(10-08-2021, 04:16 PM)Mapka Wrote: 1) Well, like permanent lung damage, fatigue, dysgeusia?
2) No, they are not accurate but approximatly correct. The best numbers we have.
Do you really think the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease?
I just try to understand the logic, but to me it just seems like you/antivaxxers use "it´s a fraud to harm me" as the foundation of your logic and adjust everything to fit this narrativ.
1) There are a whole range of health issues some people have short of death. Many are known due to recovering from Covid and other issues some people have as a side effect from vaccinations. Those are not necessarily as well know yet.
I'm simply saying 1:100 or 1:1,000,000 choice to live or die is a vast oversimplification of the health implications people are considering.
2) Who is the "we" that have the numbers? Kinda depends on which group of we's you trust doesn't it?
Quote:Do you really think the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease?
I never said that. The disease is terribly dangerous. I don't anyone is denying that. You can place the anti-vaxx label on anyone without actually examining the details or nuances of what is being said. That isn't helpful.
I tend to post what I recognize to be the under represented side of the debate as I stated earlier. The mainstream has the positives of vaccination covered pretty well imo.
Again, the answer to your question not as simple as it sounds because it depends on
1) Who are you evaluating the safety profile for? Age, health profile, do they have antibodies already, etc.
2) How reliable are the statistics we are getting which in turn depends on how complete and accurate the data inputs are.
My main point has been and remains that this is not such a slam dunk situation that it should be force injected into the people against their wills, and I wouldn't agree with force injections even if it was a slam dunk. Persuade your fellow citizens that its a slam dunk.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli...t-n2591466
Quote:UCLA Geffen School of Medicine Doctor Joseph Lapado and Yale School of Public Health Doctor Harvey Risch warn there are legitimate and serious concerns about the side effects of the Wuhan coronavirus vaccine. They also worry vaccine politics could be preventing officials from telling Americans the truth about the risks.
Again, I don't think all the concerns have come from "Covidiots" as you put it.
Quote:"The large clustering of certain adverse events immediately after vaccination is concerning, and the silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the politics surrounding Covid-19 vaccines. Stigmatizing such concerns is bad for scientific integrity and could harm patients," they continue.
Lapado and Risch don't simply state opinions; they back up their concerns with data and clinical experience.
Again, proximity to vaccination doesn't constitute proof that the vaccination is the cause as I posted earlier if you actually read closely, but it has raised the flag that more investigations have been needed. To the credit of the mainstream medical community, adjustments are being made and have been made to the vaccinations to address safety concerns as I believe @"dirkfansince1998"pointed out.
Again though, it hasn't justified a slam dunk punch it in their arms like it or not vaccination drive.
Quote:"Four serious adverse events follow this arc, according to data taken directly from Vaers: low platelets (thrombocytopenia); noninfectious myocarditis, or heart inflammation, especially for those under 30; deep-vein thrombosis; and death. Vaers records 321 cases of myocarditis within five days of receiving a vaccination, falling to almost zero by 10 days. Prior research has shown that only a fraction of adverse events are reported, so the true number of cases is almost certainly higher. This tendency of underreporting is consistent with our clinical experience," they write. "Analyses to confirm or dismiss these findings should be performed using large data sets of health-insurance companies and healthcare organizations. The CDC and FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, yet neither agency has acknowledged the trend...the implication is that the risks of a Covid-19 vaccine may outweigh the benefits for certain low-risk populations, such as children, young adults and people who have recovered from Covid-19. This is especially true in regions with low levels of community spread, since the likelihood of illness depends on exposure risk."