Vaccination injury testimony from many individuals

[Bobber]

That's a harsh, inappropriately moralistic and counterproductive view of the situation, since peoples "bad choices" inevitably arise from factors at large in the societies in which they live. People generally do the best they can given the circumstances of their lives.

But you know right well that some people aren't doing the best they can and you know they can do better. No need therefore to talk about what people generally do. The other persons point made is still valid.

 

[whatbogsends]

Of course, you misrepresent my position.

And, equally obviously, you have to engage in misrepresentation since the facts are against you.

I will not repeat the detailed explanation I have already given but the gist of it is that to count every death within 28 days of a positive covid test as a covid-caused death - even if the person is run over by a bus - is a reasonable way to assess deaths caused by covid given that we cannot afford to do a detailed investigation into each case. The reason is this: the "over-count" of the death of the guy run over by the bus is offset by the fact you would not count either of the following if you used the 28-day rule:

- someone who factually died from covid but was never tested
- someone who tested positive for covid but died more than 28 days after diagnosis.

Now then: a similar argument cannot be used by the anti-vaxxers in support of using VAERS. Do I really need to explain why?

I already refuted the detailed explanation you already gave. You promised to put forth a rebuttal to that refutation, but, alas, we are still waiting.

In our last discussion on the topic i had written:

You gave poor logic to justify a bad methodology and used incorrect statistics as justification. I showed the flaw in your logic and sourced my data for the correct statistics.

Your post was rife with faulty assumptions and circular logic.

You used a 5% fatality rate metric for people over 60 as a substantial part of your justification, when only people over 80 actually have that fatality rate associated with the disease. Moreover, you wholly ignored that the 28 day metric was applied to all age groups, many of which have Covid fatality rates of .2% - a disparity of 25X rate. It's a poor justification for the methodology.

Again, i'll note, that these methodologies are included in determining the fatality rate in the first place. If you start with a methodology that overcounts deaths of a particular cause, you'll have a higher fatality rate for that cause, which is your is necessary to your justification in the first place. You presuppose the fatality rate as justification for counting deaths as Covid deaths which, in turn, increases the calculated fatality rate.

I haven't said that i know better than the experts, but i have said that the justification that you gave was spectacularly flawed, and demonstrated exactly that.

I haven't seen any "experts" who established their guidelines present their reasoning, so i have no basis to effectively judge their determination.

It is obvious, however, that with even a cursory review of the question, that the "experts" came up with different methodologies in different areas, so there doesn't appear to actually be a consensus in how to calculate deaths from Covid, and simply assuming that all methodologies are equally justified and supported by sound logic is an unsupported assumption. It would appear that "experts" are arguing with each other, as they can't agree on a method for calculation.

While this article is older, the fundamental discussion involving how statistics are collected is applicable. Here's what one expert had to say about how Covid deaths are counted:

But there are all sorts of challenges in comparing countries, such as how widely they test for Covid-19 and whether they count deaths from the virus in the same way.

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter from Cambridge University has said trying to rank different countries to decide which is the worst in Europe is a "completely fatuous exercise".
...
First of all, there are differences in how countries record Covid-19 deaths.

France and Germany, for example, have been including deaths in care homes in the headline numbers they produce every day.

But the daily figures for England referred only to deaths in hospitals until 29 April, when they started factoring in deaths in care homes as well.

A further complication is that there is no accepted international standard for how you measure deaths, or their causes.

Does somebody need to have been tested for coronavirus to count towards the statistics, or are the suspicions of a doctor enough?

Germany counts deaths in care homes only if people have tested positive for the virus. Belgium, on the other hand, includes any death in which a doctor suspects coronavirus was involved.

Coronavirus: Why are international comparisons difficult? - BBC News

You consistently like to defer to the experts without even looking at their underlying basis, as if policy makers, simply by being in their position, are infallible and shouldn't be question. That's not how science works.

I'm not asking people to "believe" anything. I'm asking them to review the information available and make an assessment as to if what you're being presented is reasonable, rather than deferring to policy makers as experts beyond questioning.

You're the one asking them to believe that every different method of counting Covid deaths is reasonable and justified based on the sole fact that "experts" came up with each of those methods.

and your response was:

I disagree, but am not motivated to pursue this matter further, at least for now.

You initially gave an argument based on false premises using circular logic to justify the counting of car accident deaths of someone who tested positive from Covid as a "Covid death", while continuing to assert that deaths like these should are rightly not classified as vaccine deaths:

A South Florida doctor who passed away two weeks after receiving his first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine died of natural causes, a medical examiner has ruled.
...
According to the report, the 56-year-old had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on Dec. 19, 2020, and was hospitalized on Dec. 22.

His wife, Heidi Neckelmann, said he had begun experiencing strange symptoms several days after receiving the dose, including small spots on his hands and feet.

He was eventually admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of acute Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), a rare condition in which the body’s immune system mistakingly attacks cell fragments found in the blood known as platelets. In adults, it can be chronic.
...
"Given the history, autopsy, toxicology, and laboratory findings, the cause of death is complications of immune thrombocytopenia following receipt of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine," the report said. "Based on the circumstances as currently known, the manner of death is natural."

South Florida Doctor Who Passed Away After Receiving Covid Vaccine Died of Natural Causes: Medical Examiner – NBC 6 South Florida (nbcmiami.com)

Of course, there's a study which is linking thrombocytopenia to the vaccines, but his death was "natural", despite developing an immune system disorder within 3 days of getting the vaccine. He had no pre-existing conditions.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine–Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia | NEJM

There's a reason the statistics for COVID look so bad and the statistics for the vaccine look so good. Deaths from the vaccine aren't counted as deaths from the vaccine unless they meet an extremely narrow definition. In many places, deaths following a positive COVID test are counted as a COVID death regardless of how the person dies.

This isn't to say COVID isn't a serious disease, but you repeatedly misrepresent the statistics. Even with those extra deaths added in, for age demographics under 50 (60 for women) the fatality rate for COVID is less than .2% (i.e. 2 in 1000). Counting all deaths falling within 28 days of a positive test will vastly overcount those deaths in all of those demographics.

COVID Infection Fatality Rates by Sex and Age | American Council on Science and Health (acsh.org)

 

[Sodafox]

The History of the mRNA Vaccines

This type of vaccine has only been used on humans within the last decade at best, widely this past year.

"Its safe!" Yeah I bet that's what they said about asbestos too.

 

[cow451]

The History of the mRNA Vaccines

This type of vaccine has only been used on humans within the last decade at best, widely this past year.

"Its safe!" Yeah I bet that's what they said about asbestos too.

The fact that it is relatively new technology does not make it bad or good in and of itself. Ten years is a tremendous amount of time in medical technology. Perhaps you should consider reading more of your own source...

Unfortunately, governments the world over have been unable to stave off the waves of lies and misinformation about crucial things like public health and medicine. Some cannot because of the limitations placed on them by their political constitutions. Others cannot because they’re locked in an arms race with the technology that amplifies misinformation to global audiences. And then there are the social media companies that walk the fine line between allowing their users to have freedom of expression and not allowing them to spread dangerous rumors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should you say that? Many, many Christians have been vaccinated.

Some Christians haven't but likewise some non-Christians haven't as well. So why are you even making it about what a certain group is known for. Maybe you just want to focus on one people group for no other reason then you don't like Christians? That's not an accusation but a question.

It does appear that Christians have been refusing the vaccination at a higher rate than non-Christians. At least in the U.S.. The current surges in cases in the US are in areas of low vaccination rates, right in the middle of the Bible belt.

 

[Nithavela]

I think that you have that backwards. 2% would make plane crashes extremely common.

Could you imagine every 50th plane crashing, and people still being willing to fly?

Even the chance of being killed by a falling plane while sitting in your living room would be significant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, you misrepresent my position.

And, equally obviously, you have to engage in misrepresentation since the facts are against you.

I will not repeat the detailed explanation I have already given but the gist of it is that to count every death within 28 days of a positive covid test as a covid-caused death - even if the person is run over by a bus - is a reasonable way to assess deaths caused by covid given that we cannot afford to do a detailed investigation into each case. The reason is this: the "over-count" of the death of the guy run over by the bus is offset by the fact you would not count either of the following if you used the 28-day rule:

- someone who factually died from covid but was never tested
- someone who tested positive for covid but died more than 28 days after diagnosis.

Now then: a similar argument cannot be used by the anti-vaxxers in support of using VAERS. Do I really need to explain why?

And this of course ignores the fact that Covid deaths are almost certainly under reported. That is supported by a large number of unexplained deaths since the pandemic hit us. Not everyone that died was tested. The number of people that will die each year is usually rather easy to predict. Not so much this last year:

Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) - Statistics and Research

 

[Sodafox]

Could you imagine every 50th plane crashing, and people still being willing to fly?

Even the chance of being killed by a falling plane while sitting in your living room would be significant.

That analogy doesn't really work since everyone on the plane would die. More like 1/50 fall through the floor.

The 2nd analogy is closer but 2% for people who live near the airport (pre-existing health conditions *cough obesity*) and .03% anywhere else. Guess we should just ban flying!

 

[Sodafox]

And this of course ignores the fact that Covid deaths are almost certainly under reported. That is supported by a large number of unexplained deaths since the pandemic hit us. Not everyone that died was tested. The number of people that will die each year is usually rather easy to predict. Not so much this last year:

Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) - Statistics and Research

And I'm sure cases are under reported too since if someone isn't sick or required to take a test for whatever reason they won't go check for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That analogy doesn't really work since everyone on the plane would die. More like 1/50 fall through the floor.

The 2nd analogy is closer but 2% for people who live near the airport (pre-existing health conditions *cough obesity*) and .03% anywhere else. Guess we should just ban flying!

No, the analogy works just fine. The 2% is for the 2% infected that die. Either 2% of planes would crash or 2% of people on anyone flight would die. The results are the same either way.

 

[Nithavela]

That analogy doesn't really work since everyone on the plane would die. More like 1/50 fall through the floor.

You obviously have no idea how statistics work.

I'm even doubtfull if you understand middle school math, judging by your post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I'm sure cases are under reported too since if someone isn't sick or required to take a test for whatever reason they won't go check for it.

You are probably right. In act the unreported cases may easily be twice the recorded cases.

The point I was arguing was that those who claim that deaths are over reported are demonstrably wrong. The death rate is probably closer to 1% than 2%. It is still an unacceptable risk.

And this is an anecdote, but I had Covid19. And my case showed how the disease is likely underreported, as you said. How do I know? I was working at the time and was off for a few days. I was ill during that time too and when I went back to work I reported that I was ill. I was tested and what I thought was a really bad flu was Covid. And I still got the vaccine when it became available. I had read about people not being so lucky the second time that they were infected. Without the test I would have had doubts about having Covid since it lasted only a few days for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You obviously have no idea how statistics work.

I'm even doubtfull if you understand middle school math, judging by your post.

Statistics can be hard to understand. And people that do not want to believe something will abuse the data to support themselves. It is rather humorous that people will cite the very few people that had Covid and happened to die from some non-Covid cause and think that those few outliers would skew the results while ignoring the countless people that died of it and were not reported. The only claim that is likely to be valid is that the 2% death rate is too high, though that varies quite a bit by country. In the U.S. at least it is likely to be half of the official number since it appears that far more people may have had Covid than there are records of.

But a 1% death rate is still excessive. I don't think that you would double the number of people being willing to fly if you decreased the crashes from one out of 50 to one out of 100.

 

[o_mlly]

But a 1% death rate is still excessive.

The mortality rate in the US is not 1%!

Mortality Analyses - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center
The Covid-19 mortality rate is .0018 or 0.18% of the US population. That is 180 deaths per 100,000 people. Your 1% claim would inflate the reported mortality rate to 1,000 per 100,000 people.

The mortality rate for those infected with Covid-19 is .018 or 1.8% for those infected. That is of the 33,790,505 confirmed cases, 606,475 deaths have been reported.

This is no Spanish Flu pandemic. Spanish Flu estimates for the mortality rate are 0.64% of the total population. That is, 640 deaths per 100,000 people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mortality rate in the US is not 1%!

Mortality Analyses - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center
The Covid-19 mortality rate is .0018 or 0.18% of the US population. That is 180 deaths per 100,000 people. Your 1% claim would inflate the reported mortality rate to 1,000 per 100,000 people.

The mortality rate for those infected with Covid-19 is .018 or 1.8% for those infected. That is of the 33,790,505 confirmed cases, 606,475 deaths have been reported.

This is no Spanish Flu pandemic. Spanish Flu estimates for the mortality rate are 0.64% of the total population. That is, 640 deaths per 100,000 people.

You are applying statistics improperly. We are talking about the statistics of infected people. You are conflating that with statistics for everyone. And that is at 1.8% right now in the U.S.. The reason that we do not have Spanish Flu levels of deaths is due to the lockdown. If we were as unprepared as they were the number would have been far worse in the U.S.

 

[Nithavela]

You are applying statistics improperly. We are talking about the statistics of infected people. You are conflating that with statistics for everyone. And that is at 1.8% right now in the U.S.. The reason that we do not have Spanish Flu levels of deaths is due to the lockdown.

They also didn't have a lot of the technology we have today to assist those severly afflicted. Even therapeutic oxygen therapy was only just being discovered.

 

[Sodafox]

No, the analogy works just fine. The 2% is for the 2% infected that die. Either 2% of planes would crash or 2% of people on anyone flight would die. The results are the same either way.

I see I need to say this twice in the one post.

2% die on the plane, 80% of that 2% due to heavy. But if you're a normal weight your individual chance to fall through the plane is only .02% or 1/5000.

 

[Taodeching]

I just hope when I'm 65+ I'm not so selfish as to encourage young people to do something with a non-zero chance to harm them (and shame those who don't) in order to protect me.

If your talking abut me I am not even close to 65 and don't worry your already extremely selfish to the point of not caring about others so your fine there

 

[Taodeching]

Christians used to be known for helping the sick, now they are known for denying there is any plague in the first place.

Agreed, it is quite a sad affair. I can understand atheist and pagans not helping the sick and not caring but Christians is a new one. That is why I postulated the theory that most are just pretend and don't really mean anything by being "Christian". It gets you in certain clubs and if anyone challenges them to being "Christian" they bristle but when they have to give or help other the response "absolutely not because it may require something of me". More goats pretending to be sheep .

It's quite depressing to think how many "Christians" hate others. Thank you all who care about others enough to be smart and get vaccinated. I am going to try to leave this thread now.

 

[Nithavela]

Agreed, it is quite a sad affair. I can understand atheist and pagans not helping the sick and not caring but Christians is a new one. That is why I postulated the theory that most are just pretend and don't really mean anything by being "Christian". It gets you in certain clubs and if anyone challenges them to being "Christian" they bristle but when they have to give or help other the response "absolutely not because it may require something of me". More goats pretending to be sheep .

But do they put sugar in their porridge?