You are, once again, misreading the data. The study ended at 100 days. Well, at least the one in your link did. Maybe there is a follow-on study that goes beyond 100 days?
I understand it ended at 100 days, that is all the data that is available. I should have clarified my initial comment by saying "after 100 days". What data do YOU have that supports your argument? How effective are they?
Exaggerated by some, for sure. But also underestimated by some, including, I think, you.
This is hard to quantify, and I don't even care about masks so we can move on from this point. I wear them when they are required and have not been against mask mandates before. They're easy to use and are only a minor inconvenience. But, the masks the average person has and how they use them, it has been shown not to be very effective. A 1.8% reduction after 100 days is considered very effective to you?
That's not actually interesting to note. Cases spike and recede - the US has gone through a few peaks so far.
Shouldn't they keep rising with the exponential growth you mentioned prior?
I didn't, but preconceived notions aren't why. I rarely watch any videos posted here. If there were any interesting facts in the video, they could be summarized. You've watched it, what does it say? Wasting 15 minutes trying to get at something that could be read as text in 30 seconds isn't efficient.
Exactly, you won't even give it a chance. If I give you a summary, would you then believe me, a stranger on the internet? Of course not. I try and look at and search for data from all sides. If you have any good videos to share, please share I would like to check them out.
15 minutes is a lot. I've spent less time than that, for instance, reading the article you linked to and debunking your claims about it.
If you can't even devote 15 minutes to a video, I don't see how you can have an open mind and be open to other points of view.
Yeah... but nobody thinks the Flu vaccine might kill them or make their dick fall off or includes a microchip or whatever the latest conspiracy is. Flu vaccines are boring.
I have a feeling the people that have died from it, aren't reporting the deaths because it's a fun conspiracy. There have been 4,763 reported deaths , or 31% of all vaccine reported deaths (next highest is 1,366). There have been 26,500 reported serious adverse reactions, or 22% of all reported serious adverse reactions (the next highest is less than 8k). This is out of all of the vaccines given since 1990, or about 10 billion. You don't think it's an alarming trend? They ended the swine flu vaccine in the 70's when they reached 25 deaths.
I wasn't suggesting that people might be filing false reports, although I wouldn't put it past some of the anti-vaxxers, now that you mention it.
What I meant was that it's just a complaint department. It's not a scientific study of side effects.
I'm sure it has happened some, but since it's still optional, I have a feeling most that have gotten the vaccine are in favor of it. Vaers is the only standard we have of measuring vaccine safety (after trials). What alternative do you suggest?
And yet 1 out of 550 people in the USA are already dead from Covid. So obviously your numbers aren't accurately representing the risk.
The vaccine companies state the absolute risk reduction is roughly 1%. Statistically, it would take 100 people to stop 1 covid case. With a 1% mortality rate, then 100 cases would need to be stopped to reduce 1 death. Like the case growth models, there are obviously limitations...like the fact that the risk is highly dependent on age and health. This also depends on the case rate and growth in certain areas, Oregon for instance would be lower. These numbers are from the vaccine trials, with controlled studies. 15k vaccines, reduced covid cases from 185 in the placebo group, down to 11 in vaccine group. A reduction of 174 out of 15k vaccines, is minor. However, 17% of people that had both shots, experienced Grade 3 Systemic reactions. 77% had at least a Grade 1 or higher systemic reaction.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
That paragraph as written doesn't make sense, maybe you can clarify? There weren't 'breakthrough' cases at the beginning, since there were no vaccines, so there was no reason to have a standard for what counts as a breakthrough case back then. If you are suggesting that only hospitalizations and deaths should have ever been counted, fine, then just ignore the other data - we do have the hospitalization and death data separately.
Sorry, that was pretty garbled. I'm saying, if they're going to use case numbers, they should be set to the same standard for normal cases compared to breakthrough cases. Think about it, if the PCR tests can give a false positive at a higher rate with more cycles, then who's to say how many of the covid deaths were actually infected with covid.
The risk is far larger than you believe it to be.
You might be missing my point. I think older and at risk people should get it. You mentioned the total number of deaths of 550k. Do you know how many under the age of 50 have died? It's only 26k. That demographic represents over 2/3rds of our population. About 1 in 9k under age of 50 have died with covid.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
barfo
Bravo
