Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[FLEA]

44 minutes ago, Pooter said:

From further into article:

"None of the studies cast doubt on the vaccines’ effectiveness or the benefits they bring by safeguarding against Covid-19 and studies suggest the risks of heart inflammation are substantially higher in those infected with Covid-19."

from the linked study:

Myocarditis rate among young men who contracted covid: 450 per million

Myocarditis rate among young men after vaccination: 77 per million

In summary, the risk of myocarditis from the virus is 5.9 times higher than the risk from the vaccine.  And if you want to minimize risk even further, just get Pfizer instead of moderna.

Weird, It's almost like when you dig into the details the clickbait headline doesn't tell the whole story.

Actually the risk is exactly the same, 76 million vs 77 million. You forgot to multiply 450 time .17 to account for the fact that you have less than a 1/5 chance of actually getting COVID over a 3 year period. 

[Blue]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

I'll take that bet.  I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes an annual requirement like the flu shot.

My employer has stated: "...third shots or so-called booster shots are not considered part of the federal mandate, although that could change over time." (emphasis mine).

I've heard a lot of arguments about "it's just a couple of shots," etc.  Which, at the moment, is all you need to comply.  But just as "two weeks to slow the spread" became "masks required until further notice," don't be surprised if the vax requirement continues to expand.

[dream big]

On 11/10/2021 at 1:11 PM, Blue said:

My employer has stated: "...third shots or so-called booster shots are not considered part of the federal mandate, although that could change over time." (emphasis mine).

I've heard a lot of arguments about "it's just a couple of shots," etc.  Which, at the moment, is all you need to comply.  But just as "two weeks to slow the spread" became "masks required until further notice," don't be surprised if the vax requirement continues to expand.

What is most concerning about Biden’s (or rather whoever is pulling his puppet strings) vaccine mandate for civilians is the precedent it sets.  Vaccine mandate -> “health and safety”.  What happens when the climate nazis gain enough influence to lobby, say, forced sterilizations or abortions to “limit population overgrowth and enforce general health and safety.”? Are Orwellian and Dystopian policies really that far out of the realm of possibility with the current path we are on? This should concern you even if you vote Blue. 

[Pooter]

On 11/10/2021 at 11:44 AM, FLEA said:

Actually the risk is exactly the same, 76 million vs 77 million. You forgot to multiply 450 time .17 to account for the fact that you have less than a 1/5 chance of actually getting COVID over a 3 year period. 

Where are you getting that 1/5 number in a 3 year period? If it's going off confirmed cases it is likely a gross underestimate of your actual risk because of reporting problems. The CDC estimates only 1 in 4 infections are reported which puts the total case estimate at 146 million infections from February 2020 to September 2021.

Based on my rough math that puts your chance of getting it around 44% for the last 1.5 year period, keeping in mind the majority of that timeframe was before the more contagious delta variant was the dominant strain. 

So to your point, yes you do need to multiply those risk numbers by your odds of contracting the virus. But your odds are a significant under-estimation. If we're already at 44% penetration in a year and a half, we can safely assume your risk of getting covid over a 3 year period would be well over 50%. Meaning the myocarditis risk calculation still falls well in favor of the vaccine. 

[Pooter]

On 11/10/2021 at 11:41 AM, glockenspiel said:

Chances of contracting covid≠ 100%. 

chances of being vaccinated if you are vaccinated = 100%. 

Doesn’t seem like you are talking apples to apples. Not trying to do a gotcha or defending the article. It’s kind of like when people say 80% of patients who died in X hospital were vaccinated/unvaccinated without at minimum providing the population vaccination rate which that hospital serves. It doesn’t really mean anything.

Your chances of contracting the virus will absolutely approach 100% over time.  Especially when most of the vaccine hold outs choose to intentionally disregard the other mitigation measures as well.

[FLEA]

Woah are we actually debating this again? Baseops crashed for 48 hours and I thought we all went through a day where we felt lost and helpless, followed by another day where we reconnected with our families and remembered there was a life outside of BO.net and arguing on the internet. 

 

I've posted this before but 19andMe has done one of the leading calculators for estimating cumulated risk of contracting COVID-19 based on a meta analysis of dozens of studies followed by a pretty impressive mathematical model. 

I ran the model for a 26 year old slightly healthier than average male in my zip code, unvaccinated, but taking basic social distance precautions based on the current local measures we had in place. This represents the average US Armed Forces enlisted service member.

Since the calculator only predicts risk in a 24 hour window, I had to accumulate that risk over a period of 1,095 event occurences to build a 3 year risk model. 

https://19andme.covid19.mathematica.org/

To your other point, I do not believe the occurrence rate will approach 100% as that is not what historically happens with viruses. There is a mathematical model that explains the waves and valleys of virus transmission and even during some of the most infectious pandemics in human history, the vast majority went without ever being exposed. 

 

Edit: rereading your post your method is flawed for several reasons. 1.) If the CDC estimate is really so far under you would then need to extrapolate that reduced risk to your remaining risk because people who are not reporting COVID-19 are not doing so because they do not have symptoms, hence, no problems. 2.) I don't think your risk is correct. If we just estimate 44% is ~1/2, bro, I've only known of like 6 people with COVID the whole pandemic. That's my whole base population since anytime there is a positive case here we shut down literally half the base and it's rather obvious. Do you really know that many people dropping off left and right that this passed your common sense test? 

Edited November 16, 2021 by FLEA

[FLEA]

Want to turn topic a bit to focus on something I think is more interesting to national policy and law. 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/11/15/unions-seek-bargaining-rights-for-national-guard-members/

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-stands-vaccine-mandate-national-161801995.ht

 

COVID-19 has forced some interest conversations about the role of the national guard in the US Total Force, and the lawful authority of the DoD to place mandates on members who are not on federal status. 

In Oklahoma, the state secretary of the guard was presumably fired over enforcing Secretary Austin's order to vaccinate all guard troops. He was replaced and subsequently the OK governor declared he is the lawful commander and chief of the OK national guard when they are not on federal status, and he will not enforce their vaccine mandate unless they are federally activated. 

 

In the second scenario, CT national guard members are sueing for the right to unionize when not in federal status. Their lawyer cleverly points out existing legislation against the unionization of the military only applies (apparently) when troops are title 32 status. Hence, members of the CT National Guard were unlawfully denied collective bargaining rights guaranteed to other CT state employees in regards to COVID-19 mandates. 

Now if you think this is bizarre, I would have too. Until I went to work for NATO and realized THE MAJORITY of western militaries are actually unionized. We are the odd one out. Definitely not advocating we model our defense off of Europe, but bros, you are getting screwed on representation, 😂. 

 

 

[MCO]

I don’t know why we keep arguing this. There is literally no evidence, regardless of how convincing, you can show an anti-vaxxer that will convince them it’s good to get the shot, and it would take something incredible happening to convince everyone else the shot is bad.

[glockenspiel]

5 hours ago, MCO said:

I don’t know why we keep arguing this. There is literally no evidence, regardless of how convincing, you can show an anti-vaxxer that will convince them it’s good to get the shot, and it would take something incredible happening to convince everyone else the shot is bad.

Are you saying that the CV19 shot is good for every person? Must be nice to live in such a black and white world.

I would love if the CV19 vax, phase 2 and 3 clinical trials were well done, with blood draw during follow ups, evaluating troponin levels, using Sanger Sequencing ( not the current PCR) to confirm cases and strict short term and long term follow ups of both arms (vaxxed and unvaxxed) of the trial. If there is a “pro-cv19 vax trial” that’s similar to that, I’d consider changing my mind after review. I might even consider changing my mind if there were favorable trials in animals… oh wait, we skipped those.
 

sidenote: Thank you to those who are currently providing long term safety data.
 

Anti CV19-vax ≠ anti-vaxxer.

[MCO]

6 minutes ago, glockenspiel said:

Are you saying that the CV19 shot is good for every person? Must be nice to live in such a black and white world.

I would love if the CV19 vax, phase 2 and 3 clinical trials were well done, with blood draw during follow ups, evaluating troponin levels, using Sanger Sequencing ( not the current PCR) to confirm cases and strict short term and long term follow ups of both arms (vaxxed and unvaxxed) of the trial. If there is a “pro-cv19 vax trial” that’s similar to that, I’d consider changing my mind after review. I might even consider changing my mind if there were favorable trials in animals… oh wait, we skipped those.
 

sidenote: Thank you to those who are currently providing long term safety data.
 

Anti CV19-vax ≠ anti-vaxxer.

Not what I’m saying at all.

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, glockenspiel said:

Are you saying that the CV19 shot is good for every person? Must be nice to live in such a black and white world.

I would love if the CV19 vax, phase 2 and 3 clinical trials were well done, with blood draw during follow ups, evaluating troponin levels, using Sanger Sequencing ( not the current PCR) to confirm cases and strict short term and long term follow ups of both arms (vaxxed and unvaxxed) of the trial. If there is a “pro-cv19 vax trial” that’s similar to that, I’d consider changing my mind after review. I might even consider changing my mind if there were favorable trials in animals… oh wait, we skipped those.
 

sidenote: Thank you to those who are currently providing long term safety data.
 

Anti CV19-vax ≠ anti-vaxxer.

I doubt it. I think you'd move the goalposts again. Just like all the people who weren't going to get an unapproved vaccine pivoted to religious arguments and debating the approval process after Pfizer got FDA approval.

[Lowspeedhidrag]

Goal posts.......over or under on monthly 'boosters'...

[pawnman]

27 minutes ago, Lowspeedhidrag said:

Goal posts.......over or under on monthly 'boosters'...

I already put my money on annual shots at some point.

[FUSEPLUG]

1 minute ago, pawnman said:

I already put my money on annual shots at some point.

Good on you!

I’ll be putting my money on no shots.  Ever. 

[tac airlifter]

On 11/10/2021 at 8:46 AM, pawnman said:

I'll take that bet.  I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes an annual requirement like the flu shot.

You’re on.   But I should warn you: I won my last BO.net scotch bet and I have expensive tastes.  See you in 2026.

[pawnman]

53 minutes ago, FUSEPLUG said:

Good on you!

I’ll be putting my money on no shots.  Ever. 

You already lost that one. Assuming you want to stay employed by the Air Force. Or most major airlines. 

[Pooter]

16 hours ago, FLEA said:

Woah are we actually debating this again? Baseops crashed for 48 hours and I thought we all went through a day where we felt lost and helpless, followed by another day where we reconnected with our families and remembered there was a life outside of BO.net and arguing on the internet. 

 

I've posted this before but 19andMe has done one of the leading calculators for estimating cumulated risk of contracting COVID-19 based on a meta analysis of dozens of studies followed by a pretty impressive mathematical model. 

I ran the model for a 26 year old slightly healthier than average male in my zip code, unvaccinated, but taking basic social distance precautions based on the current local measures we had in place. This represents the average US Armed Forces enlisted service member.

Since the calculator only predicts risk in a 24 hour window, I had to accumulate that risk over a period of 1,095 event occurences to build a 3 year risk model. 

https://19andme.covid19.mathematica.org/

To your other point, I do not believe the occurrence rate will approach 100% as that is not what historically happens with viruses. There is a mathematical model that explains the waves and valleys of virus transmission and even during some of the most infectious pandemics in human history, the vast majority went without ever being exposed. 

 

Edit: rereading your post your method is flawed for several reasons. 1.) If the CDC estimate is really so far under you would then need to extrapolate that reduced risk to your remaining risk because people who are not reporting COVID-19 are not doing so because they do not have symptoms, hence, no problems. 2.) I don't think your risk is correct. If we just estimate 44% is ~1/2, bro, I've only known of like 6 people with COVID the whole pandemic. That's my whole base population since anytime there is a positive case here we shut down literally half the base and it's rather obvious. Do you really know that many people dropping off left and right that this passed your common sense test? 

Yeah the data passes the common sense test for me. I think most people know way more than 6 people who have had covid. I can name six in my squadron alone, and multiple in my immediate family. 
 

That is a cool risk calculator though. Haven't seen one with that much granularity before. I don't think sampling one day of risk and multiplying it by 1000 is going to be super accurate because community spread levels fluctuate massively. You could skew your risk estimate a lot in either direction by picking a day on a crest vs a trough and it's hard to know what a "standard day" if you will.. of covid risk really is. 

[FUSEPLUG]

36 minutes ago, pawnman said:

You already lost that one. Assuming you want to stay employed by the Air Force. Or most major airlines. 

If being “employed by the Air Force” is what one desires…

[FLEA]

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

Yeah the data passes the common sense test for me. I think most people know way more than 6 people who have had covid. I can name six in my squadron alone, and multiple in my immediate family. 
 

That is a cool risk calculator though. Haven't seen one with that much granularity before. I don't think sampling one day of risk and multiplying it by 1000 is going to be super accurate because community spread levels fluctuate massively. You could skew your risk estimate a lot in either direction by picking a day on a crest vs a trough and it's hard to know what a "standard day" if you will.. of covid risk really is. 

I would say your social circle is by far an outlier than and you all should probably take social distancing measures more seriously than lol. Either way, the argument still stands that the risk of myocarditis is about the same in either population sample. 

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

I would say your social circle is by far an outlier than and you all should probably take social distancing measures more seriously than lol. Either way, the argument still stands that the risk of myocarditis is about the same in either population sample. 

What's the baseline risk without Covid or the vaccine?

[Guardian]

For? Acquiring covid? Going to hospital? Death? What are you setting up by asking a low details question that you likely know your own answer to?

[Sim]

Quote

On November 12, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion to stay OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, published on November 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61402) ("ETS"). The court ordered that OSHA "take no steps to implement or enforce" the ETS "until further court order." While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation.

https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2

[Pooter]

9 hours ago, FLEA said:

I would say your social circle is by far an outlier than and you all should probably take social distancing measures more seriously than lol. Either way, the argument still stands that the risk of myocarditis is about the same in either population sample. 

Why would my social circle be the outlier if it much more closely aligns with the CDCs total case estimate?

 

But fair enough, you did your risk analysis and made your decision. I don't think your methodology is sound (taking 1 day's risk level and extrapolating over 3 years) but let's assume for the sake of argument your estimate is correct and myocarditis risk is roughly equivalent. 
 

Wouldn't that still favor the vaccine? If it's basically a wash on the myocarditis front, you're getting the added protection from the vaccine with no net loss. 

[brabus]

Data from CDC as of today…

Risk of going to hospital:

65-75: 1.5% / 50-64: 1% / 18-49: 0.46% / 0-17: 0.075%

Note: Includes all those with health problems; 95% of those numbers above have at least one comorbidity. So your chance of being hospitalized if you’re healthy is roughly 5% of your age group number above (averaged across all age groups, so it won’t be exactly 5, but close enough).

Risk of death if you contract COVID:

65-75: 6.3% / 50-64: 1.9% / 18-49: 0.24% / 0-17: 0.01%

Note: Includes all those with comorbidites, as well as all data starting Mar 20. 

Interesting numbers on the vaccines:

Fully (partially) vax’d: 65+ 86.1% (99.4%) / 18+ 70.6% (81.6%) /12+ 68.9% (79.7%). Pretty high vaccination rates overall.

Over the course of the last year, the vaccines have reduced the death rate by 0.16% (averaged over all age groups/total US population).

My personal takeaways from the data:

1. If you’re under 65, your risk of hospitalization/death is minuscule; if you’re without comorbidities your risk is even more minuscule. There is certainly not zero risk (caveat for those who will try to misconstrue my words).

2. The vaccines have hardly moved the needle, despite what the MSM, gov reps, and Pharma say. Last 30 days death rate is only 0.16% less than the day prior to EUA. That is not to say vaccines have not accomplished anything, but rather they are significantly less impactful than what many want/believe them to be. 

3. Your overall health and age appear to be the largest factors in how you react to COVID. The “pandemic of the unvax’d” is a total misnomer, as it’s really a “pandemic of the unhealthy (who also may have chosen not to get vax’d).” If we actually root cause this thing, we should be directing much of our misplaced effort towards creating a healthier America, not on emotionally-driven virtue signaling/attacking our neighbors about masks, vaccine mandates, etc.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by brabus

[brabus]

9 hours ago, FLEA said:

I would say your social circle is by far an outlier

My experience has been 20-30 immediate contacts with COVID. But here’s the punchline:

None went to the hospital (including the few 70+) and most were mild cases at best. Related…my neighbor’s brother in-law was killed in a motorcycle accident - autopsy revealed COVID, death certificate says COVID…I shit you not.