To Be Vaccinated or NOT To Be Vaccinated? That is the Question.
Comments
-
Your most recent post demonstrates the core weakness of the anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist position. To wit:
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
"Operation Warp Speed" public roll out started less than a year ago, noticed URL for THIS STUDY includes date of 28 Jul 2021, which may have been the best time for "safe & effective" declaration (before increasing adverse side effect risks eclipses declining efficacy).
Where is the official data to prove that the conclusions of the July 28 study are not still valid? They don't exist, I contend. But it is for certain that you didn't present them.
Noticed URL for A study in Israel includes date of 24 Aug 2021 along with study focus of "vaccination" first six months.
And?...
If Pfizer's phase3 clinical trial data provides factual basis for "So for every 1 life saved from Covid, the Pfizer vaccine kills 4 from heart attack," then why was Pfizer's "vaccine" approved for wider use ? "blatantly unfounded" follow-up is many sick people now in emergency rooms & hospitals: notably missing from National Public Radio (NPR) on 26 Oct 2021 is any insight about % of "vaccinated" now really sick:
Another "If I'm right, then I'm right" argument. There is NO EVIDENCE of such a clinical trial result, so your hypothetical is moot.
From a public health perspective, am saddened by increasing "vaccination" % being accompanied by increasing sicknesses & deaths.
Correlation does NOT prove causation.
Humanly wonder about 900 for underreporting factor being much closer to the truth (known by God). Could this anecdotal data be correct:
The anti-vaxxer view must rely on anecdotal "evidence" because verified official data uniformly disprove its contentions.
Noticeably missing from breakthrough statistics is "vaccinated" deaths from other causes: e.g. heart attack, stroke, ... (adverse "vaccine" side effects from spike protein microscopic blood clotting).
Correlation does NOT prove causation.
If the VAERS underreporting factor is 1,000 then over 3,658,537 people have experienced "vaccine" ending their human lives in America (150,000/41*1,000). VAERS is a passive surveillence system that does not pay for data entry and lacks negative consequences for not reporting.
This is an absurd hypothetical. You might as well have said, if the overreporting factor were 2,000,000, we'd all be dead!
There is NO evidence that the VAERS "underreporting factor" is 1,000. You offered another baseless and arbitrary number.
BOTTOM LINE: You offer no data to support your speculations, in large measure because such data don't exist. The only verified data to which your post refers are data that show the safety and effectiveness of vaccines at both the state and national levels. As a result, you must depend on anecdotes, hypotheticals, and "If I'm right, then I'm right" arguments to prop up your case. Such is the sad state of the anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist view of the COVID pandemic.
-
@Bill_Coley November 8 Where is the official data to prove that the conclusions of the July 28 study are not still valid? They don't exist, I contend. But it is for certain that you didn't present them.
NIH article included "vaccine" trial limitations
This trial and its preliminary report have several limitations. With approximately 19,000 participants per group in the subset of participants with a median follow-up time of 2 months after the second dose, the study has more than 83% probability of detecting at least one adverse event, if the true incidence is 0.01%, but it is not large enough to detect less common adverse events reliably. This report includes 2 months of follow-up after the second dose of vaccine for half the trial participants and up to 14 weeks’ maximum follow-up for a smaller subset. Therefore, both the occurrence of adverse events more than 2 to 3.5 months after the second dose and more comprehensive information on the duration of protection remain to be determined. Although the study was designed to follow participants for safety and efficacy for 2 years after the second dose, given the high vaccine efficacy, ethical and practical barriers prevent following placebo recipients for 2 years without offering active immunization, once the vaccine is approved by regulators and recommended by public health authorities. Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy for this vaccine will occur, but it cannot be in the context of maintaining a placebo group for the planned follow-up period of 2 years after the second dose. These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be reported later. Furthermore, given the high vaccine efficacy and the low number of vaccine breakthrough cases, potential establishment of a correlate of protection has not been feasible at the time of this report.
Suspect we are both interested in long-term safety and efficacy assessments. Caveat: if long-term assessment(s) would provide official reason(s) to not get "vaccinated", then sadly anticipate they would not be publicly released (in current cancel culture censorship).
Trial study of six months had low number of "vaccine" breakthrough cases, which is not holding true over longer term.
@Bill_Coley BOTTOM LINE: You offer no data to support your speculations
Curious if you have found credible information about VAERS underreporting factor ? (personally surprised by number of older articles before COVID about VAERS underreporting being less than 1%, which helps me appreciate censorship for all anti-vax information).
Curious about your opinion of breakthrough deaths per week in the State of Illinois:
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 8 State of Illinois Department of Public Health Vaccine Breakthrough data shows 288 "vaccinated" had died as of 1 Sep 2021 (up from 32 deaths as of 28 Apr 2021), which increased to 878 dead (0.012% of fully "vaccinated") as of 3 Nov 2021.
28 Apr 2021 cumulative deaths 32 (breakthrough data does not show time spread)
26 May 2021 cumulative deaths 81 (four week average of 12.25 deaths per week)
30 Jun 2021 cumulative deaths 135 (five week average of 10.8 deaths per week)
28 Jul 2021 cumulative deaths 169 (four week average of 8.5 deaths per week)
25 Aug 2021 cumulative deaths 253 (four week average of 21 deaths per week) - first two weeks of August averaged 10 deaths per week)
29 Sep 2021 cumulative deaths 566 (five week average of 62.6 deaths per week) - first week of September had 25 deaths
27 Oct 2021 cumulative deaths 818 (four week average of 63 deaths per week)
3 Nov 2021 cumulative deaths 878 (one week has 60 deaths) - next update is Wed 10 Nov (sadly guessing 60+ breakthrough deaths)
New England Journal of Medicine Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months included Adverse events
During the blinded, placebo-controlled period, 15 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 14 in the placebo group died; during the open-label period, 3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered to be related to BNT162b2 by the investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups (Table S4).
Humanly not know cause of death for the five who died in the open-label period (so curious about all cause mortality after "vaccination"). Adverse events summarizes 20 "vaccinated" died compared to 14 in the placebo group. Open-label period was missing from figure 1 study summary.
Conspiracy observation: if investigators believe "vaccine" is safe, then investigators are unlikely to find "vaccine" cause for adverse event.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
Some follow and accept the science of this pandemic, then rely on and link to that science to support their views in forums such as these.
In following the "vaccine" science pushed by bought and paid for mainstream media hype and regime puppet endorsed theft of public liberty and normality, the official powers have FROM THE START ignored, rejected, defamed any scientist and expert findings and objections and sgunned such voices of science and sound mind thinking as "covid deniers", "covid-liars", "conspiracy theorists", §public enemies", etc.
Those engulfed in that "vaccine $$$ plandemic" tyrant regime net, will of course follow "THAT science to support their views", and will not allow for common sense and sound thinking .... they would gladly follow "science based advice" to do anything to be "on the goodie-two-shoes" side.
If there were a 99,97% chance of not pooping in your pants, they would put on "pooper restriction measure" of wearing diapers. Some might even gladly follow such mandate if it was about a 0.03% risk of the next door guy. Such might make a lot of sense to them ... since they are on a path of war to eradicate that deadly "p"-problem. 😪
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
NIH article included "vaccine" trial limitations
All clinical trials have limitations. But none of the limitations cited in the portion you quoted suggests that the findings of the July 28 study are no longer valid.
Suspect we are both interested in long-term safety and efficacy assessments.
I'm confident that we're both interested in long-term safety and efficacy assessments. Are we ALSO both interested in stopping the spread of a pandemic that has killed 750,000 Americans and more than five million people worldwide?
Caveat: if long-term assessment(s) would provide official reason(s) to not get "vaccinated", then sadly anticipate they would not be publicly released (in current cancel culture censorship).
And if the government is holding a dozen Martian militia members in a secret underground facility in Utah, they might not have told us about that either.
Such statements as these create a conspiracy theorist's escape hatch. There's no reason to believe ANYTHING if it's possible that our conspiracy theories are correct but unproven because the government is concealing the evidence.
Trial study of six months had low number of "vaccine" breakthrough cases, which is not holding true over longer term.
Compare the time frame of the study and the arrival in-force of the far more transmissible Delta variant. If the study included significant amounts of time BEFORE Delta, its predicted breakthrough case numbers in succeeding months would naturally be lower.
Curious if you have found credible information about VAERS underreporting factor ? (personally surprised by number of older articles before COVID about VAERS underreporting being less than 1%, which helps me appreciate censorship for all anti-vax information).
VAERS is subject to BOTH underreporting AND overreporting. Remember, VAERS does NOT demonstrate causality, only time correlation. "These symptoms occurred after I received my vaccine." So some percentage of VAERS incidents - I don't know what percentage - are not at all related to vaccines. An additional and unknown percentage of VAERS reports refer to known and expected vaccine side effects - soreness at injection site; fever; chills; etc. Those are all OVERreports. The bottom line is VAERS gets the reports it gets, and we consumers of its data must interpret them properly, given ALL influencing factors.
"Censorship for all anti-vax information"? Anything is possible for conspiracy theorists (CTs) because there doesn't need to be ANY evidence to sustain their suspicions. As long as it's within the realm of possibility - and what ISN'T within the realm of possibility when we believe the government will hide the evidence of whatever we fear? - conspiracy theorists won't let go of it. It's an endless rabbit hole from which there is no escape for CTs without a fundamental paradigm shift. Among the CTs who post in these forums, I see no evidence of such shifts.
Curious about your opinion of breakthrough deaths per week in the State of Illinois:
In short, nothing to see there.
- The death numbers are cumulative, meaning that to identify the number of breakthrough deaths in any given week, as you have done, one must subtract that week's total from the previous week's total.
- With the passage of time, the number of Illinois residents who were fully vaccinated increased, meaning the breakthrough deaths reported in the November 3 report came from a larger vaccinated population. SO, to use three reporting dates...
- April 28: 32 deaths among a fully vaccinated population of about 8.2 million (base data found HERE; I can explain my calculations, if you ask) -- or about 0.0004% of the vaccinated population.
- August 25: 84 deaths among about 12.5 million fully vaccinated -- or about 0.0007% of the vaccinated population.
- November 3: 60 deaths among about 14.5 million fully vaccinated -- or about 0.0004% of the vaccinated population.
Not much change from April to November.
New England Journal of Medicine...
The quotation you posted includes this crucial finding: "None of these deaths were considered to be related to BNT162b2 by the investigators." That is, nothing to see there either.
Conspiracy observation: if investigators believe "vaccine" is safe, then investigators are unlikely to find "vaccine" cause for adverse event.
I can't decide whether it's good news or bad news that you're now acknowledging your investment in conspiracy theories. I applaud your candor, but must question your judgment. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, false. As long as you allow yourself to remain their captive, you will likely doubt everything save, perhaps, the worst possible outcomes. In my view, that's a dangerous and unnecessarily sad and skeptical connection to the truth.
-
Get the jab, folks .... it protects someone (follow the $$$ trail and you will know who the profit makers are, despite "main media scientist expert fantasies" smoke screens) ....
-
-
Hurray! I agree! CM
-
So thankful the court shows some common sense.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 9 Suspect we are both interested in long-term safety and efficacy assessments.
@Bill_Coley November 9 I'm confident that we're both interested in long-term safety and efficacy assessments. Are we ALSO both interested in stopping the spread of a pandemic that has killed 750,000 Americans and more than five million people worldwide?
CDC Flu Burden shows range of 12,000 to 52,000 dying each year from 2010 to 2020
Noticeably missing during COVID coverage is flu and colds. CDC opined 2020-2021 flu activity being unusually low
Your words "Correlation does NOT prove causation." has me wondering about causation, contributory, & correlation for published COVID deaths.
In a small town, am aware of people who have died from COVID virus and vaccine so 🙏 praying for God's Holy Healing in all five life domains
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 9 Caveat: if long-term assessment(s) would provide official reason(s) to not get "vaccinated", then sadly anticipate they would not be publicly released (in current cancel culture censorship).
@Bill_Coley November 9 Such statements as these create a conspiracy theorist's escape hatch. There's no reason to believe ANYTHING if it's possible that our conspiracy theories are correct but unproven because the government is concealing the evidence.
FWIW: my fully vaccinated mother (includes booster shot) is recognizing the whole story about COVID is not being told.
Wonder if official directive about long-term safety & efficacy is get a booster jab ?
Waning Immunity after the BNT162b2 Vaccine in Israel had a efficacy study of July 2021 for those who had been vaccinated between December 202 and June 2021:
CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate that immunity against the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 waned in all age groups a few months after receipt of the second dose of vaccine.
Wondering if the delta variant is really more transmissible OR if waning "vaccine" efficacy allows more people to get sick.
Science article about "vaccine" effectiveness in the Veterans Health Administration from February to October 2021 shows significant declines:
includes breakthrough infection warning:
Risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection was highest in unvaccinated Veterans regardless of age and comorbidity (Fig. 3). However, breakthrough infections were not benign, as shown by the higher risk of death in fully vaccinated Veterans who became infected compared to vaccinated Veterans who remained infection-free.
Wondering if sickness in Waterford, Ireland (with 99.5 % vaccinated) is an exception OR harbinger:
Analyzing VAERS data for lot number shows an intriguing distribution:
Article notes California has been the state least affected by deadly lots:
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 8 California dashboard states: From October 4, 2021 to October 10, 2021, unvaccinated people were 18.2 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
California dashboard states: From October 11, 2021 to October 17, 2021, unvaccinated people were 16.9 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
State of Illinois Department of Public Health Vaccine Breakthrough data through 10 Nov 2021 shows 935 Deaths being 0.013% of Fully Vaccinated Population, which is an increase of 57 deaths. Data through 3 Nov 2021 showed 878 Deaths being 0.012 % of Fully Vaccinated Population. Apologies for my sad guess of 60+ breakthrough deaths for Wed 10 Nov being 5 % too high.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 8 Massachusetts COVID-19 vaccination data and updates shows cumulative deaths of 438 (0.009% of "vaccinated") through 30 Oct 2021.
Massachusetts COVID-19 vaccination data and updates shows cumulative deaths of 468 (0.01% of "vaccinated") through 6 Nov 2021.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 8 Colorado Vaccine Breakthrough shows on 8 Nov 2021: Vaccine Effectiveness 4.8 times less likely to die from COVID
Colorado Vaccine Breakthrough shows on 10 Nov 2021: Vaccine Effectiveness 12.4 times less likely to die from COVID (drilling in a bit shows vaccination rates now have Age Adjusted normalization)
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
CDC Flu Burden shows range of 12,000 to 52,000 dying each year from 2010 to 2020
So assuming an annual death toll at the upper end of that range, in a 20 month span equivalent to COVID's current lifespan in the U.S., a bit fewer than 90,000 would die. 90,000 from flu vs. 750,000 from COVID. Let's do away with the idiocy often distributed by COVID conspiracy theorists that COVID is no worse than the seasonal flu.
Noticeably missing during COVID coverage is flu and colds. CDC opined 2020-2021 flu activity being unusually low
Flu is a virus that spreads by the same mechanisms as does COVID. The mitigation protocols we implemented for COVID - masks, social distancing, frequent hand washing, no large groups, et al - ALSO kept people with the flu virus at greater than usual distance from others, which reduced the spread of the virus and, therefore, produced fewer flu cases.
Your words "Correlation does NOT prove causation." has me wondering about causation, contributory, & correlation for published COVID deaths.
In a small town, am aware of people who have died from COVID virus and vaccine so 🙏 praying for God's Holy Healing in all five life domains
"Correlation does NOT prove causation" is an accurate statement.
No competent immunologist guarantees that ANY vaccine will provide 100% protection against the conditions it targets. That's why we have to examine macro statistics, which in the case of COVID make inarguably clear that vaccinations save lives and markedly reduce recipients' odds of experiencing serious illness or hospitalization. There is NO debate about the numbers. None. Zero. Nada.
FWIW: my fully vaccinated mother (includes booster shot) is recognizing the whole story about COVID is not being told.
Wonder if official directive about long-term safety & efficacy is get a booster jab ?
My advice: Tell your mother to follow the science. Not the rumors or conspiracy theories, but the science. Boosters are called for and are not surprising against a virus that has killed five million people.
Booster shots are called for, as the study about Israel to which you linked makes clear. That study ALSO pointed out that the decline in vaccine efficacy against "symptomatic infection" was from 96% to 84%. Do you remember when the Trump administration hoped for a vaccine that would be 75% effective? That was a fair and sensible hope! These vaccines' effectiveness rates have to fall another nine points before they will reach the 75% level.
Wondering if the delta variant is really more transmissible OR if waning "vaccine" efficacy allows more people to get sick.
Instead of just wondering about it, you could always Google the issue. Were you to do so you would find that the Delta variant produces as much viral load in the nasal pharynx of vaccinated persons as it does in unvaccinated persons, which was NOT true for earlier COVID variants. Increased viral loads mean increased risk of transmission. YET, as the CDC makes clear, the risks are STILL significantly less for vaccinated persons, as are their risks of transmission (which are greater, but not as much greater as they would be were they not vaccinated). From THIS DOCUMENT:
"For the Delta variant, early data indicate vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with Delta have similar levels of viral RNA and culturable virus detected, indicating that some vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 may be able to transmit the virus to others.(163, 164, 177-180) However, other studies have shown a more rapid decline in viral RNA and culturable virus in fully vaccinated people (96, 177, 180-182). One study observed that Delta infection in fully vaccinated persons was associated with significantly less transmission to contacts than persons who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated.(181)"
---
"Risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection was highest in unvaccinated Veterans regardless of age and comorbidity (Fig. 3). However, breakthrough infections were not benign, as shown by the higher risk of death in fully vaccinated Veterans who became infected compared to vaccinated Veterans who remained infection-free."
Nothing in the declarations of that paragraph contradicts anything public health experts are saying: Vaccinated persons face significantly fewer, BUT NOT NO, risks compared with unvaccinated persons.
Wondering if sickness in Waterford, Ireland (with 99.5 % vaccinated) is an exception OR harbinger:
Again, don't wonder! Read the article to which you linked. The science of COVID hasn't changed in Ireland (emphasis added):
"The function of the vaccine is to stop illness and death, that's the primary goal, and the vaccines are holding up, it's great." That's the view of Professor Luke O'Neill, an immunologist at Trinity College Dublin, and one of the country's best-known scientific figures during the pandemic.
Prof O'Neill says that without the wide take-up of vaccinations, the public health situation in Ireland would be far worse than the current worrying scenario.
"Without the vaccines, Ireland would be in a full lockdown now", he argues, "because Delta is so transmissible, the hospitals would be full of COVID patients and all of the evidence supports that."
The issue of waning vaccine efficacy will become more of a problem in the months to come, Prof O'Neill says, and he's in favour of the booster shot programme - still in its infancy in Ireland - being expanded.
And then read the data from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Colorado to which you linked, ALL of which support the same basic conclusion: COVID vaccines save lives.
You "wonder" and speculate too much! Read the science and the data, NOT the conspiracy theories and the anecdotes. There is ONE truth about COVID and its vaccines and it is that they work. EVERY claim to the contrary is false and a potential threat to the health and well-being of people around the world.
-
Bill you are an incredible fact source.
-
@Truth posted:
Bill you are an incredible fact source.
Given the contentiousness of some of our exchanges, I'm not certain as to the intent your comment. But in case you intend it as something resembling a compliment, I'll tell you that the three years I spent on my high school's debate team affected me deeply and, apparently, permanently, given that 46 years later I'm still passionate about our team's coach's directive: If you're going to make a claim, you'd better be able to back it up. And if you can't back it up, you'd better not make it. In a sense, then, every Google search I conduct as I build my CD posts is a tribute to a teacher named Mr. Haag.
TMI, I'm sure, but I enjoyed the brief saunter down Memory Lane.
-
Interesting is that these are health care workers who have seen the effects of the “vaccine” on people ... they now prefer to lose their job to being “vaccinated.”
WE can also openly see that the public health authorities and politic regimes in the Western world do not really care if the result of their mandate is a rather dramatic shrinkage in medical personnel. They just "blame" the unvaccinated "domestic terrorists", because the regime gods must be right.
-
Numerous athletes recently have suffered cardiac arrest, myocarditis, blood clots, etc and needed to be hospitalized after "COVID vaccine" Injections
Also, data from the U.K. Office of National Statistics reveal that people who have been double injected against COVID-19 are dying from various causes at a rate six times higher than people who are unvaccinated
-
@Truth posted:
Bill you are an incredible fact source.
@Bill_Coley said:
Given the contentiousness of some of our exchanges, I'm not certain as to the intent your comment.
I guess time will tell. CM
-
You know Bill real well?
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 10 CDC Flu Burden shows range of 12,000 to 52,000 dying each year from 2010 to 2020
@Bill_Coley November 10 So assuming an annual death toll at the upper end of that range, in a 20 month span equivalent to COVID's current lifespan in the U.S., a bit fewer than 90,000 would die. 90,000 from flu vs. 750,000 from COVID. Let's do away with the idiocy often distributed by COVID conspiracy theorists that COVID is no worse than the seasonal flu.
We agree 90,000 is substantially less than 750,000. What is happening with COVID virus & "vaccine" is substantially worse than seasonal flu.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 10 Noticeably missing during COVID coverage is flu and colds. CDC opined 2020-2021 flu activity being unusually low
@Bill_Coley November 10 Flu is a virus that spreads by the same mechanisms as does COVID. The mitigation protocols we implemented for COVID - masks, social distancing, frequent hand washing, no large groups, et al - ALSO kept people with the flu virus at greater than usual distance from others, which reduced the spread of the virus and, therefore, produced fewer flu cases.
Yet COVID virus still had many people getting sick in spite of mitigation protocols. Unusually low flu sickness is puzzling.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 10 Your words "Correlation does NOT prove causation." has me wondering about causation, contributory, & correlation for published COVID deaths.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus November 10 In a small town, am aware of people who have died from COVID virus and vaccine so 🙏 praying for God's Holy Healing in all five life domains
@Bill_Coley November 10 "Correlation does NOT prove causation" is an accurate statement.
How many COVID deaths had "vaccine" jab(s) ?
Wonder how many of the 750,000 "COVID" deaths in America were actually caused by influenza ? (may have "COVID" contribution OR correlation)
Also wonder about COVID contributing OR correlating factors for other death causes being counted as COVID deaths.
From a fear factor perspective, inflating COVID deaths should increase motivation for "vaccination" with public protocols: lockdowns, passports, ...
A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19. A probable case or death is defined by i) meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19; or ii) meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence; or iii) meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19" [source]
Many COVID symptoms are like influenza. Hence curious how many of the 750,000 deaths are confirmed compared to probable (or possible).
@Bill_Coley November 10 My advice: Tell your mother to follow the science. Not the rumors or conspiracy theories, but the science.
If science data shows "vaccine" is causing more public harm than the virus, curious if would advise "vaccination" or not ?
What this means is that for every person the vaccines are saving from covid, they are killing 1.19 people from side effects.
Noticeably missing from science data publication is all cause mortality comparison between unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, & fully vaccinated.
Census population clock
The United States population on November 10, 2021 was: 332,915,145
On 11 Nov 2021, one birth is every 8 seconds and one death is every 11 seconds. Sad expectation is death rate change as more people die.
Total COVID deaths of 750,000 is 0.225283 % of the U.S. Population. Sad for grief in thousands of families so praying for God's Holy Healing 🙏
Breakthrough death rates as of 12 Nov 2021 are: 0.0197% in South Carolina, 0.015% in Minnesota, 0.013% in Illinois, 0.01% in Massachusetts
@Bill_Coley November 10 Boosters are called for and are not surprising against a virus that has killed five million people. Booster shots are called for, as the study about Israel to which you linked makes clear. That study ALSO pointed out that the decline in vaccine efficacy against "symptomatic infection" was from 96% to 84%. Do you remember when the Trump administration hoped for a vaccine that would be 75% effective? That was a fair and sensible hope! These vaccines' effectiveness rates have to fall another nine points before they will reach the 75% level.
Booster jab need confirms long term lack of protection against COVID sickness. Worse is the weakening of immune system against all diseases:
At this point, 😭 (lots of tears) sadly anticipate fully "vaccinated" death rate from all causes to become greater than COVID virus deaths along with prognosis for multitude of people to die soon. 🙏Praying fervently for merciful magnitude of Holy God healing in all life domains 🙏❤️
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
We agree 90,000 is substantially less than 750,000. What is happening with COVID virus & "vaccine" is substantially worse than seasonal flu.
There is no data-based reason to include vaccines as a consequential, let alone a co-equal, contributor to the 750,000 person COVID death toll. There are conspiracy theory-based reasons to include them as such, but NOT data-based reasons.
Yet COVID virus still had many people getting sick in spite of mitigation protocols. Unusually low flu sickness is puzzling.
"Many people" is not a statistically meaningful reference. Breakthrough infection rates ARE statistically meaningful. In Minnesota, for example, cumulative as of October 3, 2021:
- 2.015% of all vaccinated persons experienced a breakthrough case (meaning 97.085% of vaccinated persons did NOT experience a breakthrough case)
- 0.092% of all vaccinated persons were hospitalized for their breakthrough cases (meaning 99.008% of breakthrough cases did NOT result in hospitalization)
- 0.015% of all vaccinated persons died from their breakthrough cases (meaning 99.085% of breakthrough cases did NOT result in death)
Remember that even the early variants of COVID were more transmissible and dangerous than the seasonal flu. The Delta variant has been more transmissible and dangerous yet. Hence, the low flu rates in these times of ongoing COVID mitigation efforts is not at all surprising.
How many COVID deaths had "vaccine" jab(s) ?
According to the CDC, as of September of this year, the COVID death rate per 100,000 population in the U.S. among unvaccinated persons was more than 12 times greater than the death rate among vaccinated persons (9.14/100K vs. 0.74/100K). It's safe to say that MANY, MANY, MANY more unvaccinated persons have died from COVID than have vaccinated persons.
From a fear factor perspective, inflating COVID deaths should increase motivation for "vaccination" with public protocols: lockdowns, passports,
There is no rational, fact-based reason to doubt the accuracy of the COVID case-, hospitalization-, and death rates. There ARE conspiracy theory-based reasons to doubt them, but not rational, fact-based ones. From our exchanges about COVID, I'm coming to conclusion that I can lead you to facts, but I can't lead you away from conspiracy theories.
Noticeably missing from science data publication is all cause mortality comparison between unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, & fully vaccinated.
HERE'S A CDC STUDY that reports COVID and non-COVID mortality rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.
Total COVID deaths of 750,000 is 0.225283 % of the U.S. Population. Sad for grief in thousands of families so praying for God's Holy Healing 🙏
Breakthrough death rates as of 12 Nov 2021 are: 0.0197% in South Carolina, 0.015% in Minnesota, 0.013% in Illinois, 0.01% in Massachusetts
Exercise care in the way you interpret those numbers.
- 0.225283% of the entire U.S. population has died from COVID, a percentage that does NOT distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.
- 0.0197% of fully vaccinated people in South Carolina have died, NOT of the entire population of that state. According to the state's health department, there have been 471 breakthrough cases that resulted in death, or 0.009% of the state's 5.2 million total population.
Percentages of entire populations and of fully vaccinated persons are not directly comparable statistics.
Booster jab need confirms long term lack of protection against COVID sickness. Worse is the weakening of immune system against all diseases:
Simply not true.
At this point, 😭 (lots of tears) sadly anticipate fully "vaccinated" death rate from all causes to become greater than COVID virus deaths along with prognosis for multitude of people to die soon.
There is NO rational, fact-based reason to make these claims. There are conspiracy theory reasons to make them, but not fact-based ones.
We've had enough exchanges about COVID now for me to conclude that you won't be swayed from your baseless- and conspiracy theorist perspectives on COVID. In my link- and data filled posts, I've given you countless off-ramps from the fact-free zone you inhabit, but you've chosen not to take them. You have every right not to do so, of course, but I won't invest more time debunking the falsehoods you've chosen to embrace. I wish you grace and peace as you navigate the grim and scary world those falsehoods create for you.
-
There is no data-based reason to include vaccines as a consequential, let alone a co-equal, contributor to the 750,000 person COVID death toll. There are conspiracy theory-based reasons to include them as such, but NOT data-based reasons.
Of course there are no official data which would show a "supposed conspiracy theory" to actually be true ... why? The official controlled mainstream media propaganda will not report such ... and, perhaps worse, some data are available but being twisted and interpreted as unrelated to vaccine but caused by virus or pre-condition.
Germany has reported as Covid-death when a person with final stage cancer was admitted to hospital, but it reports a "heart attack death" if someone out of the blue has heart failure a day after 2nd Covid injection. All very simple to see, but only without "official regime blinders"
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Of course there are no official data which would show a "supposed conspiracy theory" to actually be true ... why? The official controlled mainstream media propaganda will not report such ... and, perhaps worse, some data are available but being twisted and interpreted as unrelated to vaccine but caused by virus or pre-condition.
Germany has reported as Covid-death when a person with final stage cancer was admitted to hospital, but it reports a "heart attack death" if someone out of the blue has heart failure a day after 2nd Covid injection. All very simple to see, but only without "official regime blinders"
And this is why I engage your COVID falsehoods only occasionally, Wolfgang: I can't disprove the existence of a reality ONLY YOU can see.
If I tell you that 2+2=57, and the reason you don't know that is because governments and media monopolists hide it from you, you can't prove me wrong. Oh, you might paste annotated number lines into your posts, or link to proofs from math textbooks and papers from academic "mathematicians," but none of your efforts will diminish the certainty with which I claim 2+2=57 because my claim depends solely on the reality I see; that you can't or don't want to see my reality is not my concern.
Such is the Sysyphusian task I face with you and your COVID falsehoods. It doesn't matter how much data I present, how many charts and tables I paste, or how many public health experts I quote, your response is always the same: You see COVID for what it "really" is because you aren't fooled by global conglomerates or government cover-ups. In the terminology of your latest post, you don't wear "official regime blinders." As a result, that you never substantiate your claims - that your COVID conspiracy theories rely completely on a hodge podge of single sentence assertions and (often) unsubstantiated or misinterpreted anecdotes - and that you NEVER disprove ANY of the statistically rigorous data I present in support of my claims simply doesn't matter because your falsehoods are "true" in a reality only YOU can see, a reality forever shielded from my or others' attempts to debunk it.
Just so I'm clear, in my "reality," your COVID falsehoods are and will remain false.
-
What a perfect description of those who reject the divinity of Jesus despite the facts.
Your caustic skills saved us all the expenses of time and negativity.
-
If I tell you that 2+2=57, and the reason you don't know that is because governments and media monopolists hide it from you, you can't prove me wrong.
When someone all of a sudden and without any other indicators but a recent inkection experiences ill effects or in some cases dies, the matter is rather clear .... and that data is available in various sources .... except that data is not found in official health institute government reports where the case shows up as "illness / death" but no mention is made of the most likely cause.
Your above example is missing the point .... perhaps I did not communicate sufficiently clear.
-
-
@Truth posted:
What a perfect description of those who reject the divinity of Jesus despite the facts.
Your caustic skills saved us all the expenses of time and negativity.
Yes, the framework I employed to explain why I engage only rarely with Wolfgang on COVID matters IS an apt description of the Christology discussions these forums host (I doubt the existence of "perfect" ones, at least of my creation), but I think your two sentence, 27 word indictment here accuses the wrong parties.
In discussions with you and other Trinity defenders, WOLFGANG AND I are the ones who cite evidence to "prove" our case. We detail the "reality" we see through multiple references to biblical texts and specific, direct engagement with the arguments/texts, if any, presented by those with whom we disagree. Notice how that approach differs fundamentally from Wolfgang's approach to my COVID posts. He never mentions, let alone engages, the data or the arguments I present. But in response to the arguments and texts raised by Trinity advocates, he and I respond directly and substantively. That is, we most certainly acknowledge the "reality" Trinity advocates propose, and then engage it directly as we explain and defend the "reality" we see.
But what about you? How have you responded to my engagements with the "reality" about Jesus that you've advanced? How have you responded to the textual "evidence" I cited to report my "reality" about Jesus? You've told me you don't want to talk about Scripture. You've sought to accuse and diminish me, the advocate, but you've explicitly said you don't want address Scripture, easily the most relevant and necessary "evidence" in the matter.
So between the two of us, who has been more the one who refused to engage the other's case, who refused to provide evidence to support his or her "reality"? Who has been more the one who rejected the "reality" seen by the other, but refused to back up his or her rejection? Clearly you. In the language of the framework I previously posted, it hasn't mattered how much Scripture I quoted, how consistent were the patterns I cited, or how cogently I disputed Trinitarian theology, you refused to talk about Scripture or my arguments, you refused to make a case of your own, and you chose instead to respond with personal disparagement, you chose to give life to the adage, "If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger."
So you're right! The framework I used to describe my COVID discussions with Wolfgang IS an apt description of our discussions of the deity of Jesus. But in this case, YOU'RE the indicted, not Wolfgang and I (I leave it to @BroRando to speak for himself on these matters, if he so desires).
-
Oh Bill. What you describe is not my experience. You create these tiny little boxes of rules that you seldom actually keep but insist that others keep. The rules are so narrow that everyone but yourself is excluded from any possibility of being right. God himself is excluded.
I am sure you may be a nice person who does good things. Aren't you?
-
@Truth posted:
Oh Bill. What you describe is not my experience. You create these tiny little boxes of rules that you seldom actually keep but insist that others keep. The rules are so narrow that everyone but yourself is excluded from any possibility of being right. God himself is excluded.
My "rules" for my engagement with other posters are 1) I need to respond directly - no evasion or distraction - to the on-topic question(s) you ask and observation(s) you make about Bible texts; 2) I need to respond directly to the on-topic argument(s) you make in your posts, whether based on Scripture or not, or, at minimum, acknowledge those on-topic arguments and report the reason(s) I'm not engaging them. In all cases, the onus for direct - not evasive or distracting - response to the on-topic content of your posts is on me.
Those "rules," to which I hold myself accountable, I also apply to others. Which of them do you consider to be among the "tiny little boxes of rules that [I] seldom actually keep but insist others keep"?
I probably have at least one other "rule," which resides in an equally "tiny little box": In a discussion of the the deity of Jesus and some of the biblical texts germane to that subject, it is inappropriate to call @Wolfgang "blind," @BroRando "poor blind and deaf," and @C Mc "Cream Puff Waffle" (I'm giving you a pass on my being "legalistic," though that might be the most inaccurate characterization you offered in that post).
I am sure you may be a nice person who does good things. Aren't you?
You're "sure" that I "may" be a nice person? With conviction like that, I may ask you for a character reference when after I retire from ministry I apply to be a greeter at Wal Mart. They'll hire me on the spot!
-
I find your rules inconsistent and disingenuous; you keep them the same. You just have your own style of breaking them and object to those who have other styles of breaking them. I haven't yet found any of them essential, even if they are often helpful.
You're "sure" that I "may" be a nice person? With conviction like that, I may ask you for a character reference when after I retire from ministry I apply to be a greeter at Wal Mart. They'll hire me on the spot!
They might hire you. I would recommend you not be hired as your personality is judgmental, narrow, abrasive, agitating, divisive, unkind, and not personable. On the other hand, I am certain you are a doer, achiever, thinker, researcher and have a compassionate heart. All you really need is the real Jesus.
-
@Truth posted:
I find your rules inconsistent and disingenuous; you keep them the same. You just have your own style of breaking them and object to those who have other styles of breaking them. I haven't yet found any of them essential, even if they are often helpful.
That my "rules" can be "inconsistent, "disingenuous," not "essential," AND "often helpful" is a credit to my three rules, I think. Helpful but inessential disingenuity is rare in these chaotic times.
They might hire you. I would recommend you not be hired as your personality is judgmental, narrow, abrasive, agitating, divisive, unkind, and not personable. On the other hand, I am certain you are a doer, achiever, thinker, researcher and have a compassionate heart. All you really need is the real Jesus.
If you could find a way to be as bold, direct, and judgmental when, in compliance with the CD expectation that you will "criticize ideas, not people," you responded to Bible texts in these threads as you are when, in violation of said CD expectation, you respond to other posters with critiques such as that one, I bet you and I could have productive exchanges about the deity of Jesus.
-
You have such a knack for the fake-passive slam, the putdown and self-justification as you do it!
No name calling (you say--we disagree), just master putdowns. You are so good at it! Slams, slimes, come-backs, jabs, put-downs. Such ability seems natural to some people. It's just in some people, I guess. Maybe your teacher taught you that! I am sure you must be proud of your ability.
I have many sins and failures--tons. But not Bill! Not real ones anyway. He is never wrong. Or he pretends humility by implying he is really perfect buy saying he isn't. It's such an art and some people are really good at it.
-
@Truth posted:
You have such a knack for the fake-passive slam, the putdown and self-justification as you do it!
I have some facility with language and what you call "the putdown" (I don't know what a "fake-passive slam" is), which is why I'm quite specific and intentional about how I employ my skills. If you felt put down personally by my comments about your "judgmental, narrow, abrasive, agitating, divisive, unkind, and not personable" critique of me, I apologize. I intended those comments to be a put down of the critique, not you. [FWIW, I didn't feel put down by your critique; I simply believed it violated the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation of these forums.]
It's time for us to stop this silliness. And that's what these non-issue engagements are, silliness. If you want to talk about the deity of Jesus, I will gladly join you in the thread(s) of your choice. If you want to engage on any other issue in these forums, I may join you, but I can't know for sure. But this personal stuff has to stop - from both of us. If you wish to pursue the personal stuff, you have every freedom to do so. Just don't expect me to join in.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
