Slate tries to debunk “dies suddenly;” fails miserably then calls for a police state

[Big Blitz]

Nope.  Nothing to see here

 

 

“Died Suddenly” Is Anti-Vaxxers’ New Favorite Phrase
 

Though that theory has no scientific evidence to support it, the “died suddenly” rhetoric has gained a lot of traction on social media. What makes COVID misinformation so spreadable, and how can public health officials combat the rumors?
 

On Friday’s episode of What Next: TBD, I spoke with Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and data scientist, about the rise of the viral dog whistle “died suddenly.” Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

 

Lizzie O’Leary: In your latest newsletter, you had a heading that said “Deaths by Vaccination Status: It’s not even close.” What does the data show?

 

Katelyn Jetelina: Underlying all these rumors is the belief that COVID-19 vaccines are harmful, in an intention to possibly depopulate the planet. If that had any merit, we would expect that those who are vaccinated are more likely to die than those are unvaccinated. And we are clearly seeing the opposite. The U.K. CDC released data evaluating all deaths—car accidents, strokes, COVID-19—by vaccination status. And when you visually display that on a graph, there is a clear distinction between the unvaccinated dying (of whatever cause) much higher than the vaccinated, leading to confirm that vaccines continue to save lives.

 

Soooooo…….???  Died of what - Covid?  What data?  Why isn’t this article to set the record straight presenting this data?

 

 

You wrote about something called the post hoc fallacy. Can you explain that?

 

The post hoc fallacy basically means that, even if everyone got a placebo vaccine, these stories of sudden deaths are statistically bound to happen. Even if everyone had gotten a placebo shot, there would still be deaths after that shot. In order for there to be no deaths after vaccination—no car accidents, no dog bites, whatever—that vaccine would not only have to be proven to be safe, but actually would have to prevent all deaths, from every cause.

 

 

Ummm…….we skipped that part of the trial.   
 

Is there something about the way we communicate on social media that makes these theories that have a whiff of scientific language or a whiff of statistics more easily digested online? 

 

There have been studies that false information travels six times faster than true information on social media. And there’s many reasons for this. One, speed is key. Rumors are lies spread before the truth can get its pants on, and filling the information void quickly is something that becomes very viral. For example, take the NFL tragedy. There was no information about what happened and they very quickly took advantage of it. Same with Grant’s death.

 

Another tactic that’s used is “failed to provide context.” Vaccine rumors are intentionally vague. 
 

So is the info in this article….

 

What would have to happen do you think in order for the United States to move towards something more like the Vietnam example you’re citing?

 

There need to be systematic changes. We need to treat misinformation/disinformation as a public health concern. We need surveillance systems, prevention strategies, interventions. We need to know where it’s spreading and why and how. We need the ivory towers to really change their culture around scientific communication. And, we need to strengthen these grassroots, communication is also bottom up. We need to strengthen these networks that we’ve created throughout the pandemic so we can alter it really quickly if there is, for example, another monkeypox or another polio outbreak.

 

 

Lol…..everything these thugs called misinformation 2 years ago turned out to be true.  

 

https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/died-suddenly-covid-vaccine-misinformation.html

 

 

We need to combat the misinformation!   
 

That’s the key!
 

 

 

See I find - and history that low info libs have zero understanding of - that the truth takes care of misinformation.  
 

Hey…..a moron posting that Hamlin was a body double!  
 

Ok moron…..here he is in his video.  
 

Now, said moron is marginalized.  
 

The people calling out the State’s b.s. on all things Covid?  Just present the facts.  Who gives a ***t about the rest.  They will be marginalized.  
 

Unless they’re right…..

[Orlando Tim]

I am still skeptical about the increase in deaths can be linked directly to the vaccine because so many other behaviors changed during Covid. People were less active, their mental health deteriorated, they drank more. All of these things had negative affects on people's lifespans. Trying to shut down the people pushing the "died suddenly" reeks of desperation and conspiracy though from people who would be hurt by less pharma sales. Let both sides explain their numbers and let people decide. 

[Big Blitz]

17 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I am still skeptical about the increase in deaths can be linked directly to the vaccine because so many other behaviors changed during Covid. People were less active, their mental health deteriorated, they drank more. All of these things had negative affects on people's lifespans. Trying to shut down the people pushing the "died suddenly" reeks of desperation and conspiracy though from people who would be hurt by less pharma sales. Let both sides explain their numbers and let people decide. 

 

Exactly. 
 

I am however skeptical of the boosters.  
 

Did we stop tracking booster doses here in the U.S. in September?  Why?

 

People were getting those literally 4-6 months after the first dose.  

 

 

Also possible (because I’m a free thinker) - Covid itself.  Is a long term side effect what we’re seeing?  
 

Isn’t a blood disease that causes clots - wasn’t this the initial concern they stopped talking about to distract us from the possibility (they called misinformation but now likely true) that it came from a lab.  

 

[Big Blitz]

Every day now.  Literally every f…ing day

 

 

[cle23]

2 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

Every day now.  Literally every f…ing day

 

 

 

Between 1980 and 2006, 1866 HS athletes died suddenly in the US. This isn't some new phenomenon.  The coverage is  what changed. The internet.  The non stop news cycle.  The now political bias.

 

This article is from 2009, so zero to do with Covid. An average of 72 HS athletes per year. It's unfortunate,  but it happens.  And it's not some giant conspiracy. 

 

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.108.804617

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

I am still skeptical about the increase in deaths can be linked directly to the vaccine because so many other behaviors changed during Covid. People were less active, their mental health deteriorated, they drank more. All of these things had negative affects on people's lifespans. Trying to shut down the people pushing the "died suddenly" reeks of desperation and conspiracy though from people who would be hurt by less pharma sales. Let both sides explain their numbers and let people decide. 

So you're not buying the Damar Hamlin body double hired by Pfizer conspiracy theory then.

[Gene Frenkle]

The Damar Hamlin thread was such an incredible failure that the author seems to have deleted it and gone into hiding. How embarrassing!

 

Anyway, I did some research and found him:

 

 

 

#livedsuddenly

[Big Blitz]

For the record I wasn’t referring to anyone here posting about Hamlin - the “morons” I was referring to are some pretty prominent people on Twitter speculating about him.   People I follow that tend to see things how I do. 
 

In this great epic battle over “disinformation” we can’t afford making leaps on everything just for the clicks.  

 

It’s totally fair to ask why no interview.  Or something like that.  
 

I didn’t think they did themselves any favors jumping right to this is Weekend at Bernie’s.
 

That’s how free speech actually works Twitter Security Team.  

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

I am still skeptical about the increase in deaths can be linked directly to the vaccine because so many other behaviors changed during Covid. People were less active, their mental health deteriorated, they drank more. All of these things had negative affects on people's lifespans. Trying to shut down the people pushing the "died suddenly" reeks of desperation and conspiracy though from people who would be hurt by less pharma sales. Let both sides explain their numbers and let people decide. 

To this point I haven't seen any study that has identified causality linking the vaccines to an increase in all-cause deaths.  You'd have to design a study comparing a vaccinated population with a non-vaccinated control group, identify if any statistically significant differences exist in death rates between the two populations and then drill-down on those specific divergences. 

Organizations such as the CDC and NIH, along with most private companies such as Pfizer and University and Hospital researchers, have access to this kind of data. But given how invested most of these players are in the vaccine program, I expect nobody in the industry is eager to perform a study linking the vaccine to deaths which might suggest a personal or professional failure on their part that might also entail negative consequences. 

The fundamental issue isn't believing or not believing a link exists between excess deaths and the vaccines.  Or the validity of conspiracy theories.  The bottom line, and its a very valid conclusion, is that nobody running the show wants to find out.      

[Gene Frenkle]

On 2/9/2023 at 7:22 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

To this point I haven't seen any study that has identified causality linking the vaccines to an increase in all-cause deaths.  You'd have to design a study comparing a vaccinated population with a non-vaccinated control group, identify if any statistically significant differences exist in death rates between the two populations and then drill-down on those specific divergences. 

Organizations such as the CDC and NIH, along with most private companies such as Pfizer and University and Hospital researchers, have access to this kind of data. But given how invested most of these players are in the vaccine program, I expect nobody in the industry is eager to perform a study linking the vaccine to deaths which might suggest a personal or professional failure on their part that might also entail negative consequences. 

The fundamental issue isn't believing or not believing a link exists between excess deaths and the vaccines.  Or the validity of conspiracy theories.  The bottom line, and its a very valid conclusion, is that nobody running the show wants to find out.      

 

"They don't want you to know!"

 

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Otherwise, every ridiculous claim demands proving some insane negative, which is neither productive nor efficient. You have a claim? Fine. Present some convincing evidence.

[Big Blitz]

Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be ‘colossally stupid’

 

By Jen Christensen, CNN

 

Updated 11:34 AM EDT, Tue September 1, 2020

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccine-history/index.html

 

 

Months or YEARS

Edited February 10, 2023 by Big Blitz

[Gene Frenkle]

24 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be ‘colossally stupid’

 

By Jen Christensen, CNN

 

Updated 11:34 AM EDT, Tue September 1, 2020

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/health/eua-coronavirus-vaccine-history/index.html

 

 

Months or YEARS

 

The truth is that we won't know all the side effects until years down the line. It was never about that. This was always our best shot at getting back to normal. Some people bravely took a chance for the greater good and some put on their tinfoil hats a acted like a bunch of whiney, paranoid kitties. Weak!

 

The sad thing is that all the anti-vaxer pricks benefit from herd immunity anyway. But the unvaxxed death rate is much higher if Covid finds a way past the tinfoil.

 

Be careful out there!

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

The truth is that we won't know all the side effects until years down the line. It was never about that. This was always our best shot at getting back to normal. Some people bravely took a chance for the greater good and some put on their tinfoil hats a acted like a bunch of whiney, paranoid kitties. Weak!

 

The sad thing is that all the anti-vaxer pricks benefit from herd immunity anyway. But the unvaxxed death rate is much higher if Covid finds a way past the tinfoil.

 

Be careful out there!

You have got to be kidding…right? 🙄

[Gene Frenkle]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

You have got to be kidding…right? 🙄

 

Nope! Not even. Anti-vaxxers are as soft as 10-ply Charmin.

 

They live their lives scared: frightened of boogiemen, frightened of science, frightened of people who are different, and frightened of change.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

 

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.

In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer.

 

This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias.” If you think about it, this makes sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. To many conservatives, the world may look like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in fear—fear of the president, immigrants, vaccinations, etc.

 

2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.

A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those who scare more easily tend to support conservative views?

 

One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.

 

3. Conservatives fear new experiences.

A 2008 study cataloged items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies.

 

This suggests that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, may prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they can be resistant to change and progressive policies.

 

4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.

Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and it's especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. Maybe if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times, it wouldn’t matter whether they existed or not.

 

Empirical evidence suggests that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions—they also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice. Still, we must work to understand these psychological and biological distinctions so that we can ultimately use this knowledge to work together and find middle ground. Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas by using tactics like fear-mongering.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201612/fear-and-anxiety-drive-conservatives-political-attitudes

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Nope! Not even. Anti-vaxxers are as soft as 10-ply Charmin.

 

They live their lives scared: frightened of boogiemen, frightened of science, frightened of people who are different, and frightened of change.

Keep fighting the good fight Gene. We need you on that wall. Sheeesh, unbelievable 

[Gene Frenkle]

And all of that plays out over and over and over again.

[JDHillFan]

14 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

The truth is that we won't know all the side effects until years down the line. It was never about that. This was always our best shot at getting back to normal. Some people bravely took a chance for the greater good and some put on their tinfoil hats a acted like a bunch of whiney, paranoid kitties. Weak!

 

The sad thing is that all the anti-vaxer pricks benefit from herd immunity anyway. But the unvaxxed death rate is much higher if Covid finds a way past the tinfoil.

 

Be careful out there!

Thank you for bravely taking a chance for the greater good. That couldn’t have been easy for you knowing that orange man was pumping operation warp speed. Hopefully you posted vaccine selfies to encourage others. 
 

Do you draw the line at a certain number of boosters or is it a whatever it takes situation? 

[Gene Frenkle]

1 hour ago, JDHillFan said:

Thank you for bravely taking a chance for the greater good. That couldn’t have been easy for you knowing that orange man was pumping operation warp speed. Hopefully you posted vaccine selfies to encourage others. 
 

Do you draw the line at a certain number of boosters or is it a whatever it takes situation? 

 

I draw the line by looking around me and seeing what's going on. I haven't gotten the flu vaccine out of laziness over the years and as a result, I've gotten the flu a couple of times and it sucks. If there was a major deadly flu outbreak I would be sure to do my part to protect the herd and get the shot. If there's a Covid outbreak that shutting down life as I know it, I'm going to get the booster. In other words, my actions will change based on the circumstances. Probably a foreign concept, I know... I now look with disdain at those who were too scared of the science to do the right thing. IMO ya'll talk a tough game but go into hiding as soon as it gets a little uncomfortable, hiding behind ant-government propanda and conspiracy theories. As a result, I'll never expect too much from my fellow red Americans.

 

Here kitty, kitty, kitty! 🙀

 

Don't worry, tho. It's still your choice, snowflake! Let the Libs take that risk away for you.

[Big Blitz]

16 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I draw the line by looking around me and seeing what's going on. I haven't gotten the flu vaccine out of laziness over the years and as a result, I've gotten the flu a couple of times and it sucks. If there was a major deadly flu outbreak I would be sure to do my part to protect the herd and get the shot. If there's a Covid outbreak that shutting down life as I know it, I'm going to get the booster. In other words, my actions will change based on the circumstances. Probably a foreign concept, I know... I now look with disdain at those who were too scared of the science to do the right thing. IMO ya'll talk a tough game but go into hiding as soon as it gets a little uncomfortable, hiding behind ant-government propanda and conspiracy theories. As a result, I'll never expect too much from my fellow red Americans.

 

Here kitty, kitty, kitty! 🙀

 

Don't worry, tho. It's still your choice, snowflake! Let the Libs take that risk away for you.

 

I bet you still think it was about flattening curves.  
 

Good little sheep sheep sheep.        

[JDHillFan]

4 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I draw the line by looking around me and seeing what's going on. I haven't gotten the flu vaccine out of laziness over the years and as a result, I've gotten the flu a couple of times and it sucks. If there was a major deadly flu outbreak I would be sure to do my part to protect the herd and get the shot. If there's a Covid outbreak that shutting down life as I know it, I'm going to get the booster. In other words, my actions will change based on the circumstances. Probably a foreign concept, I know... I now look with disdain at those who were too scared of the science to do the right thing. IMO ya'll talk a tough game but go into hiding as soon as it gets a little uncomfortable, hiding behind ant-government propanda and conspiracy theories. As a result, I'll never expect too much from my fellow red Americans.

 

Here kitty, kitty, kitty! 🙀

 

Don't worry, tho. It's still your choice, snowflake! Let the Libs take that risk away for you.

I see you are a big science guy (seems counterintuitive based on your posts, but whatever).  I once asked one of your like minded board members a covid science question but he didn’t answer. The question dealt with the Sabres playing in an empty arena in Canada on the same day the Rams won the Super Bowl before 80k people. I was just curious which science he believed in. Canadian science or California science. Both places were impacted by covid. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/22/health/vaccine-effectiveness-bivalent-boosters-cdc/index.html

 

Your bravery in protecting the herd with extra boosting is noted. Based on some reading, including from this well-known conservative outlet, continued boosting might actually fly in the face of science. Carry on, progressive hero. 

[Gene Frenkle]

14 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

I bet you still think it was about flattening curves.  
 

Good little sheep sheep sheep.        

 

I'll bet you're happy you're protected and you didn't even have to get that scary shot! It's okay, kitty, we got you boo!

14 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

I see you are a big science guy (seems counterintuitive based on your posts, but whatever).  I once asked one of your like minded board members a covid science question but he didn’t answer. The question dealt with the Sabres playing in an empty arena in Canada on the same day the Rams won the Super Bowl before 80k people. I was just curious which science he believed in. Canadian science or California science. Both places were impacted by covid. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/22/health/vaccine-effectiveness-bivalent-boosters-cdc/index.html

 

Your bravery in protecting the herd with extra boosting is noted. Based on some reading, including from this well-known conservative outlet, continued boosting might actually fly in the face of science. Carry on, progressive hero. 

 

While you continue to benefit from those who were braver than you. Glad it worked out for you. The world is a frightening place sometimes!

[JDHillFan]

14 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I'll bet you're happy you're protected and you didn't even have to get that scary shot! It's okay, kitty, we got you boo!

 

While you continue to benefit from those who were braver than you. Glad it worked out for you. The world is a frightening place sometimes!

Like you, I am a man of science. When the numbers looked good out of Israel, I took the shot of my own free will, not because I was told to or so that I could prove my bravery (thanks again for your heroism). Once the numbers turned to sh*t and it was clear the miracle vax was less than miraculous, I combined my love of science with common sense and decided not to bother. You instead appear to prefer lining up behind the Walensky’s, Maddow’s and Stelter’s of the world. Now that’s brave!!

 

Carry on vaccine warrior! Somebody has to do what they are told. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by JDHillFan

[Buffarukus]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

While you continue to benefit from those who were braver than you. Glad it worked out for you. The world is a frightening place sometimes!

 

you guys are changing the definition of bravery now too? your bravery to hide for years has made the inflation of new dictionaries unattainable. please slow down. 

 

if it weren't for people going out and facing "certain death" you would still be bravely spraying lysol on your mail and calling the cops on kids who are illegally getting exercise in the park you padlocked.

 

officer!! i know i just called but im now positive they are unmasked!! i see SMILES in my binoculars!! please hurry!!

 

brave... lol 🤣🤣

 

 

Edited February 11, 2023 by Buffarukus

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, JDHillFan said:

Like you, I am a man of science. When the numbers looked good out of Israel, I took the shot of my own free will, not because I was told to or so that I could prove my bravery (thanks again for your heroism). Once the numbers turned to sh*t and it was clear the miracle vax was less than miraculous, I combined my love of science with common sense and decided not to bother. You instead appear to prefer lining up behind the Walensky’s, Maddow’s and Stelter’s of the world. Now that’s brave!!

 

Carry on vaccine warrior! Somebody has to do what they are told. 

Comparing the COVID-19 Vaccines: How Are They Different?

 

“In January, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a study based on people 12 and older included in North Carolina’s state vaccine registry data. The study found the bivalent vaccine to be 58.7% effective against hospitalization compared to 25% for the monovalent one that preceded it; its effectiveness against infection was 61.8% compared to 24.9% for the monovalent. Scientists noted that this study covered a period when Omicron subvariants BQ.1 and BQ.1.1. were also circulating, which suggests the updated vaccine is more effective against those strains in addition to the ones it was designed to target.”

 

 

 

 

[JDHillFan]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

Comparing the COVID-19 Vaccines: How Are They Different?

 

“In January, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a study based on people 12 and older included in North Carolina’s state vaccine registry data. The study found the bivalent vaccine to be 58.7% effective against hospitalization compared to 25% for the monovalent one that preceded it; its effectiveness against infection was 61.8% compared to 24.9% for the monovalent. Scientists noted that this study covered a period when Omicron subvariants BQ.1 and BQ.1.1. were also circulating, which suggests the updated vaccine is more effective against those strains in addition to the ones it was designed to target.”

 

 

 

 

The bottom line is that they neither prevent infection nor spread of infection. Nobody is saving the herd through repeated boosting no matter how brave that is. Those that fear hospitalization or worse should do what’s best for themselves. 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

The bottom line is that they neither prevent infection nor spread of infection. Nobody is saving the herd through repeated boosting no matter how brave that is. Those that fear hospitalization or worse should do what’s best for themselves. 

COVID vaccines slash risk of spreading Omicron — and so does previous infection

 

“The team found that among individuals with COVID-19, those who received at least one vaccine shot were 24% less likely to infect close contacts— in this case cellmates — compared with unvaccinated prisoners. People who had been infected before were 21% less likely to infect others compared with prisoners with no previous infection, and those who had been both vaccinated and previously infected were 41% less likely to pass on the virus compared with unvaccinated individuals without a previous infection.

[JDHillFan]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

COVID vaccines slash risk of spreading Omicron — and so does previous infection

 

“The team found that among individuals with COVID-19, those who received at least one vaccine shot were 24% less likely to infect close contacts— in this case cellmates — compared with unvaccinated prisoners. People who had been infected before were 21% less likely to infect others compared with prisoners with no previous infection, and those who had been both vaccinated and previously infected were 41% less likely to pass on the virus compared with unvaccinated individuals without a previous infection.

The sub-headline from that article:

 

But the benefit of vaccines in reducing Omicron transmission doesn’t last for long.

 

The vaccines do not prevent covid infection nor the spread of covid. Who is debating that at this stage? Anyone that wants some temporary measure of semi-protection can get it whenever they want. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

17 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

The truth is that we won't know all the side effects until years down the line. It was never about that. This was always our best shot at getting back to normal. Some people bravely took a chance for the greater good and some put on their tinfoil hats a acted like a bunch of whiney, paranoid kitties. Weak!

 

The sad thing is that all the anti-vaxer pricks benefit from herd immunity anyway. But the unvaxxed death rate is much higher if Covid finds a way past the tinfoil.

 

Be careful out there!

No, not really.  What happened was people navigated the very complicated landscape of a politicized pandemic, and largely vaccinated because they thought it made sense for them and their families. 
 

Interestingly, though, there was a rather noticeable shift from “VAX VAX BOOST BOOST” to reporting suggesting something like 60% of Americans got at least one vaccine shot.   That’s a completely different narrative than what you’re proposing here. 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

The sub-headline from that article:

 

But the benefit of vaccines in reducing Omicron transmission doesn’t last for long.

 

The vaccines do not prevent covid infection nor the spread of covid. Who is debating that at this stage? Anyone that wants some temporary measure of semi-protection can get it whenever they want. 

Vaccines reducing transmission but their effectiveness fading over time =\= vaccines don’t reduce transmission.

 

At the start, the hope had been that the vaccines would eradicate COVID. That didn’t happen. Instead, they are very good at preventing bad outcomes when you catch COVID and can reduce the transmission for a while. 
 

The logical response to this would be that we should look at COVID vaccines the way we look at flu shots: something we get every year or so to protect ourselves and those around us. Instead, people are somehow arriving at the conclusion that getting a vaccine is pointless or even bad. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

Vaccines reducing transmission but their effectiveness fading over time =\= vaccines don’t reduce transmission.

 

At the start, the hope had been that the vaccines would eradicate COVID. That didn’t happen. Instead, they are very good at preventing bad outcomes when you catch COVID and can reduce the transmission for a while. 
 

The logical response to this would be that we should look at COVID vaccines the way we look at flu shots: something we get every year or so to protect ourselves and those around us. Instead, people are somehow arriving at the conclusion that getting a vaccine is pointless or even bad. 

I believe you’re drawing the wrong conclusion, and as it turns out it was the wrong approach from the very start. People who are AT RISK should consider getting regular shots. I don’t blame people and professionals from going overboard back in 2020 but we’re way, way, way passed that in 2023. 

[JDHillFan]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Vaccines reducing transmission but their effectiveness fading over time =\= vaccines don’t reduce transmission.

 

At the start, the hope had been that the vaccines would eradicate COVID. That didn’t happen. Instead, they are very good at preventing bad outcomes when you catch COVID and can reduce the transmission for a while. 
 

The logical response to this would be that we should look at COVID vaccines the way we look at flu shots: something we get every year or so to protect ourselves and those around us. Instead, people are somehow arriving at the conclusion that getting a vaccine is pointless or even bad. 

What makes you believe everyone gets a flu shot? Because you do?

 

You are clearly in the camp that there is no way that mRNA shots will have zero consequences a little while down the road. I am not. There’s not enough….science…to know. If I am wrong about that, please let me know what the future looks like. 
 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/861176/flu-vaccine-coverage-by-age-us/

 
Do we get it? Many do, many don’t. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by JDHillFan

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I believe you’re drawing the wrong conclusion, and as it turns out it was the wrong approach from the very start. People who are AT RISK should consider getting regular shots. I don’t blame people and professionals from going overboard back in 2020 but we’re way, way, way passed that in 2023. 

Nah, everyone should consider getting regular shots. For one, not everyone knows if they have an underlying condition that puts them at risk. You might find out the hard way. 

Additionally, even though the reduction in transmission abates over time, getting the vaccine at a time like winter (when transmission rates are up) will reduce the chance you pass COVID to someone you care about who may have an underlying condition. 
 

Bottom line is: if you’re not sure what to do, talk to your doctor instead of the internet. 

 

4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

What makes you believe everyone gets a flu shot? Because you do?

I don’t believe everyone gets one, but I believe everyone should. 
 

I’m not in a risk group for the flu but I get my shot every year because people close to me are. And also, I’d rather not be sick with the flu for a week even if it’s not lethal to me. 
 

Quote

You are clearly in the camp that there is no way that mRNA shots will have zero consequences a little while down the road. I am not. There’s not enough….science…to know. If I am wrong about that, please let me know what the future looks like. 

(citation needed) 

[JDHillFan]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

citation needed) 

Apologies. I surmised. 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Apologies. I surmised. 

I guess, to me, it makes sense to get a shot that greatly reduces the chances of severe outcomes from a virus that’s killed millions of people and somewhat reduce the chances I might pass it to someone else, than do not get it because of vague reasons that lack any scientific backing. 
 

But that’s just me, I suppose. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

I guess, to me, it makes sense to get a shot that greatly reduces the chances of severe outcomes from a virus that’s killed millions of people and somewhat reduce the chances I might pass it to someone else, than do not get it because of vague reasons that lack any scientific backing. 
 

But that’s just me, I suppose. 

Yep…it’s you. 😉

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Nah, everyone should consider getting regular shots. For one, not everyone knows if they have an underlying condition that puts them at risk. You might find out the hard way. 

Additionally, even though the reduction in transmission abates over time, getting the vaccine at a time like winter (when transmission rates are up) will reduce the chance you pass COVID to someone you care about who may have an underlying condition. 
 

Bottom line is: if you’re not sure what to do, talk to your doctor instead of the internet. 

 

I don’t believe everyone gets one, but I believe everyone should. 
 

I’m not in a risk group for the flu but I get my shot every year because people close to me are. And also, I’d rather not be sick with the flu for a week even if it’s not lethal to me. 
 

(citation needed) 

The flu blows.  Had it about 12 -15 years ago. Everything hurt. My teeth, the skin on the soles of my feet.  Laid up for the better part of 10 days, unusual as I had a stretch of work where I didn’t need a sick day for about 15 years.   
 

I usually get the shot every year but lost track of it this year.  

[OrangeBills]

2 hours ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

I'll bet you're happy you're protected and you didn't even have to get that scary shot! It's okay, kitty, we got you boo!

 

While you continue to benefit from those who were braver than you. Glad it worked out for you. The world is a frightening place sometimes!

 

Parody account?

[ChiGoose]

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The flu blows.  Had it about 12 -15 years ago. Everything hurt. My teeth, the skin on the soles of my feet.  Laid up for the better part of 10 days, unusual as I had a stretch of work where I didn’t need a sick day for about 15 years.   
 

I usually get the shot every year but lost track of it this year.  

At my old job, there were over 6,000 people in our office so we had a health clinic on site. Once a year, the clinic would do rounds, setting up shop in each department for an hour to give out flu shots. 
 

It was great. When I had five minutes, I could walk over to the conference room and get a free flu shot. 
 

Now I need to go to a pharmacy, so I have to make a bit of extra effort, but it’s worth it. 

[JDHillFan]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

I guess, to me, it makes sense to get a shot that greatly reduces the chances of severe outcomes from a virus that’s killed millions of people and somewhat reduce the chances I might pass it to someone else, than do not get it because of vague reasons that lack any scientific backing. 
 

But that’s just me, I suppose. 

You have also told us you wear a mask in crowded indoor settings. The world has moved on. Not everyone is as risk-averse as you seem to be. You and like-minded people are free to do what you do. Nobody cares. If that makes you a more thoughtful person than the vast majority, well, you’ve got that going for you. 

[SoCal Deek]

Aren’t the masks coming off on May 15th? Liberation Day!