Imprison anyone who refuses the vax!

[KindaMeh]

As for whether folks should take the vax. I think if you're old and/or have a ton of risk factors, and so forth, might still be worth weighing the question. Not least based on some of the statistics I've posted earlier about how it can reduce death and hospitalization rates for Covid specifically. Albeit at a long term risk (which presumably matters a bit less to for instance the old) because we don't 100% know what it's gonna do. People currently disagree and there isn't enough hard data to ban it for everyone in my opinion. I'm not for banning it and I'm not for any of their mandates in favor of it either. I think people should be free to choose, and it's a contentious enough topic of study and debate that I question whether there's an obvious one size fits all policy answer.

Nope, there was never any cause for anyone to take the jabs. They don't work, for one, and they carry a host of both known and unknown side-effects.

They carry a host of potential side effects, sure, but not I feel to a degree that the old would not potentially have it be a decision they could make for themselves. Or to say that we should take away everybody's right to choose in the other direction.

COVID strains prior to omicron have like a 1% kill rate, roughly 10 times that of the flu (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu), with a huge (well over 80%) proportion being in the over 60 category if you look at OECD numbers for instance. (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/articles/internationalcomparisonsofpossiblefactorsaffectingexcessmortality/2022-12-20) Which on the one hand does mean those under 60 have little to fear at all from Covid, apart from maybe longhauler symptoms, which are weird but still more prevalent in the elderly. But also means...

That's  what, a 10% or so kill rate in the elderly, with also presumably higher hospitalization rates considering a base 5% of all people who catch Covid strains of that sort are hospitalized? It was enough for the medical community to notice an uptick in hospitalization, for sure. So I think that taking it could be a justifiable decision if one is in that older demographic and rates Covid infection as having a decent chance of happening to oneself.

(Though now that I've looked into the age demographics it doesn't really seem to make sense for someone of my younger age personally even with my risk factors. At least as regards personal risk as opposed to avoiding transmission around the vulnerable or something. Thank y'all for helping me to make up my mind on that. Especially Kiero, without whom I would almost certainly be getting another shot.)

But yeah, not intrinsically a decision worth mocking if properly considered. Because the vaccine is at bare minimum seemingly good at reducing death and hospitalization. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2796235
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/

To the point where while I doubt it, some people are using it to explain this gap in Republican and Democrat excess deaths, where Democrats have fewer, that started after the vaccines rolled out: https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/study-finds-large-gap-in-excess-deaths-along-partisan-lines-after-covid-19-vaccines-introduced/

I don't personally believe that, but I think it also shows how weird all this excess death causality deduction can sometimes be.

Bottom line, I think if you're older it's worth considering (which is not the same as definitively being worth taking), but if you're younger and don't have a ton of huge risk factors or vulnerable folk in your orbit not as much. I also think it should not be banned or made illegal, which seems to fit pretty well with that.

At the same time, for obvious reasons I hate the mandates for the vax, I hate stuff that is pro-lockdown, I mistrust masking mandates, and I find all sorts of similar measures to be terrible, not least due to political targeting. But on a separate note I do find a lot of the science convincing as regards vaccines working to reduce deaths and hospitalization, that Covid is in its base form more severe than the flu, and other seemingly pretty well backed up points. So that's kind of where I'm at currently, and I figured I should probably try to share my thoughts as to why.

[Brad]

They carry a host of potential side effects, sure, but not I feel to a degree that the old would not potentially have it be a decision they could make for themselves. Or to say that we should take away everybody's right to choose in the other direction.

COVID strains prior to omicron have like a 1% kill rate, roughly 10 times that of the flu (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu), with a huge (well over 80%) proportion being in the over 60 category if you look at OECD numbers for instance. (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/articles/internationalcomparisonsofpossiblefactorsaffectingexcessmortality/2022-12-20) Which on the one hand does mean those under 60 have little to fear at all from Covid, apart from maybe longhauler symptoms, which are weird but still more prevalent in the elderly. But also means...

That's  what, a 10% or so kill rate in the elderly, with also presumably higher hospitalization rates considering a base 5% of all people who catch Covid strains of that sort are hospitalized? It was enough for the medical community to notice an uptick in hospitalization, for sure. So I think that taking it could be a justifiable decision if one is in that older demographic and rates Covid infection as having a decent chance of happening to oneself.

(Though now that I've looked into the age demographics it doesn't really seem to make sense for someone of my younger age personally even with my risk factors. At least as regards personal risk as opposed to avoiding transmission around the vulnerable or something. Thank y'all for helping me to make up my mind on that. Especially Kiero, without whom I would almost certainly be getting another shot.)

But yeah, not intrinsically a decision worth mocking if properly considered. Because the vaccine is at bare minimum seemingly good at reducing death and hospitalization. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2796235
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-compare-covid-deaths-for-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people/

To the point where while I doubt it, some people are using it to explain this gap in Republican and Democrat excess deaths, where Democrats have fewer, that started after the vaccines rolled out: https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/study-finds-large-gap-in-excess-deaths-along-partisan-lines-after-covid-19-vaccines-introduced/

I don't personally believe that, but I think it also shows how weird all this excess death causality deduction can sometimes be.

Bottom line, I think if you're older it's worth considering (which is not the same as definitively being worth taking), but if you're younger and don't have a ton of huge risk factors or vulnerable folk in your orbit not as much. I also think it should not be banned or made illegal, which seems to fit pretty well with that.

At the same time, for obvious reasons I hate the mandates for the vax, I hate stuff that is pro-lockdown, I mistrust masking mandates, and I find all sorts of similar measures to be terrible, not least due to political targeting. But on a separate note I do find a lot of the science convincing as regards vaccines working to reduce deaths and hospitalization, that Covid is in its base form more severe than the flu, and other seemingly pretty well backed up points. So that's kind of where I'm at currently, and I figured I should probably try to share my thoughts as to why.

That's a lot of words to make an unconvincing argument.

[Ratman_tf]

The government violated the 1st Amendment by getting media to do their dirty work.

[jhkim]

Kiero, do you think that's true of all the covid vaccines, or only certain ones - like only the mRNA tech ones, or only those from Trump's "Warp Speed" program?

It's true of all of them. None of them provide immunity to covid, thus are not vaccines (and no I don't accept the bullshit new definition of a vaccine introduced in 2020).

The non-mRNA ones (AZ, J&J, Sputnik, etc) give you a massive dose of spike proteins, which cause endolithial damage often triggering heart attacks and strokes.

The mRNA ones (Pfizer, Moderna) reprogram your body to produce massive doses of spike proteins, bringing all those same vascular risks, with the added bonus of random genetic damage (cancers!) and destroying your sterilising immune system too.

Thanks for the clear answer. What do you see as a path forward for these claims? Is there any country or major organization in the world that is close to endorsing this view?

[Eirikrautha]

Thanks for the clear answer. What do you see as a path forward for these claims? Is there any country or major organization in the world that is close to endorsing this view?

Country?  Who cares if a country endorses a scientific claim?  Countries make decisions based on politics, not science, as this entire pandemic has shown.  The endorsement of a country should be viewed as a net negative for any scientific claim...

[DocJones]

Kiero, do you think that's true of all the covid vaccines, or only certain ones - like only the mRNA tech ones, or only those from Trump's "Warp Speed" program?

It's true of all of them. None of them provide immunity to covid, thus are not vaccines (and no I don't accept the bullshit new definition of a vaccine introduced in 2020).

Sinovac is a traditional vaccine containing the inactive Corona virus.  The Chinese government claimed it was 79% effective.
Statistics from countries that allowed it and bought it claim it is only 51% effective.
The statement above that I bolded is incorrect. 
No vaccine ever created is 100% effective in providing immunity and that had never been part of the definition of vaccine.

[dkabq]

Kiero, do you think that's true of all the covid vaccines, or only certain ones - like only the mRNA tech ones, or only those from Trump's "Warp Speed" program?

It's true of all of them. None of them provide immunity to covid, thus are not vaccines (and no I don't accept the bullshit new definition of a vaccine introduced in 2020).

Sinovac is a traditional vaccine containing the inactive Corona virus.  The Chinese government claimed it was 79% effective.
Statistics from countries that allowed it and bought it claim it is only 51% effective.
The statement above that I bolded is incorrect. 
No vaccine ever created is 100% effective in providing immunity and that had never been part of the definition of vaccine.

St. Fauci begged to differ...

Fauci 2021: Vaccinated people 'can feel save that they are not going to get infected'
https://libertytree.com/liberty-tree/3651
https://twitter.com/YALiberty/status/1612864348845740064

[Kiero]

Thanks for the clear answer. What do you see as a path forward for these claims? Is there any country or major organization in the world that is close to endorsing this view?

There is no path forward, because the authorities don't want to admit their culpability in the whole scam and are hoping people are dumb enough to let them sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

Nor do I care who "endorses" the truth, that doesn't change it. The criminals involved are still in power and will do their utmost to escape any accountability.

Sinovac is a traditional vaccine containing the inactive Corona virus.  The Chinese government claimed it was 79% effective.
Statistics from countries that allowed it and bought it claim it is only 51% effective.
The statement above that I bolded is incorrect. 
No vaccine ever created is 100% effective in providing immunity and that had never been part of the definition of vaccine.

The Chinese government are serial liars, and injecting people with the inactive coronavirus doesn't work. We already know that from 60+ years of research into vaccines for the common cold. Which is what covid is.

Coronavirus jabs are 0% effective, they do not prevent infection with coronavirus. Which is what real vaccines do. Most of the time. The measles vaccine is 93% effective in preventing infection, it's only in a minority of people that immunity doesn't take. When it works, you cannot be infected with measles.

So spare me the disingenuous bollocks about "no vaccine is 100% effective". Preventing infection was always been the definition of vaccine effectiveness, before 2020.

[Kiero]

Oh dear, the VAERS safety data for the jabs is bad. And the CDC tried to hide it: https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/cdc-finally-released-its-vaers-safety

Excess deaths caused by the jabs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3_bqcvDxvI

[Ghostmaker]

Sinovac is a traditional vaccine containing the inactive Corona virus.  The Chinese government claimed it was 79% effective.
Statistics from countries that allowed it and bought it claim it is only 51% effective.
The statement above that I bolded is incorrect. 
No vaccine ever created is 100% effective in providing immunity and that had never been part of the definition of vaccine.

The Chinese government are serial liars, and injecting people with the inactive coronavirus doesn't work. We already know that from 60+ years of research into vaccines for the common cold. Which is what covid is.

Coronavirus jabs are 0% effective, they do not prevent infection with coronavirus. Which is what real vaccines do. Most of the time. The measles vaccine is 93% effective in preventing infection, it's only in a minority of people that immunity doesn't take. When it works, you cannot be infected with measles.

So spare me the disingenuous bollocks about "no vaccine is 100% effective". Preventing infection was always been the definition of vaccine effectiveness, before 2020.

Don't forget, it's not like the Chinese have a reputation for good quality control *snickers*.

Cha bu duo, baby.

[Ratman_tf]

Thanks for the clear answer. What do you see as a path forward for these claims? Is there any country or major organization in the world that is close to endorsing this view?

There is no path forward, because the authorities don't want to admit their culpability in the whole scam and are hoping people are dumb enough to let them sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

Nor do I care who "endorses" the truth, that doesn't change it. The criminals involved are still in power and will do their utmost to escape any accountability.

The best we can do personally is never trust the current establishment until all the bad apples have left. A lot of people are going to be hoodwinked into going along with whatever piss-poor excuses they toss out there to cover their asses, but a good portion of the people have seen how terrible things got over Covid. (As this thread demonstrates, not just the posters here, but commenters and pundits outside the forum as well.) The next "crisis" will have a more prompt and determined pushback. We'll see how that shakes out.

[I]

Interesting article from WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-deadly-were-the-covid-lockdowns-excess-deaths-alcohol-heart-disease-accidents-life-youth-11673440091

As the subtitle says, "For Americans under 45, there were more excess deaths without the virus in 2020-21 than with it." 

One particular point I agree with from the article is this: 

"If the pandemic response had to involve wholesale disruption of ordinary life, the public-health community should have been actively monitoring its effects on the millions of Americans we knew suffered from drug addiction, diabetes and many other potentially lethal health conditions. No time is too soon to acknowledge and begin to alleviate the collateral damage from Covid policies."

I don't really trust the Wall Street Journal too much, but occasionally you can find a golden nugget among the prose-dung there.

[KindaMeh]

Interesting article from WSJ:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-deadly-were-the-covid-lockdowns-excess-deaths-alcohol-heart-disease-accidents-life-youth-11673440091

As the subtitle says, "For Americans under 45, there were more excess deaths without the virus in 2020-21 than with it." 

One particular point I agree with from the article is this: 

"If the pandemic response had to involve wholesale disruption of ordinary life, the public-health community should have been actively monitoring its effects on the millions of Americans we knew suffered from drug addiction, diabetes and many other potentially lethal health conditions. No time is too soon to acknowledge and begin to alleviate the collateral damage from Covid policies."

I don't really trust the Wall Street Journal too much, but occasionally you can find a golden nugget among the prose-dung there.

I think it kind of links into this article a bit, which I found recently. Basically saying that lockdowns and overreaction with mandates and the like don't seem to have been super effective. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/04/19/what-sweden-got-right-about-covid/

[jhkim]

Thanks for the clear answer. What do you see as a path forward for these claims? Is there any country or major organization in the world that is close to endorsing this view?

There is no path forward, because the authorities don't want to admit their culpability in the whole scam and are hoping people are dumb enough to let them sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

Nor do I care who "endorses" the truth, that doesn't change it. The criminals involved are still in power and will do their utmost to escape any accountability.

The best we can do personally is never trust the current establishment until all the bad apples have left. A lot of people are going to be hoodwinked into going along with whatever piss-poor excuses they toss out there to cover their asses, but a good portion of the people have seen how terrible things got over Covid. (As this thread demonstrates, not just the posters here, but commenters and pundits outside the forum as well.) The next "crisis" will have a more prompt and determined pushback. We'll see how that shakes out.

Ratman_tf -- Given Kiero's position that all covid vaccines are blatantly fake and harmful, though, it doesn't seem like just a few bad apples. It's those in control of every country in the world from Israel to Russia, and every covid vaccine developer. Within the U.S., Trump lead the development and approval of the vaccines - and took one himself along with encouraging all Americans to get it while touting how safe they are. The mainstream Republicans and all Democrats have all been on board with this.

I'm trying to at least understand Kiero's position. Personally, I don't have much medical knowledge. The medically-trained people I know don't agree with his assessment, so I'm skeptical. Still, I'd hope we can at least communicate.

[Ratman_tf]

Thanks for the clear answer. What do you see as a path forward for these claims? Is there any country or major organization in the world that is close to endorsing this view?

There is no path forward, because the authorities don't want to admit their culpability in the whole scam and are hoping people are dumb enough to let them sweep the whole thing under the carpet.

Nor do I care who "endorses" the truth, that doesn't change it. The criminals involved are still in power and will do their utmost to escape any accountability.

The best we can do personally is never trust the current establishment until all the bad apples have left. A lot of people are going to be hoodwinked into going along with whatever piss-poor excuses they toss out there to cover their asses, but a good portion of the people have seen how terrible things got over Covid. (As this thread demonstrates, not just the posters here, but commenters and pundits outside the forum as well.) The next "crisis" will have a more prompt and determined pushback. We'll see how that shakes out.

Ratman_tf -- Given Kiero's position that all covid vaccines are blatantly fake and harmful, though, it doesn't seem like just a few bad apples. It's those in control of every country in the world from Israel to Russia, and every covid vaccine developer. Within the U.S., Trump lead the development and approval of the vaccines - and took one himself along with encouraging all Americans to get it while touting how safe they are. The mainstream Republicans and all Democrats have all been on board with this.

I'm trying to at least understand Kiero's position. Personally, I don't have much medical knowledge. The medically-trained people I know don't agree with his assessment, so I'm skeptical. Still, I'd hope we can at least communicate.

I can't speak for Kiero. As I see it, the vaccines were new, untested, and experimental. Their efficacy versus their harm has yet to be determined, and likely will be buried under a sea of misinformation from the government and pharmecutical companies who have a vested interest in keeping all this "under control." The measures to combat Covid likely did more harm than good, and the responses to Covid were mostly driven by superstition and panic.

Mostly I can understand Kiero's and other's outrage at how bad things got, outrage that I share, and his frustration at the excuses and denial of * ahem * people defending and excusing the establishment. Dunno if that's an accurate description of Kiero's stance, but that's my impression of it.