Have You Gotten Your Covid Vaccine? Thread.

Page 110 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,441
7,593
136
I guess "diamonds" aren't forever...RIP

Another tragic indication that today's anti vax GOP is a death cult. Loser Donald claims he personally invented the vaccine, and they still won’t take it in the name of the large amounts of money in misinformation and “owning the libs”. I guess they can’t blame the vaccine on this death. Too bad for her family that the misinformation on a deadly airborne virus she peddled is most likely complicit in killing her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,483
2,352
136

So with Moderna potentially hiking vaccine price by 4x and government scaling down purchases, how many of you are going to pay $250 a year per person for two boosters? That's a cool $1000 for a family of 4.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,225
46,800
136

So with Moderna potentially hiking vaccine price by 4x and government scaling down purchases, how many of you are going to pay $250 a year per person for two boosters? That's a cool $1000 for a family of 4.
What's really going to happen is that payments for patients will still be $0 but of course insurance will absorb it and you'll pay for it in another way.
 

kt

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2000
6,015
1,321
136

So with Moderna potentially hiking vaccine price by 4x and government scaling down purchases, how many of you are going to pay $250 a year per person for two boosters? That's a cool $1000 for a family of 4.
A large majority of the population, who would have to pay for the vaccine but received them for free now, will choose to skip the boosters.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,441
7,593
136
I haven't seen any specific releases stating a cause of death yet, but it was widely reported she was hospitalized around thanksgiving due to covid. Given her outspoken public character's "take" on the topic, and all of the coyness on the part of her supporters/cheerleaders it wouldn't shock me at all if she took the same route as Herman Cain.

Silk wasted no time in setting up a grief-grift in her public announcement as well. So, fuck them both.

The fact remains that I don’t know what she died of. so I won't speculate any further. Besides there is still enough irony to go around ...


As for the grifting ... The family is a pedigree in grift. Their family life may shed some light on how they came to be the way they were.

From Wikipedia:

Their parents are Freeman Hardaway and Betty Willis Hardaway, televangelical pastors based in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Freeman and Betty Hardaway sold purported weight loss cures and wreaths to ward off witchcraft. For a fee of $50, Betty wrote the names of customers in a Bible, telling customers that this would make God answer their prayers.

They were also briefly involved in the BLM movement before figuring out there was more grift money getting on board the Trump train.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,441
7,593
136

Weird that elon's boys removed the links that doesn't suit their narrative

At Diamond’s funeral/memorial (which was live streamed), her sister Silk went on and on about how much she (Silk) loved Trump, and how many great things they had done together. Then Trump got up and said that he didn’t really know Silk, but she seemed like a great person.

“I prefer sycophants who aren’t dead”

 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,679
7,762
136
At Diamond’s funeral/memorial (which was live streamed), her sister Silk went on and on about how much she (Silk) loved Trump, and how many great things they had done together. Then Trump got up and said that he didn’t really know Silk, but she seemed like a great person.

“I prefer sycophants who aren’t dead”

You expect different from a cult and their feckless leader?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,225
46,800
136
I think this is an interesting finding, although I think it's important to point out that the most likely reason is poor population compliance with mask wearing procedures as opposed to the masks being ineffective themselves. For example I would be very surprised to find in an actual controlled test that N95 masks don't work when worn properly.

This does indicate to me that while they are likely effective for an individual the population may not be willing to comply with mask mandates to a sufficient extent to make them worthwhile to have.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,299
7,645
136

There are numerous issues with that review, and even the authors note it. For one, it relied mostly on population based studies where usage wasn't necessarily controlled or monitored. And the RCTs that are included do show significant benefits. Shock.

It's being touted in the usual circles as "See, masks don't work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

When it reality it's more likely described as "Masks work when used"
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,070
900
136

I suggest taking a moment and actually reading the metaanalysis. Only after reading it, you'll realize how crappy your Foxnews article reflects the actual findings.

This is a metaanlysis that is continually updated. This is the fifth update, first published in 2007. They add studies in each subsequent edition.

The first key point, the MAJORITY of the studies were conducted before 2020, and studied prevention of respiratory viral infections via masks and/or handwashing. Most of the studies do not involve COVID-19 in any form. In addition, many of these studies were conducted during periods in which there was LOW circulation of respiratory viruses. These are major confounding factors in looking at the evidence, to the point that the authors write in the very first line of their conclusions summary: "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions."

In fact, this review reflects why there was so much doubt placed on the utility of face masks back in March 2020.

But with the current update, there are only TWO studies evaluating the utility of masking during COVID-19 that they included. They lumped those two trials in with several others studying other respiratory infections and found masking was ineffective (see analysis 1.1.1 and 1.1.2), but anyone thinking about it critically would say that Foxnews has their article title purposely misleading: "Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds." That's not actually what the metaanlysis says at all.

The data is the data, but Foxnews is purposely distorting the results to push their agenda once again. How shocking /s.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,299
7,645
136
I suggest taking a moment and actually reading the metaanalysis. Only after reading it, you'll realize how crappy your Foxnews article reflects the actual findings.

This is a metaanlysis that is continually updated. This is the fifth update, first published in 2007. They add studies in each subsequent edition.

The first key point, the MAJORITY of the studies were conducted before 2020, and studied prevention of respiratory viral infections via masks and/or handwashing. Most of the studies do not involve COVID-19 in any form. In addition, many of these studies were conducted during periods in which there was LOW circulation of respiratory viruses. These are major confounding factors in looking at the evidence, to the point that the authors write in the very first line of their conclusions summary: "The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions."

In fact, this review reflects why there was so much doubt placed on the utility of face masks back in March 2020.

But with the current update, there are only TWO studies evaluating the utility of masking during COVID-19 that they included. They lumped those two trials in with several others studying other respiratory infections and found masking was ineffective (see analysis 1.1.1 and 1.1.2), but anyone thinking about it critically would say that Foxnews has their article title purposely misleading: "Face masks made ‘little to no difference’ in preventing spread of COVID, scientific review finds." That's not actually what the metaanlysis says at all.

The data is the data, but Foxnews is purposely distorting the results to push their agenda once again. How shocking /s.

Excellent post. A++, would read again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD