My laptop had a surge when I was at motel 6 and my phone stopped working. This means I am left with only a very cheap tablet and unable to call or make calls, send or receive texts. I have no friends or family in the area and have several serious health issues. No working car. I live with 3 roommates whom I don't know. One was vaccinated but works at a prison and has a loud incessant cough and another one has an awful cough as well but may not even be vaccinated and I know nothing about the third roommate. So I am very vulnerable. And I have no way to communicate with the outside world besides this extremely old and cheap tablet that barely works. I could not stop vomiting and have had times when an awful, very foul and overpowering smell dominated me and followed me from my bedroom to outside. I feel compression in my chest. My roommates are in the age group least likely to be vaccinated. I am fully vaccinated. I have asthma and have been clean for over 3 years now. That has led to this exposition of the sophistry of the arguments presented by the anti-vaxxers. Please forgive any mistakes and formatting issues which resulted from using this cheap tablet.
What do these people largely with high school diplomas who refuse to get vaccinated mean by doing their "own research" ? Do they seriously put reading some posts published on Facebook at the same level as experts who have spent their entire academic and professional careers studying pandemics ? Do they understand that correlation is not the same as causation, that simply because event A preceded event B , it is not neçessarily true that event A caused event B . If I first flick off the light and then afterwards cough, that doesn't mean that flicking off the light causes me to cough. We need a double blind study conducted, a strong correlation shown, the variable isolated, and a plausible mechanism. Do these people even understand the meaning of the phrases I used in the above sentence ? Do they understand what the phrase "correlation is not the same as causation" means ?
They complain that 2 of the 3 main vaccines only have emergency………:but they use things with no authorization whatsoever for COVID !
Ivermectin is used to treat people and won a Nobel prize! Yeah. In what year? 2015. Four years before the novel coronavirus made its appearance . What was the Nobel prize for ? It should be obvious to everybody that it was not for treating the novel coronavirus since it was given four years prior to the appearance of the virus. In fact, it was given because it was discovered that it could do the same thing for people that it does for livestock, deworm them. Deworming a person is not the same as treating them for the novel coronavirus.
These people have no understanding of cost benefit analysis. Just because a medication works for and is approved for treating malaria does not mean that it should be used for the novel coronavirus or that it is safe to do so. Hydroxychloroquine works for treating malaria and the side effects of using it are not as bad as the consequences of having malaria. Therefore, it makes sense to approve it for treating malaria. It doesn't work for treating the novel coronavirus and it shares a co-morbidity with the novel coronavirus. So, it should not be approved for treating and is not approved for treating the novel coronavirus. The reason for approving it for treating malaria and not approving it for treating the novel coronavirus is because of the difference in the cost benefit analysis.
Well the vaccines aren't 100% effective? Neither are seat belts. Should we not have a seat belt law ? Vaccines don't just work by preventing you from catching COVID, they also help by making it so that if you do catch it , then you get a weaker case of it.
If you reject the vaccines, then why go to a hospital full of medical personnel who would have told you to get vaccinated.
Israel . Most cases there are of vaccinated people. Yeah and they now only have 10% of the cases they did before the vaccines. Israel is a story of the effectiveness of the vaccines, not the ineffectiveness of the vaccines.
If you're protected by the vaccines, then why do you care about other people not getting vaccinated. If you're scared, then stay home. It's a pandemic - pan meaning every. Your refusal to get vaccinated affects others. It ensures that the pandemic will continue. Thus, the virus will continue to mutate which means increasingly higher viral loads will be passed from patient to patient. That means more breakthrough cases. Children under the age of 12 can't get vaccinated and will be hurt by your refusal to get vaccinated. There are immunocompromised people who will be hurt by your refusal to listen to science. Let's let people drive drunk and if you're scared, then stay home. Why should responsible people have their world shrink instead of the world of the irresponsible people shrink? Your refusal to get vaccinated means more people who need critical care not related to the virus will not be able to get the care they need.
The odds of getting COVID and dying are only 1%. So you want 1% of our country to die ???? That's 3.3 million people. And those odds keep getting worse. One way is if you make your calculations based upon current stats. When the first person died from the novel coronavirus, then were the odds either 0 before they died or 1 in 330 million after they died ? Then they are 700,000 in 3.3 million right now. And the virus will keep killing people and so through the magic of compound interest, the it won't stop at 1% of the current population. Then it will be 1% of the population which is left. .. if it is based upon the consensus view of the deadliness of the pandemic, it will increase too. The virus will continue to mutate, so there will be ever-increasing viral loads being passed on which means more people will catch it and die. Furthermore, the pandemic will continue and the magic of compounding interest will strike again.
Through the amazing work of brainwrap, we know that the greater the percentage of people in a county who voted for Trump, the fewer the people who are vaccinated, and the more people who die from the novel coronavirus.
In general, if we had a greater percentage of people who were vaccinated, then we would be in a much better place. Refusing to get vaccinated keeps the virus circulating and mutating. The sooner we can get a great percentage of people vaccinated, the sooner we can get back to a relatively normal life.
The vaccines were developed too quickly to be safe and effective. If the vaccines actually killed a large number of people, the media and the families of the dead would speak out. The media companies need to be profitable to continue to exist. A revelation that there is proof that the vaccines killed a large number of people would generate huge interest and profit. If it bleeds, it leads. They would also be acting in the interest of the American people. Scientists have been working on developing vaccines using messenger RNA for over a decade. Why is it hard to believe that with a decade of studies behind them, during a pandemic when they are working together instead of as competitors they would be able to develop safe and effective vaccines in less than a year. About 70% of the eligible population has been vaccinated. Yet, only 5% of those hospitalized due to COVID were vaccinated. How did 70% of the eligible population become only 5% of the hospitalized due to COVID and 3% of those who died due to the novel coronavirus were vaccinated. So again how did 70% of the eligible population become only 3% of those who died due to COVID and how did 30% of the eligible population become 97% of those who died due to COVID ? The best answer is that the vaccines are safe and effective.
There are idiots using the self-reported statistics that the CDC has made available in order to make it appear that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus itself. In addition to requiring a huge conspiracy, they fail to understand or take into account what the CDC wrote by the self-reported stuff (i refuse to call it data because it certainly isn't that):
accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. About 85-90% of the reports described mild side effects such as fever, arm soreness, or mild irritability. The remaining reports are classified as serious, which means that the reported adverse event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, prolongation of an existing hospitalization, life-threatening illness, congenital deformity/birth defect or death. While these events can happen after vaccination, they are rarely caused by the vaccine.
Adverse event
- VAERS data alone cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event.
This specific limitation has caused confusion about the publicly available data, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. In the past there have been instances where people misinterpreted reports of death following vaccination as death caused by the vaccines; that is a mistake.
VAERS accepts all reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging whether the vaccine caused the adverse health event. Some reports to VAERS might represent true vaccine reactions, and others might be coincidental adverse health events not related to vaccination at all.
Generally, a causal relationship cannot be established using information from VAERS reports alone.
- The number of reports submitted to VAERS may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness.
- It is not possible to use VAERS data to calculate how often an adverse event occurs in a population.
Wednesday, Oct 13, 2021 · 10:41:17 AM +00:00 · Dem
Why anybody would care about or be upset at how U characterize this is a mystery, a real head-scratcher. If you heard me saying this aloud after reading another issue of Kos' chronicles of the anti-vaxxers or if you could envision it spoken by me , then you might better understand why i refer to it as a rant. What it is called is hardly as important as the topic itself, whether this is a diatribe or a rant with the harsh edge and mockery of the stupidity which I employ justifying this title. The characterization is largely subjective. If the title is more important than the contents and the exposition of the sophistry of the anti-vaxxers to somebody, then we share radically different priorities.
Wednesday, Oct 13, 2021 · 11:02:02 AM +00:00 · Dem
I gave this diary a new title although I remain mystified why the title and characterization of the diary would be more important than its contents and the refutation of the arguments presented by the anti-vaxxers.
Wednesday, Oct 13, 2021 · 8:39:43 PM +00:00
·
Dem
I was enlightened by a user here who informed me that I missed the point and that truth didn't matter. Their truth which doesn't matter is that truth doesn't matter. That's what they said.
We all know that if a person is absolutely committed to their tribe, then even if we show them that their arguments are faulty and specious they still won't leave their tribe and nobody here affirmed the contrary. This is a monument to truth.