Vaccination injury testimony from many individuals

[Ana the Ist]

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

I like dumping on stupidity....sure.

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.

More than that died under Maoist policies in China....yet I imagine the thought rarely crosses your mind.

Does that make you a sociopath? No. You can't really care about people you don't know or never will.

So please, remember that before the next "b-b-b-but a good person would blah blah blah" statement you see.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[...] If the chances of dying of covid were 2%....we'd have over 6 million dead in this nation, not 600k.

Only if everyone got COVID. There is no reason to think that everyone has. I don't think that I have. Many people have been tested repeatedly and always came up negative.

 

[expos4ever]

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.)

What evidence? And, at the risk of seeming patronizing, remember that to count all deaths of people within 28 days of receiving a positive tests - even if they are hit by a bus - as a covid death does not necessarily result in over-counting if there are reasons to expect that these over-counts will be be offset by under-counts.

and I have seen evidence that adverse effects to the vaccines have been under reported,

What evidence?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only if everyone got COVID. There is no reason to think that everyone has. I don't think that I have..

Exactly.

Congrats sir. You've identified the main feature of a certain risk vs a variable risk....

Certainty.

If I go skydiving....I 100% have a certainty of facing all the risks of skydiving.

If I take a vaccine....I have 100% certainty of facing the risks involved with that vaccine.

Do I have 100% certainty of catching covid? No...probably not. Perhaps on a long enough timeline...but not a certainty.

 

[HARK!]

What evidence? And, at the risk of seeming patronizing, remember that to count all deaths of people within 28 days of receiving a positive tests - even if they are hit by a bus - as a covid death does not necessarily result in over-counting if there are reasons to expect that these over-counts will be be offset by under-counts.

Here is just one of many examples:

Is US COVID-19 death count inflated?

What evidence?

Did you watch the video in the OP?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Exactly.

Congrats sir. You've identified the main feature of a certain risk vs a variable risk....

Certainty.

If I go skydiving....I 100% have a certainty of facing all the risks of skydiving.

If I take a vaccine....I have 100% certainty of facing the risks involved with that vaccine.

Do I have 100% certainty of catching covid? No...probably not. Perhaps on a long enough timeline...but not a certainty.

If that's the "point" you were trying to make it wasn't a particularly effective method.

I like to think of the vaccine as "protection against idiots". It's far more effective than the mask, with only a tiny risk factor. Given that those same idiots are driving in the parking lots outside the store, I risk death there too. (I thought you might find this form of argument more persuasive.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't say ...



Which is odd for a natural virus. Don't they tend to weaken over time?

No. What on Earth makes you think that that happens?

Ok. So how is that "vaccinate the whole world" project going?

If not that....the "keep the entire world from US soil" project....how's that going?

It is going to take some doing. And I thought that for once you would be an "America First" type. Since the vaccines have to come from first world countries they have to get themselves under control first so that they can afford to help the world. It is really an investment in our own safety when we do so.

Well luckily I'm an atheist and I certainly don't take the moralizing of Christians any more seriously than I take it from you.

Sorry, I see that you claim to be one. Hmm, even atheists can be wrong.

 

[HARK!]

No. What on Earth makes you think that that happens?

The viruses which tend to endure, tend to find a new host before killing off the existing host. Very deadly viruses tend to die out quickly.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I like dumping on stupidity....sure.



More than that died under Maoist policies in China....yet I imagine the thought rarely crosses your mind.

Does that make you a sociopath? No. You can't really care about people you don't know or never will.

So please, remember that before the next "b-b-b-but a good person would blah blah blah" statement you see.

What a bizarre non-sequitor.

 

[cow451]

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.

If you look at trending the rate was higher earlier and has leveled out at the current 2%. Current.

 

[cow451]

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



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.

The rate if for those that have contracted COVID. Glad to clarify that.
BTW I had COVID and later the vaccine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The viruses which tend to endure, tend to find a new host before killing off the existing host. Very deadly viruses tend to die out quickly.

That is a bit oversimplified. And this virus tends to kill off mainly the old. That means that the host is unlikely to evolve to better withstand the virus. An extremely virulent virus that always kills off its host has a limited lifetime, but that is not the case here. There is no reason given yet for the virus to weaken.

 

[cow451]

That is a bit oversimplified. And this virus tends to kill off mainly the old. That means that the host is unlikely to evolve to better withstand the virus. An extremely virulent virus that always kills off its host has a limited lifetime, but that is not the case here. There is no reason given yet for the virus to weaken.

Good point. For a virus to survive, it is better that the host lives to infect another day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you look at trending the rate was higher earlier and has leveled out at the current 2%. Current.

Two factors affected that. The early detected viruses were in retirement homes. Since those are elderly people there was a very high death rate. Second, hospitals have learned how to treat patients with the virus better meaning that there is a higher rate of survival.

And of course it is much more complicated that that. Early on many deaths were not reported as Covid cases even though they should have been. How do they know? By very noticeable and otherwise unexplained spike in the death rates. Second many more people have had the virus that statistics show. Like you I had the virus. And like you I am fully vaccinated now. I was lucky. I have a "mild case". It seemed sudden onset to me and lasted only a few days with high fever and very bad body aches. If I was not working where we were regularly tested, and of course I told them that I had been ill, I would have thought that it was "just the flu". As I said, I was lucky. A coworker was not.

But what deniers of science do not realize is that the longer this virus is with us the greater the odds are that it will evolve so that it can get around the vaccine. That would mean we would have to go back to major shutdowns again because having the virus in the past or vaccinations would not make any difference.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If that's the "point" you were trying to make it wasn't a particularly effective method.

I like to think of the vaccine as "protection against idiots".

I would normally agree.

Unfortunately, I know medical history.

It's hard to find any instances of medical science getting it right "the first time" in the last hundred years....from x-rays, to morphine, to yes....conventional vaccines.....they tend to destroy and ruin a few lives before they work out the "details".

But hey....I wanna congratulate you on rolling the dice on a brand new vaccine method that had absolutely 0 long term testing. You looked at the testing data and said "10-15 years"? No sir, I want my complacency juice now so I can stop panicking.

Well done, I'm sure they got it right the first time this time....

 

[HARK!]

That is a bit oversimplified. And this virus tends to kill off mainly the old. That means that the host is unlikely to evolve to better withstand the virus. An extremely virulent virus that always kills off its host has a limited lifetime, but that is not the case here. There is no reason given yet for the virus to weaken.

My statement was in regards to viruses in general. I was taught this by a genetics engineer, who put it in simple terms for me. I tried to read her books; but they were way over my head. Most here would have no idea what was being said if it was expressed in technical terms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is a bit oversimplified. And this virus tends to kill off mainly the old. That means that the host is unlikely to evolve to better withstand the virus. An extremely virulent virus that always kills off its host has a limited lifetime, but that is not the case here. There is no reason given yet for the virus to weaken.

Yeah, rabies has an extremely high mortality rate. Anthrax hasn't really gotten weaker. These are both primarily animals to people...right?

The transmission rates though...are nothing like covid.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What a bizarre non-sequitor.

Well don't reply with an ad hominem.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The rate if for those that have contracted COVID.

Which is by no means certain.

BTW I had COVID and later the vaccine.

I'm sure it's a amazing story....wish you hadn't given spoilers.

 

[Tavernier]

Anecdotes need statistical corroboration to be really useful.

...but then, so does a vaccine.