A vaccine that is better by something like 15% over non-vaccinated is not a good vaccine or a vaccine at all.
Is ridiculous that this was being pushed on fear of getting fired.
I get that this sub is anti-vax, but arguments like this are simply wrong:
every study on the subject proves that vaccination makes a massive difference on the mortality rate if you're old and haven't been infected before.[1] trying to claim that "the difference is so small it is ridiculous" is just flatly a lie. For people 85+ there is a world of difference, a 28% chance of death drops to below 1%.
The fact that most deaths are among vaxxed does not prove that vaccination does not offer very strong protection
nearly all deaths are in old people
old people are vaxxed at much higher rates for the obvious reason that they have more to fear from an unvaxxed infection
young people are vaxxed at much lower rates for the obvious reason that they have very little to fear from COVID
when virtually the entire high risk population is vaxxed, obviously most deaths will come from vaxxed people. a vaxxed 90 year old is still much more likely to die than a typical healthy unvaxxed 20 year old.
For high risk people, vaccination is very important, and encouraging high risk people to not get vaxxed by lying to claim it is not effective, is supremely shitty behavior, and stupid to the point of flat eartherism.
This is a lie. You're better than this. This sub is skeptical of pushing an unproven (yes, unproven) non-sterilizing vaccine on every human being at taxpayer expense. Quit being a leftist and calling people biased names.
That said -- the table that you presented is worthless without further context. I'm not going to go dig through the study when there's no compelling information on the table itself.
For one, this "study" was from December 2020. How does the "vaccine" do against newer variants? On top of that, How did they define "vaccinated"? What was all-cause mortality? What was all-cause morbidity? I've seen enough of these studies at this point to assume that these other numbers aren't nearly as rosy as presented and that they've played games with definitions to exclude anything that makes them look less effective.
young people are vaxxed at much lower rates for the obvious reason that they have very little to fear from COVID
And yet the U.S. government is pushing them on 5-year-olds and the Canadian government is trying to require them for everyone under 17 and Australia had their entire population in lockdown for months on end and do I need to go on? Never mind that it's already ridiculous that they should even be recommended for anyone under 40 without severe risk factors. Also ignore the fact that official recommendations specifically ignore viable off-patent treatment options that can prevent fatal conditions from ever developing at even better rates than the so-called "vaccines" do.
Again, I don't give a shit. +1 brownie points for your nitpick. I'm sure you feel super smart.
It isn't even arguable that vaccination massively reduces fatality rates in high risk populations. If you want to pounce on the fact that I was lazy about the link I pulled up in like 10 seconds on google, that changes nothing, because it isn't even an arguable point.
Or maybe you're just a vax shill with your intentionally loaded language and alluding to comparisons like 90 year-olds vs 20 year-olds. Most references have been tabulated among age groups like this and it hasn't looked positive for vaccine manufacturers.
I don't understand how you can rationalize that the elderly are somehow better off. Spike protein is toxic, and it's more toxic the more the body makes it up, which might be easier for younger folks. How does being older magically negate that? And if you can't answer that, how does it follow the elderly are better off?
That initial response MIGHT help a bit for what the variant vax was designed for, if you live to see the antibodies increase, but it has really never been the true bone of contention. The short-to-mid-term adverse events, which the mainstream keeps (increasingly "kept" now for a few) denying are vaccine related, and long-term effects (1 example as you yourself acknowledged here) have been.
Since we have plenty of alternatives like Ivermectin that DON'T risk TOXIC spikes being cleaved into the bloodstream, traveling all over the body, and interfering with organs, your moral argument seems bunk.
I think you are probably right that the jab does/did provide some mortality benefit, even if temporary, to the very old 80+ crowd, specifically against wildtype original strain COVID that was originally so deadly compared to Omicron.
But the problem is that the technocrats have boldfaced lied and manipulated data mercilessly for 2+ years for everything COVID and jab-related.
Even if there turns out to be some benefit to a vulnerable subgroup like the very old and frail 80+, no one cares anymore and doesn't owe them the benefit of the doubt when they try to retreat to the dumb luck last bastion where their fraudulent product should have been targeted and limited to originally if they were honest.
But the problem is that the technocrats have boldfaced lied and manipulated data mercilessly for 2+ years for everything COVID and jab-related.
"We should lie to own the techocrats" isn't a really compelling argument. All that does is make you into the kind of clown they already portray you as.
Highly self defeating when the truth was on the Right's side all along.
Over-correcting the Left is just as stupid as being a libtard to begin with.
How can it help with mortality, when the virus already had a greater than ninety-nine percent survival rate(without other comorbidities like being really old or really fat)?
These stats need to be stated in "rate per" rather than discrete numbers.
Naturally, though I don't have a link at hand, the stats still look terrible for the clot shot because it fucks up the body.
A vaccine that is better by something like 15% over non-vaccinated is not a good vaccine or a vaccine at all. Is ridiculous that this was being pushed on fear of getting fired.
According to this the jab does help with mortality rate but the difference is so small it is ridiculous.
How can the left rationalize taking an experimental vaccine with unknown side effects for such a small change.
I get that this sub is anti-vax, but arguments like this are simply wrong:
every study on the subject proves that vaccination makes a massive difference on the mortality rate if you're old and haven't been infected before.[1] trying to claim that "the difference is so small it is ridiculous" is just flatly a lie. For people 85+ there is a world of difference, a 28% chance of death drops to below 1%.
The fact that most deaths are among vaxxed does not prove that vaccination does not offer very strong protection
nearly all deaths are in old people
old people are vaxxed at much higher rates for the obvious reason that they have more to fear from an unvaxxed infection
young people are vaxxed at much lower rates for the obvious reason that they have very little to fear from COVID
when virtually the entire high risk population is vaxxed, obviously most deaths will come from vaxxed people. a vaxxed 90 year old is still much more likely to die than a typical healthy unvaxxed 20 year old.
For high risk people, vaccination is very important, and encouraging high risk people to not get vaxxed by lying to claim it is not effective, is supremely shitty behavior, and stupid to the point of flat eartherism.
[1] quick google search: 1 Vaccines lower risk of death by 34%, data show 2 Vaccinations Cut U.S. COVID Deaths by 58%: Study 3 vaccination reduces the risk of death by over 70%.
This is a lie. You're better than this. This sub is skeptical of pushing an unproven (yes, unproven) non-sterilizing vaccine on every human being at taxpayer expense. Quit being a leftist and calling people biased names.
That said -- the table that you presented is worthless without further context. I'm not going to go dig through the study when there's no compelling information on the table itself.
For one, this "study" was from December 2020. How does the "vaccine" do against newer variants? On top of that, How did they define "vaccinated"? What was all-cause mortality? What was all-cause morbidity? I've seen enough of these studies at this point to assume that these other numbers aren't nearly as rosy as presented and that they've played games with definitions to exclude anything that makes them look less effective.
And yet the U.S. government is pushing them on 5-year-olds and the Canadian government is trying to require them for everyone under 17 and Australia had their entire population in lockdown for months on end and do I need to go on? Never mind that it's already ridiculous that they should even be recommended for anyone under 40 without severe risk factors. Also ignore the fact that official recommendations specifically ignore viable off-patent treatment options that can prevent fatal conditions from ever developing at even better rates than the so-called "vaccines" do.
Your linked image says nothing about the claim you link to it from.
Did you think we wouldn't look or are you just stupid?
There is literally nothing I can do to convince you, so why should I bother wasting my time on a high effort post linking lots of studies?
My image proves my point exactly. I don't care that you don't accept it. You wouldn't accept anything.
You have posted an image comparing IFR to aVFR while claiming it compares unvaccinated and vaccinated IFR, you fucking mong.
Again, I don't give a shit. +1 brownie points for your nitpick. I'm sure you feel super smart.
It isn't even arguable that vaccination massively reduces fatality rates in high risk populations. If you want to pounce on the fact that I was lazy about the link I pulled up in like 10 seconds on google, that changes nothing, because it isn't even an arguable point.
Here is another 10 second google search: Unvaccinated People Are 11 Times More Likely To Die Of COVID-19, New Research Finds
Yes, it's such a well known and easy to prove point you couldn't even argue it properly, you are so very very smart.
The fact that you made such a big issue of it only shows that you're intimidated, insecure, and seething.
Or maybe you're just a vax shill with your intentionally loaded language and alluding to comparisons like 90 year-olds vs 20 year-olds. Most references have been tabulated among age groups like this and it hasn't looked positive for vaccine manufacturers.
I don't understand how you can rationalize that the elderly are somehow better off. Spike protein is toxic, and it's more toxic the more the body makes it up, which might be easier for younger folks. How does being older magically negate that? And if you can't answer that, how does it follow the elderly are better off?
That initial response MIGHT help a bit for what the variant vax was designed for, if you live to see the antibodies increase, but it has really never been the true bone of contention. The short-to-mid-term adverse events, which the mainstream keeps (increasingly "kept" now for a few) denying are vaccine related, and long-term effects (1 example as you yourself acknowledged here) have been.
Since we have plenty of alternatives like Ivermectin that DON'T risk TOXIC spikes being cleaved into the bloodstream, traveling all over the body, and interfering with organs, your moral argument seems bunk.
I think you are probably right that the jab does/did provide some mortality benefit, even if temporary, to the very old 80+ crowd, specifically against wildtype original strain COVID that was originally so deadly compared to Omicron.
But the problem is that the technocrats have boldfaced lied and manipulated data mercilessly for 2+ years for everything COVID and jab-related.
Even if there turns out to be some benefit to a vulnerable subgroup like the very old and frail 80+, no one cares anymore and doesn't owe them the benefit of the doubt when they try to retreat to the dumb luck last bastion where their fraudulent product should have been targeted and limited to originally if they were honest.
"We should lie to own the techocrats" isn't a really compelling argument. All that does is make you into the kind of clown they already portray you as.
Highly self defeating when the truth was on the Right's side all along.
Over-correcting the Left is just as stupid as being a libtard to begin with.
How can it help with mortality, when the virus already had a greater than ninety-nine percent survival rate(without other comorbidities like being really old or really fat)?
<breathes deep>
Ah, smells like vaxx free arteries.
Mathew Crawford seems to think the data is just fake anyway for reasons he goes into in detail https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/san-diego-county-data-busts-a-hole .