patrick.net

DeficitHawk says

How do you verify if your vote was counted correctly without giving up anonymity?

I'd like to see a system that allows for making sure your.vote was counted as cast, and allow auditing that extra votes were not cast, but not give up anonymity.

Verifying that your own vote was recorded correctly is ez. But I can't think of a great way to ensure additional votes were not added.

Give each voter a printout which has :
-a summary of their votes,
-a unique/unpredictable vote record id
-a checksum of those votes and their voter id number. like SHA(vote1 + vote2 + ... voteN + voterId + voteRecordId)

Then the user can (and should as their civic duty), verify online that their vote was recorded as they cast it by checking a a website - they enter a vote record id, and can view the votes associated w/ that id. If they see a problem, they can report it. Their printout has the info needed for auditors to determine if it was tampered with as the checksum would no longer match upon tampering.

Now, the verification website could lie, and maybe even just lie under certain conditions and/or temporarily, but the vote records could be made totally public (theres no privacy issue showing how an arbitrary voteId voted, since no personally identifying info is displayed along with it), allowing:
-independents to make snapshot copies of the data periodically through said website, so they can compare and identify any records that report differently on different days.
-checksums could again be used to fingerprint the combination of all vote records. Auditors and independents could easily verify these checksums theirselves to identify tampering. Since this would be computed by combining data from all vote records, you cannot add, remove, or change a single vote record without changing the overall checksum, making it easy to identify tampering.
-independents could even host copies of the verification website, and encourage people to check using multiple sites to ensure the data matches. This would help fight exploitation of the primary website, because if a cheater managed to make the website lie under some conditions, then a mismatch will be identified.

Doing this would make changing/discarding votes a very risky move because if someone checks, they will see the change. The nice thing about this is its end to end in the sense that even if fraudsters manages to modify election software/systems, they still stand a great chance of getting caught: if they modify the vote record of a person who happens to check it, then it simply will be discovered. People should verify their vote online both immediately after voting, as well as after some time passes and the election is considered complete/sealed/no more votes being added.

I think at this point, most election fraud would focus on adding fake votes for people that dont exist, or did not vote, because changing/discarding votes would be gravely risky to attempt in anything but small numbers. And I think theres ways to address added votes too, but I cant think of anything simple and solid that doesnt sacrifice privacy. But, I think there's some methods that may help a lot, while only making minimal privacy sacrifices.

Patrick says

In America under the Constitution, Democracy comes with protections in the Bill of Rights, for example.

I was talking about America.

African Americans before the constitutional amendment, Native American treaties that were not honored, Japanese citizens detained in 1940’s, basically every section of the national firearms act, we could go on and on with examples of how America has trampled on groups and rights with impunity.

And this is also the country that has built an empire around the world using military force, economic pressure and if need be war to get is way and exert control over other sovereign nations. I guess what I am saying is that we are are fortunate to be Americans, but being the least bad place on earth to live does not mean that America is righteous nor that it follows the ideals we were taught in school.

Patrick says

Misc says

Since you do not believe in Democracy (because the majority would have voted to have everyone vaccinated), it would be interesting to know your core beliefs on who should be able to set the rules for society.

That's a deliberately personal comment, trolling in order to inflame, but I won't mark it personal.

Democracy does not and never did mean that the minority can be oppressed by the majority. It means "majority rule, minority rights". Those rights are in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and arguably in the Nuremberg Code as well.

As cisTits put it, we don't have a (direct) democracy, and that is a feature, not a bug. It was planned that way, as is documented in The Federalist Papers.

The public sets the rules for society by electing representatives to create and enforce those rules, but only within the limits prescrib...

In most cases, the elected Representatives have ceded their ability create the rules to the bureaucracy because Congress critters have very limited knowledge of how most things work.

Just because something is Constitutional does not make it right (IMHO). As an example, it would have been perfectly constitutional for the California governor to mandate that everyone in the State get the vaxx (under the Emergency Declaration the governor is given exceptional powers and the State is granted almost unlimited powers under the Constitution). The US did not sign on to the Neurenberg Code, so we cannot be held to that. So you see, the enforcement of laws comes down to who is willing to use force,

EBGuy says

Here's a video where they claim that when they put up their data, it got hacked by the Chinese actors and the servers were wiped.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/gregg-phillips-explains-catherine-engelbrecht-sent-prison-irrefutable-evidence-entire-pa-voter-registration-file-living-server-china-serial-numbers/

We democratically elect our representatives.

We democratically elect our representatives and more or less majority rules except for the carve outs that are represented in the bill of rights, which are definitely meant as exceptions where even majority or elected representatives doesn't get to rule.

There is no mention of vaccines in the bill of rights, so I suppose it is left to the discretion of our elected representatives.

Patrick pretty clearly has strong feelings on vaccines. But even what we call mandates are not requirements to get a vaccine... they are merely are requirement IF you want to be employed at a particular place or attend a particular school. If you dont do those things, you dont have to get a vaccine.

But if I want someone to have a vaccine before coming to my house, that up to me. people dont have to come to my house. If my mom who is diabetic and high risk profile wants to set the same requirement, she can. Its not a hippa violation to ask someone about their health or communicable diseases or vaccine status. it is violation for medical professionals to disclose that information without consent.

Patrick,

I checked out this article you linked, but it has nothing to do with election fraud. It is about improper storage of election worker personal data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html

Did I miss something?

DeficitHawk says

But if I want someone to have a vaccine before coming to my house, that up to me. people dont have to come to my house. If my mom who is diabetic and high risk profile wants to set the same requirement, she can.

Sure but that has absolutely nothing to do with the jab mandates.

DeficitHawk says

Its not a hippa violation to ask someone about their health or communicable diseases or vaccine status.

Yes it is.

I'm getting the feeling this is a pointless exercise, as you wildly conflate totally unrelated issues such as what you do in the privacy of your own home with violating hippa, severely restricting civil liberties and inflicting great bodily harm with experimental gene therapies onto citizens under the threat of losing their livelihood. Hopefully you are not deliberately obtuse.

OK Mell, I have to ask you to cite the Hipaa regulation that prevents me from asking someone if they have a disease or were vaccinated for it.

I do not believe it exists, but if you cite it I will change my opinion.

As far as I know, Hipaa places restrictions on the doctors/medical providers that they can not release information without the patients consent. It does not place restriction on me from asking about someone's health or vaccine status, nor does it place restriction on their response.

Hircus says

Verifying that your own vote was recorded correctly is ez. But I can't think of a great way to ensure additional votes were not added.

Give each voter a printout which has :
-a summary of their votes,
-a unique/unpredictable vote record id
-a checksum of those votes and their voter id number. like SHA(vote1 + vote2 + ... voteN + voterId + voteRecordId)

Then the user can (and should as their civic duty), verify online that their vote was recorded as they cast it by checking a a website - they enter a vote record id, and can view the votes associated w/ that id. If they see a problem, the...

Hircus, I think what you outline here is as good as I can think of too. but no solution yet for proving that no "nonvoter" had a ballot submitted for them, or that the counting system didnt take the nonvoted people and assign them votes. even if a non-voting person can check their registration ID and see a vote they didnt place... they would have no proof they didnt just discard their printout. The only way to solve that problem I can think of is to have a requirement that if you are registered you must vote so there are no registered but non voted people. That would be pretty hard to achieve. And of course all of these schemes still have the 'mobster in the alley who wants to see your voting receipt' problem.

Patrick says

I don't think Trump has ever been nearly as divisive and inflammatory as Biden was in his obviously Nazi-inspired speech about MAGA:

Patrick, I dont really listen to political speeches much and I hadnt heard this one... but I image searched and figured out which one you were referring to and listened to it. I can definitely see why you would view this as divisive. Biden was calling out Trump and Trump supporters as being against democratic principles because of the perpetuation of election theft claims and political violence on Jan 6. So I get why you felt like he was attacking you. He lumps all Trump/MAGA supporters together into a group and attacks them as unamerican because of election denying and the violence that came from it.

But at the same time, the speech is disparaging political violence and the refusal to peacefully transfer power after an election. Trump is the first president to have refused peaceful transfer of power after an election, and Biden called him out on it. Harsh. Not inclusive. But true.

I also am a fan of leadership trying to build consensus rather than fighting against portions of the constituency. Its hard, though, when you are attacked from day 0 not to call it out.

Libtard, KommieKunt, Crazy, Loser... those are the labels applied to people like me in this thread before I even get a word out. Dont worry Bd6r, I am not personally discouraged, but lets be honest about where this hostility is originating. It didnt originate from me. You cant be part of a group that is doing and saying these hostile things, perpetuating untruths, and perpetuating political violence and then get your feelings hurt when someone calls you out on it.

Patrick says

DeficitHawk is a Democrat debating, so he's an existence proof of at least one

How DARE you assume my pronoun!!!

kidding.......

I have to commend you deficithawk for being so polite and reasonable. The last political discussion I had with a democrat was with a coworker who threatened to kill me in the next civil war and the one before that was with my aunt whose position was that Trump was going to start wwiii and anyone who voted for him was evil.

There is way too much hyperbole on both sides.

The democrats did not steal the election. They made smart legal changes to voting laws that disproportionately benefited them. They did this with the aid of republicans in a lot of cases.

Trump did not start an insurrection. He held a crybaby rally that everyone knew wasn’t going to change the outcome of anything. After all his legal challenges were struck down, power was peacefully transferred.

Can’t you just plead the 5th for vaccine status? That hasn’t been taken to court. FYI, haven’t read this whole thread.

DeficitHawk says

He lumps all Trump/MAGA supporters together into a group and attacks them as unamerican because of election denying and the violence that came from it.

Did you know there were leftist instigators (Antifa types) as well as federal undercover agents in the mostly peaceful crowd that day? What happened should not have happened and I condemn the violence of that day.

So who is responsible for the anti police riots all over the country? The crowds or the mostly far left liberal politicians and activists like Maxine Waters who were using incendiary rhetoric?

By the way there was a peaceful transfer of power. Trump moved out of the White House without incident and the new potatus was installed behind a barbed wire fence surrounded by 20,000 soldiers. Not a shot was fired, not a slap in the face was made, nobody even spit on anyone.

Don’t buy the lies that J6 was an insurrection, it was a few idiots (probably goaded along by federal agents and Antifa activists undercover inciting violence) who were there to protest what they saw as injustice. They should not have been violent (Anyone who damaged government property or attacked police deserves punishment under the law), and some of the stuff they said like “Hang mike Pence” is reprehensible. But if a crowd of unarmed people which is mostly peaceful expressing concern about disenfranchisement of their votes is an insurrection then the word has no meaning.

I’m still waiting for your answer. Who is unamerican the person who calls out the fraud, or those the cover it up?

Please invite the Honorable Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga). He's recognized as an expert on the controversial, but, important subject of 'capsizing' islands.

Should make for an interesting discussion. Plus, Hank Johnson is smarter than most Democrats.

Guam will Capsize and Tip Over into the ocean Hank Johnson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q

pudil says

Trump did not start an insurrection. He held a crybaby rally that everyone knew wasn’t going to change the outcome of anything.

I partly agree with this. It was a crybaby rally that probably wouldn't change the outcome.... BUT I do hold Trump responsible for both sending the crowd to the capital when he knew what would likely happen there, and then doing nothing to stop it when it was clearly escalating to violence. Opinions may vary on how close things actually got to hanging Mike Pence and attacking other members of congress. I think it was not so far from that point, and we could have had that outcome but for luck and people getting out quickly.

Misc says

Since you do not believe in Democracy

I don't either. Our founders feared democracy:

“Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%.”

― Thomas Jefferson

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

― Thomas Jefferson

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.“

– Benjamin Franklin

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch.“

– Benjamin Franklin

Onvacation says

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch.“

In Arizona and Pennsylvania, the lamb would win.

PeopleUnited says

Did you know there were leftist instigators (Antifa types) as well as federal undercover agents in the mostly peaceful crowd that day? What happened should not have happened and I condemn the violence of that day.

I agree it shouldnt have happened. But blaming Antifa for Jan 6 is pretty rich. This was Trump and Trump supporters.

PeopleUnited says

So who is responsible for the anti police riots all over the country? The crowds or the mostly far left liberal politicians and activists like Maxine Waters who were using incendiary rhetoric?

OK this is a fair comment and deserves a fair response. I am blaming Trump for Jan 6, and saying the politician is responsible for whipping up the crowd, spinning a narrative that encourages division and violence, because of the way he talked and encouraged people to behave, knowing what the outcome would be. I also hold him responsible for not doing enough to stop the situation from escalating. The same can certainly be said about politicians on the left when riots in the streets were breaking out. The stuff going on in Seattle and Portland was just nonsense. Should we blame the crowd? or the politicians who supported the narrative that drove people to riot? I think you've got a fair point here. I wont defend those riots or the people spinning the narrative that supported them.

PeopleUnited says

By the way there was a peaceful transfer of power. Trump moved out of the White House without incident and the new potatus was installed behind a barbed wire fence surrounded by 20,000 soldiers. Not a shot was fired, not a slap in the face was made, nobody even spit on anyone.

Here I dont agree. Once there has been violence (which Trump caused on Jan 6), it is not a peaceful transition anymore. Id say you dont get to claim Trump did a peaceful handoff because of how he manipulated a crowd to violence on Jan 6. Even if on Jan 20 everything was handshakes and moving vans... you still don't get to claim it was a peaceful transition.

DeficitHawk says

I wont defend those riots or the people spinning the narrative that supported them.

Will you condemn them?

DeficitHawk says

OK Mell, I have to ask you to cite the Hipaa regulation that prevents me from asking someone if they have a disease or were vaccinated for it.

I do not believe it exists, but if you cite it I will change my opinion.

As far as I know, Hipaa places restrictions on the doctors/medical providers that they can not release information without the patients consent. It does not place restriction on me from asking about someone's health or vaccine status, nor does it place restriction on their response.

You can ask anyone if they are vaccinated but they don't have to tell you. If you don't like their answer you don't have. to let them into your home. With the exception of specific healthcare/nursing home settings it used to be a violation to ask an employee any vaccination status, and the employee didn't need to disclose it, and certainly would have won pretty much any wrongful termination lawsuit revolving around a cold/flu vaccine. Same goes for asking if they have hiv/aids and other crap. That was before covid. They simply redefined that privacy and excluded covid. But it is unconstitutional and hence was struck down by SCOTUS, with the exception of federal workplaces and certain Healthcare settings. The liberties and laws which apply to you as a private person are very different than the liberties and laws applying to employers/employees. Amd since the mran crapnwass completely under-tested and experimental, and deaths and SAEs were purposefully hidden, what the current administration attempted here was no different than what mengele did under the reign of the nazis.

Onvacation says

Will you condemn them?

Yes. I condemn the violence and vandalism at those riots, while supporting peoples right to peaceful protest. And I vote against individuals who I perceive to be fanning those flames. In fact, I did vote for and against several state/local candidates for this exact reason in the recent election.

mell says

You can ask anyone if they are vaccinated but they don't have to tell you.

Oh yes, of course. This all has nothing to do with HIPAA. I thought you were saying HIPAA has relevant restrictions.

DeficitHawk says

mell says

You can ask anyone if they are vaccinated but they don't have to tell you.

Oh yes, of course. This all has nothing to do with HIPAA. I thought you were saying HIPAA has relevant restrictions.

Yes it was imprecise by me. Hippa is more for releasing health care info to other parties or to other health care settings. You usually have to sign your acceptance and can refuse. It's a violation by the employer to ask or demand that info from you, with exceptions for certain settings. Or let's say it always has been pre-covid, and asking an employee to take a common cold/flu jab or let go would have been unthinkable. SCOTUS should have gone farther in the strike down but at least they mostly rectified it.

DeficitHawk says

If somebody wants to live in the boonies and not be vaccinated that's their business. But if they want to come to my house, they better not bring polio.

What are you talking about? No one can stop Covid. No vaccine. It's an airborne virus that mutates. It's here to stay in some variant until we're all dead from other issues. You will get covid. You will get sick. If you're fat and in ill health, good luck. 99.9% of people will take 3-6 days off, rest and hydrate IF, big IF, they get a bad case. This ain't polio dude.

Sorry you knew someone that died WITH covid virus in their system. It's a mathematical impossibility they died FROM covid. You somehow knew the 1 person out of millions that was struck dead by a cold bug. Not buying it. Sorry. I myself like anecdotal evidence. I also understand it needs to be filtered and not a 1 in millions scenario.

I'm guessing if you tell the truth, your co-worker that passed was fat and unhealthy? Also, was he vaccinated? Having witnessed side effects first hand from just the vaccine, I'd stay away from it. I know 100's (not hyperbole) of people positively tested or covid. Not one went to the doctor or hospital OR died.

A one off death is not evidence. I'm also not sure the comment about living in the boonies?? It's the smartest thing you can do. Your life expectancy is massively lower living in urban areas. Enjoy the homeless, trash, piss, shit, needles all you want. The boonies are where you want to be. The people aren't shit heads.

With disease, the vast majority of the populace is still in the Middle Ages where it is viewed as a divine punishment and their reactions are superstitious. I suppose that's why the Globalists chose it as a perfect herding and fear technique. Most of the general populace are impossible to educate out of their ignorance, and Dems, with their pretenses of intellectual superiority, are often the worst.

I do wonder, though, at the streak of common sense in certain people to know automatically that they are being had. It doesn't seem to have much to do with nominal 'education'.

WookieMan says

I'm also not sure the comment about living in the boonies??

Wookie, I love the boonies and would live in the boonies if I could. But I cant because of my job. I do not disparage the boonies. I want to retire to the boonies. In fact, I bought the lot of property I want to build a house on to retire. Its way out in Trump country :-) The street where I live now does have trash, piss, needles, etc. Its true. (Im in SF bay area). Im not an urbanite at heart... I just live in a denser area to be close to my job.

Covid can not be stopped, its true. it will mutate. vaccines will be out of date nearly as quickly as they get introduced.

It's a mathematical impossibility they died FROM covid.

I do not agree with your characterization of the severity of the disease itself. Lots of people died of this disease. I only know one directly, but know several through 1 degree of separation. Age and weight were factors in some but not all. I would not have guessed my coworker was in a high risk factor category.

The truth is a lot of people were dying FROM covid in the early days of the infection, when the earliest strain was circulating, treatment protocols were not understood, and there were no vaccines. vaccines did lower the death rate after they were introduced... especially if you look at the older people who were dropping like flies early on. The ratio of deaths to infections in the initial waves vs subsequent waves (after vaccine) is telling. Then, Omicron seems to be less harmful in itself than the original strains, and treatment protocols got better as people discovered steroid treatments and other treatments were working better than ventilators. Now, the death rate has got quite low because of those factors.

But it is not true to say this disease was not killing people. It was.

Here is the CDC chart of deaths from all causes. The deaths above the typical trendline are additional extra deaths of people who would not have otherwise died. These are people who died FROM covid. not just people who died while having covid.

DeficitHawk says

vaccines did lower the death rate after they were introduced.

Absolutely false. Even the CDC had to admit that the Covid shot (you are misleading when you call it a vaccine) does not stop anyone from catching, carrying, or spreading Covid. What would have loered the deaths would have been not to force ventilators and allow doctors to treat with HCQ and Ivermectin. Also, don't you find it strange that flu deaths plummeted from 25,000 to 5,000 when Covid came out, as if flu deaths were being called Covid deaths?

Fake test for a fake disease promulgated by paid publicity fiat (fake news MSM with staged theatrics presented as truth) and overriding genuine authoritative sources, and reinforced with fake theater and fake statistics that are slowly being rolled back after the bribes were digested. Fake medicine propped up by a corrupt system of bribed and browbeaten so called peer review.

Fake vaccine designed for purposes not even remotely associated with health care, but to pursue agendas of democide, genocide, transhumanist modification and social control. Pharma and Globalists want us to be 'habituated' to the ritual of plunging shit into our arms voluntarily in the sheep pens.

It's all a dismal magic trick designed to use the cattle and sheep as ongoing profit centers. Worse comes to worse, sell them addiction, the gift that keeps on giving to the dealers.

Of course, Satan smiles at the contempt and disregard for the slaves.

DeficitHawk says

Patrick,

I checked out this article you linked, but it has nothing to do with election fraud. It is about improper storage of election worker personal data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html

Did I miss something?

I know it's about stolen election worker personal data.

Why would you say that that "has nothing to do with election fraud"?

Don't you think people implementing election fraud would be interested in the personal data of the election workers?

DeficitHawk says

But even what we call mandates are not requirements to get a vaccine... they are merely are requirement IF you want to be employed at a particular place or attend a particular school. If you dont do those things, you dont have to get a vaccine.

You're saying that being ordered to do something, and being punished if you don't, is somehow not a requirement?

Being fired or expelled is clearly a severe punishment, usually reserved for serious wrongdoing.

So, by your reasoning, I can point a gun at someone's head and demand their money, but I have not imposed a requirement that they give me their money. It's merely a requirement IF they want to continue living.

Correct?

DeficitHawk says

But if I want someone to have a vaccine before coming to my house, that up to me. people dont have to come to my house.

Correct, people don't have to go to your house, but it is quite mean-spirited to deliberately exclude people who have a legitimate worry about an experimental drug with literally no long-term safety record, and which has been proven to be utterly ineffective at even slowing, much less stopping, a particular disease.

Why would you impose that on anyone? Why does the United States still impose that on incoming foreigners?

You know that literally every public figure demanding the shot was subsequently infected with the virus and got the disease, right? Biden, Fauci, Bourla, Walensky...

DeficitHawk says

vaccines did lower the death rate after they were introduced...

Actually, the big spike in death happened after the vax rollout started:

Patrick says

DeficitHawk says

But even what we call mandates are not requirements to get a vaccine... they are merely are requirement IF you want to be employed at a particular place or attend a particular school. If you dont do those things, you dont have to get a vaccine.

You're saying that being ordered to do something, and being punished if you don't, is somehow not a requirement?

Being fired or expelled is clearly a severe punishment, usually reserved for serious wrongdoing.

So, by your reasoning, I can point a gun at someone's head and demand their money, but I have not imposed a requirement that they give me their money. It's merely a requirement IF they want to continue living.

Correct?

Thanks Patrick for great analogy. This reflects the fundamental commie way of controlling and stealing from the innocents.

DeficitHawk says

These are people who died FROM covid. not just people who died while having covid.

Actually, those spikes in death are mostly old people who DID have comorbidities.

Blue says

Thanks Patrick for great analogy.

Actually I kind of regret taking it to the logical extreme now.

It's more like this: "No one is required to follow any law. They are required only if they don't want to be punished for breaking the law."

Patrick,

I think I laid out my opinions on mandates above.. I think it has to be decided case by case as a function of the impact of the underlying disease itself, and the efficacy and safety of the virus. I dont think covid should have vaccine mandates for school or work, but I understand why some people do. You disagree and think there should be no mandates no matter what. That's ok, you are entitled your opinion, and we dont have to agree. BUT I also think this is a matter for elected officials to decide, and they will decide in a way that represents the majority opinion. Our recourse if we disagree with them is to vote them out and replace them. You want to hang those elected officials. That's where I'd say you are not entitled to advocate that course of action. Thats not right. I think you are advocating political violence with that sort of statement.

I also think there are some pretty fundamental disagreements in facts that are coloring peoples different opinions and reactions. Maybe we can start by checking which facts we agree or don't agree on. please feel free to weigh in on these three areas so we can understand why our views diverge so much. maybe then we can take a closer look where we differ or agree.

1) The impact of the disease itself: I think there is an actual disease that is real and was killing people per the CDC chart I showed above. Other people think there is no disease, or the disease does not really kill people or that the death rate of the disease is much lower than implied by the CDC chart. Thats a basic fact that we are not aligned on.

2)The efficacy of the vaccine. It think it helps reduce death rate by a lot and infection rate by a little per double blind studies done, but its efficacy is lower on mutation variants and the mutation rate is fairly high, so the efficacy will go down with time or need constant updates like flu shots. Other people think the vaccine has virtually no benefit at all.

3) The side effects: I think the vaccine is new and a novel type, and people are reasonable to view it as unproven and without a long track record of use. I think the actual documented side effects are much lower than the actual documented benefits. Other people think the side effects are high rates of death and giving the vaccine is akin to murdering someone.

I think it will be hard to find a lot of common ground on covid and vaccines until we find common ground on the facts we are using to make decisions.

Let me know where you stand on the three items.

DeficitHawk says

3) The side effects: I think the vaccine is new and a novel type, and people are reasonable to view it as unproven and without a long track record of use. I think the actual documented side effects are much lower than the actual documented benefits. Other people think the side effects are high rates of death and giving the vaccine is akin to murdering someone.

The problem is that this is not a matter of what one thinks. The math has the facts and it doesn't lie. It just is. And it says clearly that excess deaths have ramped up significantly more than a year into covid, when covid became milder and milder, and when people started to receive the clot shots. The excess deaths from covid on the other hand for the whole year, 15 months before, were hardly visible! And that's because the majority of people did not die of covid, but with covid, and would have died anyways around that time frame. You cannot argue against math.

DeficitHawk says

The efficacy of the vaccine. It think it helps reduce death rate by a lot and infection rate by a little per double blind studies done,

Do you have links to these studies or did you just hear about it on the news?

You may have missed the recent admission by a Pfizer representative that the vax was never tested for stopping transmission.

I have a friend, triple vaxxed, who got covid last year. He coded (heart stopped) seven times while in the hospital and said it would have been worse if he had not been vaxxed. He is now recovering from his second heart surgery since his covid hospitalization. I'm not saying the vax caused his heart attacks but the vax did not stop him from contracting severe Wuhan.