COVID Developments and News

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by dpfarr

That’s fine. I’m not trying to present any real arguments to the void of the internet. I read your comment about trying to advocate for your friends and family. Do that to the best of your abilities and I’ll leave you to it.

I fail to see the point to any of your recent posts.
Fallacies
Back tracking
Lack of any real substance or content.
And now “not trying to argue” … ok… have fun.

[wolffbite]

Tested positive on Thursday night. 3 days in my fever is gone, but I have a pretty nasty cough and the fatigue is quite bad.

I'm fully vaccinated + booster. Were they worth it? Well, let's just say I'd hate to think what would happen to me if I didn't have them. There is just no way of knowing.

This nonsense of "no one cares about COVID anymore" is pretty dangerous thinking. Take precautions based on what's going on around you and don't assume everything is back to normal quite yet.

Take care everyone.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by wolffbite

Tested positive on Thursday night. 3 days in my fever is gone, but I have a pretty nasty cough and the fatigue is quite bad.

I'm fully vaccinated + booster. Were they worth it? Well, let's just say I'd hate to think what would happen to me if I didn't have them. There is just no way of knowing.

This nonsense of "no one cares about COVID anymore" is pretty dangerous thinking. Take precautions based on what's going on around you and don't assume everything is back to normal quite yet.

Take care everyone.

I hope you are fully recovered by now.

[wolffbite]

Originally Posted by humfrz

I hope you are fully recovered by now.

Thanks hum!

I've been on the upswing since Monday. As of today I just have some congestion and a very lovely sounding cough. Definitely feeling much better though

[p1l0t]

TL;DR side effects from mRNA vaccines may negate the overall death reduction of getting it in the first place. But it's not real science since doesn't fit the narrative even if it is with 95+% certainty. And this is only *so far*

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[weederr33]

Oh for fucks sake. We get it. No one is changing their opinion. Let this thread die or lock already.

[86TOYO2k17]

Or just stop going to it and participating in it…

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

TL;DR side effects from mRNA vaccines may negate the overall death reduction of getting it in the first place. But it's not real science since doesn't fit the narrative even if it is with 95+% certainty. And this is only *so far*

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

The real TL;DR
The study was done to determine if the vaccines reduce deaths from causes other than COVID-19

This doesn’t accurately reflect the study, which has not been peer-reviewed. Medical experts have noted that the findings are limited and said that more research is needed.

In the study, researchers used clinical trial data to see what if any effect the different COVID-19 vaccines had on reducing deaths from all causes, not just from COVID-19. It found that adenovirus vaccines like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact.

The study found that of the 31 deaths that occurred in mRNA-vaccinated individuals, only two were from COVID-19. The rest were due to other causes. For the adenovirus-vaccinated group, two of the 16 deaths were from COVID-19.

The research reinforced that both types of vaccines significantly prevented COVID-19 deaths, "which is not surprising as both types of vaccines generate cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2, protecting us against severe disease."

The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19.


What was that thing about fitting a narrative?

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

The real TL;DR
The study was done to determine if the vaccines reduce deaths from causes other than COVID-19

This doesn’t accurately reflect the study, which has not been peer-reviewed. Medical experts have noted that the findings are limited and said that more research is needed.

In the study, researchers used clinical trial data to see what if any effect the different COVID-19 vaccines had on reducing deaths from all causes, not just from COVID-19. It found that adenovirus vaccines like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact.

The study found that of the 31 deaths that occurred in mRNA-vaccinated individuals, only two were from COVID-19. The rest were due to other causes. For the adenovirus-vaccinated group, two of the 16 deaths were from COVID-19.

The research reinforced that both types of vaccines significantly prevented COVID-19 deaths, "which is not surprising as both types of vaccines generate cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2, protecting us against severe disease."

The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19.


What was that thing about fitting a narrative?

Regarding "UnHerd, the source of the video. Note that these are some of the more complementary things written.

Simon Childs, writing for Vice at the time of the site's launch in 2017, was critical of the underlying premise and assumptions of the site, saying "The social media news cycle can be a jading stream of ill-informed narcissists, but it's refreshing to be reminded that at least it offers a more diverse outlook than Tim Montgomerie funded by an oligarch publishing the kind of people who are generally "unheard" because people edge away from them at parties."[10] Jasper Jackson writing for New Statesman around the same time was skeptical that UnHerd's promotion of slow journalism was groundbreaking, as "the idea UnHerd is offering a groundbreaking solution to information overload is faintly ludicrous."[9]

There are people who, when repeatedly proven wrong will continue to scrape to the bottom of the barrel looking for vindication that they are not full of [nonsense]. Eventually, they scrape through the bottom of the barrel. What's underneath the barrel boys and girls?

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

The real TL;DR
The study was done to determine if the vaccines reduce deaths from causes other than COVID-19

This doesn’t accurately reflect the study, which has not been peer-reviewed. Medical experts have noted that the findings are limited and said that more research is needed.

In the study, researchers used clinical trial data to see what if any effect the different COVID-19 vaccines had on reducing deaths from all causes, not just from COVID-19. It found that adenovirus vaccines like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact.

The study found that of the 31 deaths that occurred in mRNA-vaccinated individuals, only two were from COVID-19. The rest were due to other causes. For the adenovirus-vaccinated group, two of the 16 deaths were from COVID-19.

The research reinforced that both types of vaccines significantly prevented COVID-19 deaths, "which is not surprising as both types of vaccines generate cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2, protecting us against severe disease."

The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19.


What was that thing about fitting a narrative?

Yes that's the point in the "science" you were spoon fed they only tested for effectivity from COVID. That's why the same people who support this are against free speech. Free speech is the social media form of peer review (even if it much of it is BS). Sometimes you have to step back and look beyond the tip of the iceberg. So if someone who was not at high risk for COVID dies of heart failure from the vaccine maybe that was an unnecessary risk that we were told believe was because we didn't have all the data. But hey like @weederr33 says not like anyone in here is changing any minds now. Not sure if that means it not worth a discussion though.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[soundman98]

i've got some time

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Yes that's the point in the "science" you were spoon fed they only tested for effectivity from COVID.

WAT

Originally Posted by p1l0t

That's why the same people who support this are against free speech. Free speech is the social media form of peer review (even if it much of it is BS).

lol. so anyone that supports vaccines is against free speech?

do you have the rule book somewhere? i don't seem to have received mine with my shots

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Sometimes you have to step back and look beyond the tip of the iceberg.

yes, that's what all of us need to be doing. instead of, say, creating US vs. THEM scenarios, for instance, what would imply one group desires to limit 'free speech' of the other group...

Originally Posted by p1l0t

So if someone who was not at high risk for COVID dies of heart failure from the vaccine maybe that was an unnecessary risk that we were told believe was because we didn't have all the data.

but of course, medical contradictions happen all the time, why let someone's poor medical diagnostic history get in the way of a good story against that which you've already decided is the THEM side?

Originally Posted by p1l0t

But hey like @weederr33 says not like anyone in here is changing any minds now. Not sure if that means it not worth a discussion though.

lol, i believe the literal phrase here is "casting into the weeds", or weederr as it may be

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Yes that's the point in the "science" you were spoon fed they only tested for effectivity from COVID. That's why the same people who support this are against free speech. Free speech is the social media form of peer review (even if it much of it is BS). Sometimes you have to step back and look beyond the tip of the iceberg. So if someone who was not at high risk for COVID dies of heart failure from the vaccine maybe that was an unnecessary risk that we were told believe was because we didn't have all the data. But hey like @weederr33 says not like anyone in here is changing any minds now. Not sure if that means it not worth a discussion though.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Sometimes you need to step back and see how small the iceberg is compared to the ocean...

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by soundman98

i've got some time



WAT







lol. so anyone that supports vaccines is against free speech?



do you have the rule book somewhere? i don't seem to have received mine with my shots



yes, that's what all of us need to be doing. instead of, say, creating US vs. THEM scenarios, for instance, what would imply one group desires to limit 'free speech' of the other group...







but of course, medical contradictions happen all the time, why let someone's poor medical diagnostic history get in the way of a good story against that which you've already decided is the THEM side?







lol, i believe the literal phrase here is "casting into the weeds", or weederr as it may be

Lemme cherry pick what I can throw out some fallacies... yeah my point is still valid.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[soundman98]

There was a point in all that?!?