This definitely is a problem, gov all around the world are deepening lack of trust issues with this approach. Of course not everybody does that, but several do.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (55 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Meh. Statistics say that 99% of humans don't understand statistics. 
No, seriously. Humans suck at risk. We hear anecdotal stories and don't question stuff, lead by our noses into whatever convenient models of the world we want to believe. Changing that course takes work. It's hard. And we have too many other competing things to think about.
There are freak cases of people getting vaccines that are gonna get people sick and killed. That's a given, because human biology has tons of variations and not everyone is the same. But given the 3 billion shots administered already, you'd be hard-pressed to find better data on any intervention in humans that has been measured to that degree. In all of human history even. And the numbers aren't anywhere there.
You are more likely to be harmed eating potato chips or using Walmart aromatherapy than you are taking one of the vaccines.
Yep. Autopsies are expensive. You want to pay for all that with your taxes? So yeah, it's a but of a coin toss out of the convenience of finance and labor.
Shows you how easy it is to circulate news that triggers people's reptilian brains.
I'm not so sure I see it as a government cover-up though. When you reach majority populations getting the vaccine, people are still going to die as they did before and a lot of them are going to be vaccinated. Doesn't mean I'm going to question whether Covid vaccines had something to do with the dead people at Astroworld, but I am 100% certain someone is already making that claim.
No, seriously. Humans suck at risk. We hear anecdotal stories and don't question stuff, lead by our noses into whatever convenient models of the world we want to believe. Changing that course takes work. It's hard. And we have too many other competing things to think about.
There are freak cases of people getting vaccines that are gonna get people sick and killed. That's a given, because human biology has tons of variations and not everyone is the same. But given the 3 billion shots administered already, you'd be hard-pressed to find better data on any intervention in humans that has been measured to that degree. In all of human history even. And the numbers aren't anywhere there.
You are more likely to be harmed eating potato chips or using Walmart aromatherapy than you are taking one of the vaccines.
Yep. Autopsies are expensive. You want to pay for all that with your taxes? So yeah, it's a but of a coin toss out of the convenience of finance and labor.
Shows you how easy it is to circulate news that triggers people's reptilian brains.
I'm not so sure I see it as a government cover-up though. When you reach majority populations getting the vaccine, people are still going to die as they did before and a lot of them are going to be vaccinated. Doesn't mean I'm going to question whether Covid vaccines had something to do with the dead people at Astroworld, but I am 100% certain someone is already making that claim.
cover-up is too strong of a word, I'd use reluctance to do their job properly. it's impossible to establish the dangers of vaccine correctly if you investigate only a small part of the deaths and then use phrases like "adverse effects have been identified in only so many cases", because that obviously doesn't paint the whole picture. governments should be pushing more for autopsies where it's fine with the deceased to be able to explain this better. but of course this depends on individual countries, perhaps Portugal or wherever you're from is good at it.
But is it their job? Not to give people in elected positions of power a free pass, but just what do we gain by having more time-consuming and expensive autopsies for hundreds of thousands of people to try to separate someone who died with Covid as opposed to died from Covid? Assuming that's easy enough to do in the first place, and my guess it's a contribution of a number of factors that aren't easily to entirely cleave off and segregate.
It's probably more than a rounding error for certain. But whether it's 750,000 Covid deaths in the US vs 400,000, what does that really change?
In a case like that, if someone is using that as the subtext for which to say the government is doing a cover up, then I start to worry more about the accusers than the accused.
As for the safety of the vaccines, that has been studied ad nauseum before even the vaccines were allowed to reach Stage 2 trials. When you hear about Emergency Use Authorization, that's not a reflection of Stage 1 ... safety trials. Stage 2 and 3 are focused on efficacy: first with a smaller sample, and then at scale. And Stage 3 is where EUA standards got relaxed to get something out with less than complete data.
But 3 billion shots later, we are more than there now. If you're going to investigate deaths suddenly now after all that, it should likely be about vaccine unrelated issues at this point. Because you may as well investigate well water, Facebook use, and online food delivery before you re-test the safety of the vaccines at this point.
The one exception is if you suspect that some production failure is at the root of a surge in related deaths (taint, tampering, someone nefariously contaminating supplies, etc.). And if there were such a production failure, it's easy to trace back any grouping of deaths to supply without autopsies required.
It's probably more than a rounding error for certain. But whether it's 750,000 Covid deaths in the US vs 400,000, what does that really change?
In a case like that, if someone is using that as the subtext for which to say the government is doing a cover up, then I start to worry more about the accusers than the accused.
As for the safety of the vaccines, that has been studied ad nauseum before even the vaccines were allowed to reach Stage 2 trials. When you hear about Emergency Use Authorization, that's not a reflection of Stage 1 ... safety trials. Stage 2 and 3 are focused on efficacy: first with a smaller sample, and then at scale. And Stage 3 is where EUA standards got relaxed to get something out with less than complete data.
But 3 billion shots later, we are more than there now. If you're going to investigate deaths suddenly now after all that, it should likely be about vaccine unrelated issues at this point. Because you may as well investigate well water, Facebook use, and online food delivery before you re-test the safety of the vaccines at this point.
The one exception is if you suspect that some production failure is at the root of a surge in related deaths (taint, tampering, someone nefariously contaminating supplies, etc.). And if there were such a production failure, it's easy to trace back any grouping of deaths to supply without autopsies required.
It’s more along the lines of whether there were 750k deaths like stats say or 900k + deaths like excess mortality points at.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
On August 21st when Covid had killed 615,000 according to official stats in the US, excess deaths were at 807,000.
Now, that doesn’t mean Covid killed more, but it does strongly suggest the death numbers aren’t inflated. It makes sense too, Covid is deadly for older people with comordibities, and the US has a lot of those.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
On August 21st when Covid had killed 615,000 according to official stats in the US, excess deaths were at 807,000.
Now, that doesn’t mean Covid killed more, but it does strongly suggest the death numbers aren’t inflated. It makes sense too, Covid is deadly for older people with comordibities, and the US has a lot of those.
But excess mortality is a causal statistical technique that you use when you're clueless about intervention, ...intentional (ethics, difficulty of cohort isolation, etc.) or not (lazy, bad experiment design).
The point of the conversation here isn't about the accuracy of numbers as much as it is how the lack of accuracy implies and signals nefarious control of narratives.
The point of the conversation here isn't about the accuracy of numbers as much as it is how the lack of accuracy implies and signals nefarious control of narratives.
Oh for sure, but the excess mortality spikes coinciding timeline wise and fairly close in the first world numbers-wise, is indicative that Covid numbers (while they may be slightly off) are not wildly off, and are not a basis for the ridiculous belief that Covid is/was some nefarious plot to shutter society, tank economies, and steal all our freedoms by pretending something that will have killed 800k people in two years actually only killed 100-200k (closer to seasonal flu).
What does this have to do with my post?
Honestly though, I hope it’s right. Would be great.
Latest Meta-analysis when removing that fraudulent Egyptian study and other poor quality studies still seems to show little real-world efficacy, but that doesn’t mean it is isn’t effective. More studies would be good to determine how it could be used as an effective treatment and just how effective that would be.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1003006/v1
Honestly though, I hope it’s right. Would be great.
Latest Meta-analysis when removing that fraudulent Egyptian study and other poor quality studies still seems to show little real-world efficacy, but that doesn’t mean it is isn’t effective. More studies would be good to determine how it could be used as an effective treatment and just how effective that would be.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1003006/v1
So much for the Danish gloat-fest two months ago:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/09/europe/denmark-restrictions-europe-covid-intl/index.html
Meanwhile, I’m headed back to the US of A for a couple months starting tomorrow. Will be interesting to see if the overvaccinated and still-voluntarily-mask-wearing Portuguese get hit hard soon as well while I’m gone.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/09/europe/denmark-restrictions-europe-covid-intl/index.html
Meanwhile, I’m headed back to the US of A for a couple months starting tomorrow. Will be interesting to see if the overvaccinated and still-voluntarily-mask-wearing Portuguese get hit hard soon as well while I’m gone.
What does this have to do with my post?
Honestly though, I hope it’s right. Would be great.
Latest Meta-analysis when removing that fraudulent Egyptian study and other poor quality studies still seems to show little real-world efficacy, but that doesn’t mean it is isn’t effective. More studies would be good to determine how it could be used as an effective treatment and just how effective that would be.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1003006/v1
Honestly though, I hope it’s right. Would be great.
Latest Meta-analysis when removing that fraudulent Egyptian study and other poor quality studies still seems to show little real-world efficacy, but that doesn’t mean it is isn’t effective. More studies would be good to determine how it could be used as an effective treatment and just how effective that would be.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1003006/v1
Even if Ivermectin doesn't work - it's inexpensive and very safe, there is absolutely no reason to stop it from controlled medical administration. Reported severe side effects from more than 3 billion doses given to people were around 400-500, compared to hundreds of thousands from drugs like Paracetamol.
Here's another meta analysis that doesn't support your link
https://c19ivermectin.com/
I'm disgusted by big Pharma and Western greedy corporations.
Those authors have nothing to do with big pharmaceutical. In fact, if I recall the timeline correctly, they were part of a more favourable initial meta-analysis until they started sifting through the quality of studies and noticed very poor quality studies, along with outright fraud in a couple.
That link includes some of those low-quality and fraudulent studies. The website address alone says all I need to read about it. C’mon. I don’t even disagree that some studies have shown a degree of efficacy as a treatment option. I want more before I start hearing typical nonsense about it being 90% effective and other such garbage that keeps getting spouted. Hydroxychloroquine had the same claims that all quality studies eventually quashed showing it to be garbage for Covid-19.
Anyways, I’m all for ivermectin being studied further to show it is effective. And I’m all for shitting on Pfizer’s nonsense. But I want quality evidence on both fronts, however hard that is to come by.
That link includes some of those low-quality and fraudulent studies. The website address alone says all I need to read about it. C’mon. I don’t even disagree that some studies have shown a degree of efficacy as a treatment option. I want more before I start hearing typical nonsense about it being 90% effective and other such garbage that keeps getting spouted. Hydroxychloroquine had the same claims that all quality studies eventually quashed showing it to be garbage for Covid-19.
Anyways, I’m all for ivermectin being studied further to show it is effective. And I’m all for shitting on Pfizer’s nonsense. But I want quality evidence on both fronts, however hard that is to come by.
it's too cheap to have the "proper trial", whatever "proper trial" means, because as we can see big pharmaceuticals are doing their own trials for their own drugs and vaccines and this is somehow very legit.
You have too much faith in the corporate west. And the worst is that USA is influencing organisations like WHO, NIHR and EU agencies and are messing up the whole world.
As I said - Ivermectin is proven to be one of the safest drugs and there is no reason not to be administered.
You have too much faith in the corporate west. And the worst is that USA is influencing organisations like WHO, NIHR and EU agencies and are messing up the whole world.
As I said - Ivermectin is proven to be one of the safest drugs and there is no reason not to be administered.
Nah. There are all sorts of massive trials of various cheap drugs as Covid treatments going on over the past two years. You don’t have to make stuff up. Big pharma is shit and corrupt, but that isn’t proof ivermectin works lol
There is zero reason to administer drugs that don’t work and have little evidence they do. You have too much faith in every next big repurposed “wonder drug.” The last one you jumped on the bandwagon turned out to be 100% useless for Covid. We’ll see if the same thing happens with ivermectin or not. I’d rather people be getting treatments that work rather than drugs that “might work” because they’ve become a lightning rod for conspiracy theorists.
Anyways, we aren’t going to agree on this until there’s hard proof it works.
And I’m not going to be excited about Pfizer’s antiviral until there are independent peer-reviewed studies that show it works too.
There is zero reason to administer drugs that don’t work and have little evidence they do. You have too much faith in every next big repurposed “wonder drug.” The last one you jumped on the bandwagon turned out to be 100% useless for Covid. We’ll see if the same thing happens with ivermectin or not. I’d rather people be getting treatments that work rather than drugs that “might work” because they’ve become a lightning rod for conspiracy theorists.
Anyways, we aren’t going to agree on this until there’s hard proof it works.
And I’m not going to be excited about Pfizer’s antiviral until there are independent peer-reviewed studies that show it works too.
Meh. Statistics say that 99% of humans don't understand statistics.
No, seriously. Humans suck at risk. We hear anecdotal stories and don't question stuff, lead by our noses into whatever convenient models of the world we want to believe. Changing that course takes work. It's hard. And we have too many other competing things to think about.
There are freak cases of people getting vaccines that are gonna get people sick and killed. That's a given, because human biology has tons of variations and not everyone is the same. But given the 3 billion shots administered already, you'd be hard-pressed to find better data on any intervention in humans that has been measured to that degree. In all of human history even. And the numbers aren't anywhere there.
You are more likely to be harmed eating potato chips or using Walmart aromatherapy than you are taking one of the vaccines.
.
No, seriously. Humans suck at risk. We hear anecdotal stories and don't question stuff, lead by our noses into whatever convenient models of the world we want to believe. Changing that course takes work. It's hard. And we have too many other competing things to think about.
There are freak cases of people getting vaccines that are gonna get people sick and killed. That's a given, because human biology has tons of variations and not everyone is the same. But given the 3 billion shots administered already, you'd be hard-pressed to find better data on any intervention in humans that has been measured to that degree. In all of human history even. And the numbers aren't anywhere there.
You are more likely to be harmed eating potato chips or using Walmart aromatherapy than you are taking one of the vaccines.
.
- - - Updated - - -
Y'all think it's necessary to mandate vaxx for kids 5-11?
Last edited: