I thought that with the lessoning of COVID deaths there would be less disinformation posted.

[TU Curmudgeon]

The "pandemic" is not over for those of us still dealing with the effects of the vax.

The question is "ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, should I not get vaccinated and stand a 1% chance of dying because I caught COVID-19, or should I get vaccinated and stand a 0.00001% chance of dying because of the vaccination?"

I find it striking that for three years we've been asked to accept the numbers without question, that we were not allowed to point out that many of the "Covid deaths" were actually deaths from heart disease or cancer or diabetes or COPD or just plain old age and that they were only called Covid deaths because the people were tested with a woefully inaccurate test post-mortem and came up positive.

Sure you were allowed to "point it out". And that "pointing out" was as valid as "pointing out" that someone who jumped off the 27th floor ledge didn't actually die until their heart stopped beating, so that means that their death was actually caused by "heart failure".

Now, when someone who takes the shot dies or is sickened we are asked to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the vaccine or STFU. Where's the blind acceptance of numbers now?

Maybe you should actually know what is involved in that rather slippery concept "proof".

I also find it striking that for two years we've been accused of being heartless murderers for not taking the vax, yet now that people are dying or being injured from it we hear no apologies.

Did you know that the number of people who are dying from getting vaccinated is lower than the number of people who are dying because they didn't get vaccinated?

My wife was coerced into taking one shot 17 months ago. She was in the ICU within two days and just came back from her 27th trip to a hospital. Fifth hospital, in four counties. She's been seen by over forty doctors. Only two have been willing to acknowledge that since she was fine before she took the shot and has not been fine ever since, there might be a correlation.

Not that I doubt you in the slightest, but would you please tell me what your medical school graduation GPA was?

I'm also struck by the people who think my wife's condition is irrelevant because they took the shot and they feel fine, so obviously the shot is safe. That's kind of like saying Russian roulette is safe because you spun the cylinder, put the gun to your head , pulled the trigger and lived.

See above.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Interesting how it is always the anti-vaxxers that come up with vax induced illnesses.

Not that I don't believe you.... Well, actually I don't.

As of today, COVID-19 has been down to the fifth leading cause of death in the US for 13 days in a row.

​

 

[Fledermaus]

Like I said, when I came here I thought I'd be talking to intelligent people who had a clue.

You are. And they disagree with you.

Instead I get rampant Google-parrotry: "No citation? It must not be true!" What a joke, to require a citation for things which are common knowledge.

In other words. You have no citation for your various claims.

I feel like I've waded into a field of pure idiocy, or onto the set of "Idiocracy."

Your problems have nothing to do with this forum.

Post #64? Your post of a graph unsupported by any evidence? You're not convincing me.

So, you haven't seen the CDC's numbers.


Imagine that.

 

[Fledermaus]

Yer a bit slow, aren't you? They didn't have to be exposed after they died. They only had to test positive. Considering the PCR has been shown (as far back as 2020) to throw an enormous number of false-positives it certainly throws the death-count into question, doesn't it?

What's funny about the second part of your comment is that even though you recognize that fact you believe you are getting an unbiased picture when you Google something. You're feeding your own delusions and thinking you're making a point.

Interesting.... Insulting those who disagree.

Oh, and quatify the "enormous number of false-positives". 5%? 10%?

 

[prodigalson]

Interesting.... Insulting those who disagree.

Oh, and quatify the "enormous number of false-positives". 5%? 10%?

Enough to convince these judges: https://www.theportugalnews.com/new...st-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962

 

[noonereal]

I was clearly wrong.

Did you want to tell us what this thread is about? That is what generally is done in the opening thread.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Enough to convince these judges: https://www.theportugalnews.com/new...st-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962

Yep, the tests don't pass the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard so that means that the tests are totally useless.

Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee it does.

 

[prodigalson]

Yep, the tests don't pass the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard so that means that the tests are totally useless.

Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee it does.

Yes, when setting policy for the whole world it should be driven by a test that's good to a "possibly/maybe." You're a hoot.

Here's another test to weed out the Google-parrots who need citations to believe anything that was all over the news: Do you remember the CDC publicly admitting they'd been using the wrong number of amplifications, throwing doubt on almost all the positive results? You don't? I guess Brian lied to me. He said people over here were pretty sharp.

You know what's weird? They admitted they'd been doing it wrong, yet they didn't adjust the numbers to reflect that, and they apparently didn't change how they were doing it. Yet no one said anything. Imagine living in a world where you'd just been conned for two years, the agency conning you told you they'd been conning you, then continued to con you and you just went along with it. Crazy, eh?

Maybe the CDC should have given "citations!"

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, when setting policy for the whole world it should be driven by a test that's good to a "possibly/maybe." You're a hoot.

If it requires (for example) 95+% proof to pass the "beyond a reasonable doubt basis", does that mean that something that is only 94.999999% proven is totally false?

Your posts would most certainly indicate that that is what you believe.

Here's another test to weed out the Google-parrots who need citations to believe anything that was all over the news:

So says the person who is unable to provide a single, reputable, citation.

Do you remember the CDC publicly admitting they'd been using the wrong number of amplifications,

Yes.

throwing doubt on almost all the positive results?

And that "doubt" was resolved - right?

You don't? I guess Brian lied to me. He said people over here were pretty sharp.

See above

You know what's weird? They admitted they'd been doing it wrong, yet they didn't adjust the numbers to reflect that, and they apparently didn't change how they were doing it. Yet no one said anything.

Obviously you weren't following along after you heard something that you thought sort of resembled something that could potentially be considered sort of similar to what you wanted to hear.

Imagine living in a world where you'd just been conned for two years, the agency conning you told you they'd been conning you, then continued to con you and you just went along with it. Crazy, eh?

Maybe the CDC should have given "citations!"

What I find amazing is that you appear to believe that the United States of America is the only country in the world where there was no "COVID-19 Problem" and that all of the deaths were actually either caused by something else entirely, or simply didn't happen. The word for a condition like that is, I believe, "delusional".

 

[prodigalson]

If it requires (for example) 95+% proof to pass the "beyond a reasonable doubt basis", does that mean that something that is only 94.999999% proven is totally false?

Your posts would most certainly indicate that that is what you believe.

So says the person who is unable to provide a single, reputable, citation.

Yes.

And that "doubt" was resolved - right?

See above

Obviously you weren't following along after you heard something that you thought sort of resembled something that could potentially be considered sort of similar to what you wanted to hear.

What I find amazing is that you appear to believe that the United States of America is the only country in the world where there was no "COVID-19 Problem" and that all of the deaths were actually either caused by something else entirely, or simply didn't happen. The word for a condition like that is, I believe, "delusional".

I came back here to address your (I believe it was your) previous assertion that a person had a 1% chance of dying from Covid, and .0001% (I forget exactly how many zeroes you threw in there but it's irrelevant) chance of being harmed by the vax. You obviously believe your data to be sound (even though it contradicts what can be seen with your own eyes) so I have a simple question for you: Do you believe data can be flawed? If so, what do you think can skew it? And do you always take data at face value, or do you look into how it was collected? Just curious.

 

[brianpatrick]

This will probably be the last time you ask this question of @TU Curmudgeon . You should have read their COVID statistics thread like I told you to first.

 

[prodigalson]

This will probably be the last time you ask this question of @TU Curmudgeon . You should have read their COVID statistics thread like I told you to first.

I figgered I'd just ask.

 

[brianpatrick]

I figgered I'd just ask.

Good way to find out.

 

[snakestretcher]

The "pandemic" is not over for those of us still dealing with the effects of the vax. I find it striking that for three years we've been asked to accept the numbers without question, that we were not allowed to point out that many of the "Covid deaths" were actually deaths from heart disease or cancer or diabetes or COPD or just plain old age and that they were only called Covid deaths because the people were tested with a woefully inaccurate test post-mortem and came up positive.

Now, when someone who takes the shot dies or is sickened we are asked to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was the vaccine or STFU. Where's the blind acceptance of numbers now?

I also find it striking that for two years we've been accused of being heartless murderers for not taking the vax, yet now that people are dying or being injured from it we hear no apologies.

My wife was coerced into taking one shot 17 months ago. She was in the ICU within two days and just came back from her 27th trip to a hospital. Fifth hospital, in four counties. She's been seen by over forty doctors. Only two have been willing to acknowledge that since she was fine before she took the shot and has not been fine ever since, there might be a correlation.

I'm also struck by the people who think my wife's condition is irrelevant because they took the shot and they feel fine, so obviously the shot is safe. That's kind of like saying Russian roulette is safe because you spun the cylinder, put the gun to your head , pulled the trigger and lived.

Since there is currently no readily available test to determine whether a vaccine caused an adverse event, all a doctor can do is speculate. The only tests that might indicate some correlation must be administered within, at most, an hour or two of a reported event. The longer one waits before testing, the less reliable the result will be.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I came back here to address your (I believe it was your) previous assertion that a person had a 1% chance of dying from Covid, and .0001% (I forget exactly how many zeroes you threw in there but it's irrelevant) chance of being harmed by the vax.

If a person contracts COVID-19 in the United States of America they currently have approximately a 1.09% to 1.10% chance of dying from it.

​

More than 672 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 1, 2023. During this time, VAERS received 19,476 preliminary reports of death (0.0029%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

You obviously believe your data to be sound (even though it contradicts what can be seen with your own eyes)

I only know what the reputable sources with checkable data tell me. I really don't rely on wild statements without documentation like some other people do.

so I have a simple question for you: Do you believe data can be flawed?

Certainly data can be flawed. Not only that but perfectly correct conclusions can be drawn from flawed data (mainly because the "flaw" is almost always systematic).

If so, what do you think can skew it?

Well, starting from such outright lies as "Covid will go away in a couple of weeks." the spectrum runs through "I didn't actually bother to check to see if the numbers that I was given were correct." and on through "Damn, why didn't someone tell me that 1,235 x 9,854 = 12,169,690 and not the 21,169,690 that I was using as a constant?"

And do you always take data at face value,

Nope.

or do you look into how it was collected?

Yep.

Just curious.

And I am curious as to whether you automatically reject data that doesn't conform to what you want reality to be.

PS - You do know that countries other than the United States of America have had problems with COVID-19 too, don't you? And you do know that their data pretty much parallels the US data, don't you? So, does that mean that ever other country in the world is a part of the wacko, loony, crazy, left-wing, liberal, socialist, pinko, commies who are a part of the huge, vast, enormous, secret, hidden, covert, conspiratorial plot to steal the 2020 election and deny his legal victory to DONALD JOHN TRUMP whom God guided Americans into choosing as THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA so that THE UNITED! STATES OF AMERICA! could fulfill its God Mandated role as the Saviour of Mankind and who want to impose Sherry Law (with its mandatory same-sex, inter-racial, marriages and forced abortions of all white, male, pre-born, children AND compulsory autism causing vaccinations) on America so that all the Cheerleaders would have to wear Burke Hats and football would be banned because it uses pig skin in the United States of America? You most certainly seem to think so - just curious.

PPS - I hope that you can tell, from the above table, that every other member of the G-8+China group of countries did better at coping with COVID-19 than the US did. Currently the "COVID Burden" (dead people don't really constitute a "burden" on society) for those countries (plus Brazil, India, the ROK, and the DPRK) looks like this

The Japanese data makes no sense at all.​

 

[prodigalson]

Since there is currently no readily available test to determine whether a vaccine caused an adverse event, all a doctor can do is speculate. The only tests that might indicate some correlation must be administered within, at most, an hour or two of a reported event. The longer one waits before testing, the less reliable the result will be.

Considering the unreliability of the PCR test and especially the quick-tests, I'd say the Covid numbers are highly speculative, too.

And here we get back to an earlier point I've made: Why is it that for three years we've been asked to accept the Covid numbers without question but now that people appear to be being injured by the vaccine our concerns are dismissed without absolute proof?

Considering that they still don't know all the ways the vaccine affects people, how long are we supposed to wait before it's acknowledged?

 

[noonereal]

people appear to be being injured by the vaccine our concerns are dismissed without absolute proof?

Because you have zero, nothing, zilch. Its not worthy of discussion. Its alternate fact. FOX NEWS. Complete bullshit.

Why can't you understand science?

 

[prodigalson]

If a person contracts COVID-19 in the United States of America they currently have approximately a 1.09% to 1.10% chance of dying from it.

View attachment 67444162​

More than 672 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 1, 2023. During this time, VAERS received 19,476 preliminary reports of death (0.0029%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

I only know what the reputable sources with checkable data tell me. I really don't rely on wild statements without documentation like some other people do.

Certainly data can be flawed. Not only that but perfectly correct conclusions can be drawn from flawed data (mainly because the "flaw" is almost always systematic).

Well, starting from such outright lies as "Covid will go away in a couple of weeks." the spectrum runs through "I didn't actually bother to check to see if the numbers that I was given were correct." and on through "Damn, why didn't someone tell me that 1,235 x 9,854 = 12,169,690 and not the 21,169,690 that I was using as a constant?"

Nope.

Yep.

And I am curious as to whether you automatically reject data that doesn't conform to what you want reality to be.

PS - You do know that countries other than the United States of America have had problems with COVID-19 too, don't you? And you do know that their data pretty much parallels the US data, don't you? So, does that mean that ever other country in the world is a part of the wacko, loony, crazy, left-wing, liberal, socialist, pinko, commies who are a part of the huge, vast, enormous, secret, hidden, covert, conspiratorial plot to steal the 2020 election and deny his legal victory to DONALD JOHN TRUMP whom God guided Americans into choosing as THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA so that THE UNITED! STATES OF AMERICA! could fulfill its God Mandated role as the Saviour of Mankind and who want to impose Sherry Law (with its mandatory same-sex, inter-racial, marriages and forced abortions of all white, male, pre-born, children AND compulsory autism causing vaccinations) on America so that all the Cheerleaders would have to wear Burke Hats and football would be banned because it uses pig skin in the United States of America? You most certainly seem to think so - just curious.

PPS - I hope that you can tell, from the above table, that every other member of the G-8+China group of countries did better at coping with COVID-19 than the US did. Currently the "COVID Burden" (dead people don't really constitute a "burden" on society) for those countries (plus Brazil, India, the ROK, and the DPRK) looks like this

View attachment 67444169
The Japanese data makes no sense at all.​

I started reading your comment but when you veered off into an insane anti-Trump rant I lost interest. The conversation had nothing to do with Trump.

I will respond to this, though:

I only know what the reputable sources with checkable data tell me.

What steps have you taken to check the data, other than perusing the same sources which gave you the data in the first place?

 

[prodigalson]

Because you have zero, nothing, zilch. Its not worthy of discussion. Its alternate fact. FOX NEWS. Complete bullshit.

Why can't you understand science?

Science is a search for answers. When you believe you have them all you have lost your understanding of science.

 

[stealthycat]

factoid of the day 1,127,104

that's right ... 1 million, 127 thousands, 104 dead of covid ....

about 400,000 under Trump

that's 727,000 under Biden

 

[noonereal]

Science is a search for answers. When you believe you have them all you have lost your understanding of science.

Science is not the pursuit of political agenda as MAGA is demanding.

 

[prodigalson]

Science is not the pursuit of political agenda as MAGA is demanding.

Here once again we see a veering from the discussion into a political rant.

 

[prodigalson]

factoid of the day 1,127,104

that's right ... 1 million, 127 thousands, 104 dead of covid ....

about 400,000 under Trump

that's 727,000 under Biden

How many of those deaths were actually proven to be from Covid and how many were not?

 

[prodigalson]

And that "doubt" was resolved - right?

How was the doubt resolved? I don't recall the numbers being changed to reflect the faulty data, and I don't recall the case numbers dropping afterward, leading me to believe the methodology remained the same. So what was resolved?

 

[mike2810]

I started reading your comment but when you veered off into an insane anti-Trump rant I lost interest. The conversation had nothing to do with Trump.

I will respond to this, though:

Nothing to do with Trump. really? What was President Trump claims about the development of the vaccine and Operation Warp Speed?
Are you saying President Trump and his Administration had nothing to do with the development and distribution of the Covid vaccine?

What steps have you taken to check the data, other than perusing the same sources which gave you the data in the first place?

What steps have you taken to question the data presented?