Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Discussion on the "Vaccine"


oldiesman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let's not forget cancer and heart disease is what's going to kill most us.  Not Covid.

 

The delivery system for the vaccine I asked about earlier . . . these were talked about years ago in cancer treatment.  Get the right drug to the right cell.  That is huge and f'ng fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Allan said:

Is this the same NIH btw that has finally admitted they WERE funding 'gain of function' at Wuhan ?? Also, virtually NO cases of healthy kids under 16 dying or even getting seriously ill from Covid

Both these statements are false.

 

Also, statisticians use something called "increase in mortality" rates to gauge deaths. In other words, if, for example, your town typically experiences 10,000 deaths per year and suddenly experiences 13,000 deaths per year, they start to look at reasons for the increase. This is how they were able to come up with estimates of the death toll for the 1918 flu deaths. This takes time, so we won't know for quite some time what the real death toll has been. There are other methods they use, as well, but it's not as straightforward as it might seem.

Edited by waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, waysider said:

Both these statements are false.

 

Also, statisticians use something called "increase in mortality" rates to gauge deaths. In other words, if, for example, your town typically experiences 10,000 deaths per year and suddenly experiences 13,000 deaths per year, they start to look at reason for the increase. This is how they were able to come up with estimates of the death toll for the 1918 flu deaths. This takes time, so we won't know for quite some time what the real death toll has been. There are other methods they use, as well, but it's not as straightforward as it might seem.

Decline in birthrates happened too.  Lives that never were that may have been.  Who's gonna pay social security NOW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Who's gonna pay social security NOW?

Okay, now you have my attention. (I'm an old guy, ya know?)

 

But on a serious note, last year, Ohio had more deaths than births. (143,661 vs. 129,313) This year is on a similar track. (107,462 vs. 100,781 so far) Ohio isn't the only place this is happening. In fact, only 5 states show a birth rate that exceeds the death rate.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20211026/ohio-more-deaths-than-births

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, waysider said:

Okay, now you have my attention. (I'm an old guy, ya know?)

 

But on a serious note, last year, Ohio had more deaths than births. (143,661 vs. 129,313) This year is on a similar track. (107,462 vs. 100,781 so far) Ohio isn't the only place this is happening. In fact, only 5 states show a birth rate that exceeds the death rate.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20211026/ohio-more-deaths-than-births

 

Migration is also an issue.

Illegal immigrant?  Free citizenship with a vaccination!

Tax deductions for the vaxxed maybe?  

Stimulus checks could have been used to encourage those on the fence about vaccinations . . . no vaccine . . . no stimulus . . . you don't have to if you don't want too . . . just sayin'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Allan said:

Key word being 'encourage'....not 'mandate' right ?

Governments and institutions have the right and moral obligation to mandate the vaccine, just as they do with dozens of other vaccines from smallpox and measles to chickenpox and mumps.

The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear more than a century ago that the public interest in mandating vaccines outweighs the individual interest in clinging to misinformation to spread disease.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, waysider said:

Both these statements are false.

 

Also, statisticians use something called "increase in mortality" rates to gauge deaths. In other words, if, for example, your town typically experiences 10,000 deaths per year and suddenly experiences 13,000 deaths per year, they start to look at reasons for the increase. This is how they were able to come up with estimates of the death toll for the 1918 flu deaths. This takes time, so we won't know for quite some time what the real death toll has been. There are other methods they use, as well, but it's not as straightforward as it might seem.

In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan | Vanity Fair

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, waysider said:

Both these statements are false.

 

Also, statisticians use something called "increase in mortality" rates to gauge deaths. In other words, if, for example, your town typically experiences 10,000 deaths per year and suddenly experiences 13,000 deaths per year, they start to look at reasons for the increase. This is how they were able to come up with estimates of the death toll for the 1918 flu deaths. This takes time, so we won't know for quite some time what the real death toll has been. There are other methods they use, as well, but it's not as straightforward as it might seem.

• Australia: number of COVID-19 deaths by age and gender 2021 | Statista

so here are two reports showing that what I have said IS fact. What may I ask did you base your reply to me on ? Or was it the general 'knee jerk reaction' of those who have succumbed to mainstream media madness ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, modcat5 said:

Political posts will be deleted without warning and without apology.

That goes for posts quoting and/or replying to political posts.

What I posted showed statistics about the number of vaccinations numerous countries in southeast Asia and that it appears to transcend politics.  Don't think I even mentioned politics.  The point being the "anti-vaxxers" can't seem to explain why they are antivaxxers.

The source material remains in the thread by the quoted poster though . . . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought as well as arguing the current pandemic, we might discuss the new style of vaccines, which clearly have a useful role in the future.  While nobody wanted a pandemic to "guinea pig" the planet with this technology, it does seem that the mRNA type has been very effective and one can only hope that it will go on to be equally effective with other diseases, for which it is also being tried and tested.  Cancer, for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

What I posted showed statistics about the number of vaccinations numerous countries in southeast Asia and that it appears to transcend politics.  Don't think I even mentioned politics.  The point being the "anti-vaxxers" can't seem to explain why they are antivaxxers.

The source material remains in the thread by the quoted poster though . . . 

 

That... that's what I said. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, modcat5 said:

Research that had nothing to do with the development of COVID or its spread.
 

STOP USING GSC TO SPREAD COVID MISINFORMATION: First and last warning.

I was replying to Waysiders post that what I posted was FALSE...I refuted that with FACTUAL ARTICLES...so you're saying those articles and statistics are WRONG ?...You're labelling it FALSE INFORMATION ? Well I guess you know more than the Vanity Fair journalist and the Australian Bureau of Statistics ! Or are you as moderator now determining what is true/false, correct/incorrect ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan:
"  Also, virtually NO cases of healthy kids under 16 dying or even getting seriously ill from Covid." 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1245896/australia-number-of-coronavirus-deaths-by-age-group-and-gender/

Allan:
"So here are two reports showing that what I have said IS fact. What may I ask did you base your reply to me on ? Or was it the general 'knee jerk reaction' of those who have succumbed to mainstream media madness ?" 

WordWolf replies:
In the first link, nothing had anything to do with COVID whatsoever, and you got a warning about that. 

In the second link, the chart CLEARLY says it's charting the number of DEATHS.  Absolutely nothing supported your claim that no healthy kids under 16 were "EVEN GETTING SERIOUSLY ILL."  So, you have no reports showing what you said was "fact".  If you'd read your own links and understood them, you'd have known that. I can't tell if you just linked and didn't even read them, or if someone claimed they did that and you just believed their claim and went on to condemn "knee jerk reactions"  with no sense of hypocrisy.  

Now, the claim that no healthy kids died of COVID, if true, should not be a shocker.  We all knew they were the lowest-risk group in general, and I told my kid the worst thing that COULD happen to him, if he caught it, would probably be him getting very sick and then recovering.  (This meant his bigger concern was catching COVID and passing it to a grandparent.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Allan said:

I was replying to Waysiders post that what I posted was FALSE...I refuted that with FACTUAL ARTICLES...so you're saying those articles and statistics are WRONG ?...You're labelling it FALSE INFORMATION ? Well I guess you know more than the Vanity Fair journalist and the Australian Bureau of Statistics ! Or are you as moderator now determining what is true/false, correct/incorrect ?

The articles may have had "facts", but those "facts" neither addressed your claims nor supported them.  Nobody claimed the "statistics"  were wrong.  You seem not to have understood what they meant.   This wasn't " false information", just " poor reading comprehension."   Rather than labeling the moderators, you might actually read the articles you linked.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, modcat5 said:

Research that had nothing to do with the development of COVID or its spread.
 

STOP USING GSC TO SPREAD COVID MISINFORMATION: First and last warning.

Gain of function had nothing to do with covid ?? Your comment beggars belief...go ahead ban me, you obviously don't like someone pushing back...as for WW (unless you're both and the same) semantics.....under 16's dying from covid versus seriously ill....I can post plenty of reports showing HEALTHY teenagers in 99.999% of cases are asymptomatic or mildly affected at worst...so go ahead ban me, it'll just prove my point about 'fair speech and dialogue' on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeking agency . . . Looking for someone behind the curtain . . . Are often  what's behind belief in a conspiracy theory.  . . . It gives a (false) feeling of control or understanding.  . . . Often in response to anxiety . . . Which the vaccine will hopefully help alleviate in time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan:

"as for WW (unless you're both and the same) semantics.....under 16's dying from covid versus seriously ill....I can post plenty of reports showing HEALTHY teenagers in 99.999% of cases are asymptomatic or mildly affected at worst..."

WordWolf replies:

You said the link you posted said that the number of teenagers who died OR GOT SERIOUSLY ILL was zero.  The link had a chart specifically marking DEATHS and NO information on the number of ill, neither SERIOUSLY nor MILDLY.   Then you insulted Waysider for allegedly disputing that site's data, which allegedly included stats on sick as well as dead.  According to you, you ALREADY posted a link saying healthy teenagers had not gotten SERIOUSLY ill in Australia.  I can read and understand your posts.  I can read and understand your linked material.   I don't think that appears true of everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, then.  Does Covid pose any significant risk to the average teenager?

The UK concluded it was.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/teenagers-sick-covid-vaccines-extension-b1900646.html

"Officials extended the UK’s vaccine programme to children aged 16 and 17 after a number of teenagers fell “seriously ill” with Covid, it has emerged."

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/older-teenagers-seriously-ill-covid-21281028

"The number of 16 and 17-year-olds becoming “seriously ill” with coronavirus informed the extension of the vaccination rollout to that age group, a member of the committee advising on jabs said.

Professor Adam Finn, who sits on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and is a professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol, said there had been “a couple” of 17-year-olds in that area who needed intensive care in hospital in recent weeks."

"He added: “Most young people who get this virus get it mildly or even without any symptoms at all.

“But we are seeing cases in hospital even into this age group – we’ve had a couple of 17-year-olds here in Bristol admitted and needing intensive care over the course of the last four to six weeks – and so we are beginning to see a small number of serious cases."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/health/coronavirus-teenagers-hospitalizations.html

"Teens Are Rarely Hospitalized With Covid, but Cases Can Be Severe

Adolescents were hospitalized with Covid three times as often as with flu, researchers reported. Nearly one-third wound up in I.C.U.s."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/covid-19-poses-severe-risk-unvaccinated-teens-cdc/story?id=78084484
"
While most coronavirus hospitalizations occur in adults, the coronavirus still poses the threat of severe disease to teens, according to a new study issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nearly a third of teens ages 12-17 hospitalized with COVID-19 ended up in the intensive care unit, with 5% ultimately being placed on ventilators."

 

"Most of the teens who were hospitalized with COVID-19, approximately 70%, had at least one underlying medical condition, while 30% of teens with no underlying medical conditions were still hospitalized. "

 

What's the SENSIBLE takeaway from all this?

Kids are still in the smallest risk category.  SMALLEST RISK is not synonymous with "NOT AT RISK." Kids with some pre-existing condition were particularly in danger, but those with NO pre-existing condition could easily end up in an ICU, and even requiring use of a VENTILATOR.   Are they dying?  The odds are greatly against them dying- mainly because there's diligence in getting them on respirators in the worst cases. If not, they would be at serious risk of dying.  Just going around with no plans to vaccinate them is a gamble, and refusing to get them medical attention if they showed symptoms would run the risk of them not getting a respirator when needed- which would be the end of them.  Again, nobody has claimed the kids are not the smallest risk category.  However,  simply ignoring that there is still A risk is dangerous.  All the medical authorities in different countries are agreeing that vaccinating the kids greatly reduces the risk of them getting sick enough to need a ventilator.

 

That having been said, it's still possible to ignore all the medical experts, it's still possible to ignore all the disease experts, it's still possible to ignore all the infection experts.  It's plainly obvious when someone is doing that, however. Personally, I find it interesting that the few TV news personalities in the US who ever claim there's any gray area here were all among the first people to run and get their vaccinations.  Anyone on TV news as a staffer has gotten at least 2 shots, including anyone who gives lip service to the idea that the vaccinations are useless/harmful/whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...