3 ms·

The vaccine isn't expected to prevent all-cause mortality, though. People will die no matter whether they're vaccinated or not, the question is a) will they di

by snet0 5y ago

The vaccine isn't expected to prevent all-cause mortality, though. People will die no matter whether they're vaccinated or not, the question is a) will they die because of covid and b) will they die because of the vaccine. Your statistics do not even approach this question.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
This is governments own website, not "my statistics". Its a tracking system to report suspected adverse effects. As in a physician reported an adverse effect they noticed in the patient, soon after the admission of the vaccine. It does not include any potential long term effects. As we don't know them yet.
- qw3rty01 5y ago
  Directly after the quote you mentioned: - 33 are under investigation - 61 unrelated to the vaccine - 52 had insufficient information to determine if the vaccine was linked to the death and finally the piece of information we're interested in: - 6 due to TTS (a known side-effect), all from people who received the COVISHIELD/AstraZeneca vaccine
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    Sure except, I wish you just quoted directly. "61 of these deaths are unlikely linked to a COVID-19 vaccine." Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine.
    - ajross 5y ago
      Sorry, you don't get to cite data incorrectly, get corrected, and then perform your own amateur epidemiology live on the internet to nitpick your way back to the argument. If you genuinely believe the vaccine is killing people, you need to find an expert saying that.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine. You do understand it also does not mean they are related to the vaccine, right? I mean, putting aside the grasping as straws aspect of this claim, let's look at your original claim: in a country where there are already 20 million person's who already were administered the vaccine, and given that by your own account you can only put together two dozen cases among those 20 million that are not ruled out vaccine side-effects, don't you agree that the tradeoff is clear?
      - dukeofdoom 5y ago
        Well you don't know the long term effects. So you can't say the trade off is worth it. It's just blind optimism on your part, not even shared by the vaccine manufacturers, that put in their government contracts clauses that they will not guarantee that it works or take liability for any side effects. Despite making billions on these drugs.
        rualca 5y ago
        > Well you don't know the long term effects. To put it accurately, there is absolutely no indication that any vaccine has any long-term effect whatsoever. Doesn't this mean you are trying to analyze tradeoffs of a problem that does not exist in the plane of reality?
        dukeofdoom 5y ago
        Read about Marek's disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease "However, the leaky vaccine changes this evolutionary pressure and permits the evolution of highly virulent strains.[13] The vaccine's inability to prevent infection and transmission allows the spread of highly virulent strains among vaccinated chickens."

by snet0 5y ago

dukeofdoom 5y ago

This is governments own website, not "my statistics". Its a tracking system to report suspected adverse effects. As in a physician reported an adverse effect they noticed in the patient, soon after the admission of the vaccine. It does not include any potential long term effects. As we don't know them yet.

qw3rty01 5y ago
Directly after the quote you mentioned: - 33 are under investigation - 61 unrelated to the vaccine - 52 had insufficient information to determine if the vaccine was linked to the death and finally the piece of information we're interested in: - 6 due to TTS (a known side-effect), all from people who received the COVISHIELD/AstraZeneca vaccine
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  Sure except, I wish you just quoted directly. "61 of these deaths are unlikely linked to a COVID-19 vaccine." Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine.
  - ajross 5y ago
    Sorry, you don't get to cite data incorrectly, get corrected, and then perform your own amateur epidemiology live on the internet to nitpick your way back to the argument. If you genuinely believe the vaccine is killing people, you need to find an expert saying that.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine. You do understand it also does not mean they are related to the vaccine, right? I mean, putting aside the grasping as straws aspect of this claim, let's look at your original claim: in a country where there are already 20 million person's who already were administered the vaccine, and given that by your own account you can only put together two dozen cases among those 20 million that are not ruled out vaccine side-effects, don't you agree that the tradeoff is clear?
    - dukeofdoom 5y ago
      Well you don't know the long term effects. So you can't say the trade off is worth it. It's just blind optimism on your part, not even shared by the vaccine manufacturers, that put in their government contracts clauses that they will not guarantee that it works or take liability for any side effects. Despite making billions on these drugs.
      - rualca 5y ago
        > Well you don't know the long term effects. To put it accurately, there is absolutely no indication that any vaccine has any long-term effect whatsoever. Doesn't this mean you are trying to analyze tradeoffs of a problem that does not exist in the plane of reality?
        dukeofdoom 5y ago
        Read about Marek's disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek%27s_disease "However, the leaky vaccine changes this evolutionary pressure and permits the evolution of highly virulent strains.[13] The vaccine's inability to prevent infection and transmission allows the spread of highly virulent strains among vaccinated chickens."