This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Here's your Mask Protocol  (Read 71532 times)

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #390 on: July 09, 2021, 10:21:54 AM »
This is the UK's Yellow Card system for vaccination (equivalent to VAERS in the US): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

They're an under-estimate of events, because only about 10% of people even bother reporting them. Even with all the deliberate obfuscation to avoid attributing deaths to covid jabs, there have been 1440 so far, which equates to 1 death per 31,153 people vaccinated. There are 309,272 Yellow Cards (Adverse Reaction reports) raised, 1 per 145 people vaccinated. Though it tends to be clustered with people reporting multiple events.

You're taking all deaths that are temporally associated with the vaccine to be *caused* by the vaccine. This is the same accusation made about inflating covid deaths - that any death with a positive covid test is a covid death. Here's the section you're citing with regards to deaths:

Quote
Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred, naturally, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far, mostly in the elderly.

The MHRA has received 450 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 960 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, six for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 24 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Usage of the vaccines has increased over the course of the campaigns and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths.

I see 450+960+6+24 = 1440. However, as the section says, these are cases where the patient died shortly after vaccination -- which isn't the same as death being caused *by* the vaccination. And the number of people vaccinated is greater than the number of people infected, plus the vaccinated population skews older than the population in general. As I understand it, those under 18 are not being vaccinated at all in the UK, and the elderly are much more likely to get vaccinated.


I don't think that people should be forced to be vaccinated, but I also don't think that covid vaccinations are any more unsafe than vaccinations in general. I'm not a medical doctor - but I note that medical doctors are choosing to take the vaccine at a higher rate than the rest of the population.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #391 on: July 09, 2021, 10:54:45 AM »
I note that medical doctors are choosing to take the vaccine at a higher rate than the rest of the population.
I wouldn't read too much into that. Frontline medical workers typically take vaccines at a much higher rate than the overall population, because they're at higher risk and at the front of the queue. And they take them much earlier as well, so more would have taken the shot before the negative side effects were widely reported. Plus, with the widespread rejection of informed choice by the government and hospital systems, many didn't have a choice if they wanted to continue working.

You're also looking at the VAERS and Yellow Card reports the wrong way. While you're correct that it doesn't prove a causal link, it's absolutely vital to assume there's a causal link until proven otherwise. When there are reports of widespread deaths correlated with a vaccine, it gets pulled (except for the covid-19 vaccines), because it's not the time or place to wait for definitive proof. It's also an essential assumption when investigating the reports -- the goal is not to prove the vaccine caused the side effect, but to start with the assumption that the vaccine did cause the side effect, and then try to rule it out. The burden of proof was set up this way for what should be very obvious reasons.


jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #392 on: July 09, 2021, 01:06:57 PM »
You're also looking at the VAERS and Yellow Card reports the wrong way. While you're correct that it doesn't prove a causal link, it's absolutely vital to assume there's a causal link until proven otherwise. When there are reports of widespread deaths correlated with a vaccine, it gets pulled (except for the covid-19 vaccines), because it's not the time or place to wait for definitive proof. It's also an essential assumption when investigating the reports -- the goal is not to prove the vaccine caused the side effect, but to start with the assumption that the vaccine did cause the side effect, and then try to rule it out. The burden of proof was set up this way for what should be very obvious reasons.

*Every* vaccine that is widely distributed also has widespread deaths that are correlated with it. That's inherent in distributing to hundreds of millions of people -- some people are going to die after receiving it, because some people *always* die at any given time -- especially the elderly. The vast majority of deaths do not have detailed autopsies, so there is no definite cause of death.

The proof is statistical, not by absolute proof of cause. If the death rate under vaccinations is roughly the same as the death rate otherwise, then the vaccine is considered safe. It is even accepted that there will always be some level of adverse reactions including a few genuinely fatal ones, as long as it is under a given level.


I note that medical doctors are choosing to take the vaccine at a higher rate than the rest of the population.
I wouldn't read too much into that. Frontline medical workers typically take vaccines at a much higher rate than the overall population, because they're at higher risk and at the front of the queue. And they take them much earlier as well, so more would have taken the shot before the negative side effects were widely reported. Plus, with the widespread rejection of informed choice by the government and hospital systems, many didn't have a choice if they wanted to continue working.

This seems like a general argument to not pay attention to doctors, because they have to bow to the system. I think the system may create some bias, but in general, I think it's good to listen to one's doctor and follow their advice - including about vaccines. (I just got back from my first endoscopy yesterday, so this seems relevant to me.) Doctors have pushed back against the system in many countries, in cases where the government was pursuing unhealthy policies.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #393 on: July 09, 2021, 01:18:49 PM »
*Every* vaccine that is widely distributed also has widespread deaths that are correlated with it. That's inherent in distributing to hundreds of millions of people -- some people are going to die after receiving it, because some people *always* die at any given time -- especially the elderly. The vast majority of deaths do not have detailed autopsies, so there is no definite cause of death.

The proof is statistical, not by absolute proof of cause. If the death rate under vaccinations is roughly the same as the death rate otherwise, then the vaccine is considered safe. It is even accepted that there will always be some level of adverse reactions including a few genuinely fatal ones, as long as it is under a given level.




Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #394 on: July 09, 2021, 01:25:38 PM »
I note that medical doctors are choosing to take the vaccine at a higher rate than the rest of the population.
I wouldn't read too much into that. Frontline medical workers typically take vaccines at a much higher rate than the overall population, because they're at higher risk and at the front of the queue. And they take them much earlier as well, so more would have taken the shot before the negative side effects were widely reported. Plus, with the widespread rejection of informed choice by the government and hospital systems, many didn't have a choice if they wanted to continue working.

This seems like a general argument to not pay attention to doctors, because they have to bow to the system. I think the system may create some bias, but in general, I think it's good to listen to one's doctor and follow their advice - including about vaccines. (I just got back from my first endoscopy yesterday, so this seems relevant to me.) Doctors have pushed back against the system in many countries, in cases where the government was pursuing unhealthy policies.
Nonsense, I neither said nor implied any such thing. I simply pointed out that doctors are natural outliers, and that a simplistic comparison of their vaccination rates compared to the vaccination rates of the general public is completely useless and tells us absolutely nothing. Once again, you're claiming I said something I didn't because you can't argue against my point honestly.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #395 on: July 09, 2021, 01:34:41 PM »
*Every* vaccine that is widely distributed also has widespread deaths that are correlated with it. That's inherent in distributing to hundreds of millions of people -- some people are going to die after receiving it, because some people *always* die at any given time -- especially the elderly. The vast majority of deaths do not have detailed autopsies, so there is no definite cause of death.

The proof is statistical, not by absolute proof of cause. If the death rate under vaccinations is roughly the same as the death rate otherwise, then the vaccine is considered safe. It is even accepted that there will always be some level of adverse reactions including a few genuinely fatal ones, as long as it is under a given level.



In a normal year, mass vaccinations are mainly to children. In 2021, we've distributed millions of vaccines in a short time to primarily elderly people. That's inherently going to produce a sharp increase in correlated deaths.

The question is -- is the increase greater than the increase that would be expected just from the demographics of vaccine distribution? That's the important question, and just showing graphs that are clearly correlation is just fear-mongering.

Garry G

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • G
  • Posts: 517
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #396 on: July 09, 2021, 01:48:38 PM »
Of course in circumstances like this I would always say speak to your doctor or another medical professional if you have any concerns. Vaccination centres here have people who will take you through the risks and your GP should have your best interests at heart.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #397 on: July 09, 2021, 01:59:58 PM »
In a normal year, mass vaccinations are mainly to children. In 2021, we've distributed millions of vaccines in a short time to primarily elderly people. That's inherently going to produce a sharp increase in correlated deaths.

The question is -- is the increase greater than the increase that would be expected just from the demographics of vaccine distribution? That's the important question, and just showing graphs that are clearly correlation is just fear-mongering.
You mean like your claim of correlation without causation, re: the rate at which doctors take the vaccines? Funny how it's fine if you do it, but if anyone else does it in response to you doing it, it's fear mongering.

It's almost like you're... oh wait, I can't say fear mongering, can I? You've already used it. If you say it first, it means nobody can use it against you, right?

If anyone is honestly interested in the topic, see one of the interviews with Robert Malone. He lays out how the rate of adverse side-effects for the covid-19 vaccines is exceptional, and would have resulted in any other vaccine being pulled. And he's slightly more qualified than John H. Kim, since he's a physician who is the creator of the mRNA vaccine technology, has worked on all pandemics since the 1980s, has worked for both major pharma companies and the government, serves as advisor for and has very highly placed contacts in both, and is taking a great personal risk to speak out since any controversy could risk his chance at a Nobel. He also talks about why he got the jab himself (Moderna), and his reservations based on the data that's come out since (he got his shot very early).
« Last Edit: July 09, 2021, 02:35:18 PM by Pat »

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8331
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #398 on: July 09, 2021, 03:10:26 PM »
I am intensley skeptical that reports of adverse affects from the experimental vaccines are being reported or investigated thoroughly.
Consider-

https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs#vaccine

Quote
DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #399 on: July 09, 2021, 03:23:00 PM »
^ And for reference, that clause exempts Pharma companies from Phase 4, which is supposed to reveal long time side effects of vaccines. This has never been done before. And it's a flat exemption. They're not scaling back Phase 4 to a manageable size, because too many jabs were distributed to track. Nobody is collecting the data.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #400 on: July 09, 2021, 03:35:19 PM »
^ And for reference, that clause exempts Pharma companies from Phase 4, which is supposed to reveal long time side effects of vaccines. This has never been done before. And it's a flat exemption. They're not scaling back Phase 4 to a manageable size, because too many jabs were distributed to track. Nobody is collecting the data.
Perhaps the usual suspects are not, but I can tell you at least one place that is doing so: the FDOC prisons in Florida. They have the advantages of having long-term access for follow-up monitoring. If they start seeing trends, they have a path to report them up. So, there is at least a process with a semi-controlled population. Unfortunately, I have zero faith in the ability of Centurion (the state's for-profit contracted heath care provider) to put much effort into working this process as it's not going to bring in any extra money.

Snowman0147

  • Now Even More Frosty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3085
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #401 on: July 09, 2021, 03:48:41 PM »
^ And for reference, that clause exempts Pharma companies from Phase 4, which is supposed to reveal long time side effects of vaccines. This has never been done before. And it's a flat exemption. They're not scaling back Phase 4 to a manageable size, because too many jabs were distributed to track. Nobody is collecting the data.

That is fucking bleak.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #402 on: July 09, 2021, 04:29:10 PM »
^ And for reference, that clause exempts Pharma companies from Phase 4, which is supposed to reveal long time side effects of vaccines. This has never been done before. And it's a flat exemption. They're not scaling back Phase 4 to a manageable size, because too many jabs were distributed to track. Nobody is collecting the data.
Perhaps the usual suspects are not, but I can tell you at least one place that is doing so: the FDOC prisons in Florida. They have the advantages of having long-term access for follow-up monitoring. If they start seeing trends, they have a path to report them up. So, there is at least a process with a semi-controlled population. Unfortunately, I have zero faith in the ability of Centurion (the state's for-profit contracted heath care provider) to put much effort into working this process as it's not going to bring in any extra money.
This is wide enough scale that there will a lot of information out there. The problem is it will be scattered, hard to collate, and not necessarily representative. That means the conclusions they draw will be more provisional or limited.

It would have been quite reasonable to scale down the tracking, because following up with literally every person who got a jab isn't practical (or necessary) when it includes a significant portion of the country and the world. But a single, rigorous, authoritative source would be really useful, and it's one of the most basic requirements. It boggles my mind that they didn't even try.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #403 on: July 09, 2021, 04:56:59 PM »
If anyone is honestly interested in the topic, see one of the interviews with Robert Malone. He lays out how the rate of adverse side-effects for the covid-19 vaccines is exceptional, and would have resulted in any other vaccine being pulled. And he's slightly more qualified than John H. Kim, since he's a physician who is the creator of the mRNA vaccine technology, has worked on all pandemics since the 1980s, has worked for both major pharma companies and the government, serves as advisor for and has very highly placed contacts in both, and is taking a great personal risk to speak out since any controversy could risk his chance at a Nobel. He also talks about why he got the jab himself (Moderna), and his reservations based on the data that's come out since (he got his shot very early).

My whole point was to listen to doctors and other experts in vaccine and infectious disease. Pat - you're not a medical doctor any more than I am, so I don't see how my credentials are any more relevant than yours. I'm happy to debate logical points here on this forum, but I would again urge for any actual medical decisions about one's own body - talk to your actual doctor. If you don't trust your doctor, get a different doctor.

I would urge *against* is looking up a video from a doctor based on Internet search or forum recommendation for making one's medical decisions. There are hundreds of thousands of MDs in the world, and even hundreds who are long-time specialists in any given subject like vaccines.

That said, if one wants to, I believe this is Robert Malone's website (as "RW Malone MD, LLC" for his consultancy services) -

https://www.rwmalonemd.com/

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Here's your Mask Protocol
« Reply #404 on: July 09, 2021, 07:22:12 PM »
My whole point was to listen to doctors and other experts in vaccine and infectious disease. Pat - you're not a medical doctor any more than I am, so I don't see how my credentials are any more relevant than yours. I'm happy to debate logical points here on this forum, but I would again urge for any actual medical decisions about one's own body - talk to your actual doctor. If you don't trust your doctor, get a different doctor.

I would urge *against* is looking up a video from a doctor based on Internet search or forum recommendation for making one's medical decisions. There are hundreds of thousands of MDs in the world, and even hundreds who are long-time specialists in any given subject like vaccines.
You never said anything about listening to the doctors. That claim is false. What happened is you started this conversation by comparing vaccination rates in different groups. I was the one who referenced a doctor to poke holes in your theories, not you.

You were also the one who started making a logical argument. I replied in kind. But now that I've poked holes in your arguments, you're claiming that we shouldn't be saying anything about it, because people should only be getting information from their own personal physician. In other words, you can't defend your point, so you've switched to arguing that the whole discussion is invalid. That's a very dishonest rhetorical technique. In addition, you're implying that I told people to ignore their own doctors. Which again is just false. I never said any such thing.

You also said that people should ignore the doctor I referenced. Because -- I couldn't make this up -- there are a lot of doctors. Which isn't even the start of an argument. In other words, you're saying people should listen to your fear-mongering, and their own personal doctor, and ignore everyone else, regardless of their credentials. In a single post you managed to claim that you weren't an expert and we shouldn't be talking about this, and that people should listen to you, and not a doctor who happens to be one of the 2 or 3 most qualified people on the planet in this particular subject.

Also, and this is trivial in comparison, I do have more credentials than you do, in this very specific field. I've never mentioned them before, because I don't make arguments from a position of authority, they're relatively minor, and they're out of date. But you're wrong again.

I can't seen any way to interpret any of these as honest mistakes. You're being deliberately deceptive, disingenuous, and making attacks on my character. In doing so, you've had to contort your arguments so far that you're not only contradicting yourself in subsequent posts, but between paragraphs.

Every last trace of respect I had for you is gone. You're pond scum.