Rfk drops ball

[BPPLEE]

Actually, in most cases, it is.



I'm not sure if you've ever talked to anyone from before measles vaccination was available. My elderly parents and in-laws all had measles. All their friends had measles. Basically, everyone had measles. Heck, the Brady Bunch did an episode on it where they said the kids were up in bed with smiles on their faces, because it meant no school for a week. The audience laughed.

Clearly, societal positions have changed drastically since then.



Why? If the measles vaccine is effective, why is it a bad idea to let people make their own decision?

I and my wife are vaccinated against measles and so are my children. But I don't really care if anyone else is. I am comfortable that the vaccine we have taken is effective and provides protection. So it doesn't much matter to me if other people make a different choice.

I had chicken pox, mumps, and measles and I'm okay

 

[probinson]

In the context of a deadly global pandemic, the tradeoffs mostly to be considered are:

• Are the measures to combat the spread of the disease going to cause more deaths than the disease?

Agreed.

It seems that you are blissfully unaware of the many harms that were caused by the mitigation measures.

• IS killing the economy worth saving the lives?

Except you fail to acknowledge that poverty has been linked to poor health outcomes. Hurt the economy, plunge people into poverty, poor health will follow.

Things that otherwise would be important are put aside temporarily:

• What about people's freedom to run business and gather together?

You have a very cavalier attitude about someone who has spent their entire life building a business only to lose it because the government has arbitrarily declared that you are not "essential".

I've also already posted numerous links to articles showing that people literally died of loneliness because they were prohibited from gathering together, which you've dutifully ignored.

One of the most heartbreaking videos I saw during COVID was of an elderly woman in a nursing home. I'd guess she was 80+. The video begins with her looking downright despondent. Then she spots her family that has come to visit her. Suddenly, her entire demeanor changed. She lit up. She smiled. She did her best to run to them. Oh... but wait. There is a plexiglass barrier. The woman can't touch her family. She looks confused. She begins pounding on the barrier. The masked workers restrain her while her family waves at her. Her smile disappears as she realizes that she will not get to feel their touch and the workers guide her away.

This is what public health did. This is what useful idiots supported. The dehumanizing of people whose only crime was that they longed for the touch of their loved ones, while bureaucrats ostensibly "protected" them while literally killing them as a result of their loneliness.

• What about how uncool it looks to wear a mask?

Masking is ineffective as a means to slow respiratory viral transmission. If people wanted to wear masks to assuage their irrational beliefs, that was their prerogative. It became an issue when governments mandated that everyone had to wear masks despite their uselessness. They could've mandated that everyone had to carry a four-leaf clover with them and gotten similar results.

 

[ralliann]

Just my opinion but upon taking office, he wanted to do this with SSRIs

SSRIs are an incredibly important to to fight against depression and anxiety. It's a whole CLASS of drugs as opposed to a single drug.

My problem with this...he's looking at the dangers of ssris instead of wondering what is causing the prevelance and need in the population. My guess is because that would require some significant navel gazing into American culture and, more importantly as the saying goes amongst psychologists "Many peoples mental health issues would be resolved if they made a sustainable income."


It's weird that they are going after a SOLUTION to a problem but not doing anything to address the ACTUAL problem. Why not investigate the reasons for the need of these prescriptions?

It's pretty simple. America is getting poorer and sicker. But an investigation would lend more credence and could lead to more improvements.

So a repeat of the claims made concerning JFK and vaccines? The hype he was anti vaccine was not true. He is about people having information for their choices.

 

[ralliann]

Govt should be staying out of the medical space. Let the medical experts decide which drugs are best for people. Govt should focus on trying to reduce inflation, improving infrastructure, providing funding and services for those in need, etc

You think medical information is not included? Lot's of lies of "experts" concerning kids and transgender meds.

 

[probinson]

I had chicken pox, mumps, and measles and I'm okay

If you look at mortality from measles before vaccination, it was already quite low. 1963 is when the first measles vaccine became available, and at that time the death rate was 0.19/100,000. That means that 1 out of every 526,316 people who got the measles died BEFORE there was any measles vaccine. That's probably why the Brady Bunch kids were excited to have a week off school, because they knew that their odds of surviving their measles infection was 99.9999981%

 

[loveofourlord]

I genuinely have no idea what you think I'm "lying" about. You've already admitted that VAERS is pretty useless and no one takes it seriously. So how exactly do you think they are tracking adverse events from vaccination?

no I admit it's useful, I didn't say it wasn't taken seriously, but, "My arm fell off, or got a headache." wich is majority of the issues. the issue isn't not taken seriously, it's that there is serious plausability for most of the posts. Go read it, you will find many are not related to covid or the shots, biggest issue is people will post anything that happened up to a month after the shot, and in some cases BEFORE the shot. Again, if there is a sudden massive increase in brain swellwing or such that is plaisibly related to the vaccine they test to be sure there is an issue or not.

How do you thin they found the slight risk of heart issues? Wich mind you is lower from the vaccine then actual covid, thats the other thing, what are the risks.

 

[probinson]

no I admit it's useful,

How so? If there is a bunch of "noise" in the data, how do you think it's useful?

I didn't say it wasn't taken seriously,

That's true. But most people don't take it seriously, because...

but, "My arm fell off, or got a headache." wich is majority of the issues.

So you admit that the "majority" of the data is nonsensical. So again I ask, if the "majority" of the information in the system is useless, how is it useful?

the issue isn't not taken seriously,

Actually, it is. VAERS follow up is abysmal.

I had a serious adverse event after my second COVID vaccine. Basically, I spiked a fever of 104 and I was so weak for 48 hours after the administration of the second dose of the vaccine that my wife had to help me walk around our house. I submitted a report to VAERS. No one ever followed up. I guess a concerningly high fever and temporary paralysis isn't adverse enough to follow up on.

it's that there is serious plausability for most of the posts.

That may be true, but it's also a cop-out.

Go read it,

I have.

you will find many are not related to covid or the shots,

You will also find many that could be plausibly related to the shots. In my case, the symptoms began just 4 hours after the vaccine and lasted for nearly 48 hours. It would be hard for any objective person to argue that my reaction was not related to the vaccine.

biggest issue is people will post anything that happened up to a month after the shot, and in some cases BEFORE the shot.

Why isn't someone actively filtering those things out? If the data is cluttered with noise, there's no way it could ever provide any useful metrics.

Again, if there is a sudden massive increase in brain swellwing or such that is plaisibly related to the vaccine they test to be sure there is an issue or not.

Actually, the CDC actively concealed their knowledge of myocarditis as a side effect of the COVID vaccine. You can try to convince yourself that if something serious happens they'll follow up. But you fail to understand that any validated adverse event from vaccination could possibly fuel vaccine hesitation, and so it is in their best interest to simply ignore the data and, like you, shrug their shoulders and say the "majority" of it is nonsense. You can't find what you don't look for.

How do you thin they found the slight risk of heart issues?

It wasn't a "slight risk".

First, let us be clear, the benefit of COVID vaccination is small, uncertain or not present in several populations. For instance, there is no reliable evidence anyone who had COVID previously had a further reduction in severe disease from getting a dose (or 7 doses) of vaccine. ​

​

The theoretical absolute benefit of vaccination depends on the baseline risk so the *upper bound* absolute benefits to healthy people under 20, 30 or 40 were always minuscule— bordering on zero— and possible not present. Available data lacks power to show a benefit in 20 year olds. ​

​

Worse, there is not even one reliable study that shows a benefit in children. This means- that for these populations- even rare safety signals can tilt the entire balance. We have previously shown that boosters and dose 2 of mRNA vaccines were, on balance, harmful to young men because the risk of myocarditis was greater than the further upper bound absolute risk reduction in severe COVID19 outcomes.​

​

COVID19 vaccines linked to myocarditis, pericarditis, ITP, Guillain Barre Syndrome, Bell's Palsy, ADEM, PE, Febrile seizures & more

A new analysis of 99 million people shows the *bare minimum* increased risk of harms; For methodological reasons, the truth is likely worse; Low risk populations were harmed by mandatory vaccination

www.drvinayprasad.com

​

 

[probinson]

The CDC implemented another vaccine-safety monitoring system called V-Safe with the introduction of the COVID vaccine. After some legal action by ICAN, they were forced to provide this data and a dashboard was created. It's a bit curious that the CDC didn't make this data public on their own and had to be compelled by a court to provide it.

Before we look at the data, it's important to understand who was using V-Safe. These were people who were CHOOSING to receive the COVID vaccine. They believed in its safety and efficacy. You could not report to V-Safe unless you had a confirmed COVID vaccine. That is to say, these are not people that were trying to flood the database with false reports. These were people who experienced adverse events after they willingly received a COVID vaccine.

With that in mind, the data shows that 10,108,273 individuals reported data to V-Safe. Of those, 3,353,110 people reported some kind of adverse event. That's a whopping 33% of respondents. Now these adverse events varied in severity, but 751,947 of those people sought medical care for their adverse event. 476,075 of those either went to urgent care or the ER, and 71,928 ended up in the hospital. Hopefully we can all agree that someone seeking medical care at Urgent Care or the ER, or someone that had to be admitted to the hospital following vaccination, has had a "severe" reaction.

That means that 7% of V-Safe respondents sought some kind of medical care for their adverse event following vaccination. Perhaps adverse events weren't as "rare" as we were told.

Further, the CDC chose to use free text fields for some symptoms which were known safety signals. For example, if you experienced chest pain, you had to fill that in under "Other". Anyone who works with data knows how much more difficult it is to analyze a free text entry. Nevertheless, the dashboard shows that by far, the most common free text entry was "Chest Pain", which 49,783 people reported as an adverse event of COVID vaccination.

[Source Data]

 

[stevil]

Agreed.

It seems that you are blissfully unaware of the many harms that were caused by the mitigation measures.

No not at all

Except you fail to acknowledge that poverty has been linked to poor health outcomes. Hurt the economy, plunge people into poverty, poor health will follow.

Huh? I fail to acknowledge???

If we look at the excess deaths around the Covid pandemic, almost all of the Covid deaths account for the excess deaths. If any other extra deaths are happening at that time, they are insignificant in quantity in comparison to the Covid deaths.

You have a very cavalier attitude about someone who has spent their entire life building a business only to lose it because the government has arbitrarily declared that you are not "essential".

I'm am fully in support of government providing financial assistance/compensation for businesses that needed to shut down.

I've also already posted numerous links to articles showing that people literally died of loneliness because they were prohibited from gathering together, which you've dutifully ignored.

Pales in comparison the the numbers of deaths that the pandemic was causing.

This is what public health did. This is what useful idiots supported. The dehumanizing of people whose only crime was that they longed for the touch of their loved ones, while bureaucrats ostensibly "protected" them while literally killing them as a result of their loneliness.

It is very unfortunate that there was a massive global pandemic spreading a deadly disease.

Masking is ineffective as a means to slow respiratory viral transmission. If people wanted to wear masks to assuage their irrational beliefs, that was their prerogative. It became an issue when governments mandated that everyone had to wear masks despite their uselessness. They could've mandated that everyone had to carry a four-leaf clover with them and gotten similar results.

Medical grade masks would have been much better than just cloth masks, even if cloth masks made just a slight difference, then it was worth it to wear them. The downside was negligible, the upside was a potential to reduce the R number of the spread of the disease.

In NZ before the vaccination was available, all we had was masks and social distancing, we did that, and we irradicated the disease completely. Amazing since it is something you keep telling me that it doesn't work at all.

 

[stevil]

Okay, are we just supposed to take your word for this?

Nope, but think about it. Why were "right wingers" protesting lock downs, why is it that right wingers still to this day argue about the effectiveness of vaccines, masks and social distancing?

How many left wingers argue these things?

 

[BPPLEE]

Nope, but think about it. Why were "right wingers" protesting lock downs, why is it that right wingers still to this day argue about the effectiveness of vaccines, masks and social distancing?

How many left wingers argue these things?

Again, you've provided no source for your claim

 

[probinson]

No not at all

Are you sure? You seem to be downplaying all the harms of the mitigation measures.

Huh? I fail to acknowledge???

If we look at the excess deaths around the Covid pandemic, almost all of the Covid deaths account for the excess deaths. If any other extra deaths are happening at that time, they are insignificant in quantity in comparison to the Covid deaths.

So you're OK with more people committing suicide? More people dying from starvation? Elderly dying from loneliness? More overdose deaths? Increase domestic violence? IYou seem to be saying all of these deaths are just acceptable collateral damage. Is that your position?

I'm am fully in support of government providing financial assistance/compensation for businesses that needed to shut down.

Why would someone who has worked their entire lives to build their business want to have it permanently closed and become dependent upon the government? Why would you think that's a good thing?

Pales in comparison the the numbers of deaths that the pandemic was causing.

So you're OK with those people dying from loneliness in the name of "protecting" them?

It is very unfortunate that there was a massive global pandemic spreading a deadly disease.

But these people that died from loneliness were akin to iatrogenic deaths. It is very unfortunate that health officials didn't care about these people.

If you haven't watched the PBS Documentary "Fire Through Dry Grass", I highly recommend it. You'll see the level of isolation and mistreatment that those living in communal home settings had to endure.

FIRE THROUGH DRY GRASS

www.firethroughdrygrass.com

Medical grade masks would have been much better than just cloth masks, even if cloth masks made just a slight difference, then it was worth it to wear them.

Why do you continue to ignore the evidence?

Medical or surgical masks​

​

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.​

​

N95/P2 respirators​

​

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well-reported; discomfort was mentioned.​

​

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses? | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

​

​

This review was first published in 2007. It's not like we weren't fully aware of the ineffectiveness of masking to prevent respiratory viral spread.

In NZ before the vaccination was available, all we had was masks and social distancing, we did that, and we irradicated the disease completely. Amazing since it is something you keep telling me that it doesn't work at all.

Oh. I forgot you're the guy that likes to pretend like NZ "eradicated" COVID when they've had about twice as many cases as the US.

 

[probinson]

Why were "right wingers" protesting lock downs,

Because they were ineffective.

An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.​

​

While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.​

​

why is it that right wingers still to this day argue about the effectiveness of vaccines, masks and social distancing?

Because there is no evidence that community masking reduces respiratory viral spread and social distancing soft of "just appeared" with no studies to support its efficacy.

As I've posted, there were many adverse events reported with COVID vaccines, and the failure to stratify recommendations by age resulted in a net harm from COVID vaccines in certain populations, specifically young males.

How many left wingers argue these things?

That's not exactly compelling. You seem to be implying that left-wingers (of which I assume you are one) are not interested in whether there is an evidence-base for public health recommendations. And FTR, as an independent, I have no political affiliation. But you'll find that independents and Republicans alike seem to be more concerned with evidence-based recommendations than left-wing folks, at least when it comes to COVID.

 

[stevil]

Again, you've provided no source for your claim

You lived through it, I would have thought I didn't need to point out the obvious to you.

Politicization and COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the U.S - PMC

Science is frequently used and distorted to advance political, economic, or cultural agendas. The politicization of science can limit the positive impacts that scientific advances can offer when people reject sound and beneficial scientific advice. ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

President Donald Trump initially downplayed the threat posed by COVID-19 and compared it to the flu in public remarks. The President also labeled it a “new hoax” [and said that] “the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus—they're politicizing it.” President Trump also promoted claims that the virus could be combatted by injecting or drinking disinfectant or bleach, and promoted hydroxychloroquine as a cure. He also appeared in public without a mask and criticized his rival for the presidency, Joe Biden, for wearing one: “Did you ever see a man that likes a mask as much as him?… If I were a psychiatrist, I'd say this guy has some big issues.”

Politicization thus was “baked into the context of the emergent coronavirus… From the earliest alarm, Republican politicians followed Trump's lead in publicly downplaying the threat, while Democrats responded with more concern, exhibiting different public cues



Unfortunately, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA conveyed mixed messages to the public about the risks of the disease and modes of prevention. As Michael Lewis described it, the agency's relationship to disease control “had changed in ways that eliminated its need for bravery. It had begun a descent. It had replaced the flowers on its porch with fake ones and hoped no one would notice.”(p290) Guharoy and Krenzelok suggest that the CDC's “unquestionable record was tarnished by technical blunders, lack of leadership, and contradictory messages throughout the pandemic.” (p4) They cite as examples the failure to provide a COVID-19 test kit during early stages of the pandemic and its probable acquiescence to pressure from the Trump administration “to encourage the use of unvalidated treatments.


A staff report from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis commissioned by the US House of Representatives identified 47 instances of government interference: “repeatedly overruling and sidelining top scientists and undermining Americans' health to advance the President's partisan agenda." (p1) Among the instances of such partisan government interference were delays in a CDC travel alert, the blocking of plans to send reusable masks to all US households in April of 2020, the lifting of shutdown orders recommended by the CDC, and the delay and censorship of scientific reports on the nature of the virus.

Conflicting partisan messaging has been propagated by various news sources since the beginning of the outbreak. For instance, several popular right-leaning media outlets suggested that the virus was not as severe a health threat as was being portrayed. Instead, they claimed that coverage of the seriousness of the virus was misleading, a conspiracy by the Chinese government to harm the US economy, or a plot by the “deep state” to spread panic and hurt President Trump's chances for re-election. During the COVID-19 outbreak, Fox News was far more likely than CNN or MSNBC to include phrases raising skepticism about the impacts of the virus, with language such as “normal flu,” “political weapon,” and “flu panic” more prevalent in their coverage from February 1 through April 30, 2020

In the absence of a vaccine, governments implemented a variety of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) “such as social distancing, school closures, remote working, restrictions concerning public gatherings, quarantines, hand-washing and the use of masks to slow transmission of the disease.” (p684) The success of these NPIs, as with vaccinations, was affected by politicization in media coverage and communication through social media resulting in, among other things, partisan differences in the perceived seriousness of the virus and willingness to comply with NPIs

Politicization surrounding COVID-19 vaccines contributed to hesitancy, resistance, and opinion polarization. In June 2020, polls showed that about 34% of the U.S. public would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, and large differences existed in opinions between Republicans Democrats. Those who intended to vote for President Trump were 35% more likely to say that they would not get vaccinated for COVID-19. As vaccine access expanded in the spring of 2021, the proportion of Americans stating that they intended to get vaccinated rose, but still lagged among Republicans. As Allcott et al. summarized it: “partisanship is a primary driver of attitudes about the pandemic and self-reported behaviors.” (p4)


Republicans were more likely than Democrats to believe anti-vaccine misinformation. This reflected a growing skepticism among conservatives toward the scientific community in general, in part due to the rise of right-wing populist messages that pit “ordinary people” against “corrupt elites.

 

[Maori Aussie]

Politicization surrounding COVID-19 vaccines contributed to hesitancy, resistance, and opinion polarization. In June 2020, polls showed that about 34% of the U.S. public would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, and large differences existed in opinions between Republicans Democrats. Those who intended to vote for President Trump were 35% more likely to say that they would not get vaccinated for COVID-19. As vaccine access expanded in the spring of 2021, the proportion of Americans stating that they intended to get vaccinated rose, but still lagged among Republicans. As Allcott et al. summarized it: “partisanship is a primary driver of attitudes about the pandemic and self-reported behaviors.” (p4)

I believe there was also a great deal of distrust around US Govt medical advice amongst Black Men.
I suspect this was a result of the Tuskegee Syphilis study.....

 

[BPPLEE]

You lived through it, I would have thought I didn't need to point out the obvious to you.

Politicization and COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the U.S - PMC

Science is frequently used and distorted to advance political, economic, or cultural agendas. The politicization of science can limit the positive impacts that scientific advances can offer when people reject sound and beneficial scientific advice. ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

President Donald Trump initially downplayed the threat posed by COVID-19 and compared it to the flu in public remarks. The President also labeled it a “new hoax” [and said that] “the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus—they're politicizing it.” President Trump also promoted claims that the virus could be combatted by injecting or drinking disinfectant or bleach, and promoted hydroxychloroquine as a cure. He also appeared in public without a mask and criticized his rival for the presidency, Joe Biden, for wearing one: “Did you ever see a man that likes a mask as much as him?… If I were a psychiatrist, I'd say this guy has some big issues.”

Politicization thus was “baked into the context of the emergent coronavirus… From the earliest alarm, Republican politicians followed Trump's lead in publicly downplaying the threat, while Democrats responded with more concern, exhibiting different public cues



Unfortunately, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA conveyed mixed messages to the public about the risks of the disease and modes of prevention. As Michael Lewis described it, the agency's relationship to disease control “had changed in ways that eliminated its need for bravery. It had begun a descent. It had replaced the flowers on its porch with fake ones and hoped no one would notice.”(p290) Guharoy and Krenzelok suggest that the CDC's “unquestionable record was tarnished by technical blunders, lack of leadership, and contradictory messages throughout the pandemic.” (p4) They cite as examples the failure to provide a COVID-19 test kit during early stages of the pandemic and its probable acquiescence to pressure from the Trump administration “to encourage the use of unvalidated treatments.


A staff report from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis commissioned by the US House of Representatives identified 47 instances of government interference: “repeatedly overruling and sidelining top scientists and undermining Americans' health to advance the President's partisan agenda." (p1) Among the instances of such partisan government interference were delays in a CDC travel alert, the blocking of plans to send reusable masks to all US households in April of 2020, the lifting of shutdown orders recommended by the CDC, and the delay and censorship of scientific reports on the nature of the virus.

Conflicting partisan messaging has been propagated by various news sources since the beginning of the outbreak. For instance, several popular right-leaning media outlets suggested that the virus was not as severe a health threat as was being portrayed. Instead, they claimed that coverage of the seriousness of the virus was misleading, a conspiracy by the Chinese government to harm the US economy, or a plot by the “deep state” to spread panic and hurt President Trump's chances for re-election. During the COVID-19 outbreak, Fox News was far more likely than CNN or MSNBC to include phrases raising skepticism about the impacts of the virus, with language such as “normal flu,” “political weapon,” and “flu panic” more prevalent in their coverage from February 1 through April 30, 2020

In the absence of a vaccine, governments implemented a variety of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) “such as social distancing, school closures, remote working, restrictions concerning public gatherings, quarantines, hand-washing and the use of masks to slow transmission of the disease.” (p684) The success of these NPIs, as with vaccinations, was affected by politicization in media coverage and communication through social media resulting in, among other things, partisan differences in the perceived seriousness of the virus and willingness to comply with NPIs

Politicization surrounding COVID-19 vaccines contributed to hesitancy, resistance, and opinion polarization. In June 2020, polls showed that about 34% of the U.S. public would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, and large differences existed in opinions between Republicans Democrats. Those who intended to vote for President Trump were 35% more likely to say that they would not get vaccinated for COVID-19. As vaccine access expanded in the spring of 2021, the proportion of Americans stating that they intended to get vaccinated rose, but still lagged among Republicans. As Allcott et al. summarized it: “partisanship is a primary driver of attitudes about the pandemic and self-reported behaviors.” (p4)


Republicans were more likely than Democrats to believe anti-vaccine misinformation. This reflected a growing skepticism among conservatives toward the scientific community in general, in part due to the rise of right-wing populist messages that pit “ordinary people” against “corrupt elites.

Yeah Democrats were more careful to tell people to lockdown , Oh wait, Nancy was not wearing a mask and she was telling people to go out and eat, saying the risk was low, I would say that was downplaying the danger of COVID, wouldn’t you agree?

Pelosi Lunches in SF Chinatown, Lending Support to Businesses Amid Coronavirus Fears | KQED

As she toured San Francisco Chinatown, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the Trump administration for proposed budget cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

www.kqed.org

Pelosi addressed concerns about tourism and reassured the public that the risk of contracting the coronavirus remains low in the U.S., adding that she thinks the fear is “unwarranted in light of the precautions that are being taken here in the United States.”

 

[loveofourlord]

How so? If there is a bunch of "noise" in the data, how do you think it's useful?



That's true. But most people don't take it seriously, because...



So you admit that the "majority" of the data is nonsensical. So again I ask, if the "majority" of the information in the system is useless, how is it useful?



Actually, it is. VAERS follow up is abysmal.

I had a serious adverse event after my second COVID vaccine. Basically, I spiked a fever of 104 and I was so weak for 48 hours after the administration of the second dose of the vaccine that my wife had to help me walk around our house. I submitted a report to VAERS. No one ever followed up. I guess a concerningly high fever and temporary paralysis isn't adverse enough to follow up on.



That may be true, but it's also a cop-out.



I have.



You will also find many that could be plausibly related to the shots. In my case, the symptoms began just 4 hours after the vaccine and lasted for nearly 48 hours. It would be hard for any objective person to argue that my reaction was not related to the vaccine.



Why isn't someone actively filtering those things out? If the data is cluttered with noise, there's no way it could ever provide any useful metrics.



Actually, the CDC actively concealed their knowledge of myocarditis as a side effect of the COVID vaccine. You can try to convince yourself that if something serious happens they'll follow up. But you fail to understand that any validated adverse event from vaccination could possibly fuel vaccine hesitation, and so it is in their best interest to simply ignore the data and, like you, shrug their shoulders and say the "majority" of it is nonsense. You can't find what you don't look for.



It wasn't a "slight risk".

First, let us be clear, the benefit of COVID vaccination is small, uncertain or not present in several populations. For instance, there is no reliable evidence anyone who had COVID previously had a further reduction in severe disease from getting a dose (or 7 doses) of vaccine. ​

​

The theoretical absolute benefit of vaccination depends on the baseline risk so the *upper bound* absolute benefits to healthy people under 20, 30 or 40 were always minuscule— bordering on zero— and possible not present. Available data lacks power to show a benefit in 20 year olds. ​

​

Worse, there is not even one reliable study that shows a benefit in children. This means- that for these populations- even rare safety signals can tilt the entire balance. We have previously shown that boosters and dose 2 of mRNA vaccines were, on balance, harmful to young men because the risk of myocarditis was greater than the further upper bound absolute risk reduction in severe COVID19 outcomes.​

​

COVID19 vaccines linked to myocarditis, pericarditis, ITP, Guillain Barre Syndrome, Bell's Palsy, ADEM, PE, Febrile seizures & more

A new analysis of 99 million people shows the *bare minimum* increased risk of harms; For methodological reasons, the truth is likely worse; Low risk populations were harmed by mandatory vaccination

www.drvinayprasad.com

​

did you read what I said on last point? YOU GET IT FROM COVID TOO. so making sure covid doesn't hang around long protects better then just catching it.

do you know how statistics work? You can easily see the noise, if there is a sudden uptick in heart issues or other things where it's plausible you can look to see if it's an anomoly or real.

 

[Pommer]

I had chicken pox, mumps, and measles and I'm okay

Survivor’s fallacy.

 

[BPPLEE]

Survivor’s fallacy.

Is that flaming?

 

[stevil]

Yeah Democrats were more careful to tell people to lockdown , Oh wait, Nancy was not wearing a mask and she was telling people to go out and eat, saying the risk was low, I would say that was downplaying the danger of COVID, wouldn’t you agree?

From what you say, sounds like it.

But Nancy didn't convince most of the left to not wear masks and to not get vaccinated and to not social distance. That never became a USA left wing thing.