Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
I know that some people are going to have to read this to understand why it's important, but you guys should know this. You should also know that age-specific metrics aren't public. They were in year 1 of the epidemic, then they went away. You can skip to the and for the too long; didn't read version, but it's not that hard. I even put it in bullet points.
Age-Specific Data
When to Use:
- Understanding Vaccine Efficacy in Specific Age Groups: To determine how effective a COVID-19 vaccine is at preventing illness in distinct age groups (e.g., children, adults, and the elderly). This is crucial since vaccine efficacy can vary significantly across different age groups due to factors like variations in immune response.
- Tailoring Public Health Recommendations: To develop targeted vaccination strategies, such as prioritizing certain age groups for vaccination or booster doses based on their specific risk levels and the vaccine's performance in those groups.
- Communicating Risks and Benefits: To inform individuals within different age demographics about their specific risks and the benefits of vaccination, thereby supporting informed decision-making.
Where to Use:
- Clinical Trial Results: When reporting or analyzing the outcomes of vaccine trials to highlight the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing COVID-19 across different age brackets.
- Public Health Policies: In crafting and adjusting public health guidelines and vaccination campaigns aimed at protecting the most vulnerable populations, based on age-specific vaccine effectiveness.
Age-Adjusted Data
When to Use:
- Comparing COVID-19 Impact Across Populations: For a disease like Covid, age-adjustment helps to neutralize the effect of age structure differences within the population group, providing a fair comparison. For example, Florida has a much older population. Considering the nature of Covid, which disproportionately affects the elderly, it would be easy to think Florida is doing worse with regards to their policy without using an age adjust metric compared to say, Utah, which has a much younger population. So, you effectively use age-adjusted statistics to compare the overall impact of COVID-19, including infection rates, hospitalization rates, and mortality rates, across different populations or regions with varying age distributions.
- Evaluating Public Health Interventions: To assess the effectiveness of broad public health interventions, including vaccination programs, across entire populations. Age-adjusted rates can help determine whether changes in disease trends are due to the interventions or merely changes in the age composition of the population.
Where to Use:
- Epidemiological Studies: In studies aiming to understand the broader impact of COVID-19 on diverse populations, especially when comparing areas or groups with different age demographics.
- Policy Evaluation: When evaluating the success of statewide or nationwide health policies and interventions, including vaccination campaigns, to ensure that assessments are not biased by the age composition of the populations being compared.
TLDR; you use age-specific data when the goal is to understand or communicate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the risk of COVID-19 in particular age groups, which allows doctors to make the right policy based on age. You use age-adjusted data for comparing the overall impact of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of public health interventions across different populations like Florida vs Utah (not age groups), ensuring that comparisons are fair and not skewed by differences in age distribution.
(02-24-2024, 10:55 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2024, 12:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't say I don't understand, I said I don't pretend to know more than I know. You don't know that the data isn't considered, you just know that YOU don't know it. That's my issue, you make claims from your own lack of information. I can't solve that for you.
You're the one making the claim, dude. You literally just posted here, in this thread (among multiple others) that the vaccine makes every age group safer. Here, let me refresh your memory:
(02-22-2024, 01:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]All? No, but a whole lot did, and the vaccines helped that number be less.
(02-22-2024, 09:11 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]All of them. Every one.
I've been repeatedly asking you to show me where you got that information for the last two years. You haven't. You've posted some age-adjusted metrics which are irrelevant to that claim. You can NOT state the level of vaccine efficacy across age groups because you don't KNOW it. That information has not been released. Therefore, YOU are the one making a claim from your own lack of information. Don't try to gaslight me, bro.
It's not complicated. Just admit you can't provide anything to support your claim, then kindly shut the [BLEEP] up. I'm trying hard to respect you, bro, but it's getting harder and harder watching our healthcare break because people like you don't have either the backbone or the knowledge to hold our institutions to account.
Does anyone else here know why that's important to draw a distinction between age-adjusted and age-specific? Or does it sound like I'm bleating on about something insignificant?
It's clear you are close to breaking. Honestly it sounds like you're bleating on about something that's not going to change.
Lol. This isn't even moving my needle emotionally, aside from the immense disappointment that an otherwise intelligent person resorts to gaslighting then strawmanning to avoid admitting their faulty reasoning. You do you, man. We'll let this just disappear into the background until the next time you confidently assert an unverified opinion as fact.
(02-24-2024, 07:14 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. This isn't even moving my needle emotionally, aside from the immense disappointment that an otherwise intelligent person resorts to gaslighting then strawmanning to avoid admitting their faulty reasoning. You do you, man. We'll let this just disappear into the background until the next time you confidently assert an unverified opinion as fact.
Unverified according to you*, you mean.
Sure. The data you don't have, "according to me." The data that you could easily prove but you just don't want to, right? You're not getting the last word on this. We'll have 1000-page thread of me asking for the data. Let's go.
(02-24-2024, 08:27 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Sure. The data you don't have, "according to me." The data that you could easily prove but you just don't want to, right? You're not getting the last word on this. We'll have 1000-page thread of me asking for the data. Let's go.
Ok, no problem. I've got nothing better to do.
Cool, so start by showing me that verified data you're implying you have.
Holy cow.
Take it to a PM or something. Or an old fashioned phone call! I’m sure you guys could hammer out the details there.
I'm happy to get a beer with anyone on this board. It's easier for a person to admit they don't know what they are talking about in person. Kidding. Kind of.
(02-24-2024, 08:37 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Cool, so start by showing me that verified data you're implying you have.
We've been over this. You just won't take no for an answer.
(02-24-2024, 09:00 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Holy cow.
Take it to a PM or something. Or an old fashioned phone call! I’m sure you guys could hammer out the details there.
He thinks he can just keep saying the same thing over and over to get a different response.
(02-24-2024, 09:10 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'm happy to get a beer with anyone on this board. It's easier for a person to admit they don't know what they are talking about in person. Kidding. Kind of.
I seriously doubt you would admit you're insatiable in person either. This thread was about Disease X but, as usual, you've turned into some soap box about me not giving you what you want. Because that's my job to placate you. Yeah, it's really not.
You speak out of both sides of your mouth, bro. You say you advocate for vaccinations because all age demographics have positive benefits from the vaccine. When I ask you for the data, you can't provide it (but you pretend like you won't). It's [BLEEP] weak sauce, man. If you can't provide the data necessary, then you should just give your opinion and admit it's your belief. It's that simple.
I have no problems admitting I'm insatiable. Ask my wife.
However, if you give me the data I'm asking for... the age-specific data necessary to support your claim, I'll shut up and you won't hear from me again. I have a very specific gripe with you. You're a healthcare leader, and your making claims that are unsupported. This is really easy to make go away.
(02-25-2024, 12:47 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You speak out of both sides of your mouth, bro. You say you advocate for vaccinations because all age demographics have positive benefits from the vaccine. When I ask you for the data, you can't provide it (but you pretend like you won't). It's [BLEEP] weak sauce, man. If you can't provide the data necessary, then you should just give your opinion and admit it's your belief. It's that simple.
I have no problems admitting I'm insatiable. Ask my wife.
However, if you give me the data I'm asking for... the age-specific data necessary to support your claim, I'll shut up and you won't hear from me again. I have a very specific gripe with you. You're a healthcare leader, and your making claims that are unsupported. This is really easy to make go away.
Here you go, here's one from 2021 that examines the CFR and strain on burden. I know you're just champing at the bit to tear it apart, so I'll just leave it with you. It does not examine the age brackets up to age 30 because of a lack of data in Japan; as a pretty health country already, they had a lesser overall problem with the pandemic.
"Unconditional protection from death was also estimated to be extremely high (>97%) for persons in all age groups."
Ko YK, Murayama H, Yamasaki L, Kinoshita R, Suzuki M, Nishiura H. Age-Dependent Effects of COVID-19 Vaccine and of Healthcare Burden on COVID-19 Deaths, Tokyo, Japan. Emerg Infect Dis. 2022 Sep;28(9):1777-1784. doi: 10.3201/eid2809.220377. Epub 2022 Jul 12. PMID: 35820166; PMCID: PMC9423928.
There was also a pediatric study recently completed in the Scandie countries that showed +72% efficacy at 6 months. I know you'll want to send Dr. Poukka an e-mail to explain how his team is wrong, so there's an e-mail for correspondence at the link.
"Among adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and heterologous vaccine schedules provided high protection against COVID-19 hospitalization, with vaccine effectiveness ranging between 72.6% and 86.0% at 6 months of follow-up, including COVID-19–related hospitalizations caused by omicron."
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/...redirected
Anyway, I know this isn't the data you demand, but the fact is that the scholarship on this is getting stronger with each new longer term examination of the outcomes. Now you can get back to saying how wrong I am about everything I say on the topic.
Relax... it's one study, but at least that's a start. I'll start getting into the data.
(02-26-2024, 04:24 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Relax... it's one study, but at least that's a start. I'll start getting into the data.
Odd, I posted two. Your reflexive response is showing again. I'm sure the research teams are waiting for your analysis with baited breath, lol.
Look again. You only linked one. You referenced another that I have to search out. You need to simmer down a notch. While this is a start, I need to actually sift through the data before I can see if it supports your claims. Even then, it's still only 2 studies, looking at two different things. I accept that, though. I even like the countries where they got their data. They do a better job collecting their data from my experiences in the past.
Even still, it doesn't mean they are definitively correct, but if the methodology is sound and the data comprehensive, you at least have something to tie your opinions to rooted in fact. I won't get pedantic and point out that in the study you linked, one of the researchers received grants from Pfizer. The other authors didn't have any major conflicts of interest, so I am lest skeptical. It's probably impossible to exist in that field without being associated with Pfizer, but it's worth noticing.
(02-26-2024, 04:48 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Look again. You only linked one. You referenced another that I have to search out. You need to simmer down a notch. While this is a start, I need to actually sift through the data before I can see if it supports your claims. Even then, it's still only 2 studies, looking at two different things. I accept that, though. I even like the countries where they got their data. They do a better job collecting their data from my experiences in the past.
Even still, it doesn't mean they are definitively correct, but if the methodology is sound and the data comprehensive, you at least have something to tie your opinions to rooted in fact. I won't get pedantic and point out that in the study you linked, one of the researchers received grants from Pfizer. The other authors didn't have any major conflicts of interest, so I am lest skeptical. It's probably impossible to exist in that field without being associated with Pfizer, but it's worth noticing.
I looked again. Turns out you didn't say "one link", you said "one study" of which I in fact posted two; for someone who nitpicks things to death you sure are being imprecise today. If I didn't know better I'd say these studies have you rattled a bit; having to agree with me after all this time has to be tough on the nerves.
Lol, if I didn't know better, I'd say you finally took the time to look for something that supports the position you blindly adopted from the CDC and are reveling in the fact that I'm stuck reading this [BLEEP] on a weekday, even though you probably only read the conclusion. I've really lost my appetite for these things, but I'm doing it because I said I would. I'm hardly rattled, though. Since this is old, I have to look at dates and consider all the moving pieces that these people were having to deal with when it was being published. It's really a giant pain. I've forgotten more about this crap than I'd care to admit, but that's what's slowing me down. This nordic study is interesting, but I just don't see how they are attempting to account for all the variables, which is admittedly difficult. Gonna need a day or two before you start gloating.
(02-26-2024, 05:44 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, if I didn't know better, I'd say you finally took the time to look for something that supports the position you blindly adopted from the CDC and are reveling in the fact that I'm stuck reading this [BLEEP] on a weekday, even though you probably only read the conclusion. I've really lost my appetite for these things, but I'm doing it because I said I would. I'm hardly rattled, though. Since this is old, I have to look at dates and consider all the moving pieces that these people were having to deal with when it was being published. It's really a giant pain. I've forgotten more about this crap than I'd care to admit, but that's what's slowing me down. This nordic study is interesting, but I just don't see how they are attempting to account for all the variables, which is admittedly difficult. Gonna need a day or two before you start gloating.
Lol, yeah...3 seconds of Google Fu is what it took. I read both studies in their entirety overnight, wanted to make sure that it was exactly the data you were unable to find.
Edit: Look, I'm admittedly snarking you a little bit here. I think you have to agree with me that it's a long, long, long drop from "I don't have all the data I would like to have" to "since I don't have exactly the data I want all of the other scholarship on this is invalid and the vaccines were of no benefit." I honestly think you're in the first camp much more than the second; you just seem to think it's my fault that you didn't find the data you want, like I ran up to the CDC, NIH, Yale, McGill, the WHO and such and told them to burn the records so L2L couldn't reveal their giant conspiracy. I'm really not.
Edit 2: And yeah, it bored the [BLEEP] out of me too. I'm not all that into research, I prefer improvement and innovation.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11