5 ms·

> The startup I work for must be incredibly unlucky given that 7+/14 vaccinated employees have recently tested positive if the odds really are 1 in 5000. I'm su

> The startup I work for must be incredibly unlucky given that 7+/14 vaccinated employees have recently tested positive if the odds really are 1 in 5000. I'm sure my anecdote is not unique. Now do the comparison of hospitalization and death of the unvaccinated against the vaccinated. > The same way that people, and doctors, have been biased against reporting side effects. Yeah, sure, its just anecdote, except there's a hell of a lot of anecdote going around and those crazy conspiracy theorists have already been quietly proven right about vaccines interfering with womens' monthly cycles, among other suspicions. There's a ton of papers, literally coming out every week, on studies of side effects of vaccines. The conclusions are always the same: minor and predictable side effects, with a few exceptions that were studied and analyzed and adjusted for risk, still demonstrating that the rewards go far and beyond. > It is incredibly difficult to properly evaluate vaccines when your test subjects and their doctors have been indoctrinated by strong messaging regarding the test's presumed safety. I'm not suggesting that it was entirely intentional (though partly on behalf of pharma) but at this point all of the official data is suspect due to an emergent faith-like bias. I'm sorry, you don't have a single clue of what you're talking about. There's papers that have been published by every single government, relevant NGO, hospitals, literally the entirety of modern medicine dedicated towards working on this. The conclusions are always the same. Stop talking about things you don't understand. You don't have the knowledge or capacity to judge the biases of the medical system. There are tons of qualified experts who are more than happy to talk about the failures, doubts, and validated skepticism of big pharma in a myriad of drugs and medical trials. Vaccines are just not it.

twofornone 5y ago
>Now do the comparison of hospitalization and death of the unvaccinated against the vaccinated Official UK data shows approximately equal rates of death between vaccinated and unvaccinated. >There's papers that have been published by every single government, relevant NGO, hospitals, literally the entirety of modern medicine dedicated towards working on this. The conclusions are always the same Yes, because the orthodoxy is rigid and pervasive. >There are tons of qualified experts who are more than happy to talk about the failures, doubts, and validated skepticism of big pharma in a myriad of drugs and medical trials. But there are exceedingly few fields where questioning the orthodoxy is career and social suicide. Your faith in the system blinds you its politics. The bottom line is that, again, there is no incentive to report breakthrough cases, few people are doing so. All data is therefore suspect, and all current conclusions stem from this faulty data. And officials have yet to acknowledge this problem. Meanwhile despite high vaccination rates the virus continues to spread at record pace, while we are lied to about the effectiveness of the vaccines, now retroactively with emergent claims by apologetic laypersons, that the vaccines were never intended to stop the spread of the virus. The same bias at the heart of this collective goalpost shift has infested the academic and political establishments and is kept in place by the implicit threat of being labeled an "antivaxxer". Step outside of the argument and consider, for a moment, how many political, corporate, and academic careers would be destroyed, how much credibility would be irreversibly trashed, if it were proven that the vaccination campaign was a failure, or worse, that it caused more harm than good? Same for social distancing, masking, and lockdown campaigns. Don't you see that there is a mountain of momentum behind the official dogma regarding covid vaccination? Ultimately these are people with families to feed and career aspirations to maintain, with lifetimes of sunk costs to protect. It is reasonable to presume that the truth may be suppressed in an implicit, emergent manner, especially considering the current unabated state if the pandemic. At the very least I hope you would acknowledge that the messaging is not quite lining up with the statistics. We can pretend that this is just part of the scientific process, but I am alleging that because of political pressure (both state and corporate) the process has been heavily biased from the start. It is trivially easy to massage data, models, and analyses to match preconceived conclusions, intentionally or otherwise, especially when turning against the consensus comes with severe social and career costs.
- DanBC 5y ago
  > Official UK data shows approximately equal rates of death between vaccinated and unvaccinated. No, the UK data does not show this.
  - twofornone 5y ago
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2fdeaths%2fdatasets%2fdeathsbyvaccinationstatusengland%2fdeathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31october2021/referencetable31.xlsx https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommun... - table 7.
    - DanBC 5y ago
      And that shows, very clearly, huge differences in rates. EG, here: January 40-49 Unvaccinated 1,015 447,582 224.9 January 40-49 Within 21 days of first dose 15 19,088 76.0 January 40-49 21 days or more after first dose 3 3,808 77.0 January 40-49 Within 21 days of second dose <3 1,232 : January 40-49 21 days or more after second dose <3 229 : Have you misunderstood the source you're using?

twofornone 5y ago

>Now do the comparison of hospitalization and death of the unvaccinated against the vaccinated Official UK data shows approximately equal rates of death between vaccinated and unvaccinated. >There's papers that have been published by every single government, relevant NGO, hospitals, literally the entirety of modern medicine dedicated towards working on this. The conclusions are always the same Yes, because the orthodoxy is rigid and pervasive. >There are tons of qualified experts who are more than happy to talk about the failures, doubts, and validated skepticism of big pharma in a myriad of drugs and medical trials. But there are exceedingly few fields where questioning the orthodoxy is career and social suicide. Your faith in the system blinds you its politics. The bottom line is that, again, there is no incentive to report breakthrough cases, few people are doing so. All data is therefore suspect, and all current conclusions stem from this faulty data. And officials have yet to acknowledge this problem. Meanwhile despite high vaccination rates the virus continues to spread at record pace, while we are lied to about the effectiveness of the vaccines, now retroactively with emergent claims by apologetic laypersons, that the vaccines were never intended to stop the spread of the virus. The same bias at the heart of this collective goalpost shift has infested the academic and political establishments and is kept in place by the implicit threat of being labeled an "antivaxxer". Step outside of the argument and consider, for a moment, how many political, corporate, and academic careers would be destroyed, how much credibility would be irreversibly trashed, if it were proven that the vaccination campaign was a failure, or worse, that it caused more harm than good? Same for social distancing, masking, and lockdown campaigns. Don't you see that there is a mountain of momentum behind the official dogma regarding covid vaccination? Ultimately these are people with families to feed and career aspirations to maintain, with lifetimes of sunk costs to protect. It is reasonable to presume that the truth may be suppressed in an implicit, emergent manner, especially considering the current unabated state if the pandemic. At the very least I hope you would acknowledge that the messaging is not quite lining up with the statistics. We can pretend that this is just part of the scientific process, but I am alleging that because of political pressure (both state and corporate) the process has been heavily biased from the start. It is trivially easy to massage data, models, and analyses to match preconceived conclusions, intentionally or otherwise, especially when turning against the consensus comes with severe social and career costs.

DanBC 5y ago
> Official UK data shows approximately equal rates of death between vaccinated and unvaccinated. No, the UK data does not show this.
- twofornone 5y ago
  https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fbirthsdeathsandmarriages%2fdeaths%2fdatasets%2fdeathsbyvaccinationstatusengland%2fdeathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31october2021/referencetable31.xlsx https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommun... - table 7.
  - DanBC 5y ago
    And that shows, very clearly, huge differences in rates. EG, here: January 40-49 Unvaccinated 1,015 447,582 224.9 January 40-49 Within 21 days of first dose 15 19,088 76.0 January 40-49 21 days or more after first dose 3 3,808 77.0 January 40-49 Within 21 days of second dose <3 1,232 : January 40-49 21 days or more after second dose <3 229 : Have you misunderstood the source you're using?