Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby DrEvil » Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:38 pm

There really is nothing to see, because the stupid gif is covering up the chart.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:31 pm

Prof Fukushima Goes Nuclear

If you haven't already seen it, the subtitled video below is well worth 2 minutes of your time. Prof. Masanori Fukushima from Kyoto University bluntly explaining the various problems with the Covid jabs to officials of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare last week.



More analysis

Image

Image

Image

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:18 pm

OPRAH AND THE OTHER CORONAMANIACS WERE SURE THEY WERE RIGHT

...

That’s what’s been really weird about support for the various Covid “mitigation” strategies: despite the obvious illogic of these interventions and the vast, lasting and foreseeable harm they caused, many people were certain that the lockdowns, the school closures, the masks, the tests and the shots were good ideas.

None of these measures made scientific or social sense, not even for fifteen minutes. Respiratory viruses are ubiquitous. We can’t stop their spread. Coronaviruses, including those of the past three years, threaten only a small, clearly identifiable slice of the population. Thus, we shouldn’t have locked down, closed schools, masked up, tested the asymptomatic or taken experimental shots to try to do what had never been done before, despite decades of research, i.e., immunize people against a Coronavirus.

To the contrary, since mid-March, 2020 and despite the conventional unwisdom, I suspected, wrote and said to anyone who would listen that each intervention would fail and cause much harm. People hated my message and, consequently, me. But it turned out that I was I was prescient. About all of it. I’m not bragging; even though I was in the minority, it was a very easy call.

Throughout the past 33 months, it’s astounded me that people advocating such extreme, unprecedented interventions were not only plainly wrong about these measures’ efficacy, they were simultaneously sure they were right. None of the Coronamaniacs said, “I think the government’s measures might be a good idea and I’m going to follow them to protect myself. But it’s a free country and I understand that you might disagree. So you do you.”

Instead, those who were poorly informed and afflicted with misplaced certainty took their poor judgment and ran 180 degrees in the wrong direction with it: they demanded that others share their panic and their foolish overreaction.

They were certain that Coronamania detractors were “selfish” and “anti-Science” for questioning the mitigation measures and for declining to adopt them. Team Panic unreservedly, arrogantly and ignorantly bought the propaganda and aggressively backed the authoritarian craziness. Even though they had no factual or logical reason to be certain, the Corona Mitigators were a stampeding herd that tolerated no discussion, much less dissent. In-person and on-line, the Mitigators vilified, and blocked the messages of, those who disagreed with them. They argued that non-vaxxers should be barred from schools, lose livelihoods and forfeit medical treatment. Some even wished the non-hiders/non-maskers/non-vaxxers dead.

At every opportunity during the past 33 months, I’ve challenged people to defend the various interventions. I’ve typically received angry and unrealistic responses. When I asked, for example, whom they knew that had died from the virus, most admitted they knew no one. Several expressed indignation that I would ask such a question. One self-righteously answered that his friend’s father-in-law had died in his late eighties. Another cited her 93 year-old, Alzheimer-ed mother-in-law; as if some old, sick people didn’t normally die. Moreover, the Mitigators could never explain how lockdowns or masks could cause a virus to vanish into the ether. Throughout, Team Panic members were oblivious to the costs of the interventions.

Overall, regarding lockdowns, school closures, masks, tests and the shots, the Mitigation Mob parroted demagogic, propagandistic phrases they heard from Birx, Fauci, Pharma execs, NPR, PBS, NYT and The Atlantic, etc. The Coronamaniacs trusted these sources instead of trusting what they should have witnessed in real life, namely that this virus simply did not threaten basically healthy, non-old people.

Why were some people certain that various governmental interventions made sense, when uncertainty would have been far more appropriate? To begin with, inertia is powerful; psychologists have long known that after someone makes a decision, they tend to become more certain they were right; a classic study about gift selection supports this conclusion.

Once people take sides, most people won’t consider logic or facts that contradict what they initially believed. Changing their minds would result in loss of face. Admitting an error damages most peoples’ self-esteem. They lack the strength of character to admit they were wrong.

Perhaps intransigence is biochemically-driven. Perhaps having made up their minds, people avoid spending any additional mental energy on thinking.

Yet, as Socrates said, “To be uncertain is to be uncomfortable, but to be certain is to be ridiculous.”

Especially here. It’s odd that, in a subculture that purports to value “nuance,” shades of gray and continuums—even of gender—that so many took such a polar, irrational and deeply destructive approach to Corona management. The many who easily fell prey to peer pressure jumped on the Covid bandwagon, never considering that they could be wrong or that their stance was wrecking the lives of many other people. Instead, they illogically and angrily insisted that those who were unwilling to participate in the mitigation charade were somehow threatening others. How could this be? If hiding from others, wearing masks and taking tests and shots worked so well, why did those who used these methods feel vulnerable?

Coronamania was fundamentally tribal. Orwell was right: The Left tolerates no dissenters. It ostracizes and cancels those with the audacity to think and disagree. Liberals fear a raised voice or even a raised eyebrow. The Japanese say that “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” Progressives have internalized Japan’s conformism; it’s as if they’re turning Japanese. I really think so.

The Mad Mitigators were unwilling to consider alternative Covid perspectives because they live in an echo chamber; no one in their cultish social circle or their media bubble raised any questions regarding the propaganda or interventions. Unwilling to engage in dialogue, the Coronamaniacs never learned either the basic data revealing the virus’s vanishingly low lethality or the basic science that militated against lockdowns, masks, asymptomatic testing and vaxxing. Disregarding the costs/harms of these measures, they could only accommodate the nonsensical dogma presented by their preferred media and other Party operatives. They were not, per the Sociologist Emile Durkheim, “given permission” to think for themselves.

The resultant, misplaced certainty enabled terribly destructive outcomes. As Mark Twain said, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Twain and Socrates were smarter than Oprah. Oprah was so certain that the virus was dangerous that she “literally” confined herself in her house for 322 days. After vaxxing, she “felt [such] an overwhelming sense of relief” that she “wanted to cry.”

Oprah’s agoraphobia and hyper-emotional overreaction to the injection exemplify how delusional she and the millions of other Team Panic members were to hunker down in their homes, mask, test and inject an ineffective, harmful, experimental substance and to demand others to do so. “You get a shot, you get a shot and you get a shot!”

Uh, no thanks. Someone else can have mine.

Perhaps Oprah consulted Dr. Phil. He told everyone to jab to protect other people. He said that the decision to vaxx was “checkers, not chess.”

As was Oprah, Dr. Phil, a strangely trusted “man of Science,” was sure he was right.

I’m not sure how the shot is working out for Dr. Phil. But it’s not working out well for many others. Millions of the vaxxed have been infected; many have been hospitalized or died. Excess mortality has increased 15% in highly-vaxxed nations.

The self-assured, closed-minded and consistently wrong Mad Mitigators should be permanently discredited, de-platformed and disqualified from holding public office, teaching or voting.

Yes, I’m sure.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:35 pm

New Health Science Reports Study:

"A significant reduction of three percent was observed in VO2max values post-booster dose administration. ... A 9% reduction of probable clinical relevance was observed in 19% of athletes."
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:36 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:46 pm

New Study: Booster efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection goes negative after 6 months.

Image

Conclusions: Boosters reduced infection and severe COVID-19, particularly among those clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19. However, protection against infection waned after the booster, and eventually suggested an imprinting effect of compromised protection relative to the primary series. However, imprinting effects are unlikely to negate the overall public health value of booster vaccinations.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 6:48 pm

Uncomfortable silence

stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:02 pm

Image

Image

Image

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:43 pm

Professor Jem Bendell: It’s not too late to stop being a tool of oppression

Death rates are still above normal in many countries of the world. The medical experts don’t know why. It could be from the long-term complications from past Covid infections, or it could be from the impacts of novel vaccines, or it could be from the delayed treatments due to lockdowns. Or perhaps it is from a mixture of these causes, or even from some other factor altogether. Even writing those two sentences induced in me a feeling of trepidation. I find myself readying for the annoyance or even aggression from some people. Which is odd: people did not behave so stridently on public health issues before 2020. I think the decay in normal scientific dialogue and policy scrutiny is a significant lasting damage from the last few years. It is why I am not going to let it lie. Instead, I hope we can all learn more about why people became so badly informed and aggressive towards others who reached conclusions different to their own. Only then might we avoid making matters worse when future public health crises occur. And if the excess mortality does not return to normal, then we are already within an ongoing health crisis right now.

It is why in this essay I am returning to the scientific facts which prove the medical authoritarian orthodoxy on Covid has been scientifically wrong. Not just wrong in hindsight, but now more widely recognised as wrong by experts and scientists who ignored some of the earlier concerns. This recent science can’t be ignored unless someone is no longer interested in the science on public health.

The first thing to recognise is the Covid vaccinations offered neither significant transmission reductions nor an opportunity to speed the reaching of ‘herd immunity’ and thus the eradication of the disease. Therefore, the various means of persuasion and coercion of people to achieve mass vaccination were scientifically baseless. The science on that now seems irrefutable. On transmission, it was confirmed in the European Parliament that the manufacturers did not test for impact of vaccination on infection and/or transmission rates. Therefore, any public statements and policies on reduced infection and transmission were not informed by science. The public statements on the role of mass vaccination in helping eradicate the disease via achieving ‘herd immunity’ were also unscientific. Even one of the most senior medical bureaucrats in the world, Dr Anthony Fauci, concluded in a paper in the Journal of Infectious Diseases that herd immunity is not the aim with Covid vaccination, because: “the virus that causes COVID-19, is so different from polio and measles that classical herd immunity may not readily apply to it. Important differences include the phenotypic stability of polio and measles viruses, and their ability to elicit longterm protective immunity, compared to SARS-CoV-2. For these and other reasons, controlling COVID-19 by increasing herd immunity may be an elusive goal.” Due to the nature of coronaviruses, these limitations of Covid vaccinations were widely predicted by experts even in 2020, but they were ignored or vilified at the time.

The next key scientific issue to understand is that mass vaccination against Covid has likely caused a situation where those people who are more vulnerable to Covid are now less protected from their previous Covid vaccinations. That is because for some vaccinations and diseases, mass vaccinations can drive viral evolution so that the virus evades the existing vaccines. In the scientific literature this process is called “vaccination-induced evolutionary pressure” and leads to a phenomenon called “vaccine escape.” This has now been demonstrated to be occurring with Covid. Here is a quote from the paper in the Journal ACS Infectious Diseases:

“…prevailing variants can be quantitatively explained by infectivity-strengthening and vaccine-escape (co-)mutations on the spike protein RBD due to natural selection and/or vaccination-induced evolutionary pressure. We illustrate that infectivity strengthening mutations were the main mechanism for viral evolution, while vaccine-escape mutations become a dominating viral evolutionary mechanism among highly vaccinated populations.”


A more worrying finding in a paper in The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters is that this process has now been identified as one of the main drivers of viral evolution:

“vaccine-breakthrough or antibody-resistant mutations provide a new mechanism of viral evolution… By tracking the evolutionary trajectories of vaccine-resistant mutations in more than 2.2 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes, we reveal that the occurrence and frequency of vaccine-resistant mutations correlate strongly with the vaccination rates in Europe and America. We anticipate that as a complementary transmission pathway, vaccine-breakthrough or antibody-resistant mutations, like those in Omicron, will become a dominating mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 evolution when most of the world’s population is either vaccinated or infected.”


The unfortunate impact of this process is that the vaccines lose effectiveness and therefore do not protect the elderly and vulnerable who may choose to benefit from the protection they had offered. Unlike the public health messaging in countries during 2021, this scientific knowledge means that getting kids vaccinated for Covid might help to make Grandma more vulnerable, not less. I want to state here that the argument that variants caused by ‘evolutionary pressure’ from vaccination would be more virulent in general, rather than simply evade the vaccines, is not an argument I have ever made. I hope that theory doesn’t turn out to be true in reality, as it would mean humanity could enter a really bad situation. I should also note that there might be research papers that conclude differently to the ones I cited above. However, the existence of those papers is recent evidence of a phenomenon that is widely discussed in science and a cause for serious concern.

If you are thinking that this view is with the benefit of hindsight, then you would be wrong. Due to the nature of coronaviruses, the risk of counter-productiveness of mass vaccination for this particular virus was discussed by experts even in 2020, who were then ignored or vilified. The lessons from that is something we’ll come back to.

At least the mass vaccination helped reduce hospitalisation and death, didn’t they? Yes, it did for the elderly and vulnerable, to an extent of reducing the likelihood of death by about half in the first few months after vaccination. Good. So, isn’t that “well done pharmaceutical companies”? Unfortunately, not quite. The latest data from Australia suggests that vaccination might have no effect on either hospitalizations and death, or even a negative effect on it, after some months have passed. If that data continues over time, it suggests that certain kinds of Covid vaccinations may have been counterproductive in their impacts on human immune systems. That was a potential outcome known by expert vaccinologists, but suppressed by authorities, mass media and big tech firms during the global drive towards mass vaccination. I summarise the evidence for that within my last essay on the Covid topic.

This questionable efficacy is before we even consider the potential outcomes from other methods that could have been prioritised if not for the obsessive focus on consuming pharmaceutical products. For instance, empowerment of workers so they could stay home at the first sign of any symptoms, without losing pay. Or temperature screening at all places of work. Or making available (and testing) repurposed safe medicines, herbal medicines, and nutritional supplements. The kinds of responses that myself and so many marginalised voices have been promoting for the last couple of years.

The abuses towards people who did not conform to the orthodoxy about Covid vaccines were significant. That included people being barred from participation in society, losing their jobs, being labelled Nazis by the elites and those who slavishly followed their agendas (even if claiming to be progressives). I often heard people blame the unvaccinated for someone getting sick or not getting treatment. That was misinformed hate speech. It was heart-breaking for me that such views were even platformed in one organisation I helped to set up.

Most of the arguments that the vaccine ‘hesitant’ were selfish and dangerous were actually corporate-profiteering memes implanted in the brains of people who didn’t think critically. The way this was done was through trusted media. Then some people repeated those memes with an added moral disdain and even anger directed at friends, family, colleagues, neighbours or fellow humans on social media. Others witnessed that and did nothing. Still others took up backchannels to try and persuade people with critical views that they were wrong, rather than argue with the people who were being aggressive against vaccine hesitancy. They were wrong on the science, wrong on the policies, and wrong in their attitudes towards others.

Am I describing people you know? Am I describing you?

If the latter, I realise you might be feeling a bit uncomfortable by now, and thinking about not reading any further. Please know that there is a point to my essay that is much more than ‘I told you so’. We will come to that. But first, I will summarise some hard truths. Because if you followed the orthodoxy, you were scientifically misinformed in a way that:

* served profits and power
* probably undermined health outcomes specifically and generally
* harmed relationships of all kinds and other people’s emotional wellbeing
* disrupted alliances and collaboration for meaningful social and political change
* has sown the seeds of global authoritarianism

My own views on Covid were scientifically wrong until towards the end of 2020, when I began to realise the narratives kept changing and the scientific rationales sounded weak. It was at that point I began looking into what some of the top epidemiologists and vaccinologists were saying. But despite making the time to look into it, I was slow to be convinced that the orthodoxy was based on falsehoods. Luckily, I was well informed by the time the mass media tried to manipulate public attitudes towards the ‘vaccine hesitant’. In any case, all of us can all explore where we got our information from and why we reacted in the ways that we did:

* First, let’s realise how fear can be used to manipulate us into a lack of critical thinking and a desire for conformity.
* Second, let’s realise how moral framings in mass media can be used to get us to dislike or even hate ‘categories’ of people.
* Third, let’s realise that the corporate and state media are both constantly trying to shape our attitudes whether the journalists are aware of that or not.
* Fourth, let’s realise that our desire to be smart, correct and ethical is actually the way that we can be most manipulated by mass media and authorities.

This matters today as we still have health challenges to work together on. It also matters as the authoritarians are still working with corporates to impose restrictions on humanity based on false medical rationales (as an exhibit, see the communiques coming out of the G20 summit). If you went along with the orthodoxy, or didn’t seek to intervene in any way, then some introspection will help you avoid being dangerous to others in future. Yes, I say dangerous, because authoritarianism requires people to support its policies by being scared into becoming misinformed moral ‘police’ of their friends, family, neighbours and colleagues, or just scared into ‘sitting on the fence’.

One way to start doing something about it is through meaningful apologies that can then begin a dialogue about how to engage better in future. Here are some suggestions:

* If you were aggressive to someone about Covid, you have an opportunity to apologise for being both aggressive and scientifically wrong.
* If you pressured someone who was not vulnerable to be vaccinated, you have an opportunity to apologise for being scientifically wrong.
* If you argued with someone on the finer points of science but didn’t listen to the science that already cast doubt on your view, you have an opportunity to apologise for being scientifically wrong.
* If you had influence in relation to the conversations in your organisation or networks but did nothing about the hostility directed against people for their views on Covid, you have an opportunity to apologise for, in this instance, being rubbish in an emergency.
* If you have shifted your view on the relevant science and the appropriate policies, but feel annoyed at people like me for bringing attention to this, you have an opportunity to see beyond your bruised ego for the sake of humanity and actually apologise for something to someone.

In my own case, I have been vilified both in magazines and on social media for my scientifically informed views on Covid. Some of the denigration of me on social media for my stance on Covid, has to be seen to be believed. I have let such comments go, partly by deciding not to read feedback. But when magazines publish critiques, one can expect higher standards and so ask their editors for better treatment of the issue. Recently, one Australian magazine implied I was a paranoid anti-vaxxer, as a basis for arguing that people don’t need to take seriously my work on environmental issues. My letter of complaint, which the magazine editor responded to fully through their corrective actions, can be read in full here. The editor’s response gives me hope that if people are ready to learn and change, then we won’t be rushed into a medical tyranny. I also have hope that we might restore the kind of critical thinking and dialogue that will help societies address the future impacts of Covid, which could be really bad through the long-haul form or repeat infections (and which aren’t reduced significantly by current types of vaccination – something I discuss within my last essay on the topic).

If you are interested in what we can learn from this period in our history, then I recommend the essay on an amnesty over Covid by Charles Eisenstein. Like me, he experienced aggression online and in person due to his valid questioning of the orthodoxy. Fortunately, many of his existing readers agreed with his views. That was unlike my readers, nearly all of whom disliked me questioning the orthodoxy, or kept quiet about their support. That shook my assumptions about the substance beneath the rhetoric on kinder and wiser responses to societal collapse that I had been hearing for the previous 2 years. Unfortunately, a focus on everyone being ‘nice’ to each other means that I might be further disliked for directly confronting behaviours I consider so poor.

But there is another side to this. It’s also time to celebrate the people who retained their capacity for critical thought and solidarity. They will be key during the myriad disruptions and breakdowns that will occur in the months and years to come. They include people like my Mum, who was excluded from shops and social gatherings due to her resistance to medical tyranny. In her 70s, she was also highly active on twitter with thousands of followers before was kicked off it for sharing contrarian information on Covid. If my Mum can think critically and stand up for what she knows to be right and true, so can many other people. It’s never too late to stop being a tool of oppression.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:50 pm

Image
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby DrEvil » Fri Dec 02, 2022 1:07 am

On transmission, it was confirmed in the European Parliament that the manufacturers did not test for impact of vaccination on infection and/or transmission rates.


I keep seeing people bringing this up, but I'm curious - is there even a way to do this during testing that doesn't breach several ethical rules? You would have to intentionally try to infect people, right? Or is there some other method / lab procedure they could use that would give similar results without making people sick in the process, and they just didn't do it?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Dec 02, 2022 6:49 am

.
The primary issue is that preliminary (and subsequent) messaging absolutely and falsely indicated strong effectiveness in preventing transmission, as such the fact that trials never tested for infection/transmission rates is of obvious import.

Since the trials never tested for infection/transmission rates, any claims suggesting such protection were premature at best
(and any recent or continued claims minimally deceptive and/or dishonest; as more time passes it appears natural infection is more durable and less prone to spread/transmission to others).

When conducting a preliminary search on this topic, the amount of 'fact-checker'/propagandistic messaging (blarings about 'anti-vaxxers' misinterpreting or misrepresenting information is front and center, and generally placed at the top heading of any resulting link of the first couple pages of a Google result) is unsurprising but no less grotesque.

In any event, the following link is a refreshing departure -- even though it's funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation -- as it was published way back in 2016, well before the brazen, mind-numbing State-approved StopThink messaging became the default and pervasive M.O.

Excerpt:

Special features

Phase II trials can also provide preliminary information on protective efficacy through human challenge studies, wherein healthy participants are deliberately infected with the pathogen. Such studies are commonly referred to as Phase IIa studies and are appropriate only for selected diseases wherever it is scientifically and ethically justified, where the pathogen does not cause lethal infection and is not resistant to available treatment, and a complete and successful cure can be obtained. Human challenge studies have been conducted to test the preliminary efficacy of vaccine candidates against malaria, typhoid, and cholera.[36]



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4944327/

Some useful info contained therein, pre-Covid mania.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:56 pm

During the entire month of October, just 10 unvaccinated individuals under 65 died from/with COVID in Washington state vs. 32 (76.2%) who completed the primary vaccination series (at least).

Of course, nobody is mentioning these sort of data because they destroy the last tenuous remaining rationale for mass vaccination.

In order to access these data, you have to compare the current official COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths by Vaccination Status report to the previous report that the current report "helpfully" overwrites every month. Luckily, you can find last month's official COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths by Vaccination Status report using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

Comparing page 14 of both reports, we can see that under 65 unvaccinated COVID deaths increased by just 10 during the month of October while under 65 vaccinated COVID deaths increased by 32.

In addition, total COVID deaths among unvaccinated deaths increased by just 70 (26.6%) during October while total vaccinated deaths increased by 193 (73.4%).

Using the same type of comparison on page 13 shows 383 hospitalizations among the unvaccinated during the month of October vs. 918 hospitalizations among the vaccinated (and/or boosted or multi-boosted). That's 70.6% of hospitalizations among the vaccinated.

COVID vaccination efficacy against severe disease and death is now mothing more than a transparent illusion supported only by overinflated vaccination rates (that routinely exceed 100% among many demographics in many Washington counties) as well as the clear advantages of vaccinated populations in every important social determinant of health, including socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, education level, parents' education level, and availability and accessibility of healthcare.

Furthermore, since omicron became the primary variant almost one year ago, not a single scientific article has been published that compares the overall and not just COVID-19 related health outcome of uninjected populations to the overall health outcomes of demographically comparable injected populations. Why not? Why have these simple, critically important epidemiological analyses been completely missing for almost a year now?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Dec 02, 2022 5:34 pm

Look at the hyped statistics at the top compared to the raw statistics at the bottom!

Image

Hype: Wow! You are 5 times more likely to die from/with COVID-19 over the last 30 days in King County Washington (excludes Seattle) if you were unvaccinated than if you were so intelligently boosted!!!

Actual data: 66% percent of the deaths were among the boosted, who make up only 51% of the population (if that, since these vaccination percentages are always overestimated).

The people producing these charts really don't give a damn how much they lie, since they are lying for a noble cause.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests