4 ms·

This is the study in question. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577

preg_match 4mo ago
Doesn’t say anything even close to what you’re saying. This source supports what I am saying, and shows the Covid vaccine is: 1. Highly effective at preventing Covid 2. As safe as other viral vaccines
- trimethylpurine 4mo ago
  27%? You interpret a nearly 1/3 incidence rate for a negative reaction to be safe?! You realize that's more than 300x higher than COVID infection as known at the time, and it's more than 30,000x as we know today? It says exactly what I'm saying. You just need to look at the numbers, if you're willing. It's sad that so many people simply can't read a research paper because they've never written one. This should be required for finishing middle school. >As safe as other viral vaccines No! Most vaccines that we give children have an incident rate less than 1/500,000! Some are less than 1/billion. It might be as safe as other COVID vaccines (RNA based), and which also had an insanely high incident rate and for the same reason. Horrifying. Truly.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - preg_match 4mo ago
    The 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. Bearing in mind the placebo group itself had a 12% rate of adverse effects. I legitimately don’t understand how, knowing that, you could expect a 1/500,000 rate of adverse effects. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. Also, no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000. Pain and discomfort is common for all vaccines. If you bother to read the conclusions sections, you’d see the risk is on-par with other viral vaccines AND the covid vaccine is highly effective. If you’re going to reply, please start off by being honest. I’m not going to argue with someone who is arguing in bad faith, it’s a waste of my time.
    - trimethylpurine 4mo ago
      > 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. That's more than 300x the rate for COVID infection for the same set of symptoms (which also include stroke, death, and paralysis that you conveniently overlooked) at the time of the study (it's increased more than 100x that, as of today). Considering the vaccine uses the same proteins as the infection, just concentrated, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it? I'm here to help if you need it. The math is right there, all you need to do is remove the media brainwashing from your eye glasses when you read the research and just read the study as it is, like a scientist. It's pretty simple. We teach this same method of writing science articles to 8th graders and they get it. But most people failed science in high school (aka C's transfer), then go vote as if Fox and CNN gave them credentials, sadly. Hopefully, you'll commit to being a scientist and do better than that. I'll help you along; the people claiming to be "on the side of science" and are widely publicized, are perverting public opinion on real science. And it's costing a lot of lives, because now people that can't do basic math like this think vaccines altogether are bad. Is that your goal? I sure hope not. >no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000 MMR? Nearly all regularly administered vaccines, by the traditional definition (not the post COVID definition) using dead or weakened viruses, have a much lower adverse reaction rate than that. You're saying what you're saying, but you're not looking at the research on those vaccines apparently. 1/500,000 is a very high number amongst those vaccines, factually. >If you bother to read the conclusions sections You mean if I stop doing math and use the corporate profiteering summary as my moral compass? No thanks. I'll leave that to the people that can't do math. I believe in assisted suicide, and evolution. By all means, go get vaccinated. Just stop telling people that they are stupid for doing math and science. This isn't your industry. It belongs to the mathematicians and the researchers. YouTube is not the arbiter of knowledge. Please, if any of this comes off as bad faith, let me correct that. I'm in good faith telling everyone to stop trying to sell me dog shit while calling it an ice cream sandwich.
      - preg_match 4mo ago
        Yes, this is bad faith plainly and any reasonable person will agree. You’re choosing to simply ignore a lot of stuff so your conclusions make sense. You’re ignoring the placebo group entirely. Why does that matter? injecting even a placebo has high rate of adverse effects. The injection mechanism itself is not free - it hurts. You’re ignoring the conclusions under some hand way “uhhh media!” pretense. If you disagree with the conclusions, great - defend that. No hand wavy bullshit. You’re ignoring other vaccines. If the placebo has a 12% rate of adverse effects, how could MMR have a rate orders of magnitude lower? Did they beam the MMR vaccine directly into people’s skulls? This just makes zero sense at all, and demonstrates either a foundation gap in reasoning skills or bad faith arguing. The bigger picture is: I am absolutely not assuming you’re stupid. The exact opposite, actually. You’re a very smart person. What that leaves is that you’re arguing in bad faith. I argue that’s worse, this is an inversion of Hanson’s razor. But it’s obvious to me you’ve thought about this. So, where does that leave us?

preg_match 4mo ago

Doesn’t say anything even close to what you’re saying. This source supports what I am saying, and shows the Covid vaccine is: 1. Highly effective at preventing Covid 2. As safe as other viral vaccines

trimethylpurine 4mo ago
27%? You interpret a nearly 1/3 incidence rate for a negative reaction to be safe?! You realize that's more than 300x higher than COVID infection as known at the time, and it's more than 30,000x as we know today? It says exactly what I'm saying. You just need to look at the numbers, if you're willing. It's sad that so many people simply can't read a research paper because they've never written one. This should be required for finishing middle school. >As safe as other viral vaccines No! Most vaccines that we give children have an incident rate less than 1/500,000! Some are less than 1/billion. It might be as safe as other COVID vaccines (RNA based), and which also had an insanely high incident rate and for the same reason. Horrifying. Truly.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- preg_match 4mo ago
  The 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. Bearing in mind the placebo group itself had a 12% rate of adverse effects. I legitimately don’t understand how, knowing that, you could expect a 1/500,000 rate of adverse effects. I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. Also, no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000. Pain and discomfort is common for all vaccines. If you bother to read the conclusions sections, you’d see the risk is on-par with other viral vaccines AND the covid vaccine is highly effective. If you’re going to reply, please start off by being honest. I’m not going to argue with someone who is arguing in bad faith, it’s a waste of my time.
  - trimethylpurine 4mo ago
    > 27% is for adverse effects, which includes symptoms as simple as a headache or fatigue. That's more than 300x the rate for COVID infection for the same set of symptoms (which also include stroke, death, and paralysis that you conveniently overlooked) at the time of the study (it's increased more than 100x that, as of today). Considering the vaccine uses the same proteins as the infection, just concentrated, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it? I'm here to help if you need it. The math is right there, all you need to do is remove the media brainwashing from your eye glasses when you read the research and just read the study as it is, like a scientist. It's pretty simple. We teach this same method of writing science articles to 8th graders and they get it. But most people failed science in high school (aka C's transfer), then go vote as if Fox and CNN gave them credentials, sadly. Hopefully, you'll commit to being a scientist and do better than that. I'll help you along; the people claiming to be "on the side of science" and are widely publicized, are perverting public opinion on real science. And it's costing a lot of lives, because now people that can't do basic math like this think vaccines altogether are bad. Is that your goal? I sure hope not. >no, regular vaccines do not have an adverse effect rate of 1/500,000 MMR? Nearly all regularly administered vaccines, by the traditional definition (not the post COVID definition) using dead or weakened viruses, have a much lower adverse reaction rate than that. You're saying what you're saying, but you're not looking at the research on those vaccines apparently. 1/500,000 is a very high number amongst those vaccines, factually. >If you bother to read the conclusions sections You mean if I stop doing math and use the corporate profiteering summary as my moral compass? No thanks. I'll leave that to the people that can't do math. I believe in assisted suicide, and evolution. By all means, go get vaccinated. Just stop telling people that they are stupid for doing math and science. This isn't your industry. It belongs to the mathematicians and the researchers. YouTube is not the arbiter of knowledge. Please, if any of this comes off as bad faith, let me correct that. I'm in good faith telling everyone to stop trying to sell me dog shit while calling it an ice cream sandwich.
    - preg_match 4mo ago
      Yes, this is bad faith plainly and any reasonable person will agree. You’re choosing to simply ignore a lot of stuff so your conclusions make sense. You’re ignoring the placebo group entirely. Why does that matter? injecting even a placebo has high rate of adverse effects. The injection mechanism itself is not free - it hurts. You’re ignoring the conclusions under some hand way “uhhh media!” pretense. If you disagree with the conclusions, great - defend that. No hand wavy bullshit. You’re ignoring other vaccines. If the placebo has a 12% rate of adverse effects, how could MMR have a rate orders of magnitude lower? Did they beam the MMR vaccine directly into people’s skulls? This just makes zero sense at all, and demonstrates either a foundation gap in reasoning skills or bad faith arguing. The bigger picture is: I am absolutely not assuming you’re stupid. The exact opposite, actually. You’re a very smart person. What that leaves is that you’re arguing in bad faith. I argue that’s worse, this is an inversion of Hanson’s razor. But it’s obvious to me you’ve thought about this. So, where does that leave us?