CDC not fully counting the number of break through cases among the vaccinated

Becky1951 said:
The CDC probably doesn't want the true number of breakthrough cases to be known. The vaccine makers surely don't want it known. Some states are reporting breakthrough cases and deaths due to those cases but many are not reporting. I think all cases need to be counted.
Click to expand...
One of the things I saw on how vax vs unvax are counted is that even if one had one of the two shots until the 15th day they are counted as unvaxxed. So theoretically those with an adverse reaction to the first shot could be an 'unvaxxed' statistic.
 

One of the issues with break through cases is that the reporting of a break through case is not always there. At least 12 states has record/data systems that don't sync up with the CDCs. Alot of the hospitals have inadequate or outdated records systems in which the physcians must manually enter a break through case. Other data comes from aggregated sources.

The CDC 'says' it wants to look at/study particular areas regardless of reported data. In Louisianna an area had their break through cases increas bt 30% or 4700 cases in a week.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/25/cdc-pandemic-limited-data-breakthroughs-506823

Also I think in states like Texas vaccinated status was not a required piece of information when reporting to the state(where alot of stats come from). Just this week Colorado made it a law that vaccinated status must be reported to the state.

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/09/01/colorado-publih-health-order-hospital-reporting/

What was happening prior?
 
speculating about what the cdc is probably doing is not a determination of how many breakthrough cases there are in the vaccinated. .breakthrough cases in the vaccinated still are generally milder and the vaccine makers are aware of this.
 
suds00 said:
breakthrough cases in the vaccinated still are generally milder and the vaccine makers are aware of this
Click to expand...

Vaccinated people are the only ones who have breakthrough cases, so milder than what? :unsure:
Unvaccinated people don't have breakthrough cases, because they didn't get shot with the poisons!

"Oh he died from the vaccinations, but even though he suffered a lot, it was a milder death." šŸ¤Ŗ
I don't have any doubt that the vaccination creators know what they do, but they're not going to tell you.
 
Last edited:
suds00 said:
speculating about what the cdc is probably doing is not a determination of how many breakthrough cases there are in the vaccinated. .breakthrough cases in the vaccinated still are generally milder and the vaccine makers are aware of this.
Click to expand...
If what you say was true, the CDC would provide us with ALL the facts; not just ones they manipulate to sell the vaccine.
From the New England Journal of Medicine:
"If you torture your data long enough, they will tell you whatever you want to hearā€ has become a popular observation in our office. In plain English, this means that study data, if manipulated in enough different ways, can be made to prove whatever the investigator wants to prove. Unfortunately, this is generally true. Because every investigator wants to present results in the most exciting way, we all look for the most dramatic, positive findings in our data. When this process goes beyond reasonable interpretation of the facts, it becomes "Data torturing."
 
I suggest using recent statistics such as these from England to evaluate the effectivness of the vaccines.
Here are some actual findings from a study of over age 50 people in England done near the end of August. Hospital admissions are 11x more for unvaccinated. Deaths are 8x more for the unvaccinated.
 

Attachments

  • over 50 england covid copy.jpg
    over 50 england covid copy.jpg
    85.1 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
win231 said:
If what you say was true, the CDC would provide us with ALL the facts; not just ones they manipulate to sell the vaccine.
From the New England Journal of Medicine:
"If you torture your data long enough, they will tell you whatever you want to hearā€ has become a popular observation in our office. In plain English, this means that study data, if manipulated in enough different ways, can be made to prove whatever the investigator wants to prove. Unfortunately, this is generally true. Because every investigator wants to present results in the most exciting way, we all look for the most dramatic, positive findings in our data. When this process goes beyond reasonable interpretation of the facts, it becomes "Data torturing."
Click to expand...
where is the cdc mentioned in the above-referenced article? that's true for any data. we are subject to different interpretations of data.
 
John cycling said:
Vaccinated people are the only ones who have breakthrough cases, so milder than what?
"Oh he died from the vaccinations, but even though he suffered a lot, it was a milder death." šŸ„±
I don't have any doubt that the vaccination creators know what they do, but they're not going to tell you.
Click to expand...
by definition breakthrough cases come from the vaccinated. the cases are milder than those in the unvaccinated usually,
 
suds00 said:
where is the cdc mentioned in the above-referenced article? that's true for any data. we are subject to different interpretations of data.
Click to expand...
Good question. I am still tyring to figure out what one person's idiot nephew (his description not mine) has to do with this discussion group.
 
John cycling said:
Vaccinated people are the only ones who have breakthrough cases, so milder than what?
"Oh he died from the vaccinations, but even though he suffered a lot, it was a milder death." šŸ„±
I don't have any doubt that the vaccination creators know what they do, but they're not going to tell you.
Click to expand...
milder than the opposite of vaccinated; which is unvaccinated .i'm sure people are being secretive to make a profit during a worldwide pandemic. the middle sentence is ridiculous.
 
At the risk of getting very repetitious here, most of the "breakthrough" cases did not result in death. They were mild illnesses, or infections with no symptoms at all. Which is a triumph for the vaccine.

Of course, it would be better if it prevented any breakthrough cases at all. But this is certainlyh te next best thing. Why are the anti-vaccine lunatic fringe using these mild breakthroughs as supposedly some kind of "proof" that the vaccine doesn't work?
 
Given the high number of cases associated with this virus, I doubt that Anyone is able to give an accurate count of who and how many, etc. About the Only statistic that matters is the fact that those vaccinated appear to have a far less chance of getting ill, or dying....any other "study" is somewhat inconsequential, IMO.
With thousands still getting ill, daily, and hundreds dying, it is quite "optimistic" to think that any reports are going to be 100% accurate.
 
WhatInThe said:
One of the things I saw on how vax vs unvax are counted is that even if one had one of the two shots until the 15th day they are counted as unvaxxed. So theoretically those with an adverse reaction to the first shot could be an 'unvaxxed' statistic.
Click to expand...
That's long been stated about any vaccine ...the body needs time to produce antibodies.
 
Had the CDC not abysmally flubbed test parameters and sent out contaminated tests an FDA consultant stated were due to poor lab technique early in the pandemic, there might be more trust. Couple that with the CDC practice of deliberately over stating flu death stats (pre Covid) by lumping pneumonia deaths into the same category, and credibility is naturally an issue.
 
The CDC should have worried more about getting a handle on Covid, by collecting more meaningful information. It's a shame we have to get meaningful currrent information from England and Israel (just two examples) when we have ten to twenty times the population and thus are capable of even more precise information. But, I thank heaven that countries like England and Israel share their knowledge with us.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top