Vaccine Side Effects

submitted 2 years ago * by [deleted] from self.conspiracy

63 comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

[–][deleted] 2 years ago* (22 children)

[deleted]

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (21 children)

US covid death charts confirm a sharp decline.

It doesn't look much sharper than the first wave to me. Given that this also has the vaccination supporting it, how do you know that its due to this "natural immunity" thing you claim?

That's even with its propaganda-inflated numbers.

The numbers aren't inflated. As is very clear from the total excess death counts. The numbers are significantly deflated.

If you won't accept this fact, you might as well be trolling, not that it matters I suppose.

If you don't accept that the excess deaths are due to CoVID, you need to show what people are dying of. The numbers are otherwise pretty clear.

It's difficult for you to wrap your mind around the concept of people involved in governments and institutions not being innocent nonpartisan angels whose only mission in life is truth, but these problems with data get even muddier and insidious due to the source reporting of data not being reliable.

There's no evidence of this is there? It's just something you choose to believe, and all evidence to the contrary, you lump in as part of the conspiracy.

That's not convincing. The data is as the experts say it is. Deaths are undercounted, due to the CoVID being the infection not being suspected. That explains all the data, and is consistent with what has happened in other countries. See this data for instance: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1137

This would require weeding out false positives and deaths falsely attributed as "covid deaths" with no covid-causal link, which the institutions and governments of local, state, and federal levels have every motivation and compulsion to not do.

The CDC does correct the provisional CoVID deaths as the data comes in. They are perfectly adequately motivated to do that. You're mistaken about any motivation not to.

Why would it have? Viruses don't uniformly spread.

Okay. Why don't you think it will happen after this peak? (I think that it's the proportion vaccinated).

[+][deleted] 2 years ago* (20 children)

[deleted]

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago* (19 children)

You're asking me how a buildup of the population achieving lengths of immunity, while the most vulnerable are eliminated, would eventually result in the (inevitable, predictable) subsequent decline of the death rate?

No, I'm asking how you know that the decline after the second wave is "natural immunity" (and not related to the vaccine), whereas the decline after the first wave wasn't.

How does that make it clear in your mind? The numbers themselves are inflated for causality (i.e. "covid deaths") so referring to either one to support the other results in circular logic.

No, I'm using the total mortality. Over the CoVID months, about 660,000 more americans died than average for that period. Since the deaths attributed to CoVID is less than that, (although closer than it has been. They're reporting about 620,000 at some sources at the moment, which is within the margin of error for the excess deaths), we must suspect that the number of CoVID deaths is deflated.

Data derived and tabulated into official databases is inherently what officials "say it is". That's no more of an indication of truth than any other incorrect and falsely inflated data that enters into an official database.

You're pretty good at claiming the data is false, but you haven't presented any true data. That's not impressive. You can't know and shouldn't suspect that the data is false until you've got the data that you think is true to compare it with.

They are perfectly not motivated to correct data, because faulty data of this nature is in almost all cases impossible to retroactively correct.

This is complete bullshit. They are correcting the provisional data when the more precise data comes in.

"Death counts for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS." -https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Causality is a hard link to establish with covid and it's very easy to inflate.

It's not that hard in most cases. The patient died of pneumonia or sceptic shock, you look at what the infection was. If it was CoVID, that's what killed them.

But if we're going to make a call in close cases, then the medical professionals making the calls are probably able to make a more accurate estimate than your good self.

Deaths already occurring are being lumped in and labeled under the groupon "covid deaths".

You'll have copious proof of this specious claim?

Do you not understand waves of spreading and herds achieving immunity?

No you'll have to explain why you know that the end of the second wave was due to natural immunity and not the vaccine, while the end of the first wave wasn't due to natural immunity.

Because I can't see what you're looking at to know that they're different.

[+][deleted] 2 years ago* (18 children)

[deleted]

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago* (17 children)

That's because it's common in virus spread modeling's ebbs and flows

Is it?

Can you link me to one of these models?

The most recent peak (largest peak) would return to the valley as it did after the first peak.

Lets clarify here. Now you agree that those are CoVID deaths? Or are they mostly mischaracterised when you're not making wild inferences from the shape of the time-series?

There are only finite numbers of large waves during a particular time period.

In the case of CoVID, how many is that over a 2 year period?

No, we must not suspect that. That is an illogical leap of conclusion.

It's the only thing that explains the extra deaths.

What's not impressive is that you ignore 1.5 years of the reality of a stream of deaths being marked down as "covid death" that aren't causally from covid.

Okay. What's your very best evidence that there's been a "stream of deaths" with CoVID on the death certificate, that aren't causally from covid?

False causal data of this nature is almost impossible to retroactively correct.

If they thought a pneumonia was CoVID and it turned out to be some other flu, when the test comes back they would change the cause of death retroactively. It's not almost impossible. It's done all the time.

Most doctors don't have a clue on causality outside of extremely direct in-your-face instances of cause and effect: i.e. cancer, blood clots, heart attacks - with often the underlying causality of what led up to it being much harder to establish.

But you do?

And moreover you know that Doctors when they make a mistake, are likely to err on the side of attribution to CoVID?

You'll need to provide some evidence of how you work that out to be remotely convincing.

You can research and study the patterns of viruses spreading and natural herd immunities on your own time.

You're missing the subtext. What I meant by that question, is "you sound batshit crazy. Do you have anything at all that might lend the slightest plausibility to your claims that you can identify a signal of natural immunity in the CoVID deaths time series?

I'll have a look at this model that you're using that shows that "it's common in virus spread modeling's ebbs and flows".

[+][deleted] 2 years ago* (16 children)

[deleted]

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (15 children)

Find one yourself.

You miss the point of the question. You're claiming that a "natural immunity" best fits the data. I don't believe you. Show me the mathematics.

No. That is illogical to assume

What then is the logical thing to assume that those people died of?

That's rare and most tests are not reliable.

It's not rare. That's why they call the initial data provisional. It is updated all the time.

What is the false positive rate of "most tests"?

If someone has pneumonia and they have covid, and then they die, that doesn't mean covid is causing even 1% of it.

If the pneumonia is covid, the covid caused 100% of it. If they happen to have a different infection that is causing the pneumonia, possibly. But it would be rare for someone to be battling two life threatening infections at once.

if they're tested for "covid" the chance of them being marked "covid death" is exceedingly common and makes the data what it is: not good.

Disagree. It would be exceedingly common for covid to be the infection causing the pneumonia, (and it is a flu), if the patient had covid.

I can state definitively that there's bad data and enormous numbers of doctors have extremely bad track records and false leaps of conclusion.

Good. What's your best evidence of that?

Meaning: How can you state definitively that there's bad data and enormous numbers of doctors have extremely bad track records and false leaps of conclusion?

This chart sums up the general underling behavior:

1) There's only one wave in that chart.
2) That immunity could be from vaccinations.

[+][deleted] 2 years ago* (14 children)

[deleted]

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (13 children)

continue this thread

conspiracy

conspiracy

MODERATORS