3 ms·

See my comment above please. Not black, not white, my point is on the grey areas. Note 1: I remember covid had a fatal rate of ~3% during the worst months. In

See my comment above please. Not black, not white, my point is on the grey areas. Note 1: I remember covid had a fatal rate of ~3% during the worst months. In the the Med Alerts web (see link above) the death rate of vaccines is 2.37%. It is the same scale. If I am misinterpreting it, I am happy to learn. Note 2: Only as example (but you can iterate), lets analyse it from age perspective: Covid fatal rate has this [1] distribution by age, Would you recommend everybody vaccine given the probable hiden-effects of the vaccine? [1] https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20860.jpeg https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20860.jpeg

kmos17 5y ago
It's not clear to me what this data you are linking to means or that it is being correctly interpreted, but I think it is pretty safe to assume that if the vaccines had a 2.37% death rate we would know about it! 162M people in the US alone have been fully vaccinated, with a 2.37% death rate it would have resulted in 3.8M deaths!! Come on, please use some common sense.
- kaskakokos 5y ago
  Thank you. Yes, it seems a lot to me, that's why I think it might be misinterpreted, but I don't know how to interpret it. If anyone knows I'd be grateful for help. Regarding the polio argument, yes, I agree, but it also works the other way around, how many healthy people have to be harmed for the others to survive? We can argue about this ad infinitum, but this is about numbers and I don't see the whole picture.
  - kmos17 5y ago
    See I think right there is where the problem starts, if you can't interpret it then you have to trust the experts to do it, or get a degree in immunology or whatever scientific field is required to properly be able to interpret this data. Why should you a non-expert want to interpret it on your own, or expect to be able to without properly studying this. This is a tech site, and any of us would laugh off a non-programmer taking a peak at code and drawing a conclusion from it. And the science we are talking about here is far more advanced than just programming. So removing this completely useless speculation based on ignorance, you have to look at the big picture and the hard facts. 600k deaths vs. no measurable negative impact of vaccines, and virtually complete protection against hospitalization and death, using a very established science (vaccines are safe and effective, and have a very long proven track record, and even mRNA is not that new.) The numbers are very clear and available, if you don't see the whole picture it's because you don't want to.
kmos17 5y ago
To reply to your second note separately, yes everybody needs to be vaccinated to stop the spread. Otherwise unvaccinated individuals remain as a permanent pool of carriers that offer the virus the opportunity to spread and evolve. And clearly from looking at the news there are many categories of high risk older people and even health care professionals like nurses that have fallen for this idiotic questioning, and are putting themselves and everyone else at risk. Polio would have never been eradicated with this kind of - it doesn't affect me so why should I get it - mentality.

kmos17 5y ago

It's not clear to me what this data you are linking to means or that it is being correctly interpreted, but I think it is pretty safe to assume that if the vaccines had a 2.37% death rate we would know about it! 162M people in the US alone have been fully vaccinated, with a 2.37% death rate it would have resulted in 3.8M deaths!! Come on, please use some common sense.

kaskakokos 5y ago
Thank you. Yes, it seems a lot to me, that's why I think it might be misinterpreted, but I don't know how to interpret it. If anyone knows I'd be grateful for help. Regarding the polio argument, yes, I agree, but it also works the other way around, how many healthy people have to be harmed for the others to survive? We can argue about this ad infinitum, but this is about numbers and I don't see the whole picture.
- kmos17 5y ago
  See I think right there is where the problem starts, if you can't interpret it then you have to trust the experts to do it, or get a degree in immunology or whatever scientific field is required to properly be able to interpret this data. Why should you a non-expert want to interpret it on your own, or expect to be able to without properly studying this. This is a tech site, and any of us would laugh off a non-programmer taking a peak at code and drawing a conclusion from it. And the science we are talking about here is far more advanced than just programming. So removing this completely useless speculation based on ignorance, you have to look at the big picture and the hard facts. 600k deaths vs. no measurable negative impact of vaccines, and virtually complete protection against hospitalization and death, using a very established science (vaccines are safe and effective, and have a very long proven track record, and even mRNA is not that new.) The numbers are very clear and available, if you don't see the whole picture it's because you don't want to.

kmos17 5y ago

To reply to your second note separately, yes everybody needs to be vaccinated to stop the spread. Otherwise unvaccinated individuals remain as a permanent pool of carriers that offer the virus the opportunity to spread and evolve. And clearly from looking at the news there are many categories of high risk older people and even health care professionals like nurses that have fallen for this idiotic questioning, and are putting themselves and everyone else at risk. Polio would have never been eradicated with this kind of - it doesn't affect me so why should I get it - mentality.