Army Tries to Bring Back Soldiers Booted for Refusing the COVID Vaccine

[probinson]

Like I said, just something we have to take on faith.

I didn't realize you think scientific studies were based on faith.

 

[probinson]

I guess I don't view health care choices through the lens of being performative virtue signaling to make others know I'm part of the right sports fans, uh, I mean political supporters.

Well that's good. Masks are a much better (and more visible) way to do that anyway.

If you're not going to take the time to answer what appeared to be a very very important question, guess it really didn't matter after all.

Of course healthy vaccinee bias is important. It's not exactly a new concept. Here is a paper in the BMJ published in 2013 entitled, "Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease." From the paper:

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives.​

​

...​

​

Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. ​

​

...​

Since at least 2005, non-CDC researchers have pointed out the seeming impossibility that influenza vaccines could be preventing 50% of all deaths from all causes when influenza is estimated to only cause around 5% of all wintertime deaths.​

​

So how could these studies—both published in high impact, peer reviewed journals and carried out by academic and government researchers with non-commercial funding—get it wrong? Consider one study the CDC does not cite, which found influenza vaccination associated with a 51% reduced odds of death in patients hospitalized with pneumonia (28 of 352 [8%] vaccinated subjects died versus 53 deaths among 352 [15%] unvaccinated control subjects).16 Although the results are similar to those of the studies CDC does cite, an unusual aspect of this study was that it focused on patients outside of the influenza season—when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit. And the authors, academics from Alberta, Canada, knew this: the purpose of the study was to demonstrate that the fantastic benefit they expected to and did find—and that others have found, such as the two studies that CDC cites—is simply implausible, and likely the product of the “healthy-user effect” (in this case, a propensity for healthier people to be more likely to get vaccinated than less healthy people). Others have gone on to demonstrate this bias to be present in other influenza vaccine studies.17 18 Healthy user bias threatens to render the observational studies, on which officials’ scientific case rests, not credible.​

​

Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease

The CDC pledges “To base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.” But Peter Doshi argues that in the case of influenza vaccinations and their marketing, this is not so Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and...

www.bmj.com

​

​

This is interesting stuff. Sounds a lot like COVID vaccines and the low-quality scientific studies used to claim their efficacy. But I'm sure COVID vaccine studies are all on the up-and-up unlike these influenza vaccine studies.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Some people tried harder. I recall reading stories of people who drove hundreds of miles to get vaccinated.

I'm sure some people did. I doubt that was more than a handful of people, and certainly fewer than the numbers who decided to put it off longer.

The point is, there were 20+ million people with immunity acquired from prior infection,

20 million, in a country of 330 million.

and there were ~200 million doses of vaccine administered in the US by early April 2021.

Again, one person required multiple doses. According to the world in data website, about 68 million had been fully vaccinated by Apr 1 2021, or 20-21%. The uptake in vaccinations started slowing in June when roughly half the country (~160m) had been vaccinated. By January 1, it was only up to about 210m, or roughly 2/3 of the country. Even if the vaccines had been 100% effective, by the end of 2021, it still had an available population of 120 million people to infect.

But I just told you, and you just said, that everyone we know has been infected. How did it reduce their "likelihood of infection" if ultimately everyone was infected?

Because it took them longer to get infected the first time, they got re-infected fewer times, and weren't as sick or as communicable when they did get infected.

If you think vaccines are supposed to work by requiring people to get them every 3-4 months, you and I have vastly different opinions on "how vaccines are supposed to work".

I'm certain we have differing opinions on that subject.

 

[DaisyDay]

Yet that in itself only indicates that the deaths from gunshots are less than we might assume.

No, that's not the only thing indicated. as all other causes of death are also way less than from covid in that period. And covid deaths in that period far outstrip any other cause of death for any period. What that indicates to me is that covid was a serious problem for first responders, many of whom died of it, more than for any other cause.

Hovering the cursor over the line and the year gives exact numbers. 63 deaths from gunshot; 493 for COVID-19. (63 / 660288) * 100 = 0.00954%; (493 / 660288) * 100 = 0.07466%. Both are low. Simply citing the number of deaths tells us nothing about the death rate, which is more significant.

I don't see why the death rate would be more significant in this case since the total underlying population is the exact same for each cause of death because it is a single population. .00954% is smaller than .07466% by an order of magnitude - which is significant.

 

[probinson]

20 million, in a country of 330 million.

Yes, but in 2020 there were 0,in a country of 330 million.

Again, one person required multiple doses.

Are you suggesting that a single vaccine dose didn't confer any protection at all?

According to the world in data website, about 68 million had been fully vaccinated by Apr 1 2021, or 20-21%. The uptake in vaccinations started slowing in June when roughly half the country (~160m) had been vaccinated. By January 1, it was only up to about 210m, or roughly 2/3 of the country. Even if the vaccines had been 100% effective, by the end of 2021, it still had an available population of 120 million people to infect.

Nonsense. This assumes that the virus could only infect those who were not vaccinated, and also assumes that those who had already been infected were equally susceptible to infection as those who had never been infected. But studies have shown that prior infection confers protection equal to or greater than vaccination, something that was initially denied by public health experts in the original push for unilateral vaccine mandates. By the end of 2021, there had also been over 158 million infections recorded, or more than half of the population. In combination with the 2/3 of the country that had been vaccinated, that's a lot of immunity. Yet infections climbed ever more rapidly.

Again, we're comparing this to ZERO vaccine doses administered in 2020.

I'm certain we have differing opinions on that subject.

Obviously.

 

[probinson]

.00954% is smaller than .07466% by an order of magnitude - which is significant.

This is a silly argument.

If you buy one lottery ticket, you have roughly a 1 in 300 million chance of winning the mega millions jackpot. If you buy two tickets, you can DOUBLE your odds of winning to 2 in 300 million! Significant? Not hardly.

Incidentally, this is how Pfizer was able to claim a 95% efficacy from their original phase 3 trial that was quickly propagandized and dutifully shouted all over the world. However, when you examine the data closer, it's less... impressive.

37,088 participants in Pfizer's trial completed the two-dose series or received a placebo (split evenly).
The trial endpoint was the efficacy of the vaccine for confirmed COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after their second dose. In other words, did the vaccine prevent infections.
8 COVID cases were confirmed in the vaccine group.
162 cases were confirmed in the placebo group.

So the claim of 95% efficacy is simple math.
8/18,544 (0.043%) vs 162/18,544 (0.874%) is a relative risk reduction (RRR) of ~95%.
However, the absolute risk reduction (ARR) is calculated differently.
To get that number, we simply subtract the larger number from the smaller.
0.874 - 0.043 = 0.83%
Also keep in mind that in this trial of 37,088 participants, 36,918 (>99.5%)of them didn't get COVID irrespective of their vaccination status.
Then, to calculate the number needed to vaccinate (NNV), you must divide the RRR by the ARR (95/0.83) and you get ~114. In other words, you must vaccinate 114 people to prevent one infection.

All of the above is true. So while the media chose to simply report 95% EFFECTIVE!, it would have been equally accurate to say the following:

"The vaccine will reduce your absolute risk of COVID infection by <1% and 114 will people need to get vaccinated to prevent a single infection."

Of course, that's not nearly as compelling to convince people coercive mandates are necessary, so I understand why they ran with the 95% relative reduction number instead.

 

[Tuur]

Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives.

Um...I get the flu vaccine each year because I noticed it took longer to recover as I aged. It's not a matter of being badgered into it as is implied above. No big ad campaign; no requirement at work. I just realized it I wasn't young anymore.

So far, I haven't caught the flu since, and that's been positive reinforcement.

 

[probinson]

Um...I get the flu vaccine each year because I noticed it took longer to recover as I aged. It's not a matter of being badgered into it as is implied above. No big ad campaign; no requirement at work. I just realized it I wasn't young anymore.

So far, I haven't caught the flu since, and that's been positive reinforcement.

That may be true for you, but there is no denying that there is a constant push for people to get the flu vaccine. Interestingly enough, the data for the efficacy of the flu vaccine isn't all that compelling.

Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.​

​

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane

www.cochrane.org

​

​

Cross your fingers and hope you're the 1 in 71 that has a prevented infection!

I'm not trying to convince you not to get the flu vaccine. If it works for you, great. But the level of effort placed behind trying to get everyone vaccinated against the flu is incredibly disproportionate to the benefit the vaccine provides as the BMJ article I posted shows.

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't realize you think scientific studies were based on faith.

I can't really comment on what you think you're ignorant of. I can only talk about what you wrote, which in this case was an admission that there wasn't any data for the claims you were asserting.

 

[DaisyDay]

This is a silly argument.

Perhaps you don’t understand what the argument is because, for all that you go on about comparing the number of deaths with the rate of deaths, you don’t seem to understand what an order of magnitude is or the significance.

If you buy one lottery ticket, you have roughly a 1 in 300 million chance of winning the mega millions jackpot. If you buy two tickets, you can DOUBLE your odds of winning to 2 in 300 million! Significant? Not hardly.

Double, two times, is not an order of magnitude. It’s not even close.

I think you are comparing unlike things: the chance of something happening with the rate of something that already happened. Furthermore, the mathematical significance is quite different than the moral significance: one person’s chance of winning a single lottery and a year of death.

Incidentally, this is how Pfizer was able to claim a 95% efficacy from their original phase 3 trial that was quickly propagandized and dutifully shouted all over the world. However, when you examine the data closer, it's less... impressive.

37,088 participants in Pfizer's trial completed the two-dose series or received a placebo (split evenly).
The trial endpoint was the efficacy of the vaccine for confirmed COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to 7 days after their second dose. In other words, did the vaccine prevent infections.
8 COVID cases were confirmed in the vaccine group.
162 cases were confirmed in the placebo group.

So the claim of 95% efficacy is simple math.
8/18,544 (0.043%) vs 162/18,544 (0.874%) is a relative risk reduction (RRR) of ~95%.
However, the absolute risk reduction (ARR) is calculated differently.
To get that number, we simply subtract the larger number from the smaller.
0.874 - 0.043 = 0.83%
Also keep in mind that in this trial of 37,088 participants, 36,918 (>99.5%)of them didn't get COVID irrespective of their vaccination status.
Then, to calculate the number needed to vaccinate (NNV), you must divide the RRR by the ARR (95/0.83) and you get ~114. In other words, you must vaccinate 114 people to prevent one infection.

All of the above is true. So while the media chose to simply report 95% EFFECTIVE!, it would have been equally accurate to say the following:

"The vaccine will reduce your absolute risk of COVID infection by <1% and 114 will people need to get vaccinated to prevent a single infection."

Of course, that's not nearly as compelling to convince people coercive mandates are necessary, so I understand why they ran with the 95% relative reduction number instead.

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course healthy vaccinee bias is important.

Just not important enough to read the links I posted to see if it is an issue in any of them.

If you don't care about this made up objection to research you aren't willing to read, no reason for me to take it any more seriously.

 

[probinson]

Perhaps you don’t understand what the argument is because, for all that you go on about comparing the number of deaths with the rate of deaths, you don’t seem to understand what an order of magnitude is or the significance.

Yes, yes I do. You don't seem to understand how using relative numbers can overstate the significance of an absolute benefit.

Double, two times, is not an order of magnitude. It’s not even close.

Fair point.

So buy 10 lottery tickets instead of 1. You'll increase your odds of winning the lottery 10x, or by an order of magnitude.

Significant? Not hardly.

I think you are comparing unlike things: the chance of something happening with the rate of something that already happened.

Not at all. If your odds of getting infected are reduced by "an order of magnitude", it's important to understand the absolute reduction as well as the relative reduction. This is not new.

Furthermore, the mathematical significance is quite different than the moral significance: one person’s chance of winning a single lottery and a year of death.

I don't even know how to repspond to this. It's just emotionally charged nonsense attempting to detract from the risk analysis.

It's like when the pandemic started, there were people running around saying things like "If it saves only one life, it's worth it". But that too is emotionally charged rhetoric that is nonsense. It's like the whole world forgot that there are costs and benefits. If we save one person from dying from COVID, but cause 4 others to commit suicide because they've been isolated for so long, was it worth it? Especially if those 10, healthy young people likely faced no significant risk from COVID infection? Of course not.

 

[probinson]

I can't really comment on what you think you're ignorant of. I can only talk about what you wrote, which in this case was an admission that there wasn't any data for the claims you were asserting.

There aren't numbers to know how prevalent and widespread the disease was, but there is compelling evidence that is was spreading long before it was being officially tracked. That's what the study I posted showed. It's not exactly rocket science. You have to work hard to misunderstand this concept.

 

[probinson]

If you don't care about this made up objection to research you aren't willing to read, no reason for me to take it any more seriously.

It's not a made-up objection. Healthy vaccinee bias is a real thing. I can understand why you don't want to discuss it, because it calls into question the veracity of the low-quality observational studies you posted. The article from the BMJ details how this plays out in low-quality observational studies of the flu vaccine. I didn't think it would be that difficult to understand how it would apply to the COVID vaccines.

 

[KCfromNC]

There aren't numbers to know how prevalent and widespread the disease was, but there is compelling evidence that is was spreading long before it was being officially tracked. That's what the study I posted showed. It's not exactly rocket science. You have to work hard to misunderstand this concept.

No, I understand it quite well. Your post brought up something there's no how to quantify as if it were an objection to actual data presented in the post it was hoping to distract from.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's not a made-up objection.

Said after a post admitting they'd not read the research the objection was targeting.

Look, I get how denialism works. Real research is presented and in response a random talking point is trotted out hoping to quiet the cognitive dissonance from actual facts. But like I mentioned, if you don't even think it's an objection worth looking into why would you think anyone else would take it even remotely seriously?

 

[InChristAlone525]

The vaccine debate is meaningless when you know that biotech investments during the pandemic made people extremely wealthy and fast too. I will stand by my opinion that it was a released lab made virus which they knew in advance and they were prepared to develop a new vaccine to make the investors incredibly wealthy. Bill Gates is on record stating vaccines are the most lucrative investment for him. Mark my words there will be another released virus and it will be worse and we WILL be forced to get the new vaccine. This was just a trial run. Thankfully there are a lot of freedom lovers out there and hopefully they will help stop their plans. Stay safe from fascists folks! (I am not afraid of your germs, Louis Pasteur was wrong, they have never proven saliva from a sick person can make a healthy person sick)

 

[Laodicean60]

Further, it is known that young, healthy men are particularly susceptible to myocarditis from the COVID vaccines. It is also known that young, healthy men are at minimal risk of complications from COVID. And lastly, it is known that prior COVID infection confers protection that is equally as good, if not better, than the vaccine. With all of those knowns, it is highly questionable why vaccines would be mandated in a population of primarily healthy, young men.

This is what bothers me because of the myocarditis and other inflammatory responses to the spike protein. Time will tell and more autopsies are needed.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

U.S. law enforcement deaths 1786-2023, by cause | Statista

Since the 1780s, over 25,000 United States law enforcement officers have died while on active duty, or due to injuries and illnesses obtained while on duty.

www.statista.com

The red line starting at 2020 represents covid deaths. I don't think you understand how bad it was.


View attachment 340091

I don't think you understand who actually was dying - some "with Covid", some "from Covid", all conflated in several instances to stir up fear. Everyone in hospitals was exposed to someone - or still recovering and registered positive from antibodies.

Reality: Nearly everyone who died was ELDERLY and with usually multiple co-morbidities. Some died because they were vented.

None of this ever had to happen.

This conflation happened all over the country: Santa Clara County Revises Official COVID-19 Death Toll Down by 22 Percent

"Santa Clara County, California, had revised its official COVID-19 death toll downward by 22 percent.

According to KPIX, the announcement was made after the county “refined its approach in reporting the data.”

More than 90% of COVID deaths occurring among elderly adults: CDC

New CDC data shows older adults now make up more than 90% of COVID-19 deaths, the highest share they've accounted for since the pandemic began.

abcnews.go.com

The percent of COVID-19 deaths accounted for by people 65 and older is consistently high and ranges from a high of 94% in Idaho to a low of 70% in the District of Columbia.

What Share of People Who Have Died of COVID-19 Are 65 and Older – and How Does It Vary By State? | KFF

This analysis examines the extent of state-level variation in the share of COVID-19 deaths accounted for by older adults, using data from the CDC as of July 22, 2020, for the week ending July 11, 2020.

www.kff.org

 

[Tuur]

This is what bothers me because of the myocarditis and other inflammatory responses to the spike protein. Time will tell and more autopsies are needed.

If the spike protein is responsible for myocarditis, then it likely occurs in the same age group from the virus itself. Purely speculation on my part, but wouldn't be surprised if it was due to a reaction of the immune system.