How Do We Know the Vaccine's Working?

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: ScepticScot

The data is fake and incomplete in a way that it necessarily overestimates the deadliness of covid.. if they were attributimg obvious covid deaths to car crashes and cancer etc. and saying it wasnt covid, you might have a case to say "well maybe because the data is fake/incomplete it might even be underestimated" but that isnt what is happening...

The majority of what they are counting as "death caused by covid" were not deaths caused by covid.

The death count includes deaths where covid is listed as a cause of death. It may not be the only factor but it was certainly a reason they died. We can also see from the excess deaths figure that something has cause a marked increase in deaths over the same period as the pandemic.

Also you still haven't answered where you get the .1% figure from if not official data.

The .1% estimate is based on official data (and that official data is inaccurate and incomplete in a way that makes overestimating the deadliness of covid inevitable). Even .1% is probably an exaggeration.

In one doctors opinion.

.1% does not make sense, when total deaths are up 15.9% for 2020 over 2019. The math just does not work at .1% unless everyone has had it already.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: ScepticScot

The data is fake and incomplete in a way that it necessarily overestimates the deadliness of covid.. if they were attributimg obvious covid deaths to car crashes and cancer etc. and saying it wasnt covid, you might have a case to say "well maybe because the data is fake/incomplete it might even be underestimated" but that isnt what is happening...

The majority of what they are counting as "death caused by covid" were not deaths caused by covid.

The death count includes deaths where covid is listed as a cause of death. It may not be the only factor but it was certainly a reason they died. We can also see from the excess deaths figure that something has cause a marked increase in deaths over the same period as the pandemic.

Also you still haven't answered where you get the .1% figure from if not official data.

The .1% estimate is based on official data (and that official data is inaccurate and incomplete in a way that makes overestimating the deadliness of covid inevitable). Even .1% is probably an exaggeration.

How is it based on official data if the data is inaccurate?

There is no official data that I can see that supports a .1% fatality rate , on contrary the official data shows the fatality rate has to be higher than. 1%.

If you can't explain or demonstrate how you got to a .1% rate then it really does seem as if you have just made up that number.

originally posted by: MrRCflying

OK, tell me. My aunt who was in the hospital for 3 weeks, on a ventilator for two. Her kidneys shut down, followed by other organs, and sadly passed away last April.

Tell me, go ahead, tell me her kidneys and other organs would have shut down without Covid. Covid was the underlying factor to cause her death.

There is no point debating this because neither of.us are doctors and neither of us treated her and neither of us conducted an autopsy.

What we do know is that ppl dying of cancer and all sorts of other.things have been called "deaths caused by covid" and its nonsense qnd rhat obviously causes the danger of it to be overestimated (by des8gn for the slow ones).

a reply to: ScepticScot

I gave you the link that explains how it was arrived at, read it...

originally posted by: MrRCflying

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: ScepticScot

The data is fake and incomplete in a way that it necessarily overestimates the deadliness of covid.. if they were attributimg obvious covid deaths to car crashes and cancer etc. and saying it wasnt covid, you might have a case to say "well maybe because the data is fake/incomplete it might even be underestimated" but that isnt what is happening...

The majority of what they are counting as "death caused by covid" were not deaths caused by covid.

The death count includes deaths where covid is listed as a cause of death. It may not be the only factor but it was certainly a reason they died. We can also see from the excess deaths figure that something has cause a marked increase in deaths over the same period as the pandemic.

Also you still haven't answered where you get the .1% figure from if not official data.

The .1% estimate is based on official data (and that official data is inaccurate and incomplete in a way that makes overestimating the deadliness of covid inevitable). Even .1% is probably an exaggeration.

In one doctors opinion.

.1% does not make sense, when total deaths are up 15.9% for 2020 over 2019. The math just does not work at .1% unless everyone has had it already.

At .1% circa 160% of the US population would have needed to have been infected in order to explain covid deaths.l so far...

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: ScepticScot

I gave you the link that explains how it was arrived at, read it...

Your link from May last year that didn't actually study covid fatality rates.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777

originally posted by: MrRCflying

OK, tell me. My aunt who was in the hospital for 3 weeks, on a ventilator for two. Her kidneys shut down, followed by other organs, and sadly passed away last April.

Tell me, go ahead, tell me her kidneys and other organs would have shut down without Covid. Covid was the underlying factor to cause her death.

There is no point debating this because neither of.us are doctors and neither of us treated her and neither of us conducted an autopsy.

What we do know is that ppl dying of cancer and all sorts of other.things have been called "deaths caused by covid" and its nonsense qnd rhat obviously causes the danger of it to be overestimated (by des8gn for the slow ones).

You can't. Exactly. 99% chance she would still be with us if not for Covid. She died "with" Covid, but it was also the straw that broke the camels back.

One thing I do agree with you on. There may be some cases that should not have been included in the Covid death tally. If someone was in a car accident, with a severe head injury, and died as a result. If they had Covid, they obviously should not be included in the Covid death tally. Same for late stage cancers and such.

a reply to: MrRCflying

Death rates went up when most medical care was shut down, ppl were mostly prevented from leavimg their houses, socializing, seeing family, working etc.?

Really! Im shocked!

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: MrRCflying

Death rates went up when most medical care was shut down, ppl were mostly prevented from leavimg their houses, socializing, seeing family, working etc.?

Really! Im shocked!

Haha... OK, I can't take this seriously anymore. I have to leave, my side is hurting. Well, it is April 1st. That is the best one I have heard today.

Have a great day!

originally posted by: MrRCflying

You can't. Exactly. 99% chance she would still be with us if not for Covid. She died "with" Covid, but it was also the straw that broke the camels back.

You are claiming something impossible to know which is silly.

originally posted by: [post=25827449]MrRCflying[/post
One thing I do agree with you on. There may be some cases that should not have been included in the Covid death tally. If someone was in a car accident, with a severe head injury, and died as a result. If they had Covid, they obviously should not be included in the Covid death tally. Same for late stage cancers and such.

A huge number of "covid deaths" are of that variety. The CDC advised ppl to call it a covid death even if the person was never tested but they "suspected they might have coivd."

originally posted by: MrRCflying

Haha... OK, I can't take this seriously anymore. I have to leave, my side is hurting. Well, it is April 1st. That is the best one I have heard today.

Have a great day!

So you dont think the shut downs caused lots of excess deaths? That is remarkably silly.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Your premise is severely flawed. The vaccine does not prevent infection, and will have zero impact on the spread of COVID. Unless you have the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, anyway...and that is not very effective honestly.

The vaccines everyone is taking cause your body to synthesize the spikes on coronavirus. These spikes bind with receptors, which will prevent the worst symptomology from appearing within the individual. What it does not do is innoculate you, or lower your risk of infection. Not even a little.

I have typed this so many times that I am thinking about just putting a PSA into a hotkey function on my computer.

Your flawed premise is what allows the notion of COVID passports to blossom. If we can alleviate this basic and common ignorance among the masses, folks would reject COVID passports as being unnecessary and fascist. The vaccine does not effect infection. Just repeat that. Make sure you all understand it. The vaccine DOES. NOT. EFFECT. INFECTION. It only keeps you from getting as sick once infected.

a reply to: MrRCflying

i have 1 anecdote about this: my neighbor died in his recliner from sepsis. He was encouraged by my mother, as well as his children, to go to the doctor. Had a wound on his leg that got infected. Would have been very easily treated, had he gone to the doctor and gotten antibiotics. Or gone to the ER and gotten IV meds.

Why didn't he go? Because he is a government contractor and trusts what his government told him. COVID is deadly, and the risk of going tot he hospital was more than his own personal risk assessment allowed for. He wasn't stupid. A retired Army Colonel and intelligence contractor. But he was afraid, and he trusted his government. And it cost him his life at the age of 57. His daughter came to check on him after he didn't answer the phone all day. He'd been dead for 2-3 days. She had to find him like that.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: 1947boomer

Your premise is severely flawed. The vaccine does not prevent infection, and will have zero impact on the spread of COVID. Unless you have the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, anyway...and that is not very effective honestly.

The vaccines everyone is taking cause your body to synthesize the spikes on coronavirus. These spikes bind with receptors, which will prevent the worst symptomology from appearing within the individual. What it does not do is innoculate you, or lower your risk of infection. Not even a little.

I have typed this so many times that I am thinking about just putting a PSA into a hotkey function on my computer.

Your flawed premise is what allows the notion of COVID passports to blossom. If we can alleviate this basic and common ignorance among the masses, folks would reject COVID passports as being unnecessary and fascist. The vaccine does not effect infection. Just repeat that. Make sure you all understand it. The vaccine DOES. NOT. EFFECT. INFECTION. It only keeps you from getting as sick once infected.

Not conclusive yet but some good evidence it does reduce spread.

www.advisory.com...

a reply to: ScepticScot

They call it a vaccine when it isnt even really a vaccine.. they're intentionally trying to create the impression that the jabs stop the spread (by call9ng them vaccines).. when it "stops spreading" ppl will figure "vaccine stopped it" but its nonsense.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: ScepticScot

They call it a vaccine when it isnt even really a vaccine.. they're intentionally trying to create the impression that the jabs stop the spread (by call9ng them vaccines).. when it "stops spreading" ppl will figure "vaccine stopped it" but its nonsense.

Or they are calling it a vacine because it helps vaccinate people against covid.

Just a thought....

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Or they are calling it a vacine because it helps vaccinate people against covid.

Just a thought....

It doesnt meet the definition of a vaccine so it is misleading to call it one... they have lied and been catastrophically mistaken over and over again and you just keep believing the BS.

a reply to: ScepticScot

it'll need to be reviewed and checked against other samples. For now, its just anecdotes.

What we know to be true: the mechanism that the vaccines work by do not indicate that they are going to be powerful at stopping the spread as they do not create antibodies. It could be that there are other ways to create immunity beyond antibodies. If that is the case, we have a whole new era of pharmacology and disease study dawning on us.

Which may be why the doctor who developed this method is so excited. Its a Nobel and lifetime funding just waiting to be verified.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

I have a Konica photocopy machine. When someone tells me to go "xerox this. 20 copies" i know what they mean.

While i get that words have meaning...the reality is that language is common use vernacular, and so long as information is transmitted without loss, it functions just fine for what its intended for.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ScepticScot

it'll need to be reviewed and checked against other samples. For now, its just anecdotes.

What we know to be true: the mechanism that the vaccines work by do not indicate that they are going to be powerful at stopping the spread as they do not create antibodies. It could be that there are other ways to create immunity beyond antibodies. If that is the case, we have a whole new era of pharmacology and disease study dawning on us.

Which may be why the doctor who developed this method is so excited. Its a Nobel and lifetime funding just waiting to be verified.

While it's not conclusive its a bit more than anecdote. Maybe worth considering before you refer to people as being ignorant (or worse as you did in another thread).

For record I don't agree with compulsory vacine 'passports' outwith possibly international travel however the arguments for or against are a but more nuanced than suggested.