Three sources from what are most likely bias leftist news sites. So then when I post sources on my side then no one should complain either. If these people want to take the vaccine, fine. If they want to suggest to others to do the same, ok. It's still up to the individual to decide themselves if they want to or not.
I don't see the problem on doing one's research. I mean, it's searching and reading is not gonna kill you or anything. I don't see any excuse to not do research other than laziness and ignorance.
And if people want to respond with vitriol, fine. I'm not really butthurt or anything. I just said I got a little mad, but my ass is a-ok lol. For people who urge others to take the vaccine to save lives, I've seen the same people wanting those who are unvaccinated to drop dead. For such compassionate people, some like to see unborn babies and people who disagree with them die. My philosophy is "An eye for an eye." I claim to be no better than the man next to me, so if you say you want the unvaccinated to die, then I should have the right to say those who are vaxxed and who support it should also die a slow and painful death. Since you don't agree with me, I hope your insides liquefy after taking the shot. And if this is trolling or a problem, then those who wish death on those who oppose the vax or haven't taken it yet should also get in the same amount of trouble.
You arent bringing an argument - instead you are posting a shaky cam video of someone in a white coat, that is saying "they arent telling you, they arent telling you about the 30 year old with congestive heart decease", and then switching to "the problem is that they arent doing antibody tests" and then next sentence, "no they are doing tests, the problem is just, that the government has hidden them from you!", cut to two 80IQ people "telling you what this was all about". (Who were the people that were filmed, they dont care - they had a white coat!) Cut to a youtuber telling you he will tell you what they told you - and then show you even more!
If I'd ask you to make an actual argument out of this, you would get stuck at the "the government is trying to kill me!" stage, followed by "they arent telling us the truthTM, they are lying!".
Lets go through this and show you the issues with that:
1. White coat means nothing, what people are saying means nothing, what they are publishing, does. Next thing you'd probably do is tell me I should listen to the generals opinion on afghanistan, because he has such a nice uniform. Get over the "symbol" fetish, of white coat means authority, and shaky cam means hidden, and youtuber tells me conspiracy - and oh me gud, those are them facts, them facts I tells you.
2. Politics isnt hiding information from the public in that instance - politics can report case figures, but the reports are done by other agencies, and there are institution wide reports done as well on the hospital level. Lets say politics wants to hide something - like case infection rate under Trump, which magically split between democratic and repiblic states mid reporting, once he uttered somewhat publically - that it should.
Top down you could maybe influence the first government agency, thats reporting figures. Thats actually a thing some politicians around the world do. Then they'd have to argue for why they do it, and could respond with stuff like "we dont want to create panic" f.e.. The next agency down (say regional level) usually doesnt care at all and keeps reporting like they would, and at the hospital level, good luck getting the responsible people there convinced that they should forge figures. Thats usually not going to happen.
Why? Because the "we dont want create panic" argument doesnt fly there. Those people know, that their figures arent what gets reported at the official level, so why the frack should they start forging their own reports? What you are dealing with here is a "separation of power", politician can do nothing for the doctors, or the scientists career, so they could as well f*ck off, if they cant pull something like 'national interest'. Those numbers will get out. And if they dont - the next guy - doing statistics on 'excess mortality rate', will do f*ck all to forge their numbers, just because the last guy did, and then the guy before that, and then the guy before that, and then the guy before that, and then the "president" (or guy in politics who dreamt that thing up).
Which brings us to point two - are you insane? Do you know how many people you would have to threaten or bribe, across different institutions with different chains of command, in different states all around the country? To then have one person in white coat in a shaky cam video tell you the truthTM? You are talking tens of thousands going against their work ethic, professional oaths, ...
So how does this work in practice? Lets say politics can threaten the "official reporting agency" to downplay covid numbers for a while - because of lets say stated "national interest" (prevent mass panics), and then thats it. Internal reporting of the next agency down usually is still 'not fudged with' and the reporting at the hospital stage (those guys write scientific studies also, you know), also is not. And if there would be attempts, the professional outcry would be effing huge. And you see it in other countries, panning out like that. (Dictator reported lower numbers, journalists go down to the next lower reporting agency, add up numbers, publish that those dont add up and are higher. Or then look at excess mortality rates, and those turn out higher.) Because you cant "conspiracy theory" the whole medical system.
It would be easier to tell people, that the entities making the vaccine bribed the people doing the studies, than that this is a political conspiracy (where the youtuber you follows, btw - always gets you the right shaky cam videos of some guy or gals in a white coat, to then...). But for that purpose, you have separation of power. People doing the big studies pre greenlighting a vaccine have to be independent, and hospitals doing the runs are also independent (in terms of their financing). What politics did at that point was to fast track the "legislation process", but not the actual tests. Thats why vaccines had been finished in 3 weeks (in some cases), and rollout still took a year (ok, production also had to be turned up), but those tests were properly done in that year.
So what are those people in white coats in a shaky cam video talking about?
Degenerative heart disease in a 30 year old?
In an article published Tuesday in JAMA Cardiology, U.S.
Army,
Navy and
Air Force physicians described 23 cases of myocarditis in previously healthy males who developed the condition within four days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.
Physicians would have expected to find eight or fewer cases of myocarditis among the 436,000 male military members who received two mRNA shots, according to the study. But 20 military members developed inflammation after their second dose, including 14 after the Moderna shot and six after the Pfizer shot. Three developed the condition after their first vaccine.
https://www.military.com/daily-news...lammation-cases-linked-covid-19-vaccines.html
Thats 4x the expected rate.
At a chance of 1:21800.
Issue is sample size. At 20 people reported, it still could be a statistical fluke. Or not. Why?
The researchers noted that myocarditis was not reported as an adverse effect in the Phase 3 clinical trials for the mRNA vaccines, and that, other than in the case of the smallpox vaccine, "immunizations are rarely associated with hypersensitivity myocarditis."
In 2003, at least 10 military personnel and several civilians developed myocarditis after receiving the vaccine; two died of heart attacks. The CDC took steps to recommend that people diagnosed with heart disease avoid the smallpox vaccination.
If we propose the same mycarditis to death rate - it was 4 people that might have died from 436,000 getting a shot. Again, this is still 4 times higher than expected - but just to keep the proportions.
Whats more important though is, that -- that stuff gets reported. There are study results that get out there, and institutions that are picking them up. There is even journalistic reporting on it.
Are the army figures the "only correct ones"? No - but that report is signaling to other institutions to keep that number in mind, and check in their numbers.
Next we go to "why havent they found out earlier"? Stage 3 trials for any vaccine are usually done with close to 30.000 (willing) participants. Again - if something shows up at a rate of 1:109000 (person died because of heart inflamation), its impossible to catch it in stage 3 trials.
Next step is the interesting one. So if one person in 109000 died - why arent we reporting on it, and calling Fox news and the two 80IQ people to get everyone into praying cycles to topple the gouvernment? Because people (even in their 30s) die from Covid as well. So at the planning level of "pandemic management", you are literally doing statistics weighing one set of deaths and complications, against another set of deaths and complications, against the average death (and complications) rate, of "people just die" in the same general timeframe.
If you are a very lovely person, you also do calculations on "average healthy days left" meaning , you weigh those calculations towards the healthier younger people, because you try to optimize for "max healthy days in overall population".
So - lets say heart inflamation rate is not raised by 4x, but only by 2x - it might make sense to simply not tell that to people in the evening news, because it might scare them, less of them would take the vaccine, and thereby death rate would increase from Covid related deceases. Lets make this a little more realistic and say, you also factor in economic fallout, from - lets say another spike in infections, and what might happen if hospitals are over capacity.
What are the other two points the people in that "shocking shaky cam video" are talking about?
"They dont do antibody tests" and "Oh no - they are doing them, but they arent publishing results".
No, they are doing them, and they are publishing results.
Administration of two doses of the vaccine generated a neutralizing response in 95% of individuals, with titres three- to fivefold lower against the Delta variant than against the Alpha variant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03777-9
(titer is just a measure of antibodies, like lets say liter is for beer)
So Immunity - is largely out of the window at this point (because Delta came along, and the vaccines arent working as good agains it, as they did against the first strain (alpha)), but you still get low to no symptoms in 95% of people with two shots - _severely_ lowering the infection rate (they'd be infecting others by), because with no or low symptoms, they usually arent infectious, or far less infectious.
With that also correlates, that you get far less deadly outcomes from a covid infection. (You yourself, and in the general population.)
--
Now - lets create the main points of the argument, without someone in a white coat in a shakycam video telling you the truth, as two other people will tell you - in addition to your podcaster who will talk about them --
Risk chance of side effects lower than potential risk chances of severe or deadly side effects of Covid (even in that agegroup) = everything dandy, and please lets not tell people all those numbers they'd just get confused and or scared.
Enter stage left two people with an 80s IQ, who tell you the government is hiding the truth from you!
There is an inherent danger. Which is why people have to decide for themselves, if they are willing to take the vaccine or not. But the point is, that government has to keep tabs on if that risk is far lower, than the risk that comes from Covid or not - and they are doing that. No conspiracy - nothing "hidden by 20.000 people being forced to shut up, or being bribed..", thats just not probable.
And the risk is low. But tell that to people, who play the lottery every sunday (with the super number!), and get their news from their facebook feeds. Kind of hard to do.
Which is why "forcing" people to get the shot in general is 'out' but very strongly urging them to get it, is all the hot shizzles. (The individuals have to take the risk, the state has to make sure, its not worse, than the risks that would come along with covid (taking into account how fast it spreads).)
Oh and we depend on science not to be affected by politics to be able to make those hard weighing decisions (where statistically you take into account deaths on both sides, and then still have to make a pragmatic decision, in the interest of 'the people'.).
edit: Correction: Covid-19 also might be infectious if you arent showing symptoms. Have read too little about what that means on the societal level for vaccination campaigns. (Also might be different if you arent showing symptoms, because you've been vaccinated.). If someone knows more about that, please fill us in.
edit2: Yeah vaccinated people still potentially infecting others, if they've contracted Covid, is a thing with delta:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
“The bottom line is, this can happen — it can be true that vaccinated people can spread the virus. But we do not yet know what their relative role in overall community spread is,” says co-author Thomas Friedrich, a virologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Remember that the chance for severe outcomes still is lower once vaccinated.
And there should be an impact on community spread as well, otherwise the target of 80% (Ish) of vaccinated people to achieve herd immunity "equivalency", doesnt hold. I just dont know the mechanism. (Somone better at epidemic math explain this to me..
)
