|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 15, 2021 9:33:22 GMT -6
It's also worth mentioning that Bill lives in California. Right or wrong, California has had some of the more strict guidelines during the pandemic, so it stands to reason that numbers would be lower there than in, say, Mississippi. To be fair, both sides do it, but methods of prevention, in all of there various contexts, always get "Monday morning quarterbacked" in this way. Actually, just for accuracy, I don't live in CA. (anymore. Grew up and had the bulk of my career there until 7 years ago.....). I think the percentages of 1+ shot vaccinated folks are a little less than 50%. Not sure how that is comparing to CA or MS. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 9:48:33 GMT -6
It's also worth mentioning that Bill lives in California. Right or wrong, California has had some of the more strict guidelines during the pandemic, so it stands to reason that numbers would be lower there than in, say, Mississippi. To be fair, both sides do it, but methods of prevention, in all of there various contexts, always get "Monday morning quarterbacked" in this way. Actually, just for accuracy, I don't live in CA. (anymore. Grew up and had the bulk of my career there until 7 years ago.....). I think the percentages of 1+ shot vaccinated folks are a little less than 50%. Not sure how that is comparing to CA or MS. Oh. My bad. I thought you still lived in CA. Where'd you end up? I know you said you weren't moving to Austin.  |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 15, 2021 9:59:22 GMT -6
Actually, just for accuracy, I don't live in CA. (anymore. Grew up and had the bulk of my career there until 7 years ago.....). I think the percentages of 1+ shot vaccinated folks are a little less than 50%. Not sure how that is comparing to CA or MS. Oh. My bad. I thought you still lived in CA. Where'd you end up? I know you said you weren't moving to Austin. haha! Austin would have been cool, but I wanted to be where I could get back to LA fairly easily. Ironically, I almost never go back now. I ended up in NorAZ. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 10:06:52 GMT -6
I'm not suggesting that you did it intentionally, but this is an excellent example of how 'data' can be used to spread a false narrative. To start, you're using VAERS. VAERS is not 'cdc data' in the way you are suggesting. VAERS is basically an answering machine. Anyone can call and leave a message. VAERS makes it explicitly clear that the reports are unverified, that they shouldn't be used to infer causality, and that the data shouldn't be used in the way you are using it. You have to click a button that says you understand these things before you access the data. Then, you're comparing that to a single county with a relatively low death rate. Run the numbers for Maricopa county and you get .25%. Run the numbers for Essex County, NJ and you get .38%. Run the numbers for your age range in each place and the percentage will be even higher. Even if your numbers presented an accurate picture, which they don't, there are two other obvious issues. First, you're selecting deaths during a period when there has been a massive effort to prevent deaths. Kinda like saying 'pregnancies (while using birth control) are really low, so why is everyone using birth control?' Also, if you stop vaccination today there will be no more reports of death after the vaccine but the covid deaths will continue to climb forever. To your point about the relative danger, you're absolutely correct that you are more likely to die of something else. Almost none of those things are contagious. Of course you're free to run whatever numbers you want but if you are interested in a more thorough and accurate picture, you may want to run them again. *Yikes. I didn't even check the initial calculation to make sure it was correct. Taking that into account the picture changes even more dramatically. Bill is no dummy and I don't fault him for making mistakes when trying to work this out for himself. But I do fault politicians and media figures who come to the same incorrect conclusion and then spread it everywhere, along with the message that 'Joe is coming for you and your family!' They know better and they do it anyway. Just a FYI - I did the numbers for my county myself. The text and numbers from the CDC and the VAERS numbers I copied from an article quoting a CDC released document. I'll see if I can find it again. I never checked their math. Figured it was good. LOL So difficult to really calculate this stuff, but it should probably also have been noted that the CDC numbers were shots divided into VAERS reported deaths. I'm sure a bunch of those people had had both shots. So the numbers change - for the larger. I'm not going to try to attempt that though. LOL My takeaway is that the death rate for either is very small, and perhaps, maybe....what's going on in places like AU is going too far. We're all going to die of something. Personally, I'd prefer it to be on a motorcycle vs. Covid, but we never really get to choose do we?  I'd love to see the article you pulled this from, if you can find it. I'd be very surprised if the CDC was publishing a risk calculation based on VAERS reports. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 15, 2021 10:54:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 11:09:44 GMT -6
Thanks! I see...you just compared two numbers which were different expressions of percentages. Totally understandable mistake. I'm still curious as to why people use VAERS data in this way. Even the article you linked makes it clear that the reports should not be interpreted like this. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 11:18:16 GMT -6
VAERS keeps coming up because it's all anyone has access to. There's no other source to pull vaccine adverse events from. So, for all it's potential short comings it's all we've got unfortunately. I think it's important to remember any time vaers comes up that it is a felony to file a false report. So, yes there will be some inaccurate reports but you'd think with the potential criminal threat that those inaccurate reports would at least be filed in good faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 15, 2021 11:31:56 GMT -6
About 80% of the article is basically disclaimer. Pick most any paragraph in the article.. Also, the way I read the following quote, every one of these deaths could just as easily fall in the "despite" getting vaccinated category.. It proves absolutely nothing about causality. I wouldn't be surprised if the stat presented in the last quote wasn't even calculated using VAERS data. Basically the system is good for identifying cases, and that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 11:41:13 GMT -6
VAERS keeps coming up because it's all anyone has access to. There's no other source to pull vaccine adverse events from. So, for all it's potential short comings it's all we've got unfortunately. I think it's important to remember any time vaers comes up that it is a felony to file a false report. So, yes there will be some inaccurate reports but you'd think with the potential criminal threat that those inaccurate reports would at least be filed in good faith. The thing is, if something is inconclusive (VAERS in this case), you don't then get to say, "it's all we have" and draw conclusions from it anyway. Sometimes you just don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 12:05:45 GMT -6
VAERS keeps coming up because it's all anyone has access to. There's no other source to pull vaccine adverse events from. So, for all it's potential short comings it's all we've got unfortunately. I think it's important to remember any time vaers comes up that it is a felony to file a false report. So, yes there will be some inaccurate reports but you'd think with the potential criminal threat that those inaccurate reports would at least be filed in good faith. I'm not suggesting the reports are false. I'm saying they aren't meant to be used this way, and drawing this conclusion is leading people in the wrong direction. Anyway, using Bill's county as a baseline, what do the numbers look like if we take VAERS at face value? A step further, what if we halve the number of doses, assuming most people got two? 607 / 241753 = .0025 (rounded down) 6207 / 169000000 = .000037 (rounded up) So when you see politicians and media figures making the claim that vaccine and covid risk is similar, please understand that they are either uninformed or intentionally misleading you. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Sept 15, 2021 12:06:27 GMT -6
VAERS keeps coming up because it's all anyone has access to. There's no other source to pull vaccine adverse events from. So, for all it's potential short comings it's all we've got unfortunately. I think it's important to remember any time vaers comes up that it is a felony to file a false report. So, yes there will be some inaccurate reports but you'd think with the potential criminal threat that those inaccurate reports would at least be filed in good faith. The thing is, if something is inconclusive (VAERS in this case), you don't then get to say, "it's all we have" and draw conclusions from it anyway. Sometimes you just don't know. Take it one step further: if something is not just inconclusive, but specifically misleading, you don't draw conclusions from it!! |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 12:15:50 GMT -6
VAERS keeps coming up because it's all anyone has access to. There's no other source to pull vaccine adverse events from. So, for all it's potential short comings it's all we've got unfortunately. I think it's important to remember any time vaers comes up that it is a felony to file a false report. So, yes there will be some inaccurate reports but you'd think with the potential criminal threat that those inaccurate reports would at least be filed in good faith. The thing is, if something is inconclusive (VAERS in this case), you don't then get to say, "it's all we have" and draw conclusions from it anyway. Sometimes you just don't know. My comment was only about why vaers keeps coming up. I didn't draw any conclusions that I'm aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 12:38:16 GMT -6
The thing is, if something is inconclusive (VAERS in this case), you don't then get to say, "it's all we have" and draw conclusions from it anyway. Sometimes you just don't know. My comment was only about why vaers keeps coming up. I didn't draw any conclusions that I'm aware of. That's gaslighting. Your previous statement is still defending the use of VAERS as a source of info for arguments made against the vaccine's safety. The fact remains that VAERS continues to be inappropriately used when it has been pointed out, ad nauseum, in this thread and elsewhere, that VAERS represents all post vaccination deaths, regardless of how many of those deaths have anything to do with the vaccine at all. VAERS was not meant for that purpose and it's disingenuous to continue to try use it in that way to support an agenda. So unless something major has recently changed with the way VAERS is structured, the "the vaccine is less safe than catching Covid" argument is getting pretty tired. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 13:01:20 GMT -6
My comment was only about why vaers keeps coming up. I didn't draw any conclusions that I'm aware of. That's gaslighting. Your previous statement is still defending the use of VAERS as a source of info for arguments made against the vaccine's safety. The fact remains that VAERS continues to be inappropriately used when it has been pointed out, ad nauseum, in this thread and elsewhere, that VAERS represents all post vaccination deaths, regardless of how many of those deaths have anything to do with the vaccine at all. VAERS was not meant for that purpose and it's disingenuous to continue to try use it in that way to support an agenda. So unless something major has recently changed with the way VAERS is structured, the "the vaccine is less safe than catching Covid" argument is getting pretty tired. I wasn't defending vaers as a source, I understand it has limitations. I was just saying that if someone has concerns about adverse events for whatever reason, that is where they are going to end up in researching it. If you don't like vaers, fine, but it isn't going anywhere is my point. Any time adverse events comes up as a topic it's always going to point to vaers in one way or another. In other words if someone shared a link to a Facebook group where a bunch of people are sharing stories of their vaccine injuries would that go over any better? It would be awesome if we knew how many cases have been researched vs how many they are still looking into. In other words from the article Bill shared, when the adjustment was made from 12,000 deaths down to 6,000 does that mean they investigated all of them and found only half were accurate? Or, have they only properly investigated the 6,000 that they threw out and the remaining 6,000 are yet to be determined? We don't know. I said all that to say...I wouldn't let vaers get under your skin, it just is what it is and it's going to keep coming up. Now as someone pointed out, if a politician is using vaers as proof of confirmed this or that, then yeah, I have a problem with that. They should do better. In the context of our conversation here though I think vaers is interesting enough to be a part of the conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 13:22:02 GMT -6
That's gaslighting. Your previous statement is still defending the use of VAERS as a source of info for arguments made against the vaccine's safety. The fact remains that VAERS continues to be inappropriately used when it has been pointed out, ad nauseum, in this thread and elsewhere, that VAERS represents all post vaccination deaths, regardless of how many of those deaths have anything to do with the vaccine at all. VAERS was not meant for that purpose and it's disingenuous to continue to try use it in that way to support an agenda. So unless something major has recently changed with the way VAERS is structured, the "the vaccine is less safe than catching Covid" argument is getting pretty tired. I wasn't defending vaers as a source, I understand it has limitations. I was just saying that if someone has concerns about adverse events for whatever reason, that is where they are going to end up in researching it. If you don't like vaers, fine, but it isn't going anywhere is my point. Any time adverse events comes up as a topic it's always going to point to vaers in one way or another. In other words if someone shared a link to a Facebook group where a bunch of people are sharing stories of their vaccine injuries would that go over any better? It would be awesome if we knew how many cases have been researched vs how many they are still looking into. In other words from the article Bill shared, when the adjustment was made from 12,000 deaths down to 6,000 does that mean they investigated all of them and found only half were accurate? Or, have they only properly investigated the 6,000 that they threw out and the remaining 6,000 are yet to be determined? We don't know. I said all that to say...I wouldn't let vaers get under your skin, it just is what it is and it's going to keep coming up. Now as someone pointed out, if a politician is using vaers as proof of confirmed this or that, then yeah, I have a problem with that. They should do better. In the context of our conversation here though I think vaers is interesting enough to be a part of the conversation. Correct. You don't know. Neither does anyone else in the general public. So stop helping to stoke fear by posting videos and links from conspiracy theorists who claim that VAERS is proof that the vaccine is killing people. By continuing to post that sort of stuff, you ARE defending the use of VAERS as a source, contrary to what you claim. People are going to VAERS because they've been misled by the Weinstein's of the world into believing that any sort of actual conclusions can be drawn from the data there. Saying that it's bad if a politician does it but totally fine if you do it, because you're not a politician, abdicates the responsibility that comes (or should come) with the use of free speech. I would not agree with the implication you're making that the spread of misinformation over social media is somehow less dangerous than hearing it come directly from a politician. In a lot of ways, the spread of misinformation over social media is worse, because people convince themselves that the Weinstein's of the world can be trusted in ways that politicians cannot. At the very least, modern politics has shown us that politicians and their base exist in feedback loops like we've never seen. Where do you think some of these crazy ideas come from that you hear certain politicians say? Social media (yes RGO is social media). |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 13:35:17 GMT -6
I wasn't defending vaers as a source, I understand it has limitations. I was just saying that if someone has concerns about adverse events for whatever reason, that is where they are going to end up in researching it. If you don't like vaers, fine, but it isn't going anywhere is my point. Any time adverse events comes up as a topic it's always going to point to vaers in one way or another. In other words if someone shared a link to a Facebook group where a bunch of people are sharing stories of their vaccine injuries would that go over any better? It would be awesome if we knew how many cases have been researched vs how many they are still looking into. In other words from the article Bill shared, when the adjustment was made from 12,000 deaths down to 6,000 does that mean they investigated all of them and found only half were accurate? Or, have they only properly investigated the 6,000 that they threw out and the remaining 6,000 are yet to be determined? We don't know. I said all that to say...I wouldn't let vaers get under your skin, it just is what it is and it's going to keep coming up. Now as someone pointed out, if a politician is using vaers as proof of confirmed this or that, then yeah, I have a problem with that. They should do better. In the context of our conversation here though I think vaers is interesting enough to be a part of the conversation. Correct. You don't know. Neither does anyone else in the general public. So stop helping to stoke fear by posting videos and links from conspiracy theorists who claim that VAERS is proof that the vaccine is killing people. People are going to VAERS because they've been misled by the Weinstein's of the world into believing that any sort of actual conclusions can be drawn from the data there. Saying that it's bad if a politician does it but totally fine if you do it, because you're not a politician, abdicates the responsibility that comes (or should come) with the use of free speech. I would not agree with the implication you're making that the spread of misinformation over social media is somehow less dangerous than hearing it come directly from a politician. In a lot of ways, the spread of misinformation over social media is worse, because people convince themselves that the Weinstein's of the world can be trusted in ways that politicians cannot. At the very least, modern politics has shown us that politicians and their base exist in feedback loops like we've never seen. Where do you think some of these crazy ideas come from that you hear certain politicians say? Social media (yes RGO is social media). Where is the conspiracy theorist video I shared? |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 13:42:26 GMT -6
Correct. You don't know. Neither does anyone else in the general public. So stop helping to stoke fear by posting videos and links from conspiracy theorists who claim that VAERS is proof that the vaccine is killing people. People are going to VAERS because they've been misled by the Weinstein's of the world into believing that any sort of actual conclusions can be drawn from the data there. Saying that it's bad if a politician does it but totally fine if you do it, because you're not a politician, abdicates the responsibility that comes (or should come) with the use of free speech. I would not agree with the implication you're making that the spread of misinformation over social media is somehow less dangerous than hearing it come directly from a politician. In a lot of ways, the spread of misinformation over social media is worse, because people convince themselves that the Weinstein's of the world can be trusted in ways that politicians cannot. At the very least, modern politics has shown us that politicians and their base exist in feedback loops like we've never seen. Where do you think some of these crazy ideas come from that you hear certain politicians say? Social media (yes RGO is social media). Where is the conspiracy theorist video I shared? You can call them whatever you want. That's beside the point. Let's call them supporters of unfounded VAERS claims if that's more to your liking. In any case, this is going nowhere. I'm going to attempt to go back into lurk mode on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 15, 2021 13:53:08 GMT -6
Hey guys, honest question: what’s the point of having VAERs if no conclusions can be drawn from it? Why was it setup then? To what end?
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 13:58:26 GMT -6
Where is the conspiracy theorist video I shared? You can call them whatever you want. That's beside the point. Let's call them supporters of unfounded VAERS claims if that's more to your liking. To me, conspiracy theory is 5G or spoons sticking to people. I have not and will not share any of that. Now, if you're talking about Weinstein in particular, he's an evolutionary biologist and someone that I enjoyed listening to pre-covid. He's a brilliant guy actually and for the record he's a liberal. Thinking back, I shared a conversation with him, Dr. Malone and someone else I can't remember at the moment who was a little off the rails but in the context of those 3 gentlemen having a discussion, I felt they corrected him when needed. Another one was Weinstein and Dr. Pierre Kory. People with a different take than yours on covid for sure but people with the credentials to at least not be reduced to being called a conspiracy theorist I'd think. As far as RGO goes, I don't get the impression that there are young, vulnerable readers here but maybe I'm wrong. That's what I meant by us discussing vaers here isn't carrying the same responsibility as the platform of a politician. Of course on any level no one should intentionally spread false information but I don't see anyone here doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 13:58:59 GMT -6
Hey guys, honest question: what’s the point of having VAERs if no conclusions can be drawn from it? Why was it setup then? To what end? I wouldn't say it's not setup to ultimately provide conclusions. It's just not setup for the unqualified general public to draw conclusions from based on only part of the information. Without the results of the followup investigations, the numbers mean squat. The intent is for the CDC to be able to do followups on reports entered into VAERS. I honestly don't know why the numbers were ever made public. I'm sure it was to try to provide some sort of transparency but, unfortunately, all it has done is get used to stoke fear. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 14:03:24 GMT -6
Hey guys, honest question: what’s the point of having VAERs if no conclusions can be drawn from it? Why was it setup then? To what end? Great question. It did work as it is supposed to in recognizing blood clots and myocarditis didn't it? Those were helpful. On the flip side, if someone looks at vaers and believes the covid vaccines have not caused a single death are they also not drawing a conclusion(also fueled by a certain set of beliefs)? |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 14:03:32 GMT -6
You can call them whatever you want. That's beside the point. Let's call them supporters of unfounded VAERS claims if that's more to your liking. To me, conspiracy theory is 5G or spoons sticking to people. I have not and will not share any of that. Now, if you're talking about Weinstein in particular, he's an evolutionary biologist and someone that I enjoyed listening to pre-covid. He's a brilliant guy actually and for the record he's a liberal. Thinking back, I shared a conversation with him, Dr. Malone and someone else I can't remember at the moment who was a little off the rails but in the context of those 3 gentlemen having a discussion, I felt they corrected him when needed. Another one was Weinstein and Dr. Pierre Kory. People with a different take than yours on covid for sure but people with the credentials to at least not be reduced to being called a conspiracy theorist I'd think. As far as RGO goes, I don't get the impression that there are young, vulnerable readers here but maybe I'm wrong. That's what I meant by us discussing vaers here isn't carrying the same responsibility as the platform of a politician. Of course on any level no one should intentionally spread false information but I don't see anyone here doing that. I use Weinstein generically, in the same way I might call a tissue a Kleenex. Using VAERS to make unfounded claims in the way that some people are doing is the definition of a conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 15, 2021 14:05:41 GMT -6
Hey guys, honest question: what’s the point of having VAERs if no conclusions can be drawn from it? Why was it setup then? To what end? Great question. It did work as it is supposed to in recognizing blood clots and myocarditis didn't it? Those were helpful. On the flip side, if someone looks at vaers and believes the covid vaccines have not caused a single death are they also not drawing a conclusion(also fueled by a certain set of beliefs)? Inconclusion is not the same thing as conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Sept 15, 2021 14:09:39 GMT -6
Hey guys, honest question: what’s the point of having VAERs if no conclusions can be drawn from it? Why was it setup then? To what end? VAERS was established to function as a tool for safety and regulatory agencies to collect data. Imagine it like using a security cam on your porch. Every person who walks up on your porch triggers the camera and you get a picture of them. If your packages go missing, you have a bunch of cam photos to look through to look for patterns and ultimately find suspects. It's raw data for you to use as a tool in the event you are robbed. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Sept 15, 2021 14:13:33 GMT -6
Great question. It did work as it is supposed to in recognizing blood clots and myocarditis didn't it? Those were helpful. On the flip side, if someone looks at vaers and believes the covid vaccines have not caused a single death are they also not drawing a conclusion(also fueled by a certain set of beliefs)? Inconclusion is not the same thing as conclusion. So, you are open to the thought that some of the vaers reported deaths may be accurately attributed to the vaccines? |
|
