3 ms·

"If asking people to take a specific step that has a good chance of protecting them from disease or even death" Most people under the age of about 65 are being

"If asking people to take a specific step that has a good chance of protecting them from disease or even death" Most people under the age of about 65 are being asked to take a vaccine for a disease that is extremely unlikely to hurt them, and the vaccine itself can have severe side effects, with deaths and injuries from these vaccines now greatly exceeding the deaths and injuries from every other vaccine programme in the last 10 years combined. Over-simplifying this situation down to "people need to be protected [from themselves]" is exactly the sort of misinformation that Facebook believes it's fighting. "This leaves the latter group stumped, because they can’t think of any non-selfish motives" Non selfish motives? Their demands are incredibly selfish. They've convinced themselves, against all actual data and biological theory, that the unvaccinated people are dangerous to themselves, the vaccinated, and thus individual choice over people's own bodies must be removed by force. There is no basis for this belief but they apparently want to reach this conclusion via any means, fair or foul. Despite that they are the same people who are usually insistent that women be given choice over 'their own bodies' in abortion debates.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
"There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine." https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-the-u-s/ https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from... Yes, that's probably more than "all vaccine programmes in the last 10 years combined" because, contrary to popular believe, vaccines are incredibly save. It's also 1/100th of daily COVID deaths, or about 15 minutes' worth.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Look at the graph of post-vaccine deaths. It's vertical: https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
  - IAmEveryone 5y ago
    Wow, this whole issue so low... In the years before, how often were you vaccinated? Exactly: you probably weren't. Millions of vaccinations were given ib the last few months, orders of magnitude more than usual. And while most are usually given to toddlers, now the 60 to 95 year-olds got most of the vaccinations. You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after they are vaccinated? They die. You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after eating ice cream? They die. Also, as has been reported plenty of times, read by you (in, for example, the article above), and ignored because it doesn't fit your worldview, is that VAERS is, as the URL says, "open". It's a relic from a time where people tended to be sane, and wouldn't just submit all sorts of imaginary things to a medical database. The article cited above summarises what the people collecting that data have concluded from it. How can you make an argument about the data they collect and publish, implying that you trust them, and then, in the very next breath ignore them and, I assume, next accuse them of being either too stupid or corrupt to say anything about that data?
    - native_samples 5y ago
      So are these reports all imaginary, or are they all the very old, or is it OK to ignore huge numbers of deaths because everyone is being pressured to take the vaccine, or what? You seem to be arguing all of these things simultaneously. Are you aware of the under-reporting rates on VAERS? Do you recall that this thread started with me talking about vaccines being not worth the risk for people who are not old? I don't care what the CDC or other government agencies think, because I don't trust them, obviously. That's why I'm citing actual data instead of some argument by authority. Edit: this paper goes into some detail looking at each of your objections and concludes the signal is real: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9PdYAVpr/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9Pd... In particular it separates increase in reporting from increased awareness (concluded to be ~20%) from the rest of the signal, and also does age stratification.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

"There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine." https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-the-u-s/ https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from... Yes, that's probably more than "all vaccine programmes in the last 10 years combined" because, contrary to popular believe, vaccines are incredibly save. It's also 1/100th of daily COVID deaths, or about 15 minutes' worth.

native_samples 5y ago
Look at the graph of post-vaccine deaths. It's vertical: https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
- IAmEveryone 5y ago
  Wow, this whole issue so low... In the years before, how often were you vaccinated? Exactly: you probably weren't. Millions of vaccinations were given ib the last few months, orders of magnitude more than usual. And while most are usually given to toddlers, now the 60 to 95 year-olds got most of the vaccinations. You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after they are vaccinated? They die. You know what happens a lot to 80 year olds in the six months after eating ice cream? They die. Also, as has been reported plenty of times, read by you (in, for example, the article above), and ignored because it doesn't fit your worldview, is that VAERS is, as the URL says, "open". It's a relic from a time where people tended to be sane, and wouldn't just submit all sorts of imaginary things to a medical database. The article cited above summarises what the people collecting that data have concluded from it. How can you make an argument about the data they collect and publish, implying that you trust them, and then, in the very next breath ignore them and, I assume, next accuse them of being either too stupid or corrupt to say anything about that data?
  - native_samples 5y ago
    So are these reports all imaginary, or are they all the very old, or is it OK to ignore huge numbers of deaths because everyone is being pressured to take the vaccine, or what? You seem to be arguing all of these things simultaneously. Are you aware of the under-reporting rates on VAERS? Do you recall that this thread started with me talking about vaccines being not worth the risk for people who are not old? I don't care what the CDC or other government agencies think, because I don't trust them, obviously. That's why I'm citing actual data instead of some argument by authority. Edit: this paper goes into some detail looking at each of your objections and concludes the signal is real: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9PdYAVpr/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IAzK4a58a7M4ajHKOpqe-9KD9Pd... In particular it separates increase in reporting from increased awareness (concluded to be ~20%) from the rest of the signal, and also does age stratification.