Sign in to follow this  
Traveler

Requiring a COVID-19 Vaccine (shot/s)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:
10 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.

There are two different issues at play here:

(1) The VAERS data

(2) The interpretation of the VAERS data

It is possible to accept #1, cautiously or even uncritically, but still reject #2. The quote you offer above is solidly in Camp #2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 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 believe this is what is defined as a false dichotomy. It is easy to trust one source while having mistrust toward another. Just as it is easy to trust one person while mistrusting another person who are in the same field of work.

There is nothing wrong with a person's thought process because they do not accept different sources as equal in their delivery.

Share this post


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

There are two different issues at play here:

(1) The VAERS data

(2) The interpretation of the VAERS data

It is possible to accept #1, cautiously or even uncritically, but still reject #2. The quote you offer above is solidly in Camp #2.

Ok.  That makes more sense. 

And yes, it seems obvious by reading through some of the anecdotes that make up the VAERS data, that vaccines occasionally kill people.   

(Especially the medical fragile people near the end of their lives anyway.  Those folks can die if a door is slammed too hard, and it seems quite obvious that getting a vaccine was the slamming door event for a number of them.)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

I believe this is what is defined as a false dichotomy. It is easy to trust one source while having mistrust toward another. Just as it is easy to trust one person while mistrusting another person who are in the same field of work.

That makes sense too, I suppose.

 

Share this post


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

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.

@NeuroTypical, this is the crux of the logical argument I'm offering. Assume for a moment that the above two propositions are true, namely, "(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."

If both of the above conditions are true, then you appear to be saying that there is literally no way of arriving at that conclusion in a logical manner. Do you really believe that it would be impossible for a reasonable person to determine that the VAERS data support the hypothesis that the vaccines are deadly while simultaneously maintaining that the publicly released analysis of the COVID data is flawed?

The other possibility is that you reject that it is even possible that both #1 and #2 above could be correct. Is that the case?

My argument is not basically one of who's right and who's wrong, but that the following statement is incorrect:

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

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.

EDIT: I would say that it does appear to be inconsistent to accept data that you think bolsters your prejudices while simultaneously rejecting a data analysis from the same source that you think disagrees with your prejudices. But the fact that something appears to be inconsistent does not necessarily imply that it really is inconsistent.

Personally, I have been underwhelmed by the shamelessly agenda-driven and starkly partisan analysis and reporting we have seen over the last 18+ months regarding COVID. It has greatly weakened my already shaky faith in mass media. I just want honest and unbiased data and analysis. At this point, I honestly think that's probably asking more than I will ever get.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


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

EDIT: I would say that it does appear to be inconsistent to accept data that you think bolsters your prejudices while simultaneously rejecting a data analysis from the same source that you think disagrees with your prejudices. But the fact that something appears to be inconsistent does not necessarily imply that it really is inconsistent.

Agreed.
From yesterday.

On 7/12/2021 at 10:15 AM, NeedleinA said:

They want us to fully embrace their numbers when it comes to Covid deaths, but on the other hand completely ignore/discredit the numbers on VAERS Vaccine related deaths.
Both stats derive their data from imperfect sources, so why are we told only to believe one and ignore the other?

Why should we accept the Covid death rates/side affects as gospel, but then turn a blind eye to the Vaccine death rates/side affects?
All I see is a one-sided landslide of big tech, media & govt. censorship to keep the Covid gravy train rolling forward and a swift sword towards any dissenting view point.

If they really wanted to help otherwise normal people not turn into supposed conspiracy theorist, they would stop censoring everything like they have been doing and let free speech work it's magic in the square of public opinion. 
Until then, the divide just continues to grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fauci is not god. He is a man with an opinion on matters. Maybe he is honest...maybe he is corrupt. Fact is, he is no more intelligent than any other physician with experience in infectious disease. He does not have access to information that is also not available to the medical community at large. Regarding other studies, those who look at data and interpret it cannot possibly see every variable taking place. There is no standard of practice for any of this, period. Bias exists with covid data, treatment, and news, for better or worse, on both sides...and the high amount of money at stake only compounds the desire for control and power among those with widespread influence.

Folks need to stop cherry picking information to justify their actions to themselves and others. In reality, they themselves are lost and truly don't know what they are doing or talking about, and may be leading others astray at the same time. Find out what God wants you to do, act on it, and don't start looking over your shoulder uncertain of yourself because others are mocking you. So many things, including people in prominent positions, that may not seem to have anything to do with or against the church or the Lord's work actually might under the surface. The adversary can use any form of contention, greed, or fear to his advantage.

"If we are to have any hope of sifting through the myriad of voices and the philosophies of men that attack truth, we must learn to receive revelation."

Russell M. Nelson, Apr 2018 General Conference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2021 at 5:57 PM, LDSGator said:

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. 

I haven't seen many tantrums. I've mostly seen people calling out pearl clutchers for their irrational fear and asking that they not get the force of law to back up their nagging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I haven't seen many tantrums. I've mostly seen people calling out pearl clutchers for their irrational fear and asking that they not get the force of law to back up their nagging.

:: snickers :: very meta of you. 
 

I’ve seen many people throw tantrums over being asked to wear a mask. And, because I’m a fair guy, yes, I’ve seen people lose it when they see others not wear a mask. So, yes, it’s on both sides. 

Share this post


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

I haven't seen many tantrums. I've mostly seen people calling out pearl clutchers for their irrational fear and asking that they not get the force of law to back up their nagging.

Hey, I see what you did there . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Some people die wearing seat belts in car crashes. But, it’s still a very good idea to wear a seat belt. 
 

What with your anti-vaxx stance? Like, how did you come to that conclusion?  You are too smart to believe this rubbish. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Some people die wearing seat belts in car crashes. But, it’s still a very good idea to wear a seat belt. 
 

What with your anti-vaxx stance? Like, how did you come to that conclusion?  You are too smart to believe this rubbish. 

Who said I was anti-vaxx?  I was just sharing an article that had some interesting information on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Who said I was anti-vaxx?  I was just sharing an article that had some interesting information on the topic.

Okay, so you aren’t anti-vaxx? You believe they work?

 

Just to be clear, I’m asking not to insult you. I am honestly curious how people get to that conclusion. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


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

What vaccines would you feel are “acceptable” to take? 
 

Again, honestly curious. 

I think that is an individual choice based on individual conditions.  To say a blanket statement is not really taking into account a LOT of variables.

I think you may have confused your concept of what I've stated with what I actually stated in the past. 

I said that I have a medical condition that makes it unfavorable for ME to take many vaccines.  If other people want to get a vaccine, that's fine by me.  But because you don't agree with my medical exemption, you think I'm anti-vax, and proceed to shame and ridicule me.  It's a free country.  You can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

because you don't agree with my medical exemption, you think I'm anti-vax, and proceed to shame and ridicule me.  I

Okay. Stop playing the victim. I said twice that I’m honestly curious. Not asking to insult you. So there’s that. Which you ignored. Because you want to pretend I’m picking on you. Which I’m not. And I said it twice. Perhaps you are judging my intentions on what you would do in my place. 
 

Next, if I misunderstood your choice on vaccines and why you don’t take them, I’m truly sorry. 
 

And maybe, just maybe, if I was confused by your stance it’s because you weren’t clear. Just maybe. But you know me @Carborendum, I’m really stupid. 
 

And finally, yes, I do think most people who claim “medical exceptions” aren’t telling us the entire truth. Reality is that less than 1% have a legit claim to that. If you are that one percent, I truly feel bad for you because it’s a dangerous life.
 

However, I’ve met so many people who claim that that yes, I’m cynical about it. It’s like meeting people who claim to be Navy SEALS or at a famous football game where their team won the championship. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


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

There have been 49 fully vaccinated people in New Jersey who have died from the coronavirus through July 12, state health officials told NJ Advance Media on Wednesday.

Holy crap, that is excellent news!   With around 60% of the state's 8.8million vaccinated, that makes the 'rona death rate of vaccinated NJians to be around 0.0009%.   Compared to NJ's unvaccinated 'rona death rate of 0.27%, what more undeniable, clear, transparently glorious and wonderful proof of the vaccine's effectiveness could there possibly be?  (I mean, the article doesn't make that clear, but people get it, right?)

Wanna reduce your chances of dying of 'rona by two-hundred and eighty times?  Get the vaccine.

Wanna increase your chances of dying of 'rona by 280X?  Don't get the vaccine.

Thanks Carb, for posting this wonderful news!  I'm seeing similar good reports everywhere.  Dang I'm glad we've got effective vaccines against this thing.  Now, only the most stubbornly blinder-wearing folks out there are able to cling to a false belief that the vaccine isn't effective.  I mean, folks can still say things like "it's not for me" or "I have the right to decide for myself" or "I'm concerned about possible long-term effects", or "0.27%?  I'll take my chances, thank you", or some such.  There remain several valid principled arguments against the vaccine.  But with the entire world's populations showing results similar to New Jersey, nobody can hope to say the vaccine isn't wildly effective against the virus, and hope to maintain a shred of credibility.  Denying the vaccine's effectiveness, in the face of several months of relevant data, is now tantamount to denying the earth is a sphere.  

I always figured these guys knew what they were doing.  Especially the superstar combination of medical doctor, former medical researcher, and prophet of the Lord.

image.png.8f4a5e071fe486ee96915d1a12ba704c.png

image.png.49486c6ba075b68d46b27841e385c48c.png\

image.png.d778b6e6160742864e7270d1fca602ee.png

image.png.bf2e8e1fe11af9793b7d6343871598ff.png

image.png.dcf7ea2413919b3c5554eefa7f9fa28c.png

 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


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

Holy crap, that is excellent news!   With around 60% of the state's 8.8million vaccinated, that makes the 'rona death rate of vaccinated NJians to be around 0.0009%.   Compared to NJ's unvaccinated 'rona death rate of 0.27%, what more undeniable, clear, transparently glorious and wonderful proof of the vaccine's effectiveness could there possibly be?  (I mean, the article doesn't make that clear, but people get it, right?)

Wanna reduce your chances of dying of 'rona by two-hundred and eighty times?  Get the vaccine.

Wanna increase your chances of dying of 'rona by 280X?  Don't get the vaccine.

 

I heard recently (I wish I could remember where) that generally humans have a hard time comparing very large numbers and very small numbers.  Up front, most people don't see much difference between 10,000 and 10,000,000 or 1/10,000 and 1/10,000,000.  Even though they are degrees of magnitude separated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dprh said:

I heard recently (I wish I could remember where) that generally humans have a hard time comparing very large numbers and very small numbers.  Up front, most people don't see much difference between 10,000 and 10,000,000 or 1/10,000 and 1/10,000,000.  Even though they are degrees of magnitude separated.  

Yep.  People also get emotionally involved in numbers.  "49 people?  How horrible!  How concerning!  I certainly don't want to be #50!"

Journalists, of course, are mainly trained these days to write things that increase views, clicks, shares, and follows.  So you play to emotions.  

Share this post


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

Holy crap, that is excellent news!   With around 60% of the state's 8.8million vaccinated, that makes the 'rona death rate of vaccinated NJians to be around 0.0009%.   Compared to NJ's unvaccinated 'rona death rate of 0.27%, what more undeniable, clear, transparently glorious and wonderful proof of the vaccine's effectiveness could there possibly be?  (I mean, the article doesn't make that clear, but people get it, right?)

Wanna reduce your chances of dying of 'rona by two-hundred and eighty times?  Get the vaccine.

Wanna increase your chances of dying of 'rona by 280X?  Don't get the vaccine.

Thanks Carb, for posting this wonderful news!  I'm seeing similar good reports everywhere.  Dang I'm glad we've got effective vaccines against this thing.  Now, only the most stubbornly blinder-wearing folks out there are able to cling to a false belief that the vaccine isn't effective.  I mean, folks can still say things like "it's not for me" or "I have the right to decide for myself" or "I'm concerned about possible long-term effects", or some such.  There remain several valid principled arguments against the vaccine.  But with the entire world's populations showing results similar to New Jersey, nobody can hope to say the vaccine isn't wildly effective against the virus, and hope to maintain a shred of credibility.  Denying the vaccine's effectiveness, in the face of several months of relevant data, is now tantamount to denying the earth is a sphere.  

I always figured these guys knew what they were doing.  Especially the superstar combination of medical doctor, former medical researcher, and prophet of the Lord.

image.png.8f4a5e071fe486ee96915d1a12ba704c.png

image.png.49486c6ba075b68d46b27841e385c48c.png\

image.png.d778b6e6160742864e7270d1fca602ee.png

image.png.bf2e8e1fe11af9793b7d6343871598ff.png

image.png.dcf7ea2413919b3c5554eefa7f9fa28c.png

 

 

 

 

99-99.5% survival rate worldwide.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Holy crap, that is excellent news!   With around 60% of the state's 8.8million vaccinated, that makes the 'rona death rate of vaccinated NJians to be around 0.0009%.   Compared to NJ's unvaccinated 'rona death rate of 0.27%, what more undeniable, clear, transparently glorious and wonderful proof of the vaccine's effectiveness could there possibly be?  (I mean, the article doesn't make that clear, but people get it, right?)

Wanna reduce your chances of dying of 'rona by two-hundred and eighty times?  Get the vaccine.

Wanna increase your chances of dying of 'rona by 280X?  Don't get the vaccine.

Thanks Carb, for posting this wonderful news!  I'm seeing similar good reports everywhere.  Dang I'm glad we've got effective vaccines against this thing.  Now, only the most stubbornly blinder-wearing folks out there are able to cling to a false belief that the vaccine isn't effective.  I mean, folks can still say things like "it's not for me" or "I have the right to decide for myself" or "I'm concerned about possible long-term effects", or "0.27%?  I'll take my chances, thank you", or some such.  There remain several valid principled arguments against the vaccine.  But with the entire world's populations showing results similar to New Jersey, nobody can hope to say the vaccine isn't wildly effective against the virus, and hope to maintain a shred of credibility.  Denying the vaccine's effectiveness, in the face of several months of relevant data, is now tantamount to denying the earth is a sphere.  

I always figured these guys knew what they were doing.  Especially the superstar combination of medical doctor, former medical researcher, and prophet of the Lord.

image.png.8f4a5e071fe486ee96915d1a12ba704c.png

image.png.49486c6ba075b68d46b27841e385c48c.png\

image.png.d778b6e6160742864e7270d1fca602ee.png

image.png.bf2e8e1fe11af9793b7d6343871598ff.png

image.png.dcf7ea2413919b3c5554eefa7f9fa28c.png

 

 

5 have had the vaccine.  10 have not said what they did.  The OFFICIAL handbook of the church says:

 

38.7.13

Vaccinations

Vaccinations administered by competent medical professionals protect health and preserve life. Members of the Church are encouraged to safeguard themselves, their children, and their communities through vaccination.

Ultimately, individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. If members have concerns, they should counsel with competent medical professionals and also seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

 

 Seems like an awful lot of finger wagging going on in the Church these days.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

99-99.5% survival rate worldwide.

Carb's article and Neurotypical's post indicates NJ's unvaccinated survival rate would be 1-0.0027, so 99.73%.  Survival rate of vaccinated people is 99.9991%.  Yes, it seems like a small difference but like I said before, it's degrees of magnitude in difference.

Edit: Just a little more maths.  I took the difference of the rates.  It's 0.26911%.  Multiply that by the estimated world population of 7.5 Billion and it's 20,182,500.  If everyone on the planet got the virus (which seems inevitable) , the difference if everyone were vaccinated or unvaccinated would be over 20 million deaths.

Edited by dprh

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