How about no? ''Anything less than 100% safe'' includes a huge range of numbers, from 99.99% safe, all the way down to 0.01% safe.

Surely 99.999% safe is also less than 100% safe.

Did you mean "Anything less than 99.99% safe"?

When you have a vaccine thats being administered to billions of people

To quote your good self: Oh my god, how can you be this stupid? I was specifically talking about the United States, not the entire world!

How many people do you think are in the United States?

anything less than 100% would be a catastrophe.

So again, you claim that even as little as one medially serious incident every 330,000,000 doses would be a catastrophe.

Most people wouldn't call that a catastrophe.

The problem is that you are deliberately being obnoxious and refusing to concede an obvious point.

Not at all. It is not necessary for any medical intervention to be 100% safe. So long as it is safer than not doing the intervention, it isn't contraindicated.

Surgery has a risk. Antibiotics have a risk. Going to the gym has risks. They are a good idea (for things that they treat) if they are less risky than not doing them. The demand for them to be 100% safe is not the test for whether they should be done.

we know from the VAERS database that the covid vaccine is nowhere near as safe as this

As I have made clear above, the VAERS database cannot determine how safe the vaccine is, because it includes anything people send in. They are not attributable to the vaccine. It is only useful as an indicator of what effect we should consider looking for in a controlled study.

Here is a quote from the article I linked to: ''Allegedly, the whistleblower stated that there are around 11 VAERS systems reporting adverse reactions and deaths across the US, and one system alone has allegedly has reported the shocking 45,000 deaths from the Covid jabs. However, Renz believes that this number is “immensely higher” and is calling for immediate investigations into the VAERS system.''

I agree that that quote is in the article. My point is that claim is wrong, and not supported by plausible data.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-evidence-45000-deaths-covid-19-vaccines/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/45000-people-die-covid-19-vaccine/

''In trials, they use healthy patients to experiment on. In the real world, there are people with serious health problems taking the vaccine.''

I responded to this already: If you have allergies or immune disorders, check with your GP before getting the vaccine.

The CDC also reported 12,313 deaths on their website, before they hastily edited that number down to 6079 deaths.

VAERS is unreliable as a count of deaths. Certainly as a count of deaths due to the vaccine.

If the numbers range about they could be cleaning up reports from antivax bots, or it could be a typo. But it doesn't make any material difference to the guidelines for who should not be vaccinated, because it's an open reporting system, not a controlled study.

Because it had completely escaped your notice that I was talking about the United States and the 45,000 people who have died from the covid vaccine.

Let me show you my response again:

Also keep in mind VAERS is not evidence. It doesn't attribute any side effect to the vaccine. It is merely a vaccine reality show where members of the public vote for their favourite side effect.

To look at if any of those are attributable to the vaccine, you need to look more closely. Or compare vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of a decent size.

Are you blind as well as stupid?

Sorry I couldn't see where you named some vaccines that have been suspended for causing dozens of deaths. Would you mind showing me the paragraph?