• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All Things CAF and Covid/ Covid Vaccine [merged]

btrudy

Full Member
Reaction score
298
Points
810
JT and his party would love a violent insurrection you know like Jan 6th in the states.

I think he's truly disappointed in the restraint shown by all sides during the convoy.

This is the type of insane rambling I'd expect from the tinfoil hat wearing homeless dude downtown. Seeing it from someone who claims to be a Chief is frankly rather disturbing.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,609
Points
1,260
This is the type of insane rambling I'd expect from the tinfoil hat wearing homeless dude downtown. Seeing it from someone who claims to be a Chief is frankly rather disturbing.

Why ? Is it so hard to believe a corrupt politician would like/hope for an event they could use for political gain ?
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
1,090
Really? Weren't we told masks don't work. So your hypoythesis basically says, if we want to eradicate it, everyone should spend all of our time in A suits.

Who told you masks don't work? While they aren't as effective against Omicron, they still have an effect and need to be part of a holistic approach to tackling future outbreaks, and all of the major health organizations still purport their usefulness:

CDC: Masks and Respirators

ECDC: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/de...the-SARS-CoV-2-Omicron-variant-of-concern.pdf

Health Canada: COVID-19 mask use: Advice for community settings - Canada.ca

WHO: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Masks

HHS: Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Mayo Clinic: Can face masks protect against COVID-19?

John Hopkins: Hopkins experts support mask use despite judge's ruling

Nautre.com (a study): Evaluation of different types of face masks to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2: a modeling study - Scientific Reports
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,609
Points
1,260
I don't understand the angst around masks either way.

If you want to wear one do so. If you don't, don't. But leave each other alone about it.

I don't wear one, but if it's mandated that I will, then I will again. And if I'm going somewhere that requires them, I respect the wishes of that place and it's people.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
1,090
Why ? Is it so hard to believe a corrupt politician would like/hope for an event they could use for political gain ?
Yes. While I have an extremely cynical view of politicians in general:

1. It is far more likely that JT is a decent person and doesn't want Canadians to have "suffer" in whatever event occurs;
2. It is far more likely that even JT would feel that the stress of having to deal with the situation would outweigh whatever selfish, legacy-related ambitions he might have.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,609
Points
1,260
Yes. While I have an extremely cynical view of politicians in general:

1. It is far more likely that JT is a decent person and doesn't want Canadians to have "suffer" in whatever event occurs;
2. It is far more likely that even JT would feel that the stress of having to deal with the situation would outweigh whatever selfish, legacy-related ambitions he might have.

I disagree.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,438
Points
1,360
I think you guys should bro hug it out!

bro hug GIF
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
116
Points
600
Uhh… What are you smoking? Unvaccinated people were a grossly disproportionate source of deaths and serious illness. I suspect you’re getting all fucked up from seeing slightly more vaccinated than unvaccinated people hospitalized, but with over 85% of the population vaccinated. Classic base rate fallacy.

View attachment 74300
I am not sure why you think my statement has anything to do with "base rate fallacy", and your accusation does not offer any substantiation to support your slanderous assertion. My statement was based off of the data being provided by the government of Ontario prior to them ceasing to report their data sets in a convenient manner, no longer providing graphs on their website to show incidence by vaccination type, breakdown of hospitalized/ICU cases over time, etc. (you can still access this information, in a less digestible format from Datasets - Ontario Data Catalogue). I do understand statistical analysis perfectly well (I have the postgrad credentials to substantiate this statement).

My statement was representative of the hospitalization/death rate (not total number as you seemed to have assumed). I even suggested that the likely cause was the difference in vaccination status by age groups, which I will attempt to explain. Ontario has a very high rate of vaccination and, not surprisingly, vaccine and booster uptake is highest amongst the oldest members of the population... The oldest segments of the population are also overwhelming represented in hospitalizations and deaths from COVID19. While those aged over 60 represent relatively small portion of the total population (3.5 million people), and are almost all vaccinated with at least 2 doses, they represent the majority of total deaths and hospitalizations from COVID19 (in Ontario, at least). In contrast, those under 60 represent a much larger portion of the total population (about 11 million people), are overall significantly less vaccinated as a group (particularly when it comes to booster uptake) and represent a minority of total hospitalizations and deaths.

According to the Public Health Ontario website, the current rate of hospitalization admission for COVID19 of those over aged 80 and over is 25.2 per 100,000, those 60-79 is 4.2 per 100,000, and those aged 40-59 is 0.6. Thus the "rate" of hospitalization for those over 80 is currently about 42 times higher than those aged 40 to 59, in Ontario at least. As for deaths, those 80+ have a current death rate from COVID19 of 4.7 per 100,000, those aged 60-79 have a death rate of 0.4 per 100, 000, 40-59 year olds have a 0.1 per 100, 000 death rate, and 20 to 39 year olds have a 0 per 100,000 death rate. Thus, someone over 80 had a 47 times higher chance of death than someone aged 50-59, at the population level. These are all based off of the last week's reporting and can be found on the Ontario Public Health website (see below).

In Ontario, those aged 80+ have a reported rate of "full vaccination" (minimum of a primary series consisting of 2 doses) of 94.6%, and a single booster (minimum) rate of 86.4%. 40-49 year olds have a booster rate of 54.6%. 30-39 year olds have a booster rate of 46.3%.18-29 year olds have a booster rate of 38.9%. Second booster uptake is 59.6% for those over 80, 13% for those 50-59, and 4% for 18-29 year olds. As for 2nd boosters, those over 80 have a 59.6% uptake rate, compared with a 7.3% uptake for those aged 30-39. I know that I skipped on reporting some age ranges, it was for reasons of brevity, the information is well presented at the link below.

I have not suggested that the vaccines increase risk of hospitalization/death from COVID19, BTW. If you were to take each age group individually, say those over 80, then you are likely to see higher risk of hospitalization/death amongst the unvaccinated portion of that particularly age group. When you expand this data out to the population level though, and only classify people as "vaccinated" or "unvaccinated" (not accounting for age), you find a higher rate of hospitalization/death amongst those who are "vaccinated". The data is misleading because the unvaccinated and unboosted population base leans so far towards younger demographics, which skews the overall rate significantly. I also didn't specify "adult population" when I mentioned rates of risk, so you can assume I am accounting for all age groups combined. These vast differences in risk by age group are, assumedly, the reason why Greece's vaccine mandate only affected those over 60 years of age. In Canada, we put in place workplace mandates that primarily affected those under 60 (those over 60 do not represent a large proportion of the total workforce)... In contrast to both of these measures, Denmark has stopped recommending boosters to those under 50 without other underlying health conditions.

 
Last edited:

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,414
Points
1,110
I am not sure why you think my statement has anything to do with "base rate fallacy", and your accusation does not offer any substantiation to support your slanderous assertion. My statement was based off of the data being provided by the government of Ontario prior to them ceasing to report their data sets in a convenient manner, no longer providing graphs on their website to show incidence by vaccination type, breakdown of hospitalized/ICU cases over time, etc. (you can still access this information, in a less digestible format from Datasets - Ontario Data Catalogue). I do understand statistical analysis perfectly well (I have the postgrad credentials to substantiate this statement).

My statement was representative of the hospitalization/death rate (not total number as you seemed to have assumed). I even suggested that the likely cause was the difference in vaccination status by age groups, which I will attempt to explain. Ontario has a very high rate of vaccination and, not surprisingly, vaccine and booster uptake is highest amongst the oldest members of the population... The oldest segments of the population are also overwhelming represented in hospitalizations and deaths from COVID19. While those aged over 60 represent relatively small portion of the total population (3.5 million people), and are almost all vaccinated with at least 2 doses, they represent the majority of total deaths and hospitalizations from COVID19 (in Ontario, at least). In contrast, those under 60 represent a much larger portion of the total population (about 11 million people), are overall significantly less vaccinated as a group (particularly when it comes to booster uptake) and represent a minority of total hospitalizations and deaths.

According to the Public Health Ontario website, the current rate of hospitalization admission for COVID19 of those over aged 80 and over is 25.2 per 100,000, those 60-79 is 4.2 per 100,000, and those aged 40-59 is 0.6. Thus the "rate" of hospitalization for those over 80 is currently about 42 times higher than those aged 40 to 59, in Ontario at least. As for deaths, those 80+ have a current death rate from COVID19 of 4.7 per 100,000, those aged 60-79 have a death rate of 0.4 per 100, 000, 40-59 year olds have a 0.1 per 100, 000 death rate, and 20 to 39 year olds have a 0 per 100,000 death rate. Thus, someone over 80 had a 47 times higher chance of death than someone aged 50-59, at the population level. These are all based off of the last week's reporting and can be found on the Ontario Public Health website (see below).

In Ontario, those aged 80+ have a reported rate of "full vaccination" (minimum of a primary series consisting of 2 doses) of 94.6%, and a single booster (minimum) rate of 86.4%. 40-49 year olds have a booster rate of 54.6%. 30-39 year olds have a booster rate of 46.3%.18-29 year olds have a booster rate of 38.9%. Second booster uptake is 59.6% for those over 80, 13% for those 50-59, and 4% for 18-29 year olds. As for 2nd boosters, those over 80 have a 59.6% uptake rate, compared with a 7.3% uptake for those aged 30-39. I know that I skipped on reporting some age ranges, it was for reasons of brevity, the information is well presented at the link below.

I have not suggested that the vaccines increase risk of hospitalization/death from COVID19, BTW. If you were to take each age group individually, say those over 80, then you are likely to see higher risk of hospitalization/death amongst the unvaccinated portion of that particularly age group. When you expand this data out to the population level though, and only classify people as "vaccinated" or "unvaccinated" (not accounting for age), you find a higher rate of hospitalization/death amongst those who are "vaccinated". The data is misleading because the unvaccinated and unboosted population base leans so far towards younger demographics, which skews the overall rate significantly. I also didn't specify "adult population" when I mentioned rates of risk, so you can assume I am accounting for all age groups combined. These vast differences in risk by age group are, assumedly, the reason why Greece's vaccine mandate only affected those over 60 years of age. In Canada, we put in place workplace mandates that primarily affected those under 60 (those over 60 do not represent a large proportion of the total workforce)... In contrast to both of these measures, Denmark has stopped recommending boosters to those under 50 without other underlying health conditions.

Yes, precisely- when you compare apples to apples, and make meaningful comparisons within a cohort (eg, compare elderly to elderly, compare youths to youths), the unvaccinated were at much higher risk of death. I didn’t think I would need to clarify that unvaccinated teenagers would likely have better outcomes with COVID than vaccinated 84 year olds, but I’m glad that over the course of five paragraphs you were able to clear that up.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
116
Points
600
Yes, precisely- when you compare apples to apples, and make meaningful comparisons within a cohort (eg, compare elderly to elderly, compare youths to youths), the unvaccinated were at much higher risk of death. I didn’t think I would need to clarify that unvaccinated teenagers would likely have better outcomes with COVID than vaccinated 84 year olds, but I’m glad that over the course of five paragraphs you were able to clear that up.

You accused my statements of being fabricated and a case of "base rate fallacy", which was incorrect. You even suggested that I was "all fucked up". My original post even alluded to the fact that differences in age vaccine uptake and risk of severe outcomes between age groups was the likely cause of this.

How much do you consider to be "much higher risk" though? And compare this with your statement that there is "slightly higher" numbers of vaccinated people in hospital. With about 95% of those over 80 vaccinated, it has not resulted in a "slightly higher" proportion of total hospitalized cases amongst the unvaccinated, that is outright false. Do you care to provide rescent statistics within this age group to substantiate your statements? Or are you satisfied with arguing your position based off of subjective statements without any regerence to underlying statistics?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,769
Points
1,160
Do they define Covid death or a Covid related death where Covid was another factor ontop of other factors?
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
116
Points
600
Yes, precisely- when you compare apples to apples, and make meaningful comparisons within a cohort (eg, compare elderly to elderly, compare youths to youths), the unvaccinated were at much higher risk of death. I didn’t think I would need to clarify that unvaccinated teenagers would likely have better outcomes with COVID than vaccinated 84 year olds, but I’m glad that over the course of five paragraphs you were able to clear that up.

Further, now that I have elobarated my statement more, what exactly did you find to be incorrect or misleading about my original post? It was I, after all, that didn't think I needed to explain my comment about how age differences affected the statistics at the population level.

... perhaps you should apologize for being quick to make baseless, slanderous remarks aimed at other posters?
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,414
Points
1,110
Further, now that I have elobarated my statement more, what exactly did you find to be incorrect or misleading about my original post? It was I, after all, that didn't think I needed to explain my comment about how age differences affected the statistics at the population level.

... perhaps you should apologize for being quick to make baseless, slanderous remarks aimed at other posters?
No, I’m good, thanks. While you do credit age cohorts as likely being a major factor, you still made a broad conclusory statement that the unvaccinated were categorically “the lowest risk population for hospitalization and death for about 5 months straight”. Maybe you weren’t being disingenuous, but you were certainly being careless in how you present the data.

Had you presented your variables in reverse, identified that the younger cohorts were the lowest risk, and they they also tended towards lower vaccination rates, which skews perception of respective risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, that would have been fair and accurate. I’m not sure why you presented the information the way you did, but at best it leaves the reader to infer relationships between vaccination status and medical outcomes that are more accurate. My suggestion of you falling victim to base rate fallacy is, quite bluntly, a factor of how crudely you presented that information. I erred in thinking that the way you presented the information must mean you have less of a grasp of statistics than you do.

Keeping this firmly in the context of what was actually being discussed, @McG shared an admittedly simplified data table that showed in general terms the significantly greater per capita incidence of illness, Hospital admissions, and ICU admissions for broad categories of vaccinated versus unvaccinated. You took issue with that, and attempted to present a different conclusion. Your comment about the unvaccinated population being “the lowest risk for hospitalization”, as a counter to McG’s post, can only reasonably be interpreted as you trying to suggest that he was wrong in presenting the greater risk of serious illness that comes with being unvaccinated. I believe you played very fast and loose with how you presented that information. Maybe you were hasty yourself or maybe you chose to present it the way you did to try to lead people to draw certain inferences, I’m not sure.

That’s twice now you’ve dropped the term ‘slanderous’. I’d invite you to reacquaint yourself with what that word actually means, because we are very, very short of the threshold of defamation and falsehood here.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
1,090
Further, now that I have elobarated my statement more, what exactly did you find to be incorrect or misleading about my original post? It was I, after all, that didn't think I needed to explain my comment about how age differences affected the statistics at the population level.

... perhaps you should apologize for being quick to make baseless, slanderous remarks aimed at other posters?
How information is communicated is almost as important as the veracity of the information being communicated; when people cry fowl over "biased media" and "fake news", it's not that anything in the news is actually being fabricated (though some would suggest it is), it's that information is being selectively presented in such away to influence people to draw certain conclusions.

The way you presented your information, combined with the general atmosphere of this thread, would easily lead one (as it did brihard and I) to believe what you were insinuating was something akin to: "Vaccines don't work. Those who are vaccinated actually have worse COVID outcomes."
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
116
Points
600
No, I’m good, thanks. While you do credit age cohorts as likely being a major factor, you still made a broad conclusory statement that the unvaccinated were categorically “the lowest risk population for hospitalization and death for about 5 months straight”. Maybe you weren’t being disingenuous, but you were certainly being careless in how you present the data.

Had you presented your variables in reverse, identified that the younger cohorts were the lowest risk, and they they also tended towards lower vaccination rates, which skews perception of respective risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, that would have been fair and accurate. I’m not sure why you presented the information the way you did, but at best it leaves the reader to infer relationships between vaccination status and medical outcomes that are more accurate. My suggestion of you falling victim to base rate fallacy is, quite bluntly, a factor of how crudely you presented that information. I erred in thinking that the way you presented the information must mean you have less of a grasp of statistics than you do.

Keeping this firmly in the context of what was actually being discussed, @McG shared an admittedly simplified data table that showed in general terms the significantly greater per capita incidence of illness, Hospital admissions, and ICU admissions for broad categories of vaccinated versus unvaccinated. You took issue with that, and attempted to present a different conclusion. Your comment about the unvaccinated population being “the lowest risk for hospitalization”, as a counter to McG’s post, can only reasonably be interpreted as you trying to suggest that he was wrong in presenting the greater risk of serious illness that comes with being unvaccinated. I believe you played very fast and loose with how you presented that information. Maybe you were hasty yourself or maybe you chose to present it the way you did to try to lead people to draw certain inferences, I’m not sure.

That’s twice now you’ve dropped the term ‘slanderous’. I’d invite you to reacquaint yourself with what that word actually means, because we are very, very short of the threshold of defamation and falsehood here.
You ask why I had presented my data in a simplified way, as in using rates at the population level rather than by age cohorts, but then acknowledge that I was responding to McG's use of similarly oversimplified data... Apples to apples. I also took aim at his reference to Ontario's "Science Advisory Table", which I suggested had been misrepresenting data is it did not align well with the data coming out of Public Health Ontario. The Science Advisory Table was also disbanded over a month ago, and the website no longer updated, so even if it was once a trustworthy source of data, this is no longer the case. My post even stated afterward that "age trends in vaccination likely played a major role"... which I assumed people would understand but apparently not, thus my longer explanation of risk and vaccination uptake by age cohort in the specific province of which we were discussing (Ontario).

Was my initial statement overly simplistic? Yes. It was not to mislead people though, but rather intended to lead them to question why, if true, this was the case. In response, you outright accused my statements of being false, and made some rather unpleasant remarks on my behalf, however, even though they were not. You also included a diagram taken from Twitter that uses entirely hypothetical hospitalizations rates to try and explain "base rate fallacy"... it even stated that "hospitalization rate is 5x higher in unvaccinated population (50% vs 10%)". Do you think that your use of this graphic was misleading? It presented ratios, for illustration, that are nowhere near representative of actual hospitalization rates for either group. It also did not break risk down by age cohort.

I doubt you have taken objection to posts where people spoke ill of the "unvaccinated" population as a monolithic group without acknowledging the differences in risk between age cohorts. If it is so important to recognize relative risk by age group, do you think that measures such as vaccine mandates and passports should have taken age and other individual risk factors into account (like in Greece)?
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
942
Points
1,260
That’s twice now you’ve dropped the term ‘slanderous’. I’d invite you to reacquaint yourself with what that word actually means, because we are very, very short of the threshold of defamation and falsehood here.

Be interesting to see how it played out in court.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
116
Points
600
How information is communicated is almost as important as the veracity of the information being communicated; when people cry fowl over "biased media" and "fake news", it's not that anything in the news is actually being fabricated (though some would suggest it is), it's that information is being selectively presented in such away to influence people to draw certain conclusions.

The way you presented your information, combined with the general atmosphere of this thread, would easily lead one (as it did brihard and I) to believe what you were insinuating was something akin to: "Vaccines don't work. Those who are vaccinated actually have worse COVID outcomes."
Well, I even stated in my original post that "age trends in vaccination likely played a major role". If you chose to ignore that piece and consider, or ask, what was meant by it then perhaps you should read more carefully. I agree wholeheartedly in your statements about how information is presented and implore you to take a critical stance on all information that is presented to you, including those that align with your opinion.

I'd argue that data has been purposefully presented on both sides of this debate throughout the pandemic and that if those trying to build confidence in vaccines were not so quick to diminish vaccine risks or acknowledge the vast differences in outcomes between age cohorts, then they may have done a better job of convincing the vaccine hesitant on the importance of vaccination, particularly in the most at risk populations. It seems, to me at least, that now many people are claiming the vaccines were never intended to prevent risk of transmission... but if you go back a year ago, that was the main argument put forth in favor of vaccine mandates and passports. It was not about people being concerned that 20 year olds were at significant risk of being hospitalized if they were unvaccinated. Rather, it appeared that people were afraid unvaccinated individuals were putting vaccinated individuals at increased risk of transmitting COVID19, to the extent that they wanted to deny them participation in society. There was a lot of vitriol and hate being spouted off about the "selfish" unvaccinated segment of the population. Few thought to speak up when unvaccinated 28 year old public servants, who worked entirely from home, were being put on leave without pay and denied EI... and those that did were dismissed as "anti-vaxxers". Many were quick to defend the repression of Canadian's Charter Rights, arguing that such measures met the threshold of "reasonable" and that "rights come with responsibilities"... but aren't human rights supposed to be universal? Now we are to decide who deserves to have their human rights respected? What an illiberal concept.

Where was the instance on considering risk of hospitalization by age group a year ago? I've never claimed anything along the lines of "vaccines don't work", people seem to assume that there are only two camps though, and one is either on one side of the fence or the other... I'm afraid that, as a population, we are losing our capacity for nuance.
 
Last edited:
  • Insightful
Reactions: QV
Top