Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[Negatory]

Correcting errors I made. My data comparison on COVID vs the Flu was bad. I presented COVID case rates / 100k over a 4 week period (the UK study) compared to case rates / 100k over a 52 week period (CDC flu season data). That means, if you actually want to make an apples to apples comparison of the two, you have to multiply the infection/hospitalization/death rate of the 4 week study by 52/4 or 14.

Turns out when you do that, for kids <18, yeah, COVID = the flu. But for populations older than 18, COVID actually is an order of magnitude worse.

Here's a good source for cumulative hospitalization rate for COVID. Check out any 1 year timeline (I pulled from 7 Mar 20 to March 6 21):

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/covid19_3.html

0-4: ~45/100k

5-17: ~28/100k

18-49: ~275/100k

50-64: ~690/100k

65+: ~1500/100k

Again, the CDC data on 17-18 flu:

Still not as different as some sources have led you to believe. For hospitalizations, flu is actually worse for ages 0-4 and 5-17. But COVID is significantly worse in the 18-64 year group, ~3-5 times worse. Strangely, COVID is only about 50% worse for the 65+ age group.

Also, I couldn't find a really clean source to present death rates. But rough looks show that those do seem to be significantly higher for COVID than the flu (on the order of 10 times higher for 18-65+). Don't want to present that without having a good source, so I'll just defer that discussion.

With that being said, combined evidence that transmission is significantly less impacted by vaccination than originally thought, I still wouldn't push for children to get mandatory vaccinations. And I still am leaning towards not making vaccines mandatory for anyone.

I stand by my belief that herd immunity is a dumb myth. Still haven't seen anything convincing me that transmission is affected enough to warrant mandates. And recent masking studies point to masks only being between 10-20% effective. We should stop wearing those now.

Sorry for bad data.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Negatory

[Sim]

9 hours ago, Mark1 said:

to make yourself sound official on this topic, probably don't make it the abstract from a 2006 study that itself used data from studies conducted in the 1990s. 

Let me expend a little... you make your own conclusion. 

Government mandates an entity to report ADR. 

Quote

" The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% "

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16689555/ 

Quote

While the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System [VAERS] may be lauded as the ‘‘front line’’ of vaccine safety, the lack of enforcement provisions and effective monitoring of reporting practices preclude accurate assessments of the extent to which adverse events are actually reported. Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events 

https://www.congress.gov/106/crpt/hrpt977/CRPT-106hrpt977.pdf

This entity is not doing reporting. 

 

Government makes it easier for an entity to report.

Quote

VAERS accepts reports from anyone. Patients, parents, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCP) are encouraged to report adverse events after vaccination to VAERS even if it is not clear that the vaccine caused the adverse event. In addition, HCP are required to report certain adverse events after vaccination.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Government tries to use automation and better system to report. 

Quote

Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
 

To verify reports are not false, government requires... 

Quote

The CDC and FDA require additional information on selected VAERS reports for the public health purpose of helping to ensure the safety of U.S. licensed vaccines. You or your health care provider may be contacted for follow-up information by VAERS staff after your report is received. These selected reports are followed up by a team of health care professionals to obtain additional information (such as medical records and autopsy reports) to provide as complete a picture of the case as possible.

 

And then Project Veritas shown;

                                      Hospitals discourage its staff to report

                                      Hospital staff do not have time (or lazy) to do report that takes 30 - 60 minute.  

(no link provided) 

 

No conclusion provided. 

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Negatory said:

Have to point out a flaw in my analysis. The rates of infection between vaxxed/unvaxxed could easily be biased by "anti-vaxxers" being significantly less likely to get tested for COVID. That means that the actual rate of cases per 100k could be significantly higher than just a population analysis.

Would need to see results from a random sampling of the population to get a more accurate view.

Considering how much money we've spent, it's been a huge frustration since about May 2020 that the govt hasn't been running a huge series of studies and tests to get meaningful data on COVID. Seems like most information is coming from other countries.

 

Also, I'm not particularly concerned with case rate. As with most diseases, severe hospitalization and death is the important metric.

 

Regarding the flu, it's always been dangerous for seniors to get influenza, so that fits with the rates you posted. And very young kids as well. COVID is worse, but COVID is also very new. The susceptible population is currently adjusting (dying) to the "new normal." COVID-19 just happens to skip over kids entirely. Lucky for us really.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[TheNewGazmo]

14 hours ago, Mark1 said:

I don't have the patience to go through every problem with the point you think you're making with this, but just one thing...

When you're trying to leverage something to make yourself sound official on this topic, probably don't make it the abstract from a 2006 study that itself used data from studies conducted in the 1990s.  You know, because that was a time when if you got the sniffles a couple days after your diphtheria vaccination, you first had to be enough of a to book an appointment with your medical provider over it, and then they had to give enough s to fill out the reporting documentation and submit it on your behalf after you left the office.  Whereas today anybody can submit a report in two minutes while they're on the shitter.

Not as easy to submit a report in two minutes while you're on the shitter if you're dead.  Who submitted the reports for the dead people?  Was cause of death officially determined to be a side effect of the vaccine or does death in general get an automatic submission into the VAERS system after being vaccinated?  With an almost equal sampling size between the COVID-19 vaccine and the flu vaccine, you have to wonder why the statistics are showing the C19 jab having a 175x more chance of death.  It's not even close, so where's the disconnect?  Are we claiming a "conspiracy" because it's so easy to submit a report these days?  Again, that doesn't explain the deaths.  Less than 50% of the people in the US get a flu shot every year.  Most of those are kids (because they're required to get it to enter school) and old people (because they're afraid of dying from it).  We don't see old people dying after getting their flu shot in this data regardless of any other possible causes of death that could have triggered a bogus submission to VAERS.

It is known that the C19 vaccines are highly concentrated because they designed it for old people and old people have weakened immune systems requiring a more potent immune response.  Of course I cannot find the article I read several weeks ago, but the C19 vaccine Pfizer was developing for children has 1/3 the dosage of the adult flavor and mentioned that they tested the child dosage on middle-aged adults and got the same immune response from the child dosage as they did with the adult dosage with less side-effects.  At the time, the vaccine developers did not have the time to research lower dosages during the race for an FDA approval for emergency use, hence why we all get a vaccine designed for >65 year olds.  There is a reason why they have a "high dose" flu vaccine specifically for old people.

Edited October 25, 2021 by TheNewGazmo

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Not as easy to submit a report in two minutes while you're on the shitter if you're dead.  Who submitted the reports for the dead people?  Was cause of death officially determined to be a side effect of the vaccine or does death in general get an automatic submission into the VAERS system after being vaccinated?  With an almost equal sampling size between the COVID-19 vaccine and the flu vaccine, you have to wonder why the statistics are showing the C19 jab having a 175x more chance of death.  It's not even close, so where's the disconnect?  Are we claiming a "conspiracy" because it's so easy to submit a report these days?  Again, that doesn't explain the deaths.  Less than 50% of the people in the US get a flu shot every year.  Most of those are kids (because they're required to get it to enter school) and old people (because they're afraid of dying from it).  We don't see old people dying after getting their flu shot in this data regardless of any other possible cause of death that could have triggered a submission to VAERS.

Dude stop. It's Safe and Effective™️.

 

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

Dude stop. It's Safe and Effective™️.

 

Weird, it's almost like people don't enjoy being ambushed by the press at their home.

[HeloDude]

6 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Weird, it's almost like people don't enjoy being ambushed by the press at their home.

Is it wrong/inappropriate for journalists (or anyone else for that matter) to do so?

[TheNewGazmo]

19 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Weird, it's almost like people don't enjoy being ambushed by the press at their home.

While I probably wouldn't enjoy being "ambushed" at my home, I don't know if I'd sprint (scurry or waddle) down the street into my house if I was completely innocent either.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Weird, it's almost like people don't enjoy being ambushed by the press at their home.

Ambush? LOL... right 🤣. The journalist seemed polite in their question and tone. She had genuine fear in her eyes as she knows what she's been complicit with. Maybe Dr. Fauci will be lecturing us on medical testing ethics next.

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Is it wrong/inappropriate for journalists (or anyone else for that matter) to do so?

To track down someones home address and confront them by surprise while they're walking, and film them without permission? Yes, that is professionally inappropriate.  
 

It's wrong when protesters accost republicans in DC restaurants and this is wrong too.  Respect for public and private life boundaries should exist for people you agree and disagree with.

Here's a crazy idea. Go to the Pfizer offices and get a statement from the company. I'm sure they have an attentive and very well staffed PR department.

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

Ambush? LOL... right 🤣. The journalist seemed polite in their question and tone. She had genuine fear in her eyes as she knows what she's been complicit with. Maybe Dr. Fauci will be lecturing us on medical testing ethics next.

 So If you disagree with someone enough, it's now okay to go to their house and fuck with them on their personal time? Is this not exactly the logic the left uses? 

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, TheNewGazmo said:

While I probably wouldn't enjoy being "ambushed" at my home, I don't know if I'd sprint (scurry or waddle) down the street into my house if I was completely innocent either.

I certainly wouldn't reward this behavior with an interview. 

Y'all seem pretty content with invading someone's personal property for folks claiming to support personal freedom. 

[Pooter]

3 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I certainly wouldn't reward this behavior with an interview. 

Y'all seem pretty content with invading someone's personal property for folks claiming to support personal freedom. 

Well from the looks of the video they never went on her property, but it still is well outside the bounds of professional journalism. 
 

Funny how these baseops freedom champions are all for civility and respectful discourse, unless it's someone they don't like.  In that case, chase that bitch and keep filming! And make some demeaning comments about her weight while we're at it!  

[FLEA]

40 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Well from the looks of the video they never went on her property, but it still is well outside the bounds of professional journalism. 
 

Funny how these baseops freedom champions are all for civility and respectful discourse, unless it's someone they don't like.  In that case, chase that bitch and keep filming! And make some demeaning comments about her weight while we're at it!  

Probably more to do with the fact that over 2 decades, we've slowly agreed as a country that this type of behavior is acceptable. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Well from the looks of the video they never went on her property, but it still is well outside the bounds of professional journalism. 
 

Funny how these baseops freedom champions are all for civility and respectful discourse, unless it's someone they don't like.  In that case, chase that bitch and keep filming! And make some demeaning comments about her weight while we're at it!  

The journalist was more professional than anything I’ve seen from Fox/CNN/other MSM in decades. The sidewalk is public property and the journalist can legally be there and film and ask questions. There was no ambush. Stop lying. She could’ve engaged in the questioning, or merely stayed silent and went about her day, or she could’ve walked back to her house. She fled in terror because she knows the People are catching on.

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Pooter said:

To track down someones home address and confront them by surprise while they're walking, and film them without permission? Yes, that is professionally inappropriate.  
 

It's wrong when protesters accost republicans in DC restaurants and this is wrong too.  Respect for public and private life boundaries should exist for people you agree and disagree with.

Here's a crazy idea. Go to the Pfizer offices and get a statement from the company. I'm sure they have an attentive and very well staffed PR department.

I don’t disagree—unfortunately we’re at a point where if a person doesn’t agree with someone else then said person is a fascist, racist, communist, anti-science, libtard, bigot, blah blah blah.  And when you label someone one of these, all forms of decency towards each other goes out the window.  This is what people resort to when they can’t just argue with their ideas.

Don’t worry…we’re soon going to learn that economics doesn’t care about name calling.

[Pooter]

9 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Probably more to do with the fact that over 2 decades, we've slowly agreed as a country that this type of behavior is acceptable. 

Wrong. We haven't all agreed to this. People still understand what standard of behavior is unacceptable. They just selectively apply that standard. 
 

A week ago republicans had a massive problem with protesters following Kyrsten Sinema into a bathroom. At least that was at work. Now it's magically okay to invade someone's private life, and not only that! When she runs away after being rightfully startled by a camera crew of random dudes confronting her on a neighborhood street, it's supposed to be some kind of damning admission of guilt. 
 

This is actually turning out to be a pretty good litmus test. If you expect equal treatment of people and hold everyone to a baseline standard of decency, there's a good chance you're a person who holds principles in higher regard than political affiliation. If you selectively apply those standards and relish when they're violated against people you don't like, there's a good chance you're a partisan hack. 

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, dogfish78 said:

The journalist was more professional than anything I’ve seen from Fox/CNN/other MSM in decades. The sidewalk is public property and the journalist can legally be there and film and ask questions. There was no ambush. Stop lying. She could’ve engaged in the questioning, or merely stayed silent and went about her day, or she could’ve walked back to her house. She fled in terror because she knows the People are catching on.

Ahh yes. Definitely no ambush. Because that's how normal people conduct interviews.. by sneaking up on someone walking with headphones on their own personal time.  Yeah.. come to think of it that's where most tv interviews I see take place.. on quiet neighborhood sidewalks...

 

As super interesting as it is to debate public/personal boundaries with you, turns out there's a difference between the limits of what is legal, and what is professionally acceptable.  I'm not all that surprised you think this is okay because, again, it's a person you don't like being subjected to indecent behavior. Reference my above comment about partisan hackery. 
 

And the fact you think she's running away because "tHe pEoPle" are catching on and not because a crew of strange dudes with cameras are accosting her in her private life, is the icing on the stupid cake. 

[TheNewGazmo]

5 hours ago, pawnman said:

I certainly wouldn't reward this behavior with an interview. 

Y'all seem pretty content with invading someone's personal property for folks claiming to support personal freedom. 

Happens to movie/sports/rock stars all the time and no one ever bats an eyelash.  In fact, the tabloids make people money off of this behavior.  

[pawnman]

3 minutes ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Happens to movie/sports/rock stars all the time and no one ever bats an eyelash.  In fact, the tabloids make people money off of this behavior.  

And usually the actors/ athletes/ musicians do what she did...keep walking and don't engage. 

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, TheNewGazmo said:

Happens to movie/sports/rock stars all the time and no one ever bats an eyelash.  In fact, the tabloids make people money off of this behavior.  

Yeah dude.. it's called the paparazzi and it's the absolute dumpster basement of the journalism world.  So maybe it should give you pause if you're trying to do serious political reporting and behaving like the paparazzi.

[Alpharatz]

5 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I don’t disagree—unfortunately we’re at a point where if a person doesn’t agree with someone else then said person is a fascist, racist, communist, anti-science, libtard, bigot, blah blah blah.  And when you label someone one of these, all forms of decency towards each other goes out the window.  This is what people resort to when they can’t just argue with their ideas.

Don’t worry…we’re soon going to learn that economics doesn’t care about name calling.

Funny you should mention that...My stock guy claims that he sees inflation and a bit of a pull back...I see deflation and a full blown recession.........employers near where the Afghans are camped out should be banging down the CO's door to get at these potential employees..they are gonna need 'em...As to being jumped by camera dudes..       If you anticipate such a thing..carry a small can of red spray paint and coat the lens..

[Lord Ratner]

20 minutes ago, Alpharatz said:

Funny you should mention that...My stock guy claims that he sees inflation and a bit of a pull back...I see deflation and a full blown recession.........employers near where the Afghans are camped out should be banging down the CO's door to get at these potential employees..they are gonna need 'em...As to being jumped by camera dudes..       If you anticipate such a thing..carry a small can of red spray paint and coat the lens..

Deflation? How?

[Sim]

It wasn't OK when CNN did it. It wasn't ok when PV did it. Can we agree to that? 

Now can we go back to tyranny discussion? 

 

 

[Sim]