The Hong Kong flu in 1967 killed up to 4 million people, and the world's population was less than half today's. When adjusted for population, that's more than twice the death toll of covid-19 so far. So the fake news is flatly and absolutely stating that covid-19 is the worst since WW2.
The most accurate statement is that covid-19 is much less dangerous than the 1918 pandemic, but so far is roughly equivalent to the next tier of pandemics that occurred in the 20th century.
TL;DR: Here's a link that seems exactly on point to rebut you.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-11/covid-19-was-far-deadlier-than-the-1957-and-1968-flu-pandemics
You just cited the CDC as an authoritative source, and now you're relying on a financial paper named after a Democratic presidential candidate that says the CDC can't be trusted? Nice level of consistency.
I was alive in 1968; the reaction in the US to that pandemic, even after the fact, was never what we had for COVID-19, because it wasn't as deadly as you would like to pretend.
The alternate explanation, of course, is that the CDC is a better source than a random journalist, and the reaction to the 1968 pandemic wasn't as severe because they didn't overreact.
It's certainly possible that covid-19 will end up being deadlier than the HK flu, because it's not over. But we're more than 18 months into the current pandemic, and they're comparable. Which is the point -- even if covid-19 ends up edging them all out, it's still closer to the 2nd tier pandemics of the 20th century than the 1918 flu.
From the OpenVAERS FAQ:
OpenVAERS is a project developed by a small team of people with vaccine injuries or have children with vaccine injuries.
So you got your information from what may be an anti-vaxxer website; it's not surprising for a right-winger like Pat to go for easy incorrect numbers that support his preferences. I got my number from the CDC website. Maybe you should explain how the requirement to report such deaths will still manage to miss the vast majority (not that something reported to VAERS means that a vaccine caused it, or even that it actually happened, as noted in their disclaimers).
It's literally a mirror of the HHS website. You can verify anything you want on the OpenVAERS website with the HHS website. You just have to agree you've read the same disclaimer multiple times, and deal with a truly antiquated format. But I know that, because I've used that website. Which you clearly haven't.
Since the pharmaceutical companies are already protected from liability, that seems a bit redundant. VAERS is like an internet poll; anyone can post anything. The point is to investigate for actual risks; Pat incorrectly blames everything reported in the system on the vaccine, which is nonsensical. (Apparently there were 2 deaths in ages 1-2 because of the COVID-19 vaccine; I hope they are trying to track down whoever vaccinated a one or two year old.)
How can we tell when Rawma is lying? Your hands are on your keyboard.
I never said any such thing. I have a reasonable understanding of the strengths and limitations of VAERS, which you clearly don't, because you're acting like the most basic details are some shocking revelation. Of course VAERS is a voluntary reporting system. That's the most basic thing anyone who's heard of the system should know. What you're doing is like telling a computer programmer that computers are computing machines, and then expecting the programmer to be shocked when you say they're not human. It's a nonsensical argument that just highlights how little you know.
Phase 4 testing, which happens after the vaccine has been released to the general public, is traditionally called "post marketing surveillance" for a reason. It involves checking whether there's any difference in results between a controlled clinical environment and the real world, and looks for any long-term or particularly rare side effects. Companies are required to follow up with everyone who has been injected. This is mandatory, and required for every vaccine.
Until now. The covid vaccines are exempt from this requirement. They haven't just scaled back phase 4, which would be reasonable because so many people have been jabbed that it would be difficult to follow up with them all. Instead, they've completely gotten rid of it, and they're not doing any formal phase 4 follow up at all. The best tool we have for seeing what happens after a vaccine has been released into the wild has been blinded.
The vaccine manufacturers are continuing to monitor phase 3 participants; governments are collecting data (in the US, with the VAERS system; that led to a brief suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and a warning about the increased risk of blood clots).
What they're not doing is following up with every person injected, as they've done with every other vaccine. They're not even following up consistently with a subset of the wider public, defeating the purpose of seeing how the vaccine works outside of a controlled environment. Instead, they're doing various ad hoc studies.
As I literally just said.
I hope even you can understand how the loss of a thorough, official, vetted, and rigorous source of data hurts our understanding of the vaccines. The data we have simply isn't as good, which makes conclusions more suspect, and forces us to rely more heavily on weaker sources, like VAERS.
And this is a decent enough place to mention it, but the proper approach to a system like VAERS isn't to dismiss all the reports. The correct way to handle it, and the way it's been handled for every other vaccine, is to treat every report as valid until proven otherwise. This is important, because it aligns the burden of proof with common sense medical practices. We don't want to wait until we have overwhelming proof of harm before pulling a vaccine. No, the vaccine is pulled right away, at the first real sign of problems. Vaccines are typically pulled when only 20-25 deaths are reported to VAERS, and only reauthorized after a thorough investigation. Which they don't seem to be doing. Which hurts what we know, and frankly makes them look like they're hiding something, which at best is terrible optics.
Phase 4 is not required for drug approval, since it must by definition occur after a drug is approved.
I literally just said that. In the paragraph you quoted. What do you think "released to the public" means?