🇳🇱
I doubt a single one of the COVID conspiracy theory nutters out there could even answer this quiz, and this is just the basic level.
@freemo can you spell heart attack?
@freemo I can't speak to what other people are saying but swelling of the heart seems to be a very common symptom and historically has extremely bad clinical outcomes in the long term.
my point is that being unable to answer the questions on your test (hands up, I had no fucking clue) doesn't mean I can't look at the numbers of clinical outcomes and decide against.
@skells 0 people have died of swelling of the heart from a covid vaccine, 0 people have been perminantly injured from it. Full stop.
Yes a few (40 per million) have mild swelling of the heart and survive just fine. But 40 per million is not anything even close to "common", thats a fraction of a fraction of a percent (0.004%).
And the fact that your sitting here calling something that has caused no harm to anyone and has a 0.004% incident as "common" suggests that, in fact, you **are** in capable of looking up numbers of clinical outcomes and making decisions on it.
@freemo if death counts as permanently injured then several thousand at least seem to have been permanently injured.
using the phrase "common" was lax of me - I just had a (brief) look at openVAERS and pericarditis and heart attacks seem to be ~20 in a million.
the question is relative though, what is my chance of dying from covid compared to my chance of having a negative reaction to the vaccine?
If you're at risk then it probably makes sense.
If you're young and healthy without co-morbidities then you can make a decent numerical case that the vaccine still makes sense - but in this case it appears to be very much in the noise.
if you then add that the potential for long term risks are completely unknown, the decision not to get vaccinated is perfectly reasonable.
My failure to answer your quiz has no bearing upon any of the reasoning I have used here.
I appreciate there are many people making wild claims on many sides - this doesn't justify sophistry.
"if death counts as permanently injured then several thousand at least seem to have been permanently injured."
Wrong, no one has died of swelling of the heart and even more generally thousands have not died due to covid. Please stop making up shit to convince yourself your right.
VARES is NOT an indication of who has what reaction to the vaccine. It is a report of **all** incidents within 14 days of a vaccination including those **known** to be unrelated to the vaccine. Doctors are required by law to report to VARES any medical condition, including those not related to the vaccine, that occur within 14 days of taking the vaccine.
See this right here is you proving exactly why your inability to understand the basic facts int he quiz make you incapable of drawing conclusions. You dont even understand things like what the VARES numbers mean.
So yes, in this very conversation you have proven, quite well, why you are incapable of making assertions about COVId if you cant even pass the basic test.
@freemo ~7000 people in the US die every day.
If every death has to be reported then one would expect, as a back of an envelope calculation, ~50 thousand VAERS reports of deaths.
Either VAERS does not require all deaths to be reported or the vaccine reduces your chances of death to 1/3 of the normal rate. That's one helluva drug.
This assumes :
- The rate of death of the average vaccine recipient is similar to the average citizen
- That one can use an ensemble average in place of the time average to account for the different times at which vaccines were administered.
- That we don't count multiple doses of the vaccine (an extremely conservative assumption)
- That 50% of the population has been vaccinated (another conservative assumption)
Both these assumptions may be flawed, they appear reasonable for a rough and ready argument over social media.
Clearly not every death is reported to VAERS, thus the 14,925 deaths that have been reported implies that there is some sort of selection going on: either the people making these reports have some sense that the death was likely caused by the vaccine or they are simply ascribing it to the vaccine because of recency bias.
The conclusion in either case is that the VAERS system, and likely the similar systems we use in the EU, is not a well calibrated form of data for making these claims.
Begging the question:
How do we know the vaccines are safe if the tools we use to do the research are either plausibly deniable or broken?
A prudent individual would be more hesitant to receive a vaccine inversely proportional to his confidence in the instruments used to measure safety.
In any case, weaving sophistry with insults is a shoddy way to conduct yourself in such a debate.
That being said, it's an extremely noisy subject, in terms of data and discourse, and it's very easy for anyone to find the data to fulfil their biases, on every side.
I'm willing to agree to disagree here.
@skells My god, please dont try to do "math" when you dont understand it... it doesnt help...
VARES only needs you to report the deaths of anyone who had a vaccine **within 14 days** regardless of cause of death, even when its known not to be caused by the vaccine.
VARES does **not** say, however, that all deaths must be reported even of people who arent vaccinated or didnt receive a vaccination shot within 14 days.
Since your lead in is really sloppy and uneducated, im not going to read the rest. if thats the level of logic you are using.
Average death rate is ~7000 per day
This rate does not change significantly
Over half the population have received at least one jab
Assume all these people got the jab at one point in time, rather than spread out over the actual time (switching to an ensemble average from a time average, seems a reasonable assumption)
This gives an expectation of 3,500 deaths per day.
If every death within 14 days has to be reported, that's an expectation of 49,000 deaths.
I'm happy to be corrected in any mistakes by addressing where my reasoning breaks down.
Hiding behind insults is not persuading anyone.
@skells @skells Oh and the reason not every death of someone vaccinated within 14 days is reported is quite simple. Because the doctor who reports your death needs to know you were vaccinated. They dont always know or even have your medical records. So a few do slip through, but that has little to do with if the vaccine caused the death or not.
Listen, if you want to be an idiot who beleives in some massive global conspiracy and make up bullshit you pull out of your ass.. go for it. I have no time for such stupidity to argue against it myself when clearly facts have no bearing on what you beleive. Its childish, stupid, and makes you look uneducated, but you have that right, just dont complain about people laughing at you.
I am not "hiding" behind insults... i just have no tolerance for **willful** ignorance and its best you know exactly what I think of you if you engage in such stupidity against all logic.
@skells Here is the link directly to the VARES FAW qhere it explicitly states that **all** deaths must be reported:
https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html
To quote:
Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], and other adverse events if later revised by CDC:
...
3. Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization;
...
=============
INB4 the definition of adverse event is as follows:
An adverse event is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment.
@freemo 49,000 -> 14,900 is not a "few slipping through"
Clearly VAERS is not functioning as intended if every death is *supposed* to be reported, which makes it an unreliable tool, begging the question as to what rigorous tools we do have.
My question is an operational one, how do we determine the safety of vaccines when used on this scale?
I don't believe in anything more than the usual toxic mix of incompetency and corruption.
Not everyone who disagrees with some aspect of your world-view is an idiot.
@skells You are right not everyone who disagrees with some aspect of my world view is an idiot... You however are acting like one, just as flat-earthers and other people acting similar to you would be.
I have disagreed with many people about vaccines more generally. Some are conspiracy theorists ignoring obvious facts and acting willfully ignorant like you... others just have a different opinion and arent acting like idiots at all.
@freemo I have consistently tried to find some common ground for discussion based on the data available to us.
You have responded by calling me a wilful ignorant etc.
It's been real, enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
You cant find common ground with me when the common ground you seek is idiotic. Flat earthers also fail to find common ground with me.
enjoy your sunday as well.
https://www.medscape.com/sites/public/covid-19/vaccine-insights/how-concerned-are-you-about-vaccine-related-adverse-events
I know you've blocked me, asshole, but I'm not arguing with you. I'm providing opinions for people with who you are arguing.
@skells
@skells Except they arent saying simple things like "A heart attack from a vaccine is a bad outcome".. they are saying things that actually do require understanding like "There is a good chance you will get a heart attack from the vaccine"... or "heart attacks from the vaccine are common" neither of which is true and requires some understanding of the data to assert about.