Vaccine

dad looks upon the Australian response as something we should emulate.

Watch the vid.

 
So...long term affects still not known.

We are starting to see some stuff that isn't good.

Remember in this age group, there really isn't any risk. And yet our gov wants to MANDATE the vaxx.

It is irresponsible.


“For patients in Israel’s largest healthcare system, Clalit Health Services, the estimate of myocarditis was 2.13 cases per 100,000 vaccinated persons, reaching as high as 10.69 cases per 100,000 in men and boys ages 16 to 29. A separate study using Israel’s government database, capturing active and passive periods of surveillance for myocarditis, supported the higher risk in young men. In this report, males of all ages had myocarditis occur at 0.64 cases per 100,000 persons after the first dose and 3.83 cases per 100,000 after the second dose — with the incidence increasing to 1.34 and 15.07 per 100,000 after the first and second doses, respectively, for teenage boys ages 16 to 19. Both papers were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.”

Plus: “Compared with historical data from 2017 to 2019, myocarditis was more than five times as likely after mRNA vaccination in the overall population. Compared with people who remained unvaccinated during the study period (from Dec. 20, 2020, to May 31, 2021), fully vaccinated individuals had about double the risk at 30 days after the second dose.”

The funny or sad thing about this is both here and other places we are being told they have studied the vaxxes and they are safe.

That is untrue as it relates to studies on possible long term affects.

We still dont know.

But the above example shows that they are finding out certain vaxxes and certain age groups do not go well together.

What else might we find?

The fact that we don't know if/to what extent there are long terms issues with certain age groups, demographics, etc. all makes the rather strong case that we should not be mandating people to get a vaxx.
 
So I checked back in with FL as you asked. That 7 day moving average of 17 deaths per day that you thought was so great is now at 75 - because FL holds back deaths for the express purpose of duping dumbfucks like you. It turns out that the decrease is neither sudden nor sharp. Too bad your dumbfuck friend is as easily duped as you. The media has already gotten to the bottom of this, which is that FL changed the way it reports Covid deaths so that recent deaths are not reported for weeks, giving the false impression that it's doing well.
7 day average deaths FL .......wait for it......4.
Screenshot 2021-10-12 Florida deaths.png
 
I checked with dad as to the reason why the number was so low.

Turns out everyone went to the bars around the state, and now there are only 100 or so people left in the entire state. Therefore that 4 number is still actually very high and concerning.
Turns out that a bunch of the elderly in FL are being blamed for aging. Apparently mask can stop Corona but not aging.
 
What are the odds that they kill their 45-50 year old parents?

1. One size fits none: Don't frame risk in terms of a generic person.

Specific demographic factors such as race and ethnicity, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities make an enormous difference in determining risk of a bad COVID-19 outcome. But the single most important risk factor, age, is often relegated to a few short lines in too much news coverage. Downplaying the huge decreased risk of mortality in children compared with mortality risk in the elderly is simply not factual reporting.

It can be tempting to frame risk using a generic person who is ageless and has no particular health status—but this makes accurate discussion of risk impossible. As The New York Times reported, in response to the question, “What are the chances somebody with COVID-19 must be hospitalized?” 41% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans surveyed answered that the risk was “over 50%.” Not only did answers differ widely by political affiliation, but a large swath of respondents was not even close to a correct answer.

Part of the misunderstanding on display here is that none of us identify as a generic “somebody.” The correct answer to this question depends greatly on age, and other risk factors, of the individual. The actual risk of COVID-19 hospitalization for a child under 18 who has COVID-19 is less than 0.2% per infection, or less than 1% per diagnosed case by current estimates; but it is 23% for an adult 65 or older, and even higher for those over 65 with comorbidities. Respondents to The New York Times poll entirely missed this distinction.
 
Completely unscientific of course...but if true the death rate is no higher than the rest of the community that's a real indictment on NPIs. Should be studied.

For the record, everyone drinking from the same wine and coming down with coronavirus the same week is a bridge too far for me.

 
Completely unscientific of course...but if true the death rate is no higher than the rest of the community that's a real indictment on NPIs. Should be studied.

For the record, everyone drinking from the same wine and coming down with coronavirus the same week is a bridge too far for me.

Yep a bridge too far for me as well.

That said the rest is interesting. As they just went along with normal life and didn't experience anything like was predicted.
 
Completely unscientific of course...but if true the death rate is no higher than the rest of the community that's a real indictment on NPIs. Should be studied.

For the record, everyone drinking from the same wine and coming down with coronavirus the same week is a bridge too far for me.


Gee, a story built entirely on anecdotes.
 
What are the odds that they kill their 45-50 year old parents?
Vaccinated or Unvaccinated?
Nevertheless, well below 2% and that is IF they catch it, according to Statistics posted by CDC and other health organizations.

Maybe Reddit can help you answer that question. Since that seems to be your key source of data and facts.
 
Sounds a lot like those making our Covid policy…..

Yeah I seem to recall the entire mask policy was built around a "study" of two hairdressers that dad4 liked to throw around here.

I also like how our dear friend completely ignores the part where I say "completely unscientific" and that it should be studied further.
 
Back
Top