Christians and masks: what am I missing?

[Job 33:6]

Here's some data for you that calls into question that assessment. This is a summary of adverse event reporting for COVID vaccines from VAERS;

View attachment 310959

COVID Vaccine Data

It would seem that vaccination was not a "win-win" for everyone. Especially not the 20,000+ that died. And before someone says VAERS is not reliable, let's take a look at all vaccine deaths reported to VAERS historically vs. since the COVID vaccines were introduced;

View attachment 310960

Prior to the introduction of COVID vaccines, the highest number of deaths from all vaccines reported to VAERS in a single year was 605 in 2019. In 2021, that number skyrocketed to 21,890. Now even if all or even most of those VAERS reports aren't accurate, wouldn't you think a 3,518% increase in reports would warrant at least a little concern? And maybe, like with every other medical intervention, cause people to realize that the risk/benefit calculus is different for every individual?



At this point, your repeating of this is bordering on intentional disinformation. Dr. Fauci has already said everyone is very likely going to get COVID regardless of their vaccination status (see above post). That means that their risk of infection is almost 100%.



Pfizer's CEO says otherwise. Unless of course you also take the booster, which will provide you with a whopping 10 weeks more "protection", according to current data. But then you might want to be careful that boosters don't begin to impede your immune response, as a growing body of experts is warning.

VAERS data is unverified. Anyone can file a report, even for issues unrelated to vaccination.

Well, I suppose it doesn't matter (to me personally). If the unvaccinated don't want to get vaccinated and want to continue dying at 15x the rate of the vaccinated, I suppose that's their choice.

 

[probinson]

VAERS data is unverified. Anyone can file a report, even for issues unrelated to vaccination.

I figured flat dismissal of the data would be your response. Still, whether you'll acknowledge it or not, a 3,518% increase in deaths reported to VAERS is quite significant, especially since the prior high for vaccine deaths reported since 1990 was 605. But this data is damaging to your "win-win" hypothesis for vaccines. So it's definitely best to try to marginalize it to make your point.

So here you can read about verified 4-10+ fold increases in vaccine injury after the introduction of the COVID vaccines;

Vaccine advocates insist that VAERS reports are unreliable and do not prove causation because anyone can submit a VAERS report. The figures in these databases cannot be similarly dismissed. Access to them is strictly limited - and represents the clinical judgment of the physicians treating patients.

Internal hospital data confirm a huge increase in patients with vaccine side effects in 2021​

Also, any thoughts on why there are nearly three times as many vaccinated people in hospitals than unvaccinated in Ontario as of today? I thought vaccines prevented hospitalization? Doesn't seem so, at least not for these 1,813 people;

 

[Job 33:6]

I figured flat dismissal of the data would be your response. Still, whether you'll acknowledge it or not, a 3,518% increase in deaths reported to VAERS is quite significant, especially since the prior high for vaccine deaths reported since 1990 was 605. But this data is damaging to your "win-win" hypothesis for vaccines. So it's definitely best to try to marginalize it to make your point.

So here you can read about verified 4-10+ fold increases in vaccine injury after the introduction of the COVID vaccines;

Vaccine advocates insist that VAERS reports are unreliable and do not prove causation because anyone can submit a VAERS report. The figures in these databases cannot be similarly dismissed. Access to them is strictly limited - and represents the clinical judgment of the physicians treating patients.

Internal hospital data confirm a huge increase in patients with vaccine side effects in 2021​

Also, any thoughts on why there are nearly three times as many vaccinated people in hospitals than unvaccinated in Ontario as of today? I thought vaccines prevented hospitalization? Doesn't seem so, at least not for these 1,813 people;

View attachment 310967

Christians and masks: what am I missing?

 

[Job 33:6]

Christians and masks: what am I missing?

Here is the Ontario data for hospitalizations when we look at cases per 100,000, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, which puts things into a proportionate context:

And we see that the unvaccinated are 8-10x more likely to be hospitalized in Ontario. Consistent with everywhere else.

Ontario is nearly 90% vaccinated, meaning 9/10 people have two shots, and yet, vaccinated only make up 50% of ICU beds with unvaccinated making the other 50%.

 

[probinson]

So throughout this thread, I've talked about the significance of the definition of "fully vaccinated" being "2 weeks past your second dose". Turns out, the same is true for "boosted". So you are not "boosted" until 2 weeks after your booster dose either.

I'm going to direct you to a great explanation of why this practice severely overestimates vaccine and booster efficacy;

let’s take a simple, contrived example. for this we will assume:

vaccines have zero effect on stopping covid. they do not make it more or less likely you will contract it. they are, literally, saline.

we have 200 people.

100 are unvaxxed.

100 are double vaxxed.

all have a 10% chance of getting covid each 2 weeks.

20 of the people who were vaxxed get boosted at the beginning of the period.

no one gets re-infected.

so what happens over a month?

of the 100 unvaxxed, 10 get cov first 2 wks, then 9 the second. 19 total. 19%.

of the 80 double vaxxed, 8 get covid first 2 wks, then 7.2 the next. 15.2 total. 19%.

of the 20 boosted, 2 get covid first 2 wks, then 1.8 the second. 3.8 total. 19%.

ok, so far, so boring. but here is where you want to pay attention, because this is where the trick resides:

you do not count the boosted as boosted until 2 weeks after the shot. this is the definition everyone has been using. it was used in the drug trials for these vaccines as well. and doing this is full blown bayesian datacrime.

in this society scale data, it has the following effect:

the 2 people in the boosted group who got covid in the first 2 week period get moved. they are not counted as boosted cases. they are counted as double vaxxed cases.

so instead of actual risk based on behavior, we get:

unvaxxed: 19 total = 19%
double vaxxed: 17.2 total = 21%
boosted: 1.8 total = 10%

and faster than you can say “record quarter for pfizer” you get apparent VE where there is none. we’re literally measuring saline.

boosters now show a 48% vaccine efficacy (VE) and double vaxxed falls to -10%.

and the faster you ramp boosters, the worse it makes double vaxxed seem. this literally becomes a product that sells itself because the statistical process is totally rigged.

....

this same game was played with early societal vaxx studies as well except for the risk enhancement pre “dose 2 +14 days” was all shifted to the unvaccinated.

it would work like this:

100 unvaxxed, 19 covid = 19%
100 vaxxed, 10 covid first 2 wks, 9 second 2 wks = 19 covid = 19%
0% VE.

but, because the 10 cases in the first 2 weeks get shifted to “unvaxxed” it reads out as

29 unvaxxed = 29%
9 vaxxed = 10%
so you get 66% VE from saline.

this misallocation of cases and resultant mismatch of patient exposure days is a nifty little trick, no?

bayesian datacrime: defining vaccine efficacy into existence​

This demonstrates quite clearly why deliberately including a 2-week window after the second and booster doses is problematic. Literally using the same data, but different definitions, results in COMPLETELY different result percentages and manufactures vaccine efficacy where there is none. I've said it before and I'll say it again; numbers don't lie. Liars use numbers.

 

[probinson]

Here is the Ontario data for hospitalizations when we look at cases per 100,000, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, which puts things into a proportionate context:

The fact of the matter is that there are 1,800+ people hospitalized with COVID in Ontario and ~670 that aren't vaccinated. You can play all the tricks you want with the data, but it sure isn't helping the 1,800 fully vaccinated people that are hospitalized.

By the way, your chart only includes those 60 and older. Any particular reason you've chosen to exclude everyone under the age of 60?

For reference, here is a breakdown of cases in all age groups by vaccination status;

Source: COVID-19 vaccinations data

Keep in mind this chart is the rate per 100,000, and as you can see, Ontario currently has a higher rate of infections in fully vaccinated people than in unvaccinated people.

Aren't you even just a little bit curious why there is a higher rate of infection in fully vaccinated people if in fact vaccines prevent infections as you've said multiple times throughout this thread?

 

[Job 33:6]

More data from Canada. Unvaccinated again, 8-10x more likely to die. In the US, unvaccinated are closer to 14x more likely to die.

Ontario reports highest single-day COVID-19 case count in more than 6 months - CityNews Toronto

Unvaccinated 14 Times More Likely to Die From COVID

In some states such as Texas, that number is even higher with the unvaccinated population some 20x more likely to die of covid-19 than vaccinated.

I'll accept that the vaccines aren't as effective as preventing infection than they were against alpha and delta if you accept that the unvaccinated are 14x more likely to die.

 

[Job 33:6]

Anyway, as noted before:

Well, I suppose it doesn't matter (to me personally). If the unvaccinated don't want to get vaccinated and want to continue dying at 15x the rate of the vaccinated, I suppose that's their choice. We live in America, people have freedom and choice and that's alright with me.

And if you don't believe in the vaccines or don't seem to be able to rationalize the above data, and choose not to get vaccinated, that's your choice and I'm comfortable with your freedom.

 

[probinson]

More data from Canada. Unvaccinated again, 8-10x more likely to die. In the US, unvaccinated are closer to 14x more likely to die.

I realize it's beneficial for you to examine the data all the way back to December 2020, when no vaccine was available and mortality was significantly higher. But again, you seem to not realize that Omicron has changed the game.

What is your hypothesis on why Ontario is currently seeing more cases in vaccinated people over unvaccinated people?

 

[probinson]

Here is the Ontario data for hospitalizations when we look at cases per 100,000, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, which puts things into a proportionate context:
View attachment 310971

Can you either provide a source for this graph, or post another one that is for all age groups? Because your description that this shows hospitalizations/100,000 is incorrect. This data is only for those over the age of 60, per the graph's title.

 

[probinson]

I'll accept that the vaccines aren't as effective as preventing infection than they were against alpha and delta...

Eh? This isn't a bargaining game. The fact is that nearly everybody, regardless of their vaccination status, is going to be infected. This is even accepted as part of the (collapsing) narrative now, as evidenced by Dr. Fauci's recent comments. Vaccines aren't just less effective at preventing infection than originally thought. If it's true that everyone is going to get infected with COVID, then the vaccines are a total failure at preventing infections. Can you cite any other vaccine that has a 100% breakthrough infection rate?

 

[probinson]

For a vivid example of why the data is badly skewed when we say that to be "fully vaccinated" includes 2 weeks past your second dose, let's look at data from Alberta Canada, where they have included a handy chart that shows number of days past the first dose before COVID diagnosis.

First, it's important to remember that to be "fully vaccinated" with the Pfizer vaccine takes a whopping 35 days from your first dose (dose 1 + 21 days to dose 2 + 14 days post dose 2) and an even longer 42 days from your first dose with Moderna (dose 1 + 28 days to dose 2 + 14 days post dose 2). So let's look at the first 42 days after dose 1 of the vaccine in Alberta Canada;

Look at all of those cases! If one thing can be seen clearly from this graph, it's that the number of infections actually increase for a short period of time following vaccination. This is likely because, as Pfizer's own clinical trial data shows, the first dose of the vaccine temporarily suppresses the immune system (BNT162b2 induces SARS-CoV-2-neutralising antibodies and T cells in humans). But no matter. with the handily crafted definition of "fully vaccinated" requiring 2 doses AND 14 days after the second dose, all of these thousands of cases can easily be written off as "unvaccinated". In fact in US reporting, every single case inside the red box above would be classified as "unvaccinated".

The same holds true for hospitalizations;

...and deaths...

Source: COVID-19 Alberta statistics

In US data reporting, where you're hearing that you're 8x, 14x, or 20x or more likely to contract COVID, end up in the hospital or die, realize that every one of those data points in the red boxes would be counted as "unvaccinated", despite the fact that those poor people were just "doing the right thing" as they'd been told but not enough time had passed yet. Not only can you hide the temporary increase in cases, hospitalizations and deaths that occur immediately following dose 1 of the vaccine due to immunity suppression, you can actually attribute them as "unvaccinated" cases. And the public at large laps it up.

 

[J Michael]

Since this thread started out about masks.....I offer this for your consideration:
Everything you need to know about masks
"Everything you need to know about masks
My friend, Tyson Gabriel, is an expert on masks. P100 respirators stop COVID, but only for the wearer. No public health official knows that.

Steve Kirsch
19 hr ago

244
Tyson Gabriel is the smartest guy I know when it comes to masks. He did an excellent video series on showing that masks don’t work which you can watch here:


I spoke to him today and here are the key things you should know about masks.

1. Cloth and surgical masks do absolutely nothing and N95 masks aren’t much better than that. They are basically worse than no mask since they lower your oxygen levels and can make you more likely to get infected with a respiratory virus. You can see the effectiveness against COVID here in this graph below which is from the highly acclaimed Bangladesh randomized trial done by Stanford and Yale. This is for purple cloth masks. As you can see, there is no difference. None. Nada. See Masks don’t work for more info on the two mask randomized trials.
   
   
2. If you really want serious protection, get yourself a 3M 6000 or 7000 series half-face mask. The 6000 is the older model and is heavier duty. The 7000 is newer and a lot more comfortable. There are three sizes: small (7501), medium (7502), and large (7503). Generally, you’d get the large size if you are 6 feet tall or over. Here’s the sizing chart:
   
   
3. The mask is sold without a filter. You’ll need a 3M brand P100 particulate filter, such as 3M 2091 to protect against COVID. For heavy-duty use, the 7093 filters are larger and more expensive, but more durable and last longer.
   
   
4. These masks make it easy to both inhale and exhale. They will truly protect you from the virus and they are much easier to breathe through than a cloth or surgical mask (they are designed to allow you to maintain suitable oxygen levels).These are serious products.
   
   
5. Due to federal law, the airlines won’t allow these masks to be used on planes because they protect you, but they don’t protect other passengers since they aren’t filtered for the exhaust. If they filtered the exhaust, your oxygen levels would fall to unsafe levels. In short, the airlines can’t let you protect yourself with legit protection. It’s illegal. That’s insane.
   
   
6. So on an airplane, you must wear a cloth or surgical mask that doesn’t protect you or anyone else. It is the filtration systems on airplanes that are responsible for the safety record of flights (people sitting right next to an infected person could still be infected). The FAA has never figured this out. They probably never will. They will likely require these useless masks for decades to come.

In short, the FAA is brain dead. If they followed the science, they would allow people to wear respirators, but only if they wanted to. These interventions should not be forced.

If you want a mask to protect you in other situations (or to protect grandma), the 3M respirators are the way to go.

If schools were actually serious about protecting students
If a school seriously wanted to protect students from COVID or any other virus using masks (which is not the best way), they’d require all students to wear a respirator, e.g., the 3M 7502 respirators with the 2091 filters. And boy, our classrooms would look really silly since nobody would be able to talk to each other. If you remove the mask to speak or eat, it’s all over; the protection goes out the window. But our kids would be safe!

Here’s what all the kids would look like:


The point is this: if you want to wear a respirator, you should be free to wear one. And if you don’t want to wear one, you should never be forced to wear one. Never.

There is no societal reason for forcing me to wear a mask to protect others. It simply doesn’t work that way. A “safe” mask (one that allows sufficient oxygen to function properly and doesn’t increase the likelihood of a respiratory infection) ends up only protecting the wearer, never the public (since the exhaust must be unfiltered).

So mask mandates are completely nonsensical. Anyone who wants protection can put on a mask. Problem solved.

There are over 3,243 public health officers. AFAIK, none of them have figured out that P100 mask protect people.
If you want clear proof of how totally inept the public health officers in America are, you are reading the right article. I don’t know of a single public health official that realizes that the only way to stop COVID with a mask is using a P100 respirator.

Instead, they all mandate toy masks (cloth, surgical, and N95) that provide no protection from viruses.

Our public health system is truly fu***ed up, there is no other way to put it.

The blind (the CDC) are leading the sheep (public health officers).

This isn’t just in the US. I don’t think they’ve figured this out in any country.

Even the P100 isn’t perfect
A P100 respirator is a lot better than the typical N95 or surgical or cloth masks. But it isn’t perfect. Some virus particles will get through. Much of the time, the virus particles are attached to something bigger which is why most are stopped (you can’t just compare the size of an isolated virus particle to the filtration size). See this 3M datasheet for details on using P100 masks to protect against viruses for more info.

For anyone prominent on the pro-vax, pro-mask side who thinks that cloth, N95, or surgical masks are superior to P100 respirators and wants to debate me, you know where to find me."

There are lots of comments following the piece-I've not included them. You can go to the link provided at the beginning of this post if you're interested. Enjoy!!

 

[Christopher0121]

I was vaccinated back in July and I had a heart attack in September. Please tell me if my heart attack is the result of the vaccine and how that can be determined.

I've already had 4 close friends die from COVID-19.

Anyone here know anyone who has passed as a result of COVID?

Anyone here know anyone who has passed as a result of the vaccine?

 

[Christopher0121]

I'm a 911 dispatcher. And from everything I can gather on this VAERS isn't sound data. I had a heart attack in September two months after getting my vaccine. I'm sure my heart attack is listed in those numbers and is being factored in as a side effect of the vaccine. Truth is, it had far more to do with my eating KFC every day for 5 years. lol

As a 911 dispatcher, I can honestly tell you that we have far more calls from people suffering from shortness of breath and needing a squad over COVID. I've not had one call on anyone needing a squad as a result of the vaccine.

 

[J Michael]

VAERS data is not "sound" in the sense that there is a huge under reporting factor (URF) of anywhere between 5 and 9 or 10, depending on who you listen to. That means you take the numbers supplied by VAERS and multiply them by the URF to get an arguably more accurate picture of what's really going on. What's interesting is that, in my understanding, the CDC will not publicize the actual URF for VAERS. Why not?

Your heart attack, Aquila0121, would only be included in the VAERS numbers if someone had taken the time (my understanding is that it takes anywhere between 30-45 minutes to fill out the report) and energy to actually make an official report. Many, many doctors, especially ER doctors, just do not have (or make) the time to fill out a VAERS report. And yes, anyone can do it, but how many actually do?

 

[Benjamin Müller]

Am I allowed to link to a blog post I wrote because my reason is lengthy. In short, masks are being used as a form of psychological warfare and are witchcraft paraphernalia. That might sound very Puritan or crazy, but I did some research into the topic and it has made me very wary of wearing one. I only wear one in doctor's offices.

Like the name 'Karen' seems to come from the name Hekate, a goddess of witchcraft (a.k.a pharmakeia), necromancy, a goddess of thresholds. (Remember how there were COVID enforcers at the front doors of businesses)

It's super creepy to me, and I won't take part in a global witchcraft operation. I can post the link to my article if it's allowed or send it via PM if anyone is actually interested.