Sign in to follow this  
Traveler

Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

And, their lies cost lives. Because people believe their garbage they won’t wear a mask

Fauci, our nation's top paid federal employee and go to scientist in 2020 said:

Quote

...there is no reason to be walking around with a mask, when you are in the middle of an outbreak wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet but it is not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is...

So... was Fauci spreading 'garbage'?
If so, then we agree upon something.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Fauci, our nation's top paid federal employee and go to scientist in 2020 said:

So... was Fauci spreading 'garbage'?
If so, then we agree upon something.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN26T2TR

Outdated quote. He’s a hero trying to save lives. I truly don’t understand the hate this man gets.

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

So, I am guessing you wore two masks then?

Actually I did a few times, yes. Now that I’m fully vaccinated I usually only wear one, simply because I want to make others around me feel comfortable.
 

I have a friend who is high risk and my grandmother is 95. I’m more than happy to do those things so they can feel safe and included in activities.
 

No apologies at all. I’m truly bewildered as to why grown ups throw temper tantrums when asked to wear a mask. I expect it from a four year old. Not a 45 year old. I also expect it from your snotty 18 year old “No one tells me what to do” cousin, but again, not from an adult. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

How are they doing?  I'm hearing that the vast, vast majority of folks dying and needing hospitals for COVID now, are all unvaccinated.  Meaning, the vaccine isn't a get-out-of-COVID free card, but it certainly seems to be very good at keeping people out of hospitals and morgues should they catch it.

All three were very sick.  One landed in the hospital.  He was back to church yesterday and still looked like crap, but on the mend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A retired co-worker caught Covid, was hospitalized, recovered and was released.  Three weeks later he was back in the hospital with pneumonia and died.  His death certificate listed Covid as the cause of death.

 

A friend's uncle had Stage 4 lung cancer, caught Covid, then died.  His death certificate listed Covid.

 

Another co-worker had a family member with some cancer related issue that was fatal (I no longer remember what on this one), caught Covid and died.  His death certificate listed Covd as the cause of death.

 

I am far from the only person with these stories.

 

The Covid death numbers are doctored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mirkwood said:

A retired co-worker caught Covid, was hospitalized, recovered and was released.  Three weeks later he was back in the hospital with pneumonia and died.  His death certificate listed Covid as the cause of death.

 

A friend's uncle had Stage 4 lung cancer, caught Covid, then died.  His death certificate listed Covid.

 

Another co-worker had a family member with some cancer related issue that was fatal (I no longer remember what on this one), caught Covid and died.  His death certificate listed Covd as the cause of death.

 

I am far from the only person with these stories.

 

The Covid death numbers are doctored.

None of these count. It's all just anecdotal. There is nothing to see here, folks. Move along. There is no man behind the curtain. You're all a bunch of wacko conspiracy theorists. Just accept what the media report. You can trust them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

conspiracy theorists 

"Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus they got vaccinated against because you're not vaccinated."
- Unknown theorists

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I am far from the only person with these stories.

I'll repeat my mother's experience.

She tested positive when she had a mild flu-like episode.  She recovered fine.  A short while later (think it was about a month or two) she had a heart-attack and died.  Her death certificate indicated "heart-attack" but someone gathering statistics included her in the COVID deaths because she tested positive within "some time frame" of her death.

This is not to say that COVID isn't serious.  It very often is.  But it isn't as serious as the media make it out to be. 

I don't know why I find myself walking this line.  Why do I feel like I'm the only one who realizes that it truly is a serious disease that we ought to be taking precautions for, while at the same time believing that it is still being blown WAY out of proportion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carborendum I don't know how carefully government and other statisticians try to distinguish between those cases caused by COVID and those where COVID was not a factor, but I am aware that COVID is linked to increased risk of blood clotting which leads to a higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and similar conditions. Again, I don't know if or how they distinguish between "would have had a heart attack/stroke anyway" and "COVID caused the blood clot that this patient died from". Without trying to pile on the grief from your mother's death, it is possible that COVID was part of triggering her heart attack, which would suggest that it could be appropriate to include her in the COVID deaths statistics.

From April 2020: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/29/847917017/doctors-link-covid-19-to-potentially-deadly-blood-clots-and-strokes

From April 2021: https://www.popsci.com/story/uncategorized/covid-blood-clots/

Condolences on the death of your mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@Carborendum I don't know how carefully government and other statisticians try to distinguish between those cases caused by COVID and those where COVID was not a factor, but I am aware that COVID is linked to increased risk of blood clotting which leads to a higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and similar conditions.

You're absolutely right.  A 90-year-old woman with 200 extra pounds on her, who subsisted on a diet of largely bacon and sugar couldn't possibly have had a heart attack had it not been for COVID.

What was I thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know why I find myself walking this line.  Why do I feel like I'm the only one who realizes that it truly is a serious disease that we ought to be taking precautions for, while at the same time believing that it is still being blown WAY out of proportion?

I feel that way myself.  I think it's the nature of forums, social media, sound-bite culture to try to simplify things.  We end up losing the nuances of topics.  I know I have a difficult time expressing my thoughts in text format and become more confrontational than I do in person. This topic, like many others, isn't black or white, left or right, bond or free.....but when I respond to something, like I did about the World Doctors Alliance, I then get questioned about it overall and I feel almost compelled to defend things that aren't what I meant to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Why do I feel like I'm the only one who realizes that it truly is a serious disease that we ought to be taking precautions for, while at the same time believing that it is still being blown WAY out of proportion?

This is what every rational person in the world thinks. The problem of course, being that irrational thought has become more the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This is not to say that COVID isn't serious.  It very often is.  But it isn't as serious as the media make it out to be. 

I don't know why I find myself walking this line.  Why do I feel like I'm the only one who realizes that it truly is a serious disease that we ought to be taking precautions for, while at the same time believing that it is still being blown WAY out of proportion?

I feel the same way. 

I respect it as a disease. I don't want to trifle with it.

But I also feel it's like society has nothing better to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2021 at 11:32 AM, NeedleinA said:

In less comical news and not clumped into a separate 'plastic surgery' category... here are the VAERS deaths by vaccine manufacture.

Two things that are true at the same time: 
- It's possible to get the vaccine, and then, later, die of causes totally unrelated to the vaccine or covid or governments. 
- Sometimes, those totally unrelated deaths will show up in the VAERS database.  And you can't tell by lookin', whether the death was related to the vaccine or not.  VAERS doesn't usually specify cause of death.  

Perhaps this might help.  I just downloaded the 2021 VAERS data, and found all the people who died.  Here are some of the entries in the "SYMPTOM_TEXT" field:

Quote

"Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine EUA" 3/18 twitching of foot...severe leg pain  7:45 PM 3/19 involved in a motor vehicle accident with cardiac arrest and a dissecting aortic aneurysm   12;45 PM

There's one of your 519 Janssen deaths - died after getting in a car crash, of an aneurysm.  Must have been the vaccine, right?

 

Here's patient 917793.  NeedleinA, please explain how this can be a "VAERS vaccine" death.

Quote

Prior to the administration of the COVID 19 vaccine, the nursing home had an outbreak of COVID-19.  Patient was vaccinated and about a week later she tested positive for COVID-19.  She had underlying thyroid and diabetes disease.  She died as a result of COVID-19 and her underlying health conditions and not as a result of the vaccine.

 

 

Here's another one, patient 917790:

Quote

At the time of vaccination, there was an outbreak of residents who had already tested positive for COVID 19 at the nursing home where patient was a resident.  About a week later, patient tested positive for COVID 19.  She had a number of chronic, underlying health conditions.  The vaccine did not have enough time to prevent COVID 19.  There is no evidence that the vaccination caused patient's death.  It simply didn't have time to save her life.

 

 

Here are others:
- Reported Cause(s) of Death: MASSIVE STROKE; COVID-19 PNEUMONIA; THROMBOCYTOPENIA
- On an unknown date, the patient received dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine) (Intramuscular) 1 dosage form. On an unknown date, the patient experienced COMPLETED SUICIDE 
- Unlikely that the events are related to the vaccine. Very limited information has been reported at this time. Further information is not expected.; Reported Cause(s) of Death: Unknown cause of death

Other things:
- The 2021 file has at least 117 examples of deaths that occurred more than 100 days after the vaccine was given.  414 deaths that happened 50-99 days later.  How can any reasonable person be expected to believe they're all due to the vaccine?

 

Here's a quick scatterplot I did of age of death according to the VAERS data:

image.png.4291eb845b0d894c4387d707f16693a0.png

Compare that to a random chart I found on the internet that shows the age people died in the UK in 2015.

image.png.18ed1f5e9cae88b999d54992016262f3.png

Hard question: If the vaccine is killing people earlier than they otherwise would have died, why do the two charts look pretty much the same?

 

Summary:   If you think VAERS data tells you who died of the vaccines, you don't understand VAERS.

Also a summary: If you believe the vaccine is killing people because you read VAERS data, but you mistrust COVID statistics because you mistrust the scientists and organizations who deliver the statistics to you, there is something wrong with your thought process.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here's patient 917793.  NeedleinA, please explain how this can be a "VAERS vaccine" death.

Quote

Prior to the administration of the COVID 19 vaccine, the nursing home had an outbreak of COVID-19.  Patient was vaccinated and about a week later she tested positive for COVID-19.  She had underlying thyroid and diabetes disease.  She died as a result of COVID-19 and her underlying health conditions and not as a result of the vaccine.

How did the coroner determine that the deceased's death was not caused, directly or indirectly, by the vaccine? The report simply states it as if it were self-evident fact. It is not. No evidence is presented, just a statement.

But we have this all the time. We expect our experts to tell us what they know, and we generally accept their specialized judgment uncritically. So what's the issue?

The issus is that tthis is much harder to do when you believe the experts to be biased and unreliable. So if you start with the supposition, "The so-called experts are biased and their word cannot be accepted uncritically," then such assertions with no factual backups are useless.

18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Also a summary: If you believe the vaccine is killing people because you read VAERS data, but you mistrust COVID statistics because you mistrust the scientists and organizations who deliver the statistics to you, there is something wrong with your thought process.

I think this is incorrect. For example, let's suppose that (1) the vaccine really is killing people in statistically significant numbers, and (2) the scientists and organizations that deliver COVID data to the public are biased and not reliable. Then by (1), it is not unreasonable that a person might infer the vaccine's deadly nature based on VAERS data, even if it is incomplete. And by (2), mistrusting the scientists and organizations providing the overall COVID data is perfectly reasonable. Therefore, a person with a flawless thought process might indeed infer that the COVID vaccines are deadly based on VAERS data, yet still maintain that those who deliver COVID statistics are biased and unreliable.

(FTR, I do not suppose that the COVID vaccines are any more deadly than the regular flu vaccines that get offered every year. I have received the two COVID vaccinations, though at least in part that is because we are going to Hawaii in August. I also do not believe that COVID was nearly the black plague-like harbinger of death that the popular media has delighted to report it as being and that so many of the more credulous and overwrought among us have taken it to be. I think what I thought 18 months ago: COVID appears to be roughly like a bad flu in its deadly potential, except that the deaths are much more restricted to older people than with most flus.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think this is incorrect. For example, let's suppose that (1) the vaccine really is killing people in statistically significant numbers, and (2) the scientists and organizations that deliver COVID data to the public are biased and not reliable. Then by (1), it is not unreasonable that a person might infer the vaccine's deadly nature based on VAERS data, even if it is incomplete. And by (2), mistrusting the scientists and organizations providing the overall COVID data is perfectly reasonable. Therefore, a person with a flawless thought process might indeed infer that the COVID vaccines are deadly based on VAERS data, yet still maintain that those who deliver COVID statistics are biased and unreliable.

Wait - we're assuming the scientists/orgs giving us COVID data are biased/not reliable, but the scientists/orgs that populate VAERS data are not biased, and are reliable?  What if I told you the ties between the two groups are so close, you can't really tell them apart?

Here - perhaps we can both agree on this: No matter who gathers/reports the data, or how rigorous their methodologies, or pure their motives, the people who end up summarizing/reporting/spinning the data should be viewed with skepticism and a raised eyebrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

...you don't understand

...there is something wrong with your thought process.

TLDR except your summary, but I think I understand the thrust of your post just fine.... "NT is right, Needle is wrong"... "NT can think, Needle can not".
Thanks, you have successfully changed my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NeuroTypical said:

Wait - we're assuming the scientists/orgs giving us COVID data are biased/not reliable, but the scientists/orgs that populate VAERS data are not biased, and are reliable?

Not at all. Rather, it is not a sign of poor critical reasoning that someone might accept that the VAERS data demonstrate the vaccine's deadly nature while simultaneously maintaining that the COVID statistics in general cannot be trusted uncritically.

Just now, NeuroTypical said:

Here - perhaps we can both agree on this: No matter who gathers/reports the data, or how rigorous their methodologies, or pure their motives, the people who end up summarizing/reporting/spinning the data should be viewed with skepticism and a raised eyebrow.

Not sure about that. Purity of motives is not the issue, nor primarily the methodologies involved. I grant my own ignorance when confronting the specifics of statistical data analysis, for example. The real question is whether I trust the analyses of those who offer interpretations. If they have given reason to doubt the integrity of their analyses and/or their ability to reign in their own biases, then I'm vastly more likely not to trust their conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

TLDR except your summary, but I think I understand the thrust of your post just fine....

Sorry, should have specified "the royal you".

But yeah, I'll stand by my two summary claims, even if both items specifically apply to you personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

the people who end up summarizing/reporting/spinning the data should be viewed with skepticism and a raised eyebrow.

Upon rereading this, I actually do agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not at all. Rather, it is not a sign of poor critical reasoning that someone might accept that the VAERS data demonstrate the vaccine's deadly nature while simultaneously maintaining that the COVID statistics in general cannot be trusted uncritically.

I guess I still don't understand.  The VAERS team specifically emphasizes that their data does NOT demonstrate any such thing.  If someone accepts that, they are accepting the opposite of what they're being offered...

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

Quote

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this