patrick.net

@patrick

But a few ml of foreign mRNA not approved by the FDA might really fuck you up for life.

You are aware that covid is not FDA approved, right? If you get covid, you are getting that same little section of DNA that encodes the spike protein, but you are getting a bunch of other shit on top of it.. In fact, a whole self-replicating extra set of proteins.

mell says

You don't know how many people died of covid, just how many died with covid.

Not even that. Just how many had positive results from the very unreliable PCR test.

This is what Reiner Fuellmich is suing about.

@patrick
Not happening. It's been over a year. How long do we have to wait for this particular event?

you are correct. It was pointed out that I might be fear mongering. Does it seem like I am? I tried to lay out my approximations of what I think might be low probability vs high probability based on history. Did it seem off?

If this low probability event did come to pass, would you agree with my statement?
Do you at least agree that this would be one possible risk we can at least label and quantify in the event that the mutation did happen?

Again, not trying to oversell it or fear monger. I'm trying to reasonably look at risk.
https://www.livescience.com/worst-epidemics-and-pandemics-in-history.html

This counts 20 in a bit over 2000 years in the areas we can record history for.

Would it be fair to assume that with international travel this might be higher?

Zak says

If you get covid, you are getting that same little section of DNA that encodes the spike protein, but you are getting a bunch of other shit on top of it.

And quite a different method of propagation compared to being injected with a mass dose of spike protein mRNA, right?

What it comes down to, again, is that I do not trust Fauci, or the CDC, or the Biden administration, or the newly rich "vaccine" companies to do the right thing

I think they are playing fast and loose with the lives massive numbers of people because they have huge financial and political incentives to do that.

Zak says

@patrick
Not happening. It's been over a year. How long do we have to wait for this particular event?

you are correct. It was pointed out that I might be fear mongering. Does it seem like I am? I tried to lay out my approximations of what I think might be low probability vs high probability based on history. Did it seem off?

If this low probability event did come to pass, would you agree with my statement?
Do you at least agree that this would be one possible risk we can at least label and quantify in the event that the mutation did happen?

Again, not trying to oversell it or fear monger. I'm trying to reasonably look at risk.
https://www.livescience.com/worst-epidemics-and-pandemics-in-history.html

This counts 20 in a bit over 2000 years in the areas we can record history for.

Would it be fair to assume that with intern...

The number of reported deaths and serious adverse events from covid vaccines within months in vaers are higher than all other common vaccines for 15 years. It is happening. The "vaccine" may still be a good proposition for a small group of people but not for most. In fact it's a crime exposing adolescents and kids with close to zero risk of serious covid illness to the much higher risk of serous side effects from the agent.

Patrick says

Zak says

If you get covid, you are getting that same little section of DNA that encodes the spike protein, but you are getting a bunch of other shit on top of it.

And quite a different method of propagation compared to being injected with a mass dose of spike protein mRNA, right?

What it comes down to, again, is that I do not trust Fauci, or the CDC, or the Biden administration, or the newly rich "vaccine" companies to do the right thing

I think they are playing fast and loose with the lives massive numbers of people because they have huge financial and political incentives to do that.

There doesn't have to be a mass die off event, the number of serious side effects already doesn't justify the risk for all young, adults and healthy. I don't think prognostications of worst case scenarios (usually the extremes never happen) like those are not good for the cause of informing people of the real risks of these agents. Just show them the math and they can make their own decision. The math is clear for 80%, it's not worth the risk.

Patrick says

Experience shows that this is extremely rare (temporary episodes in Milan and NYC).

In fact, lots of hospitals went bankrupt because they were emptied by the fear-mongering about the CCP Virus. (I kind of like Epoch News' term CCP Virus.)

So here's thing thing. It's kind of hard to say "yeah this is already happening a little bit with the low current death rate of covid" but then say the risk is low if a mutation with a higher death rate crops up.

I 100% agree with your point about overreacting, and hospitals going bankrupt, and that people have been acting out of fear and making some poor public policy decisions. But that's also why I try to discuss these things with a level head and give an honest risk assessment. Good valid points like yours about closing and bankrupting hospitals being bad policy shouldn't cancel out other good valid points about reducing the overall number of transmissions and opportunities for mutation through a widely deployed vaccination.

I appreciate your sincere arguments @Zak even if I disagree.

Call me paranoid.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/11/18/covid-infection-fatality-rates-sex-and-age-15163

Patrick says

I appreciate your sincere arguments @Zak even if I disagree.

Call me paranoid.

I appreciate disagreement. I actually like when people say "hey have you considered this". If everyone just agreed on everything, you wouldn't get a well rounded viewpoint on situations that really need a lot of viewpoints to be considered. In addition to saying I respect people's right to not get the vaccine, I know for a fact some people should NOT get it, and it would be dangerous if they did (various allergies, immunosuppresed, etc). (One of the reasons I always think it should be an individual choice with education, instead of some kind of mandate).

Zak says

So here's thing thing. It's kind of hard to say "yeah this is already happening a little bit with the low current death rate of covid" but then say the risk is low if a mutation with a higher death rate crops up.

That's also a common lie. If you have had a natural covid infection you are protected against most if not all variants, mutants, call em what you will, to a high enough degree that you won't get seriously ill. That's called t/b cell immunity. The mrna/dna vaccines that only build on the antibody response fade quickly and provide no protection for variants that alter their protein(s) enough to evade or render the ABs useless. You will most certainly lose the herd immunity race (plus lots of side effects from the agents) against the corona viruses without a high degree of natural immunity from real infections among the low risk groups, that's why we have never had a vaccine for a CV. A vaccine's main purpose is to protect the vulnerable, not to add to long term herd immunity, which doesn't work for many viruses such as the flu virus. In fact antibody mediated vaccination works better with bacteria, that's why the tetanus vaccine is so successful. For viruses acquired t/b cell immunity from exposure is vastly superior.

mell says

In fact it's a crime exposing adolescents and kids with close to zero risk of serious covid illness to the much higher risk of serous side effects from the agent.

Hmm, so what is the death rate for people age 18-24 from covid vs from the vaccine? I'll wait. This should be a 2 second google search if you are correct.

ThreeBays says

Covid increases your risk of death by...
33% for age 30-39
35% for age 40-49
60% for age 50-65

You must not have much of a point if you stoop to this. If the risk of death for someone in a given year is .00003%, and some factor increases the risk to .00004%, that is a "33% increase." The reality of risk going from next to nothing to another next to nothing is not negated because you play a statistical trick. Percent increase is almost always a propaganda tool to hide small numbers.

Even Lauren Job’s 'The Atlantic' is acknowledging just how much liberals have come to love their cozy authoritarianism.
“….liberals who aren’t quite ready to let go of pandemic restrictions. For this subset, diligence against COVID-19 remains an expression of political identity—even when that means overestimating the disease’s risks or setting limits far more strict than what public-health guidelines permit.”
“For many progressives, extreme vigilance was in part about opposing Donald Trump. Some of this reaction was born of deeply felt frustration with how he handled the pandemic. It could also be knee-jerk. “If he said, ‘Keep schools open,’ then, well, we’re going to do everything in our power to keep schools closed,” Monica Gandhi, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco, told me.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/05/liberals-covid-19-science-denial-lockdown/618780/

This pol shows how frightened the Left was by the disinformation they received from their pandering media. They actually thought if you got this "nightmare disease" you had a 50% chance of hospitalization.
“But Democrats got it wrong again when it came to rates of hospitalization. The actual rate is 1-5% but 41% of Democrats put the hospitalization rate at 50+ percent, which is way off. Meanwhile, Republicans were 2 1/2 times as likely to give the correct answer.”
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2021/03/18/survey-republicans-underestimate-covid-risks-democrats-overestimate-n380956

Onvacation says

@Zak

When do you think the pandemic will end?

I actually think we are getting pretty close to only having a low background level of cases. I think UCSD reported zero new cases in the hospital today. And for sure the hospitals aren't filling up with covid vaccine symptom cases despite 100 million people just getting jabbed, so ... ya know.. there is that. I think by July it will be background spreading around the unvaccinated.

To me, we can go the way of polio and kill this thing off, or we can have an irritating and slightly more deadly flu that ends up lingering in the background for decades.. perhaps mutating and slowly nullifying vaccine effectiveness.

Robert Sproul says

diligence against COVID-19 remains an expression of political identity—even when that means overestimating the disease’s risks or setting limits far more strict than what public-health guidelines permit

I agree with this statement. There has been an abuse of authority with regards to covid. The evidence I've seen nonetheless shows the vaccine is relatively safe, while more dangerous than normal vaccines, but less dangerous than covid itself by a large margin. I would vehemently oppose that we mandate it, but I would highly recommend we educate and encourage people to get it.

HeadSet says

Percent increase is almost always a propaganda tool to hide small numbers.

I agree with this statement, but in this case, I think he was just showing that there is a difference in reference to a post I made. For instance, I'm still waiting on @mell to post a simple death rate due to covid vs due to the vaccine for those in the 18-24 range. The numbers for both are vanishingly small, and yet, they are still higher for covid, despite mell's claim to the contrary.

(And not just claim to the contrary, but claim that it is in fact so far opposite that it is criminal) ... Stiiiiiilllll waiiiiting......

Zak says

mell says

In fact it's a crime exposing adolescents and kids with close to zero risk of serious covid illness to the much higher risk of serous side effects from the agent.

Hmm, so what is the death rate for people age 18-24 from covid vs from the vaccine? I'll wait. This should be a 2 second google search if you are correct.

Again this is not a correct approach and there may be no foolproof one, but definitely one approaching correctness. When you look up the deaths - you probably are referring to the 0.1% number - you need to consider that those are only people with serious enough illness to.be hospitalized. What is missed are the other 99% of those age 18-24 who have no symptoms or such mild symptoms that they never get tested for covid or go to the hospital (that's also why it has almost 30% death rate for ages 70-79 because those are hospitalized patients only). Again, take seroprevalence and apply the number of deaths to that, then the number of deaths/serious illness from the vaccine is far higher than from covid. On top of that you need to factor in those 20%-50% who don't get enough exposure for an infection at all, whereas the jab is a 100% certainty. Of course if you only look at the serious enough cases to be confirmed - ok some mild cases may get caught when the whole family takes a test when one member gets sick - then that death rate may seem higher than the one from the agent, but if you do the math correctly taking the sampled seroprevalence into account there's no way a normal/healthy 18-24 yr old should take the risk of taking those agents/vaccines.

Zak says

The numbers for both are vanishingly small, and yet, they are still higher for covid

Are they higher for Covid vs Jab with a realistic comparison? That is, you count count only those who died of Covid and not those died of another cause but may have have Covid or estimated to have had Covid at time of death. Also to be fair, you would need to subtract out the historical percentage of flu deaths for ages18-24, as it is pretty obvious that flu deaths were combined with Covid deaths this time.

ThreeBays says

Zak says

The numbers for both are vanishingly small, and yet, they are still higher for covid, despite mell's claim to the contrary.

Correct. Based on the VAERS data we have (which may be over or undercounting) getting the Vax reduces your risk at any age by 100 to 200x.

| VAERS Deaths | COVID-19 Deaths | Risk reduction from vaccination
18-29 | 29 events | 2125 | 98.6%
30-39 | 43 events | 6165 | 99.3%
40-49 | 85 events | 16694 | 99.5%
50-64 | 386 events | 86390 | 99.6%
65+ | 2152 events | 449938 | 99.5%

They're not, the risks of death from vaccination are much higher for healthy people,. Math doesn't lie. And while covid death numbers and vaers report numbers are likely somewhat inaccurate, 40%-80%+ seroprevalence just is. Fact. An by this number alone coercing a minor to get vaccinated should be considered a crime at this point.

@mell
he posted the numbers right there, and your response is "They're not" LOL..

pay no attention.. 2+2 does not equal 4 seroprevalence prestidigitation!

and then you say math doesn't lie! LOL!!! You're fucking funny!

Also note, mell does not dispute the 29 number for VAERS .. It's SO FUCKING CRIMINAL that 29 people died! despite if it saved even 1/10th of those that died of covid it would still be 10x better than getting covid...

yup TERRIBLE vaccine. you fucking simpleton..

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

If we return to a non-Weathermen Media Era, it's going to be astounding at how many Mask Karens and Soys claim they never believed in the vaccine or the CCP Virus scam.

I'll second that.

I've had people call me nuts for saying stuff like, "Saddam Hussein DOESN'T have a weapons of mass destruction program! If he did, our government would show actual proof, not fucking mock up computer drawings!" - only to have them tell me years later "I never believed Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction program".

I'm so tired of living among sheep. They'll join the gang in a second, and all they will never go against it.

Zak says

HeadSet says

Percent increase is almost always a propaganda tool to hide small numbers.

I agree with this statement, but in this case, I think he was just showing that there is a difference in reference to a post I made. For instance, I'm still waiting on @mell to post a simple death rate due to covid vs due to the vaccine for those in the 18-24 range. The numbers for both are vanishingly small, and yet, they are still higher for covid, despite mell's claim to the contrary.

(And not just claim to the contrary, but claim that it is in fact so far opposite that it is criminal) ... Stiiiiiilllll waiiiiting......

I did the math for you in the answer above. You should be able to compute the real risk given seroprevalence and not hospitalized patients. Cnbc September 2020: "!at least 121 deaths ages below 21 years!" (0-21 years, not just 18-24), by that time seroprevalce was already sampled at 40% minimum. 100MM people are below 21 in the US, 40% are 40MM people, so 121/40000000=0.000003025, or 0.0003%, but the other 60MM didn't have a covid infection then and may never get an infection so it's even much lower than that! And those dead may likely have had underlying conditions to a larger extent, so the real risk for a healthy adolescent is even much lower than much lower!

mell says

I did the math for you in the answer above. You should be able to compute the real risk given seroprevalence and not hospitalized patients.

no computation necessary, nor hospitalization rate. since the population count is the same for either statistic, you can just look at a raw count. 29 vaccine deaths 18-29
2125 covid deaths. with 100 million vaccinated, only up to 3-5x more people in the 18-24 range can even get vaccinations. at this rate that would only be 150 deaths vs over 2000. you're fucking ridiculous and cant do basic arithmetic, and call other people who can liars.

ThreeBays says

CDC already splits covid from flu and pneumonia. The latter two were not insignificant last year.

US Flu deaths for 2018-2019 Flu Season ~ 34,000
US Flu deaths for 2019 - 2020 Flu season ~ 22,0000
US Flu Deaths for 2020 - 2021 Flu Season ~ 600

Looking at those numbers, you seriously think the Covid death count does not include Flu deaths?

assume covid deaths are overinflated by double. the vaccine still lowers the risk of dying 50x for every age range

Zak says

mell says

I did the math for you in the answer above. You should be able to compute the real risk given seroprevalence and not hospitalized patients.

no computation necessary, nor hospitalization rate. since the population count is the same for either statistic, you can just look at a raw count. 29 vaccine deaths 18-29
2125 covid deaths. with 100 million vaccinated, only up to 3-5x more people in the 18-24 range can even get vaccinations. at this rate that would only be 150 deaths vs over 2000. you're fucking ridiculous and cant do basic arithmetic, and call other people who can liars.

If you don't want to understand basic math and instead stoop to insults I can't help you. Literally nobody age 18-24 has been vaccinated, if you vaccinated all of them the deaths would far outpace the deaths among the 40%-80% who have already contracted Covid. I did the math above and it's pretty clear, the risk of catching covid and dying from it is not existent for age 18-24. The risk from the jab is still "little" but much higher.

HeadSet says

ThreeBays says

CDC already splits covid from flu and pneumonia. The latter two were not insignificant last year.

US Flu deaths for 2018-2019 Flu Season ~ 34,000
US Flu deaths for 2019 - 2020 Flu season ~ 22,0000
US Flu Deaths for 2020 - 2021 Flu Season ~ 600

Looking at those numbers, you seriously think the Covid death count does not include Flu deaths?

Of course it includes almost all flu deaths as covid deaths as presumption is enough. People were not tested for anything else than covid or bot at all and the presumption was made. It's not necessarily always wrong to presume under high load/stress (although it came with financial incentives) if the treatment is similar but you can't use these numbers to do math with it.

personal

Zak says

assume covid deaths are overinflated by double. the vaccine still lowers the risk of dying 50x for every age range

Where did that 50x come from? I see the discussion where one compares the risk of Covid vs the risk of the jab. Are you assuming that getting the jab is 100% effective in preventing Covid? Once you get the jab it is impossible to die of Covid? I am presently in Omaha visiting in-laws. The local paper today had an article about a local nursing home that has 29 cases of Covid - despite all the residents having been vaccinated. Also, it is not just about immediately dying from the jab. What about the long term effects?

There is no way that a healthy person with virtually no chance of dying from Covid should take a jab that does carry a very small risk of death, a risk of immediate side effects, plus an unknown long term risk.

mell says

If you don't want to understand basic math and instead stoop to insults I can't help you.

Let's get some more facts straight. If you want to dispute data, and argue validity of numbers, that's firmly in the professional discourse realm. You call me a liar while you tell me that 29 is a bigger number that 2000, and I'll call you a stupid wrong fuck right to your face. You started it not me.

HeadSet says

Zak says

assume covid deaths are overinflated by double. the vaccine still lowers the risk of dying 50x for every age range

Where did that 50x come from? I see the discussion where one compares the risk of Covid vs the risk of the jab. Are you assuming that getting the jab is 100% effective in preventing Covid? Once you get the jab it is impossible to die of Covid? I am presently in Omaha visiting in-laws. The local paper today had an article about a local nursing home that has 29 cases of Covid - despite all the residents having been vaccinated. Also, it is not just about immediately dying from the jab. What about the long term effects?

There is no way that a healthy person with virtually no chance of dying from Covid should take a jab that does carry a very small risk of death, a risk of immediate side effects, plus an unknown long term risk.

Yes that math is wrong. We didn't even go into calculating the effectiveness of the vaccine and instead took 2k deaths "with covid" (pcr test within 28 days or presumed without test) as face value for dying of covid. Also keep in mind that most of those had underlying health conditions for which a vaccine may be appropriate. But for those young and healthy the risk of serious events from covid is so low that a guaranteed jab would expose then to a higher risk. Targeted vaccination for a small subset is the way to go.

Zak says

Also note, mell does not dispute the 29 number for VAERS .. It's SO FUCKING CRIMINAL that 29 people died! despite if it saved even 1/10th of those that died of covid it would still be 10x better than getting covid...

yup TERRIBLE vaccine. you fucking simpleton..

It becomes criminal when it becomes compulsory for education, extra-curricular activities, to work, and to travel. Not having the choice to opt out and being essentially forced to take something in order to continue living your life as it has been is what is criminal. No test with 99.999% certainty of proving patient compatibility with the experimental biological agent without adverse side effects or death? No JAB!

HeadSet says

Where did that 50x come from?

yeah it comes from death rates. some people dispute that over 2000 people in the 18-29 range have died due to reporting errors, or dying of something else while infected with covid for example. I don't really buy this, but to give that argument the benefit of the doubt, assume it is true for a moment, and that covid rates are overreported by something stupid like 2x. So instead of 2000 dead, it's only 1000 for example. In this case, we have 29 deaths vs 1000 deaths.. still a ridiculous multiplier (ok maybe 30x instead of 50x or something). Nobody is disputing that 29 people in the 18-29 range have died from the vaccine. It's sad, but it's like 30x less sad than all the people that would have died from covid.

ForcedTQ says

It becomes criminal when it becomes compulsory for education, extra-curricular activities, to work, and to travel. Not having the choice to opt out and being essentially forced to take something in order to continue living your life as it has been is what is criminal.

Ok..look I'm reasonable. I absolutely said I don't think the vaccine should be compulsory by law for governmental purposes. I temper that by saying it is 100% acceptable for private business to take some reasonable measures to prevent the spread of a highly communicable disease among their workforce and potential other customers. For instance, enforcing that customers/employees wear a mask during the time the virus is highly prevalent. Temperature checks seem reasonable. However vaccine cards do not, in the same way disclosing HIV status does not.

I 100% don't understand school vaccination requirements. If the vaccine works, and you send your kids to school vaccinated, then they should be protected against other kids who didn't get the vaccination, with a high level of effectiveness. I mean, I feel sorry for a kid if their idiot parent won't get them the polio vaccine, but that's part of a free country, and punishing the kid worse by denying them an education seems more idiotic than the anti vax parents. If your kid has a "special need" that they need safety from anti vaxers.. I'm sorry, but the safety of that 1 kid against a possible risk is on the parent to mitigate.. not on the school..

Zak says

To me, we can go the way of polio and kill this thing off,

So you think the cure to the common cold is THIS vaccine? Or is THIS virus laboratory made and so dangerous that we must stamp it out of existence? Some third choice?

Zak says

It's sad, but it's like 30x less sad than all the people that would have died from covid.

I am not concerned with the exact numbers so much, just the logic before you punched the calculator. You are assuming the jab is like the Polio Vaccine. One shot of Polio Vaccine stops a person from ever getting polio. Unfortunately, the jab does not prevent one from getting Covid. Therefore, it is a logic flaw to say a particular control group had 100 deaths from Covid but only 10 deaths from the jab, so the jab is 10x safer. Nor can you say that the jab saved anyone from getting or dying from Covid.

Zak says

mell says

If you don't want to understand basic math and instead stoop to insults I can't help you.

Let's get some more facts straight. If you want to dispute data, and argue validity of numbers, that's firmly in the professional discourse realm. You call me a liar while you tell me that 29 is a bigger number that 2000, and I'll call you a stupid wrong fuck right to your face. You started it not me.

If you want to get technical you started when I mentioned coercing minors and you brought up stats for 18-29. I explained my math on that and more - almost all have underlying health conditions which skews the risk for a healthy person to a way too high number, plus many with underlying conditions don't qualify to get vaccinated in the first place - but that aside since when is a minor over 18? People 18-29 can make their own decisions by law for almost anything, but minors are 0-17 and should never be forced to take the vaccine and thus increase their risk of serious events vs naturally taking on covid.