Am I reading this data correct? 18.4% of unvaxed represent 19.3% of hospitalizations? So statistically speaking, the vaccine did nothing to prevent hospitalizations?

submitted by HiddenFox from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

it pits their medical license against the hippocratic oath

Well said.

So once you consider these further additional points, it probably is not only doing nothing, but might very well be causing worse outcomes on average.

Pfizer's own data show this. While a marginal benefit appears in the data specific to covid infection (small even at that), that benefit is absolutely overwhelmed by the non-covid illness resulting from the shots. It's in their own data. The insanity of what the medical community is ignoring cannot be overstated. This is a sick, sick time for medicine.

[–]magnora7 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (5 children)

And furthermore they're still pushing the mRNA shots based on the original variant, which has completely disappeared.

Furthermore, the design used to create the spike protein in the mRNA shots came from one lab in China and was used with very little verification.

There's so many fishy elements here, it's just unbelievable there's not more of an outcry. I think people have become exceptionally good at putting blinders on.

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I think people have become exceptionally good at putting blinders on.

Mass Formation.

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah but even before that people are just good at being in denial about stuff. For decades now. The attitude "If I ignore this problem entirely, it might just go away" has more or less been the American mantra for about 30 years. But the mass formation of the last few years definitely took that attitude to a whole new level. People are in shock, and feelings of disassociation are more common than ever, and this is furthered by pharmaceuticals.

Mass formation is a phrase that didn't really exist as a psychology term until a year or two ago: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%22mass%20formation%22

[–]StillLessons 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

True. Mass formation is a term used by Mattias Desmet, and as such is relatively new, as his research is still being published. That said, he is simply putting a new term to a field of study that has been around decades, as people studied the insanity that developed in the totalitarian systems in the mid 20th century.

I actually prefer the term "crowd formation". It works better for me, because we all intuitively know that there is always at some level a "crowd". This is the foundation of the capital markets and trading. When that crowd gets obscenely irrational, this field of study becomes increasingly of interest. So yes, people are always in denial about some thing or other, but as in the case of all spectrums of behavior, we are now well beyond the "middle of the bell" in terms of the level of irrationality being demonstrated. Historians are going to spend a lot of time trying to unpack what we are witnessing during this moment in history.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Fair enough, that all makes sense.

I just see "mass formation" as a re-wording of the already existing concept of "problem -> reaction -> solution". The "mass formation" is just the "reaction" part, where the reaction of the public is guided by the media to be as traumatic and deep and wide as possible, so everyone's desire for the solution is easily guided and everyone behaves similarly because they had the same reaction to the problem. If I really had to detail what's going on right now more deeply, I'd call it "short-term emotional shock driven mass idea formation" but I guess that's too many words.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Mob formation.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

So once you consider these further additional points, it probably is not only doing nothing, but might very well be causing worse outcomes on average.

Pfizer's own data show this.

Can you link a source of Pfizer's own data and quote the relevant section?

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

https://rumble.com/vqx3kb-the-pfizer-inoculations-do-more-harm-than-good.html

The argument is laid out best here.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Don't move the goalposts. You said Pfizer's own data showed it. Im asking for you to show me where Pfizer's own data showed it. You reference a primary text, and I want to see the primary text.

Regardless, I took the time to go through that presentation but it isn't a primary text.

They say:

The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy

7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk

Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.

Relative Risk Reduction is the relevant statistic. For a virus with exponential growth and over long time periods, the absolute risk reduction in a two month period is meaningless. If you double the time period you more than double the absolute number of cases. Relative risk reduction tells you how much it reduces the exponential growth rate. Absolute risk reduction tells you absolutely nothing about how the virus grows. 95% relative reduction means 100 cases becomes 5 or 200 becomes 10. Absolute doesn't tell you anything as scale and time period changes.

As for the increased risk of averse effects..

Yeah one group is receiving saline and has a probability to get covid while the other group is guaranteed to get a vaccine and possibly get COVID.

The vaccine reduces your risks if you catch COVID. But no shit you're gonna have more averse effects from a vaccine than saline.

Point is the vaccine is like getting poked in the arm and it kinda hurts, but it helps if in the future you get slapped in the face. The slap in the face is getting COVID and it isn't guaranteed. If you want to do a fair comparison, you should look at the difference between "COVID and Vaccine" and "COVID and no vaccine" group.

I'm not saying the vaccine carries no risk of adverse effects. Im saying I'm not surprised it was more risky than the saline but that isn't how you're interpreting it. Point is, if everyone were vaccinated, the elderly would die less and the exponential growth rate of spread of the virus would be lower which would save even more lives.

Pretty much the only reason not to get vaccinated is if you genuinely believe you will never catch COVID. If you believe you will catch COVID your risks are lower at all age groups if you are vaccinated.

[–]AlanSmith33 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

All I can say is that everybody that I know that for the last year have either been severely sick from COVID or gotten cancer have been vaccinated.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Ah yes anecdotal evidence, the gold standard! I totally believe you now!

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I trust anecdotal evidence over authoritarian corporate lies any day.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Lmao

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I do the same

[–]AlanSmith33 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Enough observations become statistics.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Keep telling yourself that

[–]AlanSmith33 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

...No, I already know this, it's people like you I have to tell. You give the worst advice.

[–]HenryGeorgeOfficial 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How can you know something false? No, you already believe it. You clearly have no trouble believing things that are wrong.

[–]Velocity 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not a response.