through December 2021. This way we could see excess deaths from Omicron till now without the model using the early covid data to predict the future.
Well, according to the CDC excess deaths have been near 0 for the last 3 and a half months after declining from the significant omicron peak in January.
 

WPTLION

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2002
2,920
2,708
1
How does one know the death count when it hasn't been a fixture on the MSNBC or CNN screen for a year and half? The CDC is captured and their data is deeply flawed. If you want transparency, you have to look elsewhere like the UK.
Those UK numbers have been great for the last year plus. They have basically said what anyone with an ounce of commonsense thought this was by April of 2020.

Thank God for the Brits!
 

Cletus11

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2003
11,775
8,156
1
Those UK numbers have been great for the last year plus. They have basically said what anyone with an ounce of commonsense thought this was by April of 2020.

Thank God for the Brits!
yeah, cdc is sort of a joke. I cannot find data on fatality versus age with co-morbidity status but I can find all kinds of data on race and equity and ethnicity. so playing the race card is now more important than actual medical and scientific facts.

One simple chart would tell everything and yet the CDC does not have it which says it all.

Give me the fatality information by age group which I can find on the CDC website. But then break down each age group by Zero, One, Two, and Two plus co-morbidity. And then give me the percenatages of the major co-morbidity within in each square (ie....obesity, diabetes, heart condition, dementia, etc...). And give me that same chart with hospitalizations admitted to intensive care (which means you got covid real bad). If you have the above two data sets, then you literally know about everything with respect to managing your own risk. Yet we don't have it even though it is the MAJOR data set that would give people (and doctors) the information to make informed decisions.

And an interesting data point while snooping around a little in the CDC website. Since March 1st (when most cases starting being BA2/4/5 variants) the fatality numbers for those below 50 are essentially zero (the ine is literally just at the bottom of the graph) the 50-64 age group is just slightly above the zero line. The 65-74 is a little bit above that but starting in early June started to go down (when BA4/5 really starting taking over) and is trending towards the zero line. So basically what you have right now is the vast majority of people dying with covid are 75+ and I bet if we had the co-morbidity data are those with multiple co-morbidities (ie...the people dying right now have life expectancy of less than 6 months).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and bison13

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
353
1,140
1
Yes it does. Because over the past three years there’s been a lower than average amount of deaths for the flu respiratory failure etc. So if you adjust them to their average yearly totals taking those deaths out of the Covid totals you’re already taking away a third of the deaths attributed to Covid.
Further, the entire medical system was turned upside down which resulted in many additional all cause deaths that may have otherwise been prevented. It was covid or nothing for the medical community which meant that likely 1 million or more people did not get diagnosed for heart disease or cancer (you know, the most prevalent causes of death).

Now we've already experienced the deaths of many of these million plus not diagnosed as in normal times including a 48 year old buddy of mine from school who died of undiagnosed sudden heart failure this past year and my friend's 49 year old husband with the same cause of death. I can't say their issues were due to vaccination, that I don't know, but both were not diagnosed and probably would have been if we hadn't collectively lost are minds.

But here's the deal, there are still many of those undiagnosed yet to pass. Our covid only focus did that and it isn't accounted for in all cause excess deaths. We literally changed all of medical care to include removing much of it. That comes with a huge cost in excess deaths that isn't being reported.
 

Cletus11

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2003
11,775
8,156
1
Further, the entire medical system was turned upside down which resulted in many additional all cause deaths that may have otherwise been prevented. It was covid or nothing for the medical community which meant that likely 1 million or more people did not get diagnosed for heart disease or cancer (you know, the most prevalent causes of death).

Now we've already experienced the deaths of many of these million plus not diagnosed as in normal times including a 48 year old buddy of mine from school who died of undiagnosed sudden heart failure this past year and my friend's 49 year old husband with the same cause of death. I can't say their issues were due to vaccination, that I don't know, but both were not diagnosed and probably would have been if we hadn't collectively lost are minds.

But here's the deal, there are still many of those undiagnosed yet to pass. Our covid only focus did that and it isn't accounted for in all cause excess deaths. We literally changed all of medical care to include removing much of it. That comes with a huge cost in excess deaths that isn't being reported.
In the flip side of this, my mother in law postponed her mammogram due to Covid as was scheduled for spring 2020 and didn't end up getting it until fall of 2020. She had a very small cancer detected that was eventually treated and she was told it was non-detect after treatment. Doctor told her she was a lucky one as most likely this would not have been detected in a spring mammogram such that the cancer would have had another 6 months to grow. So she was one of the rare lucky ones where delay actual helped.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
Yes it does. Because over the past three years there’s been a lower than average amount of deaths for the flu respiratory failure etc. So if you adjust them to their average yearly totals taking those deaths out of the Covid totals you’re already taking away a third of the deaths attributed to Covid.
35k people die of the flu and 15k die of RSV in an average year, so 50k is about 10% of annual covid deaths so far. Total deaths are currently at about 1.2 million and covid deaths are at about one million, you're still a long way from explaining 500-600k deaths based on your 30-40% claim.
 
Last edited:

bison13

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2007
7,512
6,675
1
35k people die of the flu and 15k die of RSV in an average year, so 50k is about 10% of annual covid deaths so far. Total deaths are currently at about 1.2 million and covid deaths are at about one million, you're still a long way from explaining 500-600k deaths based on your 30-40% claim.
Average bad flu year is 50k plus. Last two years total is under 15k, that’s a difference of 85k just from flu. Add in any other cardiovascular or respiratory difference and you’ll figure it out. Again this is directly from nih
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,436
2,531
1
Average bad flu year is 50k plus. Last two years total is under 15k, that’s a difference of 85k just from flu. Add in any other cardiovascular or respiratory difference and you’ll figure it out. Again this is directly from nih
Dude.... I was at 100k, you're at 85k?? You're NIH buddy needs to publish something, why is it that no one has to back your position?