Vaccination injury testimony from many individuals

[expos4ever]

By my estimation one is more likely to have an adverse reaction from the vaccine, than one is to die from the virus.

What do you mean by "adverse"? If you mean things like headache, fever, extreme fatigue, then, of course you are more likely to have an adverse reaction - no one has ever suggested otherwise.

 

[HARK!]

People who bring up the 98% survivability statistic do so because they think that means the risk is insignificant. When you're talking about it in relation to huge numbers, it isn't.

Gov. Ron DeSantis also tweeted about the update, saying people in the age groups of 0 to 19 have a 99.997% chance of survival if they contract COVID-19, the age group of 20 to 49 a 99.98% chance, 50 to 69 years old 99.5% and 70 years old and above a 94.6% chance.

CDC shows COVID-19 has high survival rate; doctor still wants to see precautions taken

If only the 16 year old girl in the video had been armed with this information before she took part in the clinical trial.

Strangely it seems that her "anecdotal" adverse effects weren't recorded in the "statistics."

 

[HARK!]

What do you mean by "adverse"? If you mean things like headache, fever, extreme fatigue, then, of course you are more likely to have an adverse reaction - no one has ever suggested otherwise.

Well we can only go by what is recorded in the statistics. It would seem that some of the "anecdotal" adverse effects might not be included in those numbers.

Wonder why?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well we can only go by what is recorded in the statistics. It would seem that the "anecdotal" adverse effects might not be included in those numbers.

Wonder why?

'cause anecdotes aren't data. We've told you that before.

The fatality rate table posted earlier in the thread is far more valuable than any set of anecdotes.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Gov. Ron DeSantis also tweeted about the update, saying people in the age groups of 0 to 19 have a 99.997% chance of survival if they contract COVID-19, the age group of 20 to 49 a 99.98% chance, 50 to 69 years old 99.5% and 70 years old and above a 94.6% chance.

Oh, so we're only killing around 1 out of every 20 old people with this abject stupidity. And here I thought it was some kind of problem.

 

[HARK!]

'cause anecdotes aren't data.

This is true if they've been excluded from the data.

We've told you that before.

No you haven't; but I'm glad that I had this opportunity to address your oversight.

 

[HARK!]

Oh, so we're only killing around 1 out of every 20 old people with this abject stupidity. And here I thought it was some kind of problem.

What stupidity would that be?

 

[cow451]

Ok...what's my risk of catching the disease?

Depends on level of exposure. Duh.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So?

People who bring up the 98% survivability statistic do so because they think that means the risk is insignificant. When you're talking about it in relation to huge numbers, it isn't.

Sure it is. It's still 2%.

If you told me that 2% of the entire world population would be dead tomorrow when I wake up...I would sleep easy.

I don't know 50 people that well...and I don't lie to myself about how much I care.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Depends on level of exposure. Duh.

Right somewhere between very low and rather high.

Once you figure out the percentage of chance of infection, you can take that number and use it to figure out the actual probability that someone will die of covid, which even in high infection areas, would have to be significantly less than 2%.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Sure it is. It's still 2%.

If you told me that 2% of the entire world population would be dead tomorrow when I wake up...I would sleep easy.

I don't know 50 people that well...and I don't lie to myself about how much I care.

You seem to make a habit of engaging in topics you self-reportedly don't care about.

I don't know what to tell you about not caring for 140 million lives being snuffed out overnight. That sounds like sociopathy, to me. Best of luck to you.

 

[cow451]

Right somewhere between very low and rather high.

Once you figure out the percentage of chance of infection, you can take that number and use it to figure out the actual probability that someone will die of covid, which even in high infection areas, would have to be significantly less than 2%.

Or try to look at real data. The current Covid Fatality Rate in the US is 2%.
Mortality Risk of COVID-19 - Statistics and Research

Glad I could help you out.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is true if they've been excluded from the data.



No you haven't; but I'm glad that I had this opportunity to address your oversight.

Y'all blend together. Can't quite keep you straight when I keep hearing the same argument over and over.

Since you apparently haven't had the data versus anecdote things explained directly to you:

What matters here is the rate. How many people per X (for example 100,000) have a certain reaction or outcome that is "harmful" or dangerous, especially with demographic controls (age, sex, other stuff).

For the worst outcomes (like death), all cases are likely to be reported. We can then compare the deaths (say within 2 weeks of injection) per 100,000 people injected and by demographic group compare to the regular death rate for the same demographic group people who *weren't* injected every two weeks. (These statistics already exists, so the "deaths within 2 weeks of vaccination" group can be compared.) Then see if the difference is statistically significant.

For less drastic issues, it may require a survey made by the vaccinating clinic in a follow up: "Have you had any unusual medical symptoms since your vaccinations? Did you experience X? Y? Z?" If need be surveys of non-vaccinated people can be used as a control.

The various anecdotes that have been mentioned in this thread (and a couple others) and have often been rapidly dismissed are not necessarily invalid nor are they "excluded" from data sets, they just need to be collected in a systematic fashion to be data with adequate controls to prevent selection biases, etc. Data isn't just a collection of measurements, but a carefully selected set of measurements such that it is clear what is and is not in the data.

 

[whatbogsends]

Absolutely. But we need to keep in mind the B.1617.2 (Delta) strain, which is becoming dominant, seems to be more contagious. And the article mentions a UK study indicating that it’s 2.5 times more likely to infect persons under age 50. This could be a very serious problem for unvaccinated people.

5 Things To Know About the Delta Variant

Agreed, and death is only one of the possible bad effects of Covid. It's not by any means a complete picture to make a valid comparison.

Of course, this illustrates the issue at hand. What is being pushed is mantra of "take the vaccine, it's much safer than Covid". Certainly, if i had to choose between getting infected with Covid or taking the vaccine, i would choose the vaccine in a heartbeat. The reality is that the each individual's underlying risks vary widely based on a large number of factors, with age and sex being the most studied/assessed, but other factors play a role as well. And yes, the impact to society by spreading the disease can't be ignored. Moreover, the calculus for each individual's risk is impacted significantly by their lifestyle. The more social interaction one is involved with, the more likely the vaccine represents a safer alternative to the virus.

However, the vast majority of those weighing in on discussion don't actually want to examine the data and nuance, they want to proclaim "they're using us as guinea pigs" or "take the vaccine or you're endangering us all". Both hardline positions are bad, and while "they're using us as guinea pigs" is a more dangerous position if everyone adopted it, the attempt to bully those using the "take the vaccine or you're endangering us all" position isn't particularly helpful. It's an attempt at coercion that breeds resentment.

 

[expos4ever]

Oh, so we're only killing around 1 out of every 20 old people with this abject stupidity. And here I thought it was some kind of problem.

Ahh, they're old, put 'em on ice floes.

 

[whatbogsends]

Or try to look at real data. The current Covid Fatality Rate in the US is 2%.
Mortality Risk of COVID-19 - Statistics and Research

Glad I could help you out.

I've posted real data earlier in the thread. The fatality rate is high among the elderly but less than .2% for most demographics under age 60 (50 for men). The virus sweeping through nursing homes early on in the pandemic contributed significantly to the 2% comprehensive fatality rate.

Again, the fatality rate is but one aspect that needs to be considered when making a full evaluation.

 

[HARK!]

Y'all blend together. Can't quite keep you straight when I keep hearing the same argument over and over.

Since you apparently haven't had the data versus anecdote things explained directly to you:

What matters here is the rate. How many people per X (for example 100,000) have a certain reaction or outcome that is "harmful" or dangerous, especially with demographic controls (age, sex, other stuff).

For the worst outcomes (like death), all cases are likely to be reported. We can then compare the deaths (say within 2 weeks of injection) per 100,000 people injected and by demographic group compare to the regular death rate for the same demographic group people who *weren't* injected every two weeks. (These statistics already exists, so the "deaths within 2 weeks of vaccination" group can be compared.) Then see if the difference is statistically significant.

For less drastic issues, it may require a survey made by the vaccinating clinic in a follow up: "Have you had any unusual medical symptoms since your vaccinations? Did you experience X? Y? Z?" If need be surveys of non-vaccinated people can be used as a control.

The various anecdotes that have been mentioned in this thread (and a couple others) and have often been rapidly dismissed are not necessarily invalid nor are they "excluded" from data sets, they just need to be collected in a systematic fashion to be data with adequate controls to prevent selection biases, etc. Data isn't just a collection of measurements, but a carefully selected set of measurements such that it is clear what is and is not in the data.

Well considering that I have seen evidence that COVID deaths have been over reported (in other words non COVID deaths were counted as COVID deaths.) ; and I have seen evidence that adverse effects to the vaccines have been under reported, even concerning the clinical trials; how would you suppose that I could apply "the data" to reach a reliable conclusion?

 

[HARK!]

Y'all blend together. Can't quite keep you straight when I keep hearing the same argument over and over.

Brain fog is one of the reported adverse effects of these vaccines.

Not that correlation equates to causation; but if this is a recent onset, you might want to look into it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or try to look at real data. The current Covid Fatality Rate in the US is 2%.
Mortality Risk of COVID-19 - Statistics and Research

Glad I could help you out.

If you catch covid.....which is by no means certain....or as you so eloquently put it....

Depends on level of exposure. Duh.

Duh. Glad I could help you out. If the chances of dying of covid were 2%....we'd have over 6 million dead in this nation, not 600k.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Brain fog is one of the reported adverse effects of these vaccines.

Not that correlation equates to causation; but if this is a recent onset, you might want to look into it.

Nah, this isn't new. Most of the posters are so unmemorable, that I can't keep the characters straight. Avatars help (but they also change) but only if they are memorable and I can correlate them to a specific personality. Yours, for example, means nothing to me. It's just a bunch of wiggly lines. (My current, and second, avatar is a history test for some one...) I preferred short stories to novels as they have fewer characters to keep track of.

As for correlation and perhaps not correlation, just after getting injected (which I hadn't actually said had happened in this thread, so you got lucky) my upper arm got sore, but it was the *other* arm. Do ya like that anecdote?