"official Public Health data shows that over the past three months the majority of Covid-19 cases have been among the fully vaccinated, two-thirds of Covid-19 hospitalisations have been among the fully vaccinated, and a frightening 91% of Covid-19 deaths have been among the fully vaccinated, and projections shows things are about to get a lot worse." Safe and effective!?!?!?
They are calling vaxx deaths "COVID-19 deaths", stop playing along with their narrative, pharma, gov't, media and the elites are to blame for all of these deaths, not so-called "COVID-19"
[ - ] localsal 1 point 2.8 yearsNov 20, 2021 14:38:01 ago (+2/-1)
At least the article has very clear data to show - something that is surprising to me.
In all the fear mongering, the results show that the clot shot gives roughly THREE TIMES the protection against hospitalization and death than going without.
Obviously with the big push to get everyone jabbed, and with a leaky vaccine at that, there will be cases and deaths among the vaxxed - but in pure numbers, the protection looks to be somewhat effective.
I reasoned this out by looking at the rates per 100k for hospitalization and death:
Hospitalizations: unjabbed 20ish per 100k, 2 doses 8ish per 100k
Deaths: Unjabbed 5ish per 100k, 2 doses 2ish per 100k
Is that 3x protection worth the risk of side effects? Having the data makes it a little easier to make the decision I would say.
The article does not show clear data at all. There are a number of significant issues with what is presented.
For one they are still using the soon to be rescinded faulty RT-PCR tests. Where are the ages of those hospitalised. Do they have co-morbidities. Have any of those 'unvaccinated' had a vaccination within 2-5 weeks of the positive PCR test and hospitalisation.
Also, Is there any clinical data on the potential safety issues arising from continuous (booster) doses of mRNA vaccines, that the FDA has concurred is a Gene Therapy (Moderna 2020) ??. Some Nations are now on to their 4th dose. Did any of those who signed up for their initial two (and done) holo-cough shots realise they are now required to have continuous 6 monthly 'boosters' to retain their vaccination status ?. What is also missing is the absolute risk for IFR (infection fatality rate) opposed to the relative risk (which is what is frequently described in public health documents and graphs). The CDC’s own data shows that healthy <18yos only have a 0.001% risk of death, and healthy 18-49 yo s only have a 0.009% risk of death and a 0.0 29 % risk of hospitalization. The 3x protection you mention is a facade , as in real terms its describing 3x protection - of the absolute small risk. Even if you consider yourself in an at risk group or have co-morbidities you would be better served to loss weight, eat healthy, exercise, take an essential vitamin/ mineral regime and just stay home or self distance when you go out (wear a mask if your so inclined). What is causing the myocarditis and blood clotting after vaccination ?? ..
All of your points are valid - but good luck get any ANY data on any of that.
The data in the article presents a pretty clear picture of a snapshot in time. There is raw number data, there is per 100k population data, there is no vaccine, 1 dose, 2 dose data.
If you want perfect data - feel free to conduct your own study. Good luck a) getting permission, and b) getting a better sample set.
Taken as a whole, the data set actually looks to give people some information on a) how effective the vaccine is (it isn't much, with 3x being on the very low end of efficacy) and b) what the actual numbers are - dying chance is 5/100k, so still very low.
Edit: but most people are retarded, so even having the data, they have no way to make sense of it. This is evident in how many people get brainwashed by the (((media)))
There is room for improvement, but if you want perfect data - do it yourself.
I didn't add anything to the data. There is data for the numbers i provided. Its taken from the latest CDC figures. (Which collates all Covid19 stats worldwide). The data you presented in just that - a 'snapshot' which may be indicative of something/ anything really, but if that data is not congruent with that Countries overall numbers it's then misleading. That's why i asked about absolute risk vs relative risk. The data presented is dealing in relative risk. If 2 unvaccinated people are hospitalized for every one vaccinated person - that's a 100% increase - 2x more risk etc etc (relative risk using a subset of overall numbers) which is what this data presents and this data is determinate on whatever statistical parameters they use (ergo, a snapshot) and the data and conclusions change according to those parameters. The real absolute risk is what i already mentioned, from the CDC world Covid numbers.The 3x protection you mention again is against a 0.0009% risk of death for a healthy (unvaccinated) 18-49 yo and hospitalization of 0.029%. You seem to think (bc you repeatedly point it out) that this 3x pprotectionn is valid (it's not) and allude that this data you provide is somehow 'good' You need to use discernment with any and all information presented and ask how are they presenting the data .
You think the CDC - the very people that are trying to force everyone to get the shot - are telling the truth? The same people that show zero flu for 2020 - the only year in thousands where there was no flu?
Your bias is evident as well.
Conduct your own research then.
What other independent studies are as inclusive as the one in the article?
You think a snapshot isn't relevant? That's pretty myopic thinking, since covid cases rise and fall seasonally. At what point do you think the full picture emerges?
I don't know if you think I'm a mandate supporter or not - but I am against the clot shot and the mandates.
All I was doing is pointing out to people that didn't want to wade through the article that the new data shows there is limited benefit - and can help to to make people evaluate as such.
As that one person said - why do the protected need the unprotected to get protected if the protection doesn't work.
Lolz. You're failing to convince anyone. Plus i can see by your replies you completely fail to understand my point about how this data is presented and it's very limited parameters for anyone wishing to make a decision on vaccination. While you openly advocate that they could use this data to base their vaccination decision on. Not wise. So let me get this straight - you're implying the CDC data can be corrupt ( no argument there, although surely you're not suggesting the absolute risk using their own official data is even lower than what they are reporting?) but yet this data is not. This isn't an independent study. It's produced by Public Health Scotland - who are tasked with recording Covid statistics in accordance with WHO guidelines and procedure. With said data collated by the CDC for worldwide figures and analysis. Duh. My bias is evident ??. Because i query the logic for relying on snapshot data that is only relevant for the time period presented and as such it is completely outside of what total overall data may show and while this snapshot data may suggest one thing - it can still be completely at odds with what the overall data presents. 'At what point do you think the full picture emerges?' by including the overall data and not simply snapshots - duh. Again, Absolute risk v's relative risk. You completely avoid any rebuttal to that point but its the most cogent point of my post. This data completely omits any reference to absolute risk (IFR infection fatality rate) and only conveys relative risk (snapshot). Again bad science for decision making. Regardless of what you're doing, I'm pointing out that using this data to base whether to vaccinate or not (which is what you seem to imply in your comments), and by using some perceived benefit for 3x protection is bad science and anyone suggesting different is a total fool. EDIT: Look I don't have a problem with you personally but i do have a problem with your defending the use of this data for whether to vaccinate or not as if this data is actually indicative of something meaningful (when it is not taking into account the overall context of all available data). Good day.
[ + ] Nigloo_Dismantler
[ - ] Nigloo_Dismantler 2 points 2.8 yearsNov 20, 2021 20:36:30 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] thebearfromstartrack4
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack4 1 point 2.8 yearsNov 20, 2021 19:01:11 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] oldblo
[ - ] oldblo 1 point 2.8 yearsNov 20, 2021 18:18:49 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 2.8 yearsNov 20, 2021 14:38:01 ago (+2/-1)
In all the fear mongering, the results show that the clot shot gives roughly THREE TIMES the protection against hospitalization and death than going without.
Obviously with the big push to get everyone jabbed, and with a leaky vaccine at that, there will be cases and deaths among the vaxxed - but in pure numbers, the protection looks to be somewhat effective.
I reasoned this out by looking at the rates per 100k for hospitalization and death:
Hospitalizations: unjabbed 20ish per 100k, 2 doses 8ish per 100k
Deaths: Unjabbed 5ish per 100k, 2 doses 2ish per 100k
Is that 3x protection worth the risk of side effects? Having the data makes it a little easier to make the decision I would say.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2.8 yearsNov 21, 2021 02:03:23 ago (+0/-0)
For one they are still using the soon to be rescinded faulty RT-PCR tests.
Where are the ages of those hospitalised. Do they have co-morbidities.
Have any of those 'unvaccinated' had a vaccination within 2-5 weeks of the positive PCR test and hospitalisation.
Also, Is there any clinical data on the potential safety issues arising from continuous (booster) doses of mRNA vaccines, that the FDA has concurred is a Gene Therapy (Moderna 2020) ??. Some Nations are now on to their 4th dose.
Did any of those who signed up for their initial two (and done) holo-cough shots realise they are now required to have continuous 6 monthly 'boosters' to retain their vaccination status ?.
What is also missing is the absolute risk for IFR (infection fatality rate) opposed to the relative risk (which is what is frequently described in public health documents and graphs).
The CDC’s own data shows that healthy <18yos only have a 0.001% risk of death, and healthy 18-49 yo s only have a 0.009% risk of death and a 0.0 29 % risk of hospitalization.
The 3x protection you mention is a facade , as in real terms its describing 3x protection - of the absolute small risk.
Even if you consider yourself in an at risk group or have co-morbidities you would be better served to loss weight, eat healthy, exercise, take an essential vitamin/ mineral regime and just stay home or self distance when you go out (wear a mask if your so inclined).
What is causing the myocarditis and blood clotting after vaccination ?? ..
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal -1 points 2.8 yearsNov 21, 2021 10:23:41 ago (+0/-1)
All of your points are valid - but good luck get any ANY data on any of that.
The data in the article presents a pretty clear picture of a snapshot in time. There is raw number data, there is per 100k population data, there is no vaccine, 1 dose, 2 dose data.
If you want perfect data - feel free to conduct your own study. Good luck a) getting permission, and b) getting a better sample set.
Taken as a whole, the data set actually looks to give people some information on a) how effective the vaccine is (it isn't much, with 3x being on the very low end of efficacy) and b) what the actual numbers are - dying chance is 5/100k, so still very low.
Edit: but most people are retarded, so even having the data, they have no way to make sense of it. This is evident in how many people get brainwashed by the (((media)))
There is room for improvement, but if you want perfect data - do it yourself.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2.8 yearsNov 21, 2021 15:52:40 ago (+0/-0)*
There is data for the numbers i provided. Its taken from the latest CDC figures. (Which collates all Covid19 stats worldwide).
The data you presented in just that - a 'snapshot' which may be indicative of something/ anything really, but if that data is not congruent with that Countries overall numbers it's then misleading.
That's why i asked about absolute risk vs relative risk. The data presented is dealing in relative risk.
If 2 unvaccinated people are hospitalized for every one vaccinated person - that's a 100% increase - 2x more risk etc etc (relative risk using a subset of overall numbers) which is what this data presents and this data is determinate on whatever statistical parameters they use (ergo, a snapshot) and the data and conclusions change according to those parameters.
The real absolute risk is what i already mentioned, from the CDC world Covid numbers.The 3x protection you mention again is against a 0.0009% risk of death for a healthy (unvaccinated) 18-49 yo and hospitalization of 0.029%.
You seem to think (bc you repeatedly point it out) that this 3x pprotectionn is valid (it's not) and allude that this data you provide is somehow 'good'
You need to use discernment with any and all information presented and ask how are they presenting the data .
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal -1 points 2.8 yearsNov 21, 2021 17:12:34 ago (+0/-1)
You think the CDC - the very people that are trying to force everyone to get the shot - are telling the truth? The same people that show zero flu for 2020 - the only year in thousands where there was no flu?
Your bias is evident as well.
Conduct your own research then.
What other independent studies are as inclusive as the one in the article?
You think a snapshot isn't relevant? That's pretty myopic thinking, since covid cases rise and fall seasonally. At what point do you think the full picture emerges?
I don't know if you think I'm a mandate supporter or not - but I am against the clot shot and the mandates.
All I was doing is pointing out to people that didn't want to wade through the article that the new data shows there is limited benefit - and can help to to make people evaluate as such.
As that one person said - why do the protected need the unprotected to get protected if the protection doesn't work.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2.8 yearsNov 21, 2021 18:28:09 ago (+0/-0)*
Plus i can see by your replies you completely fail to understand my point about how this data is presented and it's very limited parameters for anyone wishing to make a decision on vaccination. While you openly advocate that they could use this data to base their vaccination decision on. Not wise.
So let me get this straight - you're implying the CDC data can be corrupt ( no argument there, although surely you're not suggesting the absolute risk using their own official data is even lower than what they are reporting?) but yet this data is not.
This isn't an independent study. It's produced by Public Health Scotland - who are tasked with recording Covid statistics in accordance with WHO guidelines and procedure. With said data collated by the CDC for worldwide figures and analysis. Duh.
My bias is evident ??. Because i query the logic for relying on snapshot data that is only relevant for the time period presented and as such it is completely outside of what total overall data may show and while this snapshot data may suggest one thing - it can still be completely at odds with what the overall data presents. 'At what point do you think the full picture emerges?' by including the overall data and not simply snapshots - duh.
Again, Absolute risk v's relative risk. You completely avoid any rebuttal to that point but its the most cogent point of my post. This data completely omits any reference to absolute risk (IFR infection fatality rate) and only conveys relative risk (snapshot). Again bad science for decision making.
Regardless of what you're doing, I'm pointing out that using this data to base whether to vaccinate or not (which is what you seem to imply in your comments), and by using some perceived benefit for 3x protection is bad science and anyone suggesting different is a total fool.
EDIT: Look I don't have a problem with you personally but i do have a problem with your defending the use of this data for whether to vaccinate or not as if this data is actually indicative of something meaningful (when it is not taking into account the overall context of all available data). Good day.