Vaccination injury testimony from many individuals

Subduction Zone · Jul 3, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
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.

You need to look at how viruses survive. Rabies goes from animal to animal and very rarely strikes humans. We are a nonfactor in its transmission since humans do not tend to act as other animals that transmit it do. We are neither a positive or negative influence on the existence of that virus.

Anthrax is a nasty bacterial infection. Its modes of infection are quite different. It can be quite deadly. Human to human transmission is rather rare, but if one is careless around those that are infected one can become infected too.

Covid is very hard to control because one can spread the disease for up to a week without knowing that one has it.

Ana the Ist · Jul 3, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
You need to look at how viruses survive. Rabies goes from animal to animal and very rarely strikes humans. We are a nonfactor in its transmission since humans do not tend to act as other animals that transmit it do. We are neither a positive or negative influence on the existence of that virus.

Yeah...but that's crazy, right? I think there's maybe 1 confirmed case of nonfatal rabies.

Anthrax is a nasty bacterial infection. Its modes of infection are quite different. It can be quite deadly. Human to human transmission is rather rare, but if one is careless around those that are infected one can become infected too.

Covid is very hard to control because one can spread the disease for up to a week without knowing that one has it.

Uh huh...

Here's the thing about it though...if it mainly kills the elderly and not the young, then why don't the young transmit it more?

Why wouldn't we expect a weakened version to become the norm instead of these increasingly deadly variants?

Subduction Zone · Jul 3, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Yeah...but that's crazy, right? I think there's maybe 1 confirmed case of nonfatal rabies.

Uh huh...

Here's the thing about it though...if it mainly kills the elderly and not the young, then why don't the young transmit it more?

Why wouldn't we expect a weakened version to become the norm instead of these increasingly deadly variants?

What makes you think that the young do not transmit it?

And there is no reason that I can think of for a weaker version to evolve.

durangodawood · Jul 3, 2021

Tavernier said:
...but then, so does a vaccine.

Yes. A scientific analysis of adverse effects is important.

Aldebaran · Jul 3, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
What makes you think that the young do not transmit it?

Kids went back to school to learn in person, and there weren't any outbreaks.

keith99 · Jul 3, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
What makes you think that the young do not transmit it?

And there is no reason that I can think of for a weaker version to evolve.

Really weaker, no. Less deadly to the hosts, yes.

Evolution through natural selection would favor a virus that spread more easily. Actually fvaor it quite a bit. I do not see any way that being more deadly would favor a virus and it would somewhat work against it as a dead man does not walk into a bar and infect others. Being resistant to treatments would of course be an advantage for a virus.

Subduction Zone · Jul 3, 2021

Aldebaran said:
Kids went back to school to learn in person, and there weren't any outbreaks.

That was after the worst of it. The shutdown was almost over when that happened.

Ana the Ist · Jul 4, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
What makes you think that the young do not transmit it?

And there is no reason that I can think of for a weaker version to evolve.

You don't buy into the idea that the disease variant that is less deadly, more transmissible, in younger people....is obviously going to be the variant most likely to evolve?

Ana the Ist · Jul 4, 2021

keith99 said:
Really weaker, no. Less deadly to the hosts, yes.

Evolution through natural selection would favor a virus that spread more easily. Actually fvaor it quite a bit. I do not see any way that being more deadly would favor a virus and it would somewhat work against it as a dead man does not walk into a bar and infect others. Being resistant to treatments would of course be an advantage for a virus.

Which begs the question of whether treatments are making this better or worse.

Aldebaran · Jul 4, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
That was after the worst of it. The shutdown was almost over when that happened.

The shutdown wasn't the disease. It was our reaction to it. Just because the shutdown ended doesn't mean the disease was no longer able to be transmitted.

Dorothy Mae · Jul 4, 2021

Eight Foot Manchild said:
A 2% fatality rate is disastrous. If commercial airlines were 98% safe, there would be about three thousand six hundred plane crashes, every day.

What’s the death rate on cancer? You are comparing apples and snowshoes.

If the world declares a pandemic then the death needs to be significant. The 2% are mostly over 70. What is the normal death rate of people over 70? That’s the comparison. This is not a pandemic.

FireDragon76 · Jul 4, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Yeah...but that's crazy, right? I think there's maybe 1 confirmed case of nonfatal rabies.

Uh huh...

Here's the thing about it though...if it mainly kills the elderly and not the young, then why don't the young transmit it more?

Why wouldn't we expect a weakened version to become the norm instead of these increasingly deadly variants?

In the PC game Pandemic, it can pay to have a low key, low virulence virus early on, them evolve into greater virulence once your virus spreads around the world. If you start out sending everybody that gets infected to the hospital right away (like Ebola), governments react fairly strongly to try to clamp down the spread.

Dorothy Mae · Jul 4, 2021

jayem said:
Sure. But what happens between becoming ill and recovering? About 10% of symptomatic patients need hospitalization. 1/3 to 1/2 of those need ICU care. You must know the burden this puts on our health care system. I live in a major metropolitan area with easy access to hospitals. But during the peak of the pandemic last year, ICUs were filled to capacity with Covid patients on ventilators. Other patients needing intensive care—not just for Covid, but for serious injuries and other medical problems—had to be sent out of state for care. Not to mention the economic aspects of time lost from work, reduced productivity, and health insurance costs. (Health insurers have generally resisted raising rates so far. But that won’t last. I’ve read that premiums could increase by 10-20% later this year.) Last year, our GDP dropped 3.5%—the largest contraction since WW2. All due to Covid.

COVID-19 savages U.S. economy, 2020 performance worst in 74 years

It’s true that Covid is not Ebola in terms of mortality. But it still carries a huge societal cost. Isn’t prevention a much better option?

Probably it’s a question for each nation to answer. During the height of covid our ICU capacity, the whole city, was just 60%. That’s all hospitals in our area. Maybe places with better health care can be less tyrannical. There also treatments now for covid that have an excellent cure rate and do not have the devastating neurological side effects of the vaccine.

Before they started lockdown some said that would have worse devastating effects and that seems to be the case for some. Some suggestion it would have been better to protect the vulnerable and let business continue. I know of immunologists who said the lockdown was the worst possible choice. And that the whole nations immune system will be weakened by isolation. But all that is just anecdotal to some unless the view expressed matches their own. Those are then not anecdotal.

Eight Foot Manchild · Jul 4, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
What’s the death rate on cancer?

That’s irrelevant.

Dorothy Mae said:
You are comparing apples and snowshoes.

No, just showing that 2% is not an insignificant amount. It’s a disastrous amount, in relation to large numbers.

Dorothy Mae said:
If the world declares a pandemic then the death needs to be significant.

It is significant.

Dorothy Mae said:
The 2% are mostly over 70.

No, 2% is a rough average between all age ranges. Over 70, it’s more like 5-6%.

Dorothy Mae said:
What is the normal death rate of people over 70? That’s the comparison.

The “normal death rate” for all people is one hundred percent. You need some actual criteria for comparison if you want to make a point.

Dorothy Mae said:
This is not a pandemic.

Yes it is.

I don’t feel obligated to elaborate on that any further.

KCfromNC · Jul 4, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
Ok...what's my risk of catching the disease?

Depends on lots of things, but looking at overall statistics for the US population on average it is many orders of magnitude higher than having any significant side effects from the vaccine.

KCfromNC · Jul 4, 2021

HARK! said:
My my estimation one is more likely to have an adverse reaction from the vaccine

Where can we read the results of your rigorous statistical analysis of this subject?

KCfromNC · Jul 4, 2021

Ana the Ist said:
It's a bad analogy....it was always a bad analogy....because people choose to get on planes.

Just like people can choose never to leave their house until covid is gone.

But perhaps they need to go to work, or travel to see a sick relative, or just need social interaction with friends. And that would apply to either covid prevention or air travel.

Seems closer than one might imagine.

KCfromNC · Jul 4, 2021

HARK! said:
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.)

Pretty sure the data actually shows covid deaths being underreported, e.g. The true death toll of COVID-19: estimating global excess mortality

KCfromNC · Jul 4, 2021

Aldebaran said:
Kids went back to school to learn in person, and there weren't any outbreaks.

That's not true.

Dorothy Mae · Jul 4, 2021

Eight Foot Manchild said:
That’s irrelevant.

The death rate on other matters is only irrelevant to those who want to isolate one piece of data from the whole picture.

No, just showing that 2% is not an insignificant amount. It’s a disastrous amount, in relation to large numbers.

It is if the comparison of death rates from other causes is greater. The survival rate of under 65 is what, 99%. It is doubtful that 99% of people in train accidents survive.

No, 2% is a rough average between all age ranges. Over 70, it’s more like 5-6%.

One source I read said "Even among those in the most heavily impacted age group (85 and older), only 13.3 percent of all deaths since February 2020 were due to COVID-19." So the over 85 year olds, the majoried did not die of covid but died of other causes. So death due to other reasons far outweight covid related deaths. And that is in the highest range of covid deaths group.

The “normal death rate” for all people is one hundred percent. You need some actual criteria for comparison if you want to make a point.

Then 2% is a good number and we can be glad only 2% (majority over 65) is an improvement.

I don’t feel obligated to elaborate on that any further.

Those losing the discussion often say this.

Vaccination injury testimony from many individuals

Regular Member

Aggressively serene!

Regular Member

Dis Member

NCC-1701-A

sola dosis facit venenum

Regular Member

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

NCC-1701-A

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads