COVID-19

[Bluto]

Cool, now address and dispute any one of my points with data.

One could counter that the one who mocks someone else without a factual basis is the ignorant one.

No thanks.

Could you share your thoughts on the billions of king crab that have gone missing in the Bearing Sea though?

 

[sixstar]

40 years on this earth, and before last year, I had never been accused for being a conspiracy theorist. Until I started posting raw COVID data and scientific studies. What a time to be alive.

Meanwhile, Bluto throws stones but can't provide substantive evidence that anything I said was wrong. Excellent work, Bluto.

 

[TorontoGold]

40 years on this earth, and before last year, I had never been accused for being a conspiracy theorist. Until I started posting raw COVID data and scientific studies. What a time to be alive.

Meanwhile, Bluto throws stones but can't provide substantive evidence that anything I said was wrong. Excellent work, Bluto.

Since your britches have gotten too big, I'll point out where your data is incorrect.

Ok, so you previously represented that the data in those charts comes from the last HSA report from March 17th I looked into that data - https://assets.publishing.service.g...532/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_11.pdf

On page 45 this the chart that posts the per 100k that you are claiming is included in your "charts" well take a look here. Hospitalization rates, doesn't line up with your "charts". Deaths also don't line up. The partial truth that is in your charts is the case rates being higher.

This was why I never seriously responded to you, misrepresenting data and being upset that raw data wasn't available was an easy tell that you had incorrect data in those charts. And what do you know, there it is. Even it was a big government conspiracy to stop putting out the below chart, the last data shows how important it is for any age group to get vaccinated. Is this the part where I post some half baked GEoRGe ORwEll wAs RiTe line?

 

[sixstar]

Dude, what. I'm not sure if you are mispresenting the data on purpose or if you don't understand how to read the chart and table.

Outside of some rounding errors or very minor discrepancies, the data is consistent. BTW: Hold2's math is correct - UKHSA's has the rounding errors. Go ahead and check the math yourself using the data sources and a calculator.

The narrative is completely unchanged.

Here I'll help. I'll show you cases, hospitalizations, and death rates per 100k for the chart that I posted (Labeled (Chart)) and the UKHSA source document (Labeled UKHSA). I'll only show UV vs 3V to keep it easy

The data is consistent for 1V and 2V as well; you just have to cross correlate it manually with the other datasets in that link because they removed the 1V and 2V columns from that chart.

Age	Cases (Chart)	Cases (UKHSA)	Chart Delta	Hosp (Chart)	Hosp (UKHSA)	Chart Delta	Death (Chart)	Death (UKHSA)	Chart Delta
18-29	700 (UV) 2179 (3V)	702 (UV) 2192 (3V)	-002 (UV) -013 (3V)	4.9 (UV) 4.1 (3V)	4.9 (UV) 4.1 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	0.0 (UV) 0.0 (3V)	0.0 (UV) 0.0 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
20-39	747 (UV) 2772 (3V)	748 (UV) 2780 (3V)	-001 (UV) -008 (3V)	4.9 (UV) 4.1 (3V)	4.9 (UV) 4.2 (3V)	EVEN (UV) -0.1 (3V)	0.4 (UV) 0.1 (3V)	0.4 (UV) 0.1 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
40-49	651 (UV) 2478 (3V)	652 (UV) 2482 (3V)	-001 (UV) -004 (3V)	5.4 (UV) 4.1 (3V)	5.4 (UV) 4.2 (3V)	EVEN (UV) -0.1 (3V)	0.6 (UV) 0.1 (3V)	0.6 (UV) 0.1 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
50-59	520 (UV) 1964 (3V)	520 (UV) 1965 (3V)	EVEN (UV) -001 (3V)	11.2 (UV) 5.5 (3V)	11.2 (UV) 5.5 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	2.5 (UV) 0.7 (3V)	2.5 (UV) 0.7 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
60-69	382 (UV) 1622 (3V)	382 (UV) 1622 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	16.5 (UV) 9.1 (3V)	16.5 (UV) 9.1 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	6.3 (UV) 1.9 (3V)	6.3 (UV) 1.8 (3V)	EVEN (UV) +0.1 (3V)
70-79	386 (UV) 1215 (3V)	386 (UV) 1214 (3V)	EVEN (UV) +001 (3V)	45.8 (UV) 21.2 (3V)	45.8 (UV) 21.2 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	23.5 (UV) 7.6 (3V)	23.5 (UV) 7.6 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
80+	557 (UV) 1229 (3V)	556 (UV) 1224 (3V)	+001 (UV) +005 (3V)	86.5 (UV) 71.2 (3V)	86.3 (UV) 70.9 (3V)	+0.2 (UV) +0.3 (3V)	85.6 (UV) 49.3 (3V)	85.5 (UV) 49.1 (3V)	+0.1 (UV) +0.2 (3V)

So how is that misrepresenting the data again?

 

[sixstar]

Let's check in on the case, hospitalization, and death rates of the UV vs. 3V in the latest UKHSA report published OCT 6:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1109618/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-40.pdf

Vaccination status in cases, deaths and hospitalisations:
Data on the vaccination status of COVID-19 cases, and deaths and hospitalisations with COVID-19, was previously published to help understand the implications of the pandemic to the NHS, for example understanding workloads in hospitals, and to help understand where to prioritise vaccination delivery.

From 1 April 2022, the UK Government ended provision of free universal COVID-19 testing for the general public in England, as set out in the plan for living with COVID-19. Such changes in testing policies affect the ability to robustly monitor COVID-19 cases by vaccination status, therefore, from the week 14 report onwards this section of the report will no longer be published. For further context and previous data, please see previous vaccine surveillance reports and our blog post. Vaccine effectiveness is measured in other ways as detailed in the vaccine effectiveness section of this report.

So... because UK issues at home COVID tests, they no longer track hospitalization or death rates against vax status. I can understand case rates. But hospitalization and death rates? wat.

Nothing prevents them from determining vax status upon hospital admission since vax status is listed in their national database.

So, to all those non conspiracy theorists out there, please answer these questions:
Please explain to me in simple terms why UK can't track hospitalization and death rates vs. vax status because of at home testing?
Are you at all concerned that UK HSA stopped publishing the data when the data showed significant reduction in vax efficacy? Why or why not?
What do you think is better for the public? Publishing raw data (no matter what the data says) or hiding the raw data? Why?

 

[sixstar]

Moderna posted the results of their childhood vaccination trials. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2209367

On page 62, Moderna self reports a vaccine related severe adverse side effect in a one-year old girl. Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which is... wait for it... An autoimmune disease.

If you have Type 1, your body attacks the beta cells in your pancreas and kills them rendering you unable to make insulin. Like pretty much all autoimmune diseases, it has no cure and will last lifelong.

Hey Toronto, looks like Malone was right. Again.

 

[sixstar]

Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA Vaccines Against ...

This report describes three-dose monovalent COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization during Omicron predominance.

www.cdc.gov

Per CDC, booster efficacy against hospitalization dropped to 29% after 4 months. No word on efficacy after 6 months.

First they said it would give herd immunity, then when that was shown false, they pivoted and said it would prevent severe illness. Now this. And remember, they still don't count hospitalizations 2 weeks after the shot during the particularly high immunosuppressive window.

You all need to prepare to top off your vax every 6 months indefinitely. For kids, that will equate to 150 COVID shots over a standard lifespan.

 

[Ray “The Mule” Finkle]

Anyone saying hello no to Covid vax on their elementary kids?

 

[notredomer23]

Moderna posted the results of their childhood vaccination trials. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2209367

On page 62, Moderna self reports a vaccine related severe adverse side effect in a one-year old girl. Type 1 diabetes mellitus, which is... wait for it... An autoimmune disease.

If you have Type 1, your body attacks the beta cells in your pancreas and kills them rendering you unable to make insulin. Like pretty much all autoimmune diseases, it has no cure and will last lifelong.

Hey Toronto, looks like Malone was right. Again.

I don’t really care to jump into this debate, but something seems off here. For context, I’m vaxxed, won’t be getting boosted because I am at zero risk and do have some concerns as 29 year old who is an avid runner about what it may or may not do to the heart. But how does 1 person getting type 1 diabetes prove the causation was vaccine? Pretty sure Moderna has to report anything that pops up in that time after getting vaxxed. My dad has 3 siblings who all got type 1 between the ages of 5 and 14. It introduces itself at random times. It’s a crappy disease and only 1 of the 3 are still around past 65 so of course wouldn’t wish it on anyone, especially if the vaccine was a contributor.

I guess what I’m saying in short is correlation =/= causation, but is 1 case even considered a correlation? Clicked the link but don’t have time to dig into the data on this fine Friday afternoon.

 

[sixstar]

But how does 1 person getting type 1 diabetes prove the causation was vaccine? Pretty sure Moderna has to report anything that pops up in that time after getting vaxxed. My dad has 3 siblings who all got type 1 between the ages of 5 and 14. It introduces itself at random times. It’s a crappy disease and only 1 of the 3 are still around past 65 so of course wouldn’t wish it on anyone, especially if the vaccine was a contributor.

I guess what I’m saying in short is correlation =/= causation, but is 1 case even considered a correlation? Clicked the link but don’t have time to dig into the data on this fine Friday afternoon.

Great question.

We should start by saying nothing in an open loop system is ever causal, so the best you can hope for his strong correlation. So we have to look at previous facts (baseline) and then assess new data vs. that baseline.

So, what are the baseline facts?

1. Diabetes mellitus is a known side effect of the vaccine. During their 3 month vax trials from DEC 2020 - FEB 2021, Pfizer reported 16 cases of diabetes mellitus with an onset < 24 hours (median) (link here: https://www.riotimesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Pfizer-real-data-released.pdf, Table 7)
2. Moderna asserts that the event was "vaccine related" but not "vaccine caused". Vax manufacturers only use "vax related" terminology in their disclosures.
3. The onset of symptoms and DKA was reported (remember, reports typically lag symptoms) 37 days post-dose 2
4. According to the report, "This child has a significant family history of diabetes mellitus and a recent URI. Assessed as related, the Investigator also noted that the event is “more likely caused by a genetic predisposition to pre-diabetes and viral upper respiratory tract infection that occurred prior to second dose of study vaccine."
5. Medical data shows typical adolescent Type 1 manifests itself primarily between 13-14 years, with a secondary "early peak" around 4-7 years of age (this aligns with your experience). Type 1 onset in an infant is exceedingly rare. So, even if pre-dispositioned to Type 1, the distribution of onset is less than 1% in ages < 1 years old.

Some more info on point #1:

1. Pfizer vax disclosures also showed Type 1 diabetes mellitus as a side effect
   1. Pfizer did not initially disclose their vax trial data. They were forced to disclose this data in March 2022 after a US District court hearing. FDA had originally requested to release the data very slowly with everything released in 75 years, but this was overturned by the judge. (see link: Judge scraps 75-year FDA timeline to release Pfizer vaccine safety data, giving agency eight months)
   2. The disclosures showed that during Pfizer's 3 months of vax trials from December 2020 through February 2021, they received 42,086 reports of vax-related side effects. Side effects ranged from mild to death (1,223 death reports in the 3 month period).
   3. In this disclosure, 2.5% of the reports (1,050) were auto-immune disorders to include 16 reports of new onset diabetes mellitus (in 3 months)
   4. The median report latency for these side effects was < 24 hours, per Pfizer, which means correlation would be extremely high
   5. None of these disclosures were reported in main stream media when the narrative was "safe and effective".
      1. Note how all regulated medicine commercials have to list known side effects of the medication.
      2. Go back and watch vaccine commercials - note how vax commercials never listed a side effect?
      3. Yet, FDA already knew about these 1,209 TYPES of side effects, as they had received this report from Pfizer.
      4. Do you think that the FDA and medical community should have disclosed the potential risks of vaccine side effects instead of endlessly promoting the "Safe and Effective" mantra?

Side note, tangential topic:
Many doctors were pointing to VAERS data that showed these vaccines were causing historically unprecedented levels of side effects. VAERS is CDC and FDA's co-managed system for reporting potentially vax-related side effects. While anyone can post a report in VAERS, the submission process is arduous and takes > 1 hour to complete. It is also a federal felony to report false information to VAERS, punishable by imprisonment.

The media narrative that VAERS reports did not causally link side effects to vaccines was correct but misleading. VAERS was never meant to causally link side effects to vaccines - it was established and is run by CDC and FDA as a warning system (or in their words, "a safety signal") for potential correlation between vaccines and side effects. The media also claimed that VAERS reports could be submitted by trolls, but again, this would be a Federally punishable offense.

Here's the U.S. VAERS chart showing death reports since the beginning of VAERS deployment. VAERS reports in 2021 exceeded all 30 years of previous VAERS reports combined (1990 - 2020). In fact, 2021 reports almost exceeded all previous years combined, multiplied by two! To put it another way, VAERS typically receives ~180 reports of potentially vax-related deaths per year. VAERS received 10,077 reports in 2021 and 5,161 reports so far in 2022. That is a 5,598% increase in 2021 over the average.

Further, 24% of the deaths reported in VAERS occurred within 24 hours of the patient receiving the shot. High correlation. But this information is not disclosed in vax marketing campaigns which parrot, "safe and effective"

Question: do you see a safety signal in the VAERS data?


It is a shame to see that informed consent died with the COVID vaccines. It would've been fine had the public messaging included these potential risks instead of the "safe and effective" propaganda.

The good news is that you can't hide from the data. Eventually, this will come to public awareness.

 

[sixstar]

I didn't forget, and I hope you all don't forget either.

From January 2022, just 9 months ago:

Nearly half of Dems say fines, prison time appropriate for questioning vaccines, poll says

WASHINGTON (TND) — A majority of Democrats support punitive and restrictive policies against the unvaccinated, according to the results of a new poll. A recent national telephone and online survey from The Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports says respondents who claimed to be Democrats...

katv.com

Fifty-nine percent of Democrats who took the poll were in support of a theoretical government policy which would confine those who have not been vaccinated to their own homes unless it was an emergency.

Forty-eight percent of Democrats taking the poll were in support of the criminal punishment of vaccine critics, whether the criticism appeared on television, radio, or even on social media.

Forty-five percent of Democrats who took the poll were in favor of the government forcing people who refuse the vaccine to live in designated facilities or locations.

Twenty-nine percent of Democrats who took the poll reportedly say they would be in support of parents who are against getting vaccinated losing custody of their children.

Two-thirds of Democrat respondents to the poll were in support of the government using digital devices to track the unvaccinated to ensure they socially distance and remain properly quarantined.

 

[RDU Irish]

Damn man I’d a bought you one or serveral drinks.

LOL - appreciate it man. Be nice to those cadets, one of them is my son.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

LOL - appreciate it man. Be nice to those cadets, one of them is my son.

I graduated from the engineering night school there. Thats probably whats wrong with me

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Dude, what. I'm not sure if you are mispresenting the data on purpose or if you don't understand how to read the chart and table.

Outside of some rounding errors or very minor discrepancies, the data is consistent. BTW: Hold2's math is correct - UKHSA's has the rounding errors. Go ahead and check the math yourself using the data sources and a calculator.

The narrative is completely unchanged.

Here I'll help. I'll show you cases, hospitalizations, and death rates per 100k for the chart that I posted (Labeled (Chart)) and the UKHSA source document (Labeled UKHSA). I'll only show UV vs 3V to keep it easy

The data is consistent for 1V and 2V as well; you just have to cross correlate it manually with the other datasets in that link because they removed the 1V and 2V columns from that chart.

Age	Cases (Chart)	Cases (UKHSA)	Chart Delta	Hosp (Chart)	Hosp (UKHSA)	Chart Delta	Death (Chart)	Death (UKHSA)	Chart Delta
18-29	700 (UV) 2179 (3V)	702 (UV) 2192 (3V)	-002 (UV) -013 (3V)	4.9 (UV) 4.1 (3V)	4.9 (UV) 4.1 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	0.0 (UV) 0.0 (3V)	0.0 (UV) 0.0 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
20-39	747 (UV) 2772 (3V)	748 (UV) 2780 (3V)	-001 (UV) -008 (3V)	4.9 (UV) 4.1 (3V)	4.9 (UV) 4.2 (3V)	EVEN (UV) -0.1 (3V)	0.4 (UV) 0.1 (3V)	0.4 (UV) 0.1 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
40-49	651 (UV) 2478 (3V)	652 (UV) 2482 (3V)	-001 (UV) -004 (3V)	5.4 (UV) 4.1 (3V)	5.4 (UV) 4.2 (3V)	EVEN (UV) -0.1 (3V)	0.6 (UV) 0.1 (3V)	0.6 (UV) 0.1 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
50-59	520 (UV) 1964 (3V)	520 (UV) 1965 (3V)	EVEN (UV) -001 (3V)	11.2 (UV) 5.5 (3V)	11.2 (UV) 5.5 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	2.5 (UV) 0.7 (3V)	2.5 (UV) 0.7 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
60-69	382 (UV) 1622 (3V)	382 (UV) 1622 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	16.5 (UV) 9.1 (3V)	16.5 (UV) 9.1 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	6.3 (UV) 1.9 (3V)	6.3 (UV) 1.8 (3V)	EVEN (UV) +0.1 (3V)
70-79	386 (UV) 1215 (3V)	386 (UV) 1214 (3V)	EVEN (UV) +001 (3V)	45.8 (UV) 21.2 (3V)	45.8 (UV) 21.2 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)	23.5 (UV) 7.6 (3V)	23.5 (UV) 7.6 (3V)	EVEN (UV) EVEN (3V)
80+	557 (UV) 1229 (3V)	556 (UV) 1224 (3V)	+001 (UV) +005 (3V)	86.5 (UV) 71.2 (3V)	86.3 (UV) 70.9 (3V)	+0.2 (UV) +0.3 (3V)	85.6 (UV) 49.3 (3V)	85.5 (UV) 49.1 (3V)	+0.1 (UV) +0.2 (3V)

So how is that misrepresenting the data again?

A big fancy chart and radio silence from @TorontoGold? Must be legit.

 

[sixstar]

@TorontoGold, more raw data for you here. This time from Walgreens.

Look at the bottom right. it shows relative risk of infection in vaxxed cohorts (blue bars) vs unvaxxed (green bar). Wow. 3.2x relative risk increase in infection; that's -320% efficacy against infection.

Why is the relative risk of infection so much higher in vaxxed cohorts? My guess: antigenic fixation from the shots. That would also explain why the bivalent didn't produce more or better neutralizing antibody titers than the old vaccine.

Link: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10....full.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Boosting with a new bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting both BA.4/BA.5 and an ancestral SARSCoV-2 strain did not elicit a discernibly superior virus-neutralizing antibody responses compared boosting with an original monovalent vaccine. These findings may be indicative of immunological imprinting, although follow-up studies are needed to determine if the antibody responses will deviate in time, including the impact of a second bivalent booster.

So why did FDA approve the shots on only mouse data? Because the human data looks... [finish the sentence for me]

 

[TorontoGold]

So the chart that determines relative risk is based on what? Because the data for all those other charts is sourced.

Also I do love how the relative risk chart has no headings just RISK! It's more risky. Reminds me of the It's Always Sunny episode when they have the Stress measuring device that just gives an arbitrary number.

The Ethical Skeptic lol. I hope you're subscribed to Dude Trust Me I'm Super Reliable and This Isn't Snake Oil It's Natural Oils.

 

[sixstar]

Relative risk of testing positive for infection. It's all right there in the chart. I'm not sure how you don't see it? Let me know if you would like me to help you chart data in the future so you can understand better. Happy to help.

You dismiss because Ethical Skeptic posted data sourced directly from Walgreens and CDC? All he did was pull and fuse the data. It's their data, not his. You like political posts from a guy named cackalacky but dismiss raw data from another person because of his screen name. That doesn't make sense.

You are so quick to turn a blind eye to actual data and dismiss counter-narrative facts to maintain your bias. Science is constantly challenging assumptions. I encourage you to challenge mine with actual data. I don't want to be right - I want to be correct.

 

[sixstar]

Add another feather in ivermectin's cap. And another demerit to NIH and MSM.

ACTIV-6 Trial on Ivermectin: NIH Scientists Behaving Badly

You may have heard that a new NIH-funded Randomized Controlled Trial was published recently. This one most definitely proves ivermectin doesn’t work for COVID-19—at least if the headlines are to be believed:

doyourownresearch.substack.com

 

[Old Man Mike]

Thread should be moved to the "political" group.

If it's of any interest, we still get cases here at my retirement community.
Our circumstance seems to be that people here are (in percentages not universally)
taking less precautions. The cases seem milder, and I don't believe that anyone has died from the new infections, recently.
This latter statement is not dumb on my part for the snickering goons of the world (i.e. how could you NOT know?_)
because, at an average age of 86 years, this community has about three deaths every two months. Death happens
here all the time. (we just lost a WWII veteran of Iwo Jima two days ago, for instance.)

Though apparently milder (almost all here are triple vaccinated), the newer strain involved seems more infectious.
I was in church the other day with a lady who left suddenly, but without engaging the rest of us. We tested negative
but the residents nearby her apartment all tested positive (so it apparently takes more than just a slight passing by. )

FWIW.

This thing is still an issue, but thanks-be-to-God an easing one. My uncharitable view of the current state of debate here in IE
is that it is more of an illness than the physical situation "inspiring" it. .... got to resist opening this thread.

 

[sixstar]

Glad you didn't catch it, OMM.

I, for one, desire to completely depoliticize COVID. I hate that it was ever a political issue.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty

Let’s focus on the future, and fix the problems we still need to solve.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[sixstar]

Emily was an intolerant absolutist that advocated for stripping of unvaxxed civil liberties. She immediately chose panic and authoritarian lockdown over data driven science and discourse. She said that they did the best with the information that they had, all while authoritatively dismissing the Great Barrington Declaration as a dangerous concept from fringe scientists. So why did she authoritatively demand stripping civil liberties if she didn't know the impact it would have? And now that she sees the cultural impact of policies that she supported, she's trying to backtrack to avoid accountability. Nope. She made her choices, she refused to debate, she made unvaxxed outcasts in MSM, and she advocated for stripping civil liberties. She can own her decisions and their repercussions.

 

[sixstar]

Walensky reports Paxlovid rebound. As did Fauci. And Biden.

Ivermectin: 0 COVID rebound reported
Paxlovid: 3 top US officials all experience COVID rebound.

The Science said the rebound rate was 2%. What are the odds that Biden, Fauci, and Walensky would all rebound?

Ivermectin vs. Paxlovid improvement (all studies):

	Total Studies	Total Patients	Prophylaxis	Early State Treatment	Late Stage Treatment
Ivermectin	93	134,223	83%	62%	43%
Paxlovid	18	53,931	37%	46%	32%

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of 293 studies

Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time analysis of 293 studies

c19ivermectin.com

Paxlovid: meta-analysis of COVID-19 studies

Paxlovid: meta-analysis of COVID-19 studies

c19early.com

Reminder: Paxlovid wouldn't exist if NIH, CDC, and FDA admitted that Ivermectin was effective.

And people laugh at Ivermectin. Horse dewormer. Unproven. No studies. Dangerous. Only in 3rd world countries. All false.
At some point, Ivermectin critics should actually look at the data and admit that they were misled by MSM and NIH.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Emily was an intolerant absolutist that advocated for stripping of unvaxxed civil liberties. She immediately chose panic and authoritarian lockdown over data driven science and discourse. She said that they did the best with the information that they had, all while authoritatively dismissing the Great Barrington Declaration as a dangerous concept from fringe scientists. So why did she authoritatively demand stripping civil liberties if she didn't know the impact it would have? And now that she sees the cultural impact of policies that she supported, she's trying to backtrack to avoid accountability. Nope. She made her choices, she refused to debate, she made unvaxxed outcasts in MSM, and she advocated for stripping civil liberties. She can own her decisions and their repercussions.

Her tweet linking her article is getting ratio’d pretty bad since posting. I’d never heard of her but sounds like you may be right about not owning her original views.

 

[sixstar]

Great question here:

 

[sixstar]

I remember when the MSM ripped Sweden for being the first country to abolish all COVID restrictions.

Now that we have several years of mortality data, let's see how Sweden compared to those Zero COVID countries.

Lockdowns and vax fanaticism did immense harm to citizens. Immense.

 

[TorontoGold]

Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21

The full impact of the pandemic has been much greater than what is indicated by reported deaths due to COVID-19 alone. Strengthening death registration systems around the world, long understood to be crucial to global public health strategy, is necessary for improved monitoring of this pandemic...

www.thelancet.com

		Reported COVID-19 deaths	Reported COVID-19 mortality rate (per 100 000)	Estimated excess deaths	Estimated excess mortality rate (per 100 000)	Ratio between excess mortality rate and reported COVID-19 mortality rate
Global	5 940 000	39·2	18 200 000 (17 100 000 to 19 600 000)	120·3 (113·1 to 129·3)	3·07 (2·88 to 3·30)
	Australasia	2300	4·0	−19 000 (−22 200 to −15 200)	−32·9 (−38·6 to −26·4)	−8·23 (−9·65 to −6·60)
	Australia	2250	4·7	−18 100 (−21 400 to −14 400)	−37·6 (−44·5 to −29·9)	−8·03 (−9·52 to −6·39)
	New Zealand	51	0·5	−872 (−1330 to −451)	−9·3 (−14·1 to −4·8)	−17·10 (−26·06 to −8·84)
	Sweden	15 300	77·2	18 100 (16 900 to 19 500)	91·2 (85·2 to 98·1)	1·18 (1·10 to 1·27)

lmao. So immense that excess deaths are wildly different. Immense.

 

[sixstar]

Did you even read that paper before posting it? Or do you just not understand it?

Six models were used to estimate expected mortality; final estimates of expected mortality were based on an ensemble of these models.

First, we developed a database of all-cause mortality by week and month after accounting for reporting lags, anomalies such as heat waves, and under-registration of death. Second, we developed an ensemble model to predict expected deaths in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic for years 2020 and 2021. In location and time combinations with data meeting our inclusion criteria, excess mortality was estimated as observed mortality minus expected mortality. Third, to estimate excess mortality due to COVID-19 over the entire study period for all countries and territories in the analysis, and especially for locations without weekly or monthly all-cause mortality data, we developed a statistical model to directly predict the excess mortality due to COVID-19, using covariates that pertained to both the COVID-19 pandemic and background population health-related metrics at the population level before SARS-CoV-2 emerged. Fourth, we estimated excess mortality due to COVID-19, propagating uncertainty from each step.

Are you saying that mathematical models are more accurate than actual real world data?

Do you want to know why excess deaths are so wildly different in that paper? Because those are ficticious models, not real world data. Note that key word, "Estimated" - it is important for context.

The thing about developed countries like Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand is that they all have accurate and robust death data. We don't need models to estimate baseline deaths because that data is known and verified.

The graph I posted uses actual real world data. No models needed.

Oof dude.

 

[sixstar]

Another study, and more evidence of an ineffective vaccine.



2-dose and 3-dose cohort showed no reduction in case severity vs unvax due to mildness of omicron.

"No reinfection in any cohort progressed to severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19."

Booster cohort more than doubled reinfection rate of 2-dose cohort.

Add this to the fact that new bivalent booster has now shown no improvement over original booster, you all need to seriously think before you go back for more shots.

Many doctors tried to warn the public about immune imprinting but were squelched by MSM. You can find posts dating back to original vax rollout where doctors were warning of the potential of OAS fixation due to single action, epitope-specific spike. Their warnings were labeled as disinformation, and they were de-platformed. What a shame.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty

Let’s focus on the future, and fix the problems we still need to solve.

www.theatlantic.com