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.
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.
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%.
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.