PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I'm also curious what video, as there was only test quoted when @Phytoplankton said that the video was taken out of context. What video? Something on Reuters?
Vaccinated stay contagious longer than Unvaccinated
- Thread starter ActionianJacksonian
- Start date
Phytoplankton
Well-Known Member
BTW, the study that he is touting uses facts taken out of context:
If you want to read the entire article
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-infectiousness-nejm/fact-check-nejm-study-does-not-show-that-unvaccinated-people-with-covid-are-infectious-for-less-time-than-the-vaccinated-idUSL1N2ZD1OZ If you want to read the entire article
The most salient facts:
Fact Check-NEJM study does not show that unvaccinated people with COVID are infectious for less time than the vaccinated
A widely shared Twitter post and the article to which it links misleadingly suggest that results of a small study published in the New England Journal of Medicine show vaccinated people remain contagious with a COVID-19 infection longer than unvaccinated people.
In fact, the study published online in late June by NEJM (here), found that the median duration of infectiousness (potential to pass on the virus) - as measured by the ability to grow virus in culture from nasal samples - was seven days among the unvaccinated, and six days among both the vaccinated and boosted groups, according to one of the study authors.
There were also no differences between groups in the proportion with a positive viral culture at 10 days, study co-author Mark Siedner, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Reuters. “In all three groups, less than 10% were still culture positive at that time,” he said by email.
“Our data do not suggest that vaccinated people recover more slowly from COVID-19,” Siedner added. “Quite the contrary: we found no significant difference by vaccination status (unvaccinated, vaccinated or boosted) in the time from a first positive test until PCR testing or viral cultures from nasal specimens became negative.”
The headline of an article published by thenationalpulse.com, reading, “New England Journal of Medicine: Unvaccinated COVID Patients Are Contagious for LESS Time Than Those Vaxed or Boosted,” was posted by Aaron Kheriaty, MD (here) with a link to that article and the comment, “Gosh, I mean, who would have thought?” The tweet has been shared more than 14,000 times.
The article shared by Kheriaty on Twitter takes one piece of the NEJM study’s data out of context and “distorts it,” said study co-author Amy Barczak, MD, also affiliated with Mass General.
The article also highlights the wrong data to make its point. Viral culture, not PCR-positivity, gauges the potential for virus to be contagious.
I'm through feeding the troll!
If you want to read the entire article
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-covid-infectiousness-nejm/fact-check-nejm-study-does-not-show-that-unvaccinated-people-with-covid-are-infectious-for-less-time-than-the-vaccinated-idUSL1N2ZD1OZ If you want to read the entire article
The most salient facts:
Fact Check-NEJM study does not show that unvaccinated people with COVID are infectious for less time than the vaccinated
A widely shared Twitter post and the article to which it links misleadingly suggest that results of a small study published in the New England Journal of Medicine show vaccinated people remain contagious with a COVID-19 infection longer than unvaccinated people.
In fact, the study published online in late June by NEJM (here), found that the median duration of infectiousness (potential to pass on the virus) - as measured by the ability to grow virus in culture from nasal samples - was seven days among the unvaccinated, and six days among both the vaccinated and boosted groups, according to one of the study authors.
There were also no differences between groups in the proportion with a positive viral culture at 10 days, study co-author Mark Siedner, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told Reuters. “In all three groups, less than 10% were still culture positive at that time,” he said by email.
“Our data do not suggest that vaccinated people recover more slowly from COVID-19,” Siedner added. “Quite the contrary: we found no significant difference by vaccination status (unvaccinated, vaccinated or boosted) in the time from a first positive test until PCR testing or viral cultures from nasal specimens became negative.”
The headline of an article published by thenationalpulse.com, reading, “New England Journal of Medicine: Unvaccinated COVID Patients Are Contagious for LESS Time Than Those Vaxed or Boosted,” was posted by Aaron Kheriaty, MD (here) with a link to that article and the comment, “Gosh, I mean, who would have thought?” The tweet has been shared more than 14,000 times.
The article shared by Kheriaty on Twitter takes one piece of the NEJM study’s data out of context and “distorts it,” said study co-author Amy Barczak, MD, also affiliated with Mass General.
The article also highlights the wrong data to make its point. Viral culture, not PCR-positivity, gauges the potential for virus to be contagious.
I'm through feeding the troll!
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
One thing I find quite interesting in that study is this part, which makes you realize that the whole idea that you had to get vaxxed to stop the spread, was all a crock:
"In this longitudinal cohort of participants, most of whom had symptomatic, nonsevere Covid-19 infection, the viral decay kinetics were similar with omicron infection and delta infection. Although vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection and the severity of disease, we did not find large differences in the median duration of viral shedding among participants who were unvaccinated, those who were vaccinated but not boosted, and those who were vaccinated and boosted."
Phytoplankton
Well-Known Member
That's all well and fine, but if you're in a vulnerable class, the unvaccinated outcome is often not good, ask the 1 million Americans that have died of Covid (oh wait, you can't, they're dead!). I had Covid, original strain, damm nearly killed me, like I said, getting vaccinated greatly reduces your chances of hospitalization or death. That's a good enough reason to get vaccinated. Make your own decision.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Ok, let me hold your hand from the beginning:
Die from what? Hospitalized for what? 18-39 year old vaccinated males for example have an 80% higher risk dying after being vaxxed from heart issues and in general regardless of covid infection. Source posted already earlier. Go find it. Use the site search for this thread. That's not covid is it?
Did you mean dying of covid? You did not say. More than likely this is what you meant but it's really your job to articulate your own thoughts isn't it?
So I addressed that in the post you wanted sauce on:
There are three statements here to which you simply reply:
So I picked the second since you didn't specify. And said the source is the fact that noone, regardless of vax status is immortal and both groups are equally likely to die.
So I covered all the bases. I asked did you mean death from covid? I asked which statement did you want a source on?
And bless your soul look where that got us. So whenever you are able to articulate what you want just let me know and I will try my darndest mkay?
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
"This video lacks context" was our first clue this is 100% copypasta.
Did I post a video? What do you often find the source of quotes to be besides the person who said the thing?
Pretty simple. Quote+walensky into Brave.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
What's in my mind one statement or both? One is up for debate and really needs oceans more data, the other is a simple measurement and thus, not up for debate.
How are we to know if you won't specify?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Phytoplankton quite reasonably asked from where you source your premises. That means “where you read the fact”, a link to the third-party source. But then you do this.
This contains specific information that you read somewhere. The bolded demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. You are at least obligated to post a link to the post in which you claim to have provided a working link to a respectable text source. You cannot have posted such numbers without having encountered them in a linkable page. Instead, you aimed a figurative kick at the user’s shins and laughed in pure spite.
These are the behavior patterns of a troll, and you display them with a consistent smugness entirely out of proportion to your verifiable contributions.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Oh so pcr test are now unreliable. Boy that won't effect any data.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
I don't know. I can only trust and verify that what the user posted in quotes is attributed to Walensky. I don't really care what media relayed the quote as some seem so hell bent on caring about. But it's obvious that it was an opinion piece about a video that contained Walensky quotes as far as I can tell.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with my post. I don't care if you or anyone else chooses to get vaccinated.
I'm not anti-vax; I'm pro-vaccine-choice.
Last edited:
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Agreed, but failed to specify what premise. Note that you added plurality where there was none.
I suggested a thread search as anyone who was interested in research would do without such suggestion. I gave the source, the Surgeon General of Florida. I gave the results. This would lead anyone to the Department of Health in Florida where guidance and analysis can be found.
Joseph Ladepo is the source, and I gave that. You claiming I did not provide a link when I fact I never said I provided that is suspect. A link is easily found by searching the source I provided; some engines easier than others.
Here https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/FLDOH/bulletins/3312697
berrygarcia
Active Member
claim: "the whole idea that you had to get vaxxed to stop the spread, was all a crock"
evidence: "vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection"
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I can see why you resisted disclosing your source.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Ok this is my bad. I'm pretty sure you mean source like the old source cards we had to use back in the day before the internet when we did research. The card would be the link and the source at the same time. A bit of confusion there I will take all of that, but there's still the issue or articulation.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Ah so you found flaw in the analysis in 30 seconds. Not sus at all.
hi.
my kid did. hes unvaxxed due to his age, now you know someone
my point being that everyone knows someone on one side or the other but they use it as a weapon to foster their beliefs and ideas on the virus.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press
Read chapter Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence: In 2010, more than 105,000 people were injured or killed in the Uni...
nap.nationalacademies.org
"To help minimize future firearm-related deaths, President Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, the interventions that prevent firearm violence, and strategies to minimize the public health burden of firearm violence (White House, 2013b). One of these executive orders, Action #14, noted that “in addition to being a law enforcement challenge, gun violence is also a serious public health issue that affects thousands of individuals, families, and communities across the Nation” (White House, 2013b). This order directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), along with other relevant federal agencies, to immediately begin identifying the most pressing research problems in firearm-related violence with the greatest potential for broad public health impact. Based on this directive, the CDC and the CDC Foundation3 requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), in collaboration with the National Research Council (NRC), identify questions that would define a public health research agenda for firearm violence prevention and intervention.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.
Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
*bolding
Last edited:
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Is this enough proof that this thread is pushing propaganda that is in fact a dangerous lie, to shut this stupid troll thread down?
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
" we found no significant difference by vaccination status (unvaccinated, vaccinated or boosted) in the time from a first positive test until PCR testing or viral cultures from nasal specimens became negative"
What part about this triggers your censorship bone? Shouldn't it lend credence to the fact that when the government told you that you may go visit in hospitals if your vaxxed because you posed no danger to the most vulnerable that they were lying to you?