No no no, you're not supposed to admit you miscalculated. You're supposed to say "the science changed." You'll never coerce anyone into vaccination like this.
I've never been against vaccines for everyone and this chapter of Gato's brilliant body of work seems to show that they play a legitimate role for those in certain risks categories. But they are only that--a tool, one tool out of many. They are a treatment nothing more or less and they may carry downsides just as other treatments do.
Mr. Happy was just now on the idiot box nattering about he was determined to "protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated." Has he seen the case data breakdown Gato reviews above? Does he know what a "vaccine" is (and i realize the CDC just conveniently changed its definition but still...)? Does he understand the rank absurdity of even uttering the oxymoron that vaccinated people need to be "protected" after they've been shot up?
I continue to be stunned at the level of public discourse; I'm honestly aghast and morbidly disturbed by it. We have to do better and we can do better.
"there is just no way that 80% of ER and hospital overnights in the UK are vaccinated and that it’s 1% in the US. and the UK is clearly better and more honest data.
i caution against accepting US data on vaccinated hospitalizations etc at anything like face value as pretty much no place else looks like that. it does not pass the smell test."
with a virus with 99.7% survival rate, where it's established that at best the vaccines are just barely better over not taking them at all, I'm just not sure there's any way to show that they are great. It seems like at best, they're sort of good for certain segments of the population. But when political liars are obsessed with bombarding me with messages of 'get jabbed! get jabbed!!', I'm sort of naturally like, 'no thanks!'. And there has been a concerted effort to hide all news of the people damaged or killed by the vaccines, which has also influenced me.
Thank you for correcting your analysis. It seems that this supports modified use of the "vaccine." Since widespread use increases transmission of the virus, but moderate protection against death is afforded the "vaccinated" perhaps use only in vulnerable populations is an interim solution. Until a sterilizing vaccine is developed, it is crazy to push this on the entire population.
Something the other side has never done - admitted a mistake (and then corrected it). I question whether vaxed are less likely to visit ER for psychological reasons. They believe they are safe and so don't rush to ER for sniffles/headache.
So if I am understanding you correctly the vaccines are giving lower ER, hospitalization and death but it is fairly minimal. Is there anyway to compare this to side effects that are occurring. Because with those low numbers of benefit if what is being reported on VAERS is accurate there would be essentially no benefit over risk, and this is without knowing any long-term issues we may see such as auto immune disorders from the vaccine. Also Alex Berenson is seeing some odd excess death thing occurring in the UK. He states that it’s not Covid but more cardiovascular related. Would definitely be good to know if this is vaccine related.
While I really applaud the fact that PHE is releasing this data, a lot more transparency is needed.
We all know that C19 deaths are much more stratified than <50 & >50. So it would be good to have age of cases, age of death & incoming general health status for all. Without that transparency, errors of interpretation are very likely. And I’m still puzzled why this data is not released as a matter of course.
Sorry to say, I think PHE may be aiming to simultaneously be transparent and at the same time paint the most positive picture possible of vaxing.
And as some commenters have pointed out, the crucial element of adverse events is left untouched.
Basically, to know true real-life end-of-the-day vax efficacy, we need all-cause deaths & hospitalizations by age band of vaxed vs unvaxed. Not C19 deaths only. All-cause.
For my part, I doubt that vaxes for the old will help much overall. Like a colonoscopy, which may, and regularly does, harm or kill the elderly patient. It may also reduce the patient’s chances of colon cancer. But its chances of prolonging the person’s life are very, very slight. This is common knowledge: too many other competing causes of death.
Thank you for the excellent analysis (and honesty) as always. Do you (or does anyone in here) have any relevant data/studies related to the efficacy of vaccines when it comes to pregnant women? My wife is pregnant and even though she has already had COVID her ONGYN is recommending she get the moderna vaccine. I personally think this is a completely unnecessary risk to take and through my aggregate study of everything surrounding Covid feel justified in believing this, but I can’t recall the specific sources I’ve looked at that would back up this assertion. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.
Regarding the number of hospitalized vaccinated cases in the USA, I know that here in New York they are not allowed to record you as positive if you say you are vaccinated. I recently visited a hospital for a procedure and a medical tech quipped that yes, COVID was down but there were an awful lot of RSV cases all of a sudden...
If they weren't getting $ from our Government, then the false data would probably stop. Stop the money, stop testing with a bad test, stop mask and other "mandates, and protect those who need it and let's move forward.
Heres a fun project for your next blog. Calculate the number of lives saved by the vaccine for different countries. Take the USA for example, which continues to tout near 100% efficacy against death. If efficacy truly is this high, then all we must do is multiply the covid mortality in the unvaxed group by the total population of the vaxed group to get the number of deaths that would have occurred if there were no vaccine.
Example: There are 35 million people 65+ year olds in the USA. Approximately 90% of them are vaxed. If there are 1000 deaths per day in the unvaxed group, then there would be approximately 9,000 deaths in the vaxed group if there were no vaccine (9:1 ratio of vaxed:unvaxed with 100% efficacy).
Calculating that there would be 10,000 deaths per day in this group would be preposterous as this is more than the number of people who die each day in the USA. It would prove that the raw data presented is extremely confounded and likely manipulated.
No no no, you're not supposed to admit you miscalculated. You're supposed to say "the science changed." You'll never coerce anyone into vaccination like this.
At least you didn't make everyone inject questionable drugs before noticing an error.
I've never been against vaccines for everyone and this chapter of Gato's brilliant body of work seems to show that they play a legitimate role for those in certain risks categories. But they are only that--a tool, one tool out of many. They are a treatment nothing more or less and they may carry downsides just as other treatments do.
Mr. Happy was just now on the idiot box nattering about he was determined to "protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated." Has he seen the case data breakdown Gato reviews above? Does he know what a "vaccine" is (and i realize the CDC just conveniently changed its definition but still...)? Does he understand the rank absurdity of even uttering the oxymoron that vaccinated people need to be "protected" after they've been shot up?
I continue to be stunned at the level of public discourse; I'm honestly aghast and morbidly disturbed by it. We have to do better and we can do better.
"there is just no way that 80% of ER and hospital overnights in the UK are vaccinated and that it’s 1% in the US. and the UK is clearly better and more honest data.
i caution against accepting US data on vaccinated hospitalizations etc at anything like face value as pretty much no place else looks like that. it does not pass the smell test."
with a virus with 99.7% survival rate, where it's established that at best the vaccines are just barely better over not taking them at all, I'm just not sure there's any way to show that they are great. It seems like at best, they're sort of good for certain segments of the population. But when political liars are obsessed with bombarding me with messages of 'get jabbed! get jabbed!!', I'm sort of naturally like, 'no thanks!'. And there has been a concerted effort to hide all news of the people damaged or killed by the vaccines, which has also influenced me.
Thank you for correcting your analysis. It seems that this supports modified use of the "vaccine." Since widespread use increases transmission of the virus, but moderate protection against death is afforded the "vaccinated" perhaps use only in vulnerable populations is an interim solution. Until a sterilizing vaccine is developed, it is crazy to push this on the entire population.
Something the other side has never done - admitted a mistake (and then corrected it). I question whether vaxed are less likely to visit ER for psychological reasons. They believe they are safe and so don't rush to ER for sniffles/headache.
So if I am understanding you correctly the vaccines are giving lower ER, hospitalization and death but it is fairly minimal. Is there anyway to compare this to side effects that are occurring. Because with those low numbers of benefit if what is being reported on VAERS is accurate there would be essentially no benefit over risk, and this is without knowing any long-term issues we may see such as auto immune disorders from the vaccine. Also Alex Berenson is seeing some odd excess death thing occurring in the UK. He states that it’s not Covid but more cardiovascular related. Would definitely be good to know if this is vaccine related.
boosters will increase casualties from the vaxxes. booster will not do what the first two shots failed to!
zero covid is the mobile objective. vaccines do not begin to get there!
zero covid is a tool to destroy individual liberty that aspect of deplorables the media sponsors despise.
i am back on quercetin!
And that's how you do it! 👏
If only someday we'll get this kind of integrity from our ruling masters depends upon who we'll trust to lead us through the dark times ahead.
"In catus veritas"
While I really applaud the fact that PHE is releasing this data, a lot more transparency is needed.
We all know that C19 deaths are much more stratified than <50 & >50. So it would be good to have age of cases, age of death & incoming general health status for all. Without that transparency, errors of interpretation are very likely. And I’m still puzzled why this data is not released as a matter of course.
Sorry to say, I think PHE may be aiming to simultaneously be transparent and at the same time paint the most positive picture possible of vaxing.
And as some commenters have pointed out, the crucial element of adverse events is left untouched.
Basically, to know true real-life end-of-the-day vax efficacy, we need all-cause deaths & hospitalizations by age band of vaxed vs unvaxed. Not C19 deaths only. All-cause.
For my part, I doubt that vaxes for the old will help much overall. Like a colonoscopy, which may, and regularly does, harm or kill the elderly patient. It may also reduce the patient’s chances of colon cancer. But its chances of prolonging the person’s life are very, very slight. This is common knowledge: too many other competing causes of death.
Thank you for the excellent analysis (and honesty) as always. Do you (or does anyone in here) have any relevant data/studies related to the efficacy of vaccines when it comes to pregnant women? My wife is pregnant and even though she has already had COVID her ONGYN is recommending she get the moderna vaccine. I personally think this is a completely unnecessary risk to take and through my aggregate study of everything surrounding Covid feel justified in believing this, but I can’t recall the specific sources I’ve looked at that would back up this assertion. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.
Regarding the number of hospitalized vaccinated cases in the USA, I know that here in New York they are not allowed to record you as positive if you say you are vaccinated. I recently visited a hospital for a procedure and a medical tech quipped that yes, COVID was down but there were an awful lot of RSV cases all of a sudden...
Joe Biden: "What more to do you need to see?"
America: "You acknowledging this data analysis."
If they weren't getting $ from our Government, then the false data would probably stop. Stop the money, stop testing with a bad test, stop mask and other "mandates, and protect those who need it and let's move forward.
Heres a fun project for your next blog. Calculate the number of lives saved by the vaccine for different countries. Take the USA for example, which continues to tout near 100% efficacy against death. If efficacy truly is this high, then all we must do is multiply the covid mortality in the unvaxed group by the total population of the vaxed group to get the number of deaths that would have occurred if there were no vaccine.
Example: There are 35 million people 65+ year olds in the USA. Approximately 90% of them are vaxed. If there are 1000 deaths per day in the unvaxed group, then there would be approximately 9,000 deaths in the vaxed group if there were no vaccine (9:1 ratio of vaxed:unvaxed with 100% efficacy).
Calculating that there would be 10,000 deaths per day in this group would be preposterous as this is more than the number of people who die each day in the USA. It would prove that the raw data presented is extremely confounded and likely manipulated.