Donald Trump: “People aren’t dying when they take the vaccine.”

submitted by StillLessons from i.imgur.com

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]StillLessons[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Our politicians tell one story, data on deaths and injuries from the CDC tell another. It's not hidden. We just need to be willing to open our mind to what's sitting right in front of us.

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

vaccines are a fraud.

they changed how they diagnosed it after they introduced the fakcine

they did it with polio and whooping cough .. and now covid.. so fucking obvious.. to those that look at the history .. they tried to erase it but the damning trail still exists

[–]BravoVictor 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What's the normalized figure?

Any statistic given without without the underlying parts or just given as a flat number is a lie, as it's guaranteed to be misleading.

During WW1, when the army introduced helmets to all allied troops, they saw a dramatic rise in soldiers being admitted to the medical tents. They almost decided to remove helmets from everyone, thinking the helmets were the cause of the injuries, until someone investigated the statistics further and found that, no, the injury spike was happening because the helmets were actually saving lives, whereas before soldiers were just dying from headwounds and never going to see a medic.

Yes, the death count jumped in 2020. Could be because the vaccine is dangerous. Could be because 10000x more people took the vaccine because the government and/or employer were forcing them to. Without more context, we can't draw conclusions.

Does the VAERS database not include the total count of people who took a vaccine? If it does, divide those death totals to the overall total in each time period, and then you'll have a meaningful number.

Since the recent vaccines haven't undergone full testing, I would still expect to see a slight jump even in the normalized mortality rate, but not nearly the dramatic rise you see here in the unnormalized mortality count.

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

trump's killing his chance at being prez again

[–]StillLessons[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This subject comes up every time this graph comes up, as well it should. You are absolutely right; there are more variables at play.

I have not seen "injury/jab" numbers published. The manufacturers have them, we can be sure, but I haven't seen them.

Going into the flu shot numbers from the CDC, however, in the 2018-2019 season, 169 million doses were distributed. This doesn't tell us how many of those doses were used, but I don't think it's an unreasonable first cut to guess ~100 million out of those 169 million were administered. Using that as a benchmark along with 205 million vaccinated against covid, we could expect a roughly 2x jump based on number of people vaccinated. That doesn't begin to account for the two-order-of-magnitude jump witnessed.

So that's the first thing that makes me believe the "raw" jump is not an artifact.

The second element which makes me comfortable with displaying this graphic is that we are comparing a dataset within itself. In other words, most of the confounding variables that would confuse data around the covid vaccines are also present in all the data within the same dataset. If there were two different systems spitting out numbers, then there are all sorts of measurement issues to confuse matters. But this is a massive break within a single dataset. I have not heard that VAERS changed collection methods from 2019 to 2021. To first glance, the only variable I see changing is the introduction of these new shots. If anyone has information to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.

The question you are asking is important and - in an honest information environment - would be debated openly for all to see. There is good value in having a figure like this come under fire. What is infuriating is that rather than have this conversation so we can come to a more honest understanding of the numbers, the response has been a stone wall of "safe and effective!", which has zero meaning without just such a debate.

I'm open to looking at better data to clarify this figure. I just haven't seen it.

Lastly, the point I was making in the case of this post is far more basic and completely unaffected by the question you ask. I posted this graphic in response to Trump's comment (in line with all the propaganda organs, from both "his" side and "his enemies'" side) that "People aren't dying when they take the vaccine." An argument about the numbers is legitimate. But to flat out deny that these vaccines are killing people is completely without foundation in the data. How many people? There is legitimate uncertainty (because they refuse to talk about it). But it sure as hell isn't zero. Many of us (me included) know this directly from deaths of people within our personal networks, no recourse to data required.

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

You're right that the graph doesn't tell THE WHOLE STORY.

However, this is posted against the Trump statement that "Nobody is dying from the vax." which this graph, for all its flaws, CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES is a false statement. That was its mission in this post, and I dare say, mission accomplished.

[–]BravoVictor 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Everyone knows Trump, like most people in politics, speaks in hyperbole. It's silly to interpret him literally when you know full well he's not speaking literally.

[–]StillLessons[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I put this thread under "propaganda" for a reason. If information like this were aimed at the rational mind, life would be easy because - as you say - what he says is rationally "silly", but when the managerial class puts out a campaign like the one Trump is representing here, it's not aimed at the rational mind. Statements of absolutes can be seen through with critical thinking, but emotional thinking is the name of the game in propaganda, and that is where Trump's statement is aimed. People who react emotionally are very susceptible to statements of absolutes. They absorb them like air. It goes in "pre-cognitive".

That's why, despite the detail you correctly point out about the graph above (rational criticism), graphs like this one are necessary to counter statements like Trump's. Visuals also have a pretty good power at getting inside that "emotional reaction" space.

As such, the purpose of the graph (my motivation in the first place) is to neutralize the effect of such a blatant emotional misrepresentation on the part of the establishment.

Your criticism is logically correct, but there are times when a powerful graphic tells a necessary story, to which the details can be added later, once people are curious enough (curiosity is the birth of cognitive thought) to dig into the details such as what you point out.

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

No, people usually die hours or days after, not WHEN they take the jab.