Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“If a health problem is reported to VAERS, that doesn’t mean that the vaccine caused the problem. It warns vaccine safety experts of potential problems that they may need to assess, and it alerts them to take further action, as needed.”
In other words, one should never *ignore* anecdotes, because they *could* indicate a problem. But never jump to conclusions based on anecdotes.
It’s likely that actual scientists are pouring through the reports and trying to determine if the adverse events are higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. If so, that *could* indicate a problem with the vaccines. Even in that case, there are lurking variables to consider like age and existing health conditions. Older and sicker people might be more likely to get the vaccine, and older and sicker people are more likely to have adverse health events regardless.
So far I have not heard that these vaccines are likely to cause serious problems. The risk is not absolute zero, but it’s much lower than the risks from COVID-19. Would you rather swim in a lake with 1 alligator or the same lake with 100 alligators?
You look at signals, not individual health reports.
You haven't heard of myocarditis? It was all over the news.
It's like explaining to someone whose been under a rock his entire life.
Quite a bit, somewhere around 50%, if we're talking about life expectancy at birth.
But since you guys like to walk down the rope that everyone who dies after the vaccine is a coincidence, look at COVID deaths.
>50% dead after their life expetency at birth. 98% with comorbidities. Only 50% died of pneumonia. The rest died from god knows what, probably a lionshare of heart attacks, strokes, and who knows.
You don't cite your data. When I looked it up (quickly, I'll admit) the two sites I clicked on told a different story.
It says that 65%, a number that would have made your case stronger, which tells me that all your info is probably made up. If you had facts, you would not have downplayed the impact.
It doesn't really give a conclusion that supports either of our theories, so i looked at another:
The findings indicate there were 375,235 excess deaths, with 83% attributable to direct, and 17% attributable to indirect effects of COVID-19.
I think that 83% of deaths being directly attributed to COVID, vs 17% going to indirect causes really undermines your position. But you don't provide a link, I have to assume you get your info from Brietbart, or some other source that has an agenda to undermine truth and trust in America. If you have a legit source, post it, and if i see your response (I'm not on here all the time) I'll look into it. I'm here because I WANT to learn. If I'm wrong, unlike many, I want to know about it, and willing to change my opinion with proper evidence. You've presented none.
65% is above 50%? Yes or no? I said above 50%, when I don't remember the exact number, that's how I write. Was I wrong.
Quote:
It doesn't really give a conclusion that supports either of our theories, so i looked at another:
What theory? You guys are talking about your arse about deaths post vaccination. Every single justification you do in your head to think someone dying of a heart condition post vax can be applied 100 fold to COVID deaths.
You realize only 50% died of pneumonia? That leaves 50% dying of a variety of other conditions, and in such a old population subset of comorbidities, you're gonna tell me that many of those weren't coincidences?
65% is above 50%? Yes or no? I said above 50%, when I don't remember the exact number, that's how I write. Was I wrong.
What theory? You guys are talking about your arse about deaths post vaccination. Every single justification you do in your head to think someone dying of a heart condition post vax can be applied 100 fold to COVID deaths.
You realize only 50% died of pneumonia? That leaves 50% dying of a variety of other conditions, and in such a old population subset of comorbidities, you're gonna tell me that many of those weren't coincidences?
I am not "you guys". I'm responding to a questionable claim you made. You admit you didn't have exact data, so your claims still remain questionable to me.
My source shows 83% died of direct cause. Pneumonia is only one way. But even if your statement (50% dying of a variety of other conditions) had any fact to it, I'd say what others have said. COVID kills some by itself, but also is a real and present danger to those who have other complications (like my daughter). If they have other complications, and COVID kills them, it's a COVID death. Your position is like saying that drunk driving doesn't matter because the tree killed them. Drunk driving greatly increases your chance of death by tree. If you weren't drunk, it is VERY LIKELY you would not have hit that tree. I guess some of them are coincidence, but not enough to say drunk driving is good. Same with COVID.
Btw, I don't really subscribe to all the hype. I go out, I live my life. I am vaxed and the only time I wear a mask is when the proprietor asks me to. Their place, their rules, that's just respectful. I've been to concerts with 50k+ people (Rolling Stones), I've been to general admission shows in bars, where people are packed shoulder to shoulder. I go out to dinner 2-3x per week, and to my local brewery 1-2x per week. It's not like I'm letting this thing slow me down.
I'm just railing against your misinformation, and also rail against left-leaning misinformation too.
I am not "you guys". I'm responding to a questionable claim you made. You admit you didn't have exact data, so your claims still remain questionable to me.
My source shows 83% died of direct cause. Pneumonia is only one way. But even if your statement (50% dying of a variety of other conditions) had any fact to it
Of course there is fact to it. It's from CDC's own data, and I posted a link to it. 50% died of pneumonia.
The other 50% died of something else. You don't even understand what I'm saying.
I'm drawing parallels to the idiots dismissing MI post vax, to that of COVID deaths. Do you understand? I'm showing that all their double-think can easily be applied to COVID deaths.
Everytime I hear - oh well, young healthy people drop dead all the time, then what are the odds of some old guy with 3 comorbidities dropping dead within 3 weeks of testing + for COVID? A lot higher.
I'm drawing parallels to the idiots dismissing MI post vax, to that of COVID deaths. Do you understand?
Honestly, I don't understand what "MI Post Vax" means. So no..... Michigan? Mission Impossible? What about it?
Anyway, you are correct, <50% is actually a fact. But it's an irrelevant fact at best, if not compared to a control, and a misleading fact more likely. Pneumonia is not the only way that COVID can kill you, so citing that <50% really means nothing.
Example: <50% of all social protests were violent last year. Absolutely true. But a lot of them, too many of them, turned really violent. Should we ignore the destruction because <50% were violent? Of course not. It's technically accurate, but very irrelevant, and those on the left who cite these do have a point, but many of them use stats like that to downplay a real problem. Do YOU understand? (I gave an example I think you could agree with.)
NOTE: This article https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...esearch-finds/ states it was 3.7% that resulted in property damage. I'm guessing you won't accept WaPo, so I went with <50% because everyone knows that it was a very small number that turned violent, but much like COVID deaths, that small number had huge impact on people close to it.
Honestly, I don't understand what "MI Post Vax" means. So no..... Michigan? Mission Impossible? What about it?
Anyway, you are correct, <50% is actually a fact. But it's an irrelevant fact at best, if not compared to a control, and a misleading fact more likely. Pneumonia is not the only way that COVID can kill you, so citing that <50% really means nothing.
Example: <50% of all social protests were violent last year. Absolutely true. But a lot of them, too many of them, turned really violent. Should we ignore the destruction because <50% were violent? Of course not. It's technically accurate, but very irrelevant, and those on the left who cite these do have a point, but many of them use stats like that to downplay a real problem. Do YOU understand? (I gave an example I think you could agree with.)
NOTE: This article https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...esearch-finds/ states it was 3.7% that resulted in property damage. I'm guessing you won't accept WaPo, so I went with <50% because everyone knows that it was a very small number that turned violent, but much like COVID deaths, that small number had huge impact on people close to it.
MI = myocardial infarction = heart attack
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
