Vaccine coercion/bribery

[Keith_Indy]

Follow the science! Unless it says something disagreeable. It’s ok to ignore it then.

More like, hmmm, maybe we should wait until there's actual studies of the long term effects of new treatments to protect against serious illness.

 

[Ark]

If you catch Covid, your odds of serious illness/death is the same. But being unvaccinated makes you 12.3x more likely to roll those dice. The conclusion you draw is the vaccine is useless?

Why is anyone getting hospitalized or dying with the vaccine at all, let alone at proportions ditto those of the unvaccinated? What happened to "safe and effective"? What happened to "95% effective"?

Could also be that the claimed vaccination numbers are completely false and far fewer Americans have actually gotten it.

 

[jsharmon7]

Why is anyone getting hospitalized or dying with the vaccine at all, let alone at proportions ditto those of the unvaccinated? What happened to "safe and effective"? What happened to "95% effective"?

Could also be that the claimed vaccination numbers are completely false and far fewer Americans have actually gotten it.

It may still be 95% effective, if 46,000 people is 5% or less of the total who have been vaccinated in the US. As far as the numbers being made up, well you’re just introducing something that can’t be debated since it’s impossible to know or prove.

The bottom line is the numbers you posted show there were 12.3x more unvaccinated people testing positive. If you and I agree to play Russian roulette, our odds of going bust are an equal 1 in 6. If you have to spin and pull 12 times to my 1, are you agreeable to that game?

Ultimately, I’m on the side of logic and sound judgment. I don’t want to see people forced to get this vaccine, but it’s inaccurate to argue it’s basically worthless in the first place.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If the vaccine works, why are the death and hospitalization proportions the exact same? There is no statistical difference once infected, which the vaccine clearly does not prevent.

There could be a simple explanation for that. That those more likely to be hospitalized/die(age/obesity/diabetes/etc) are more likely to have received the vaccine. Which if that is true, it would tend to show that it does reduce the chances of hospitalization/death. This shows it for age but not other comorbidities.

US Coronavirus vaccine tracker

Each state has a different plan — and different challenges — in distributing vaccines. Learn more about who is getting vaccinated by parsing the data by age, sex and race.

usafacts.org

 

[Leo]

I am so tired of "testing Positive" being treated as people that are sick. That is to scare people, not to state facts.

Testing positive does not mean a thing with a 40% false positive error rate and the test not being able to differentiate between Covid, H1N1, and the common cold. They can test far more accurately, but that brush in the nose test is pretty basic.

I am not buying the whole you have it but don't know you are sick. If it has been a couple weeks, you do not have it. I have been asthmatic since infancy, I know when I cannot breathe. I know what medicine works to relieve the symptoms, because I can breathe again.

They claim is that every mans beard has detectable feces in it. I just got out of the shower and I always shampoo my hair and beard twice. My wife (who has been in the field 30 years and has all her microbiology stuff up to date) assures me that the best testing is sensitive enough to find bacteria similar to feces bacteria, pretty much on every living thing. That does not mean I have crap in my beard.

Words on the news do not always represent what you think they do.

 

[jsharmon7]

I am so tired of "testing Positive" being treated as people that are sick. That is to scare people, not to state facts.

Testing positive does not mean a thing with a 40% false positive error rate and the test not being able to differentiate between Covid, H1N1, and the common cold. They can test far more accurately, but that brush in the nose test is pretty basic.

I am not buying the whole you have it but don't know you are sick. If it has been a couple weeks, you do not have it. I have been asthmatic since infancy, I know when I cannot breathe. I know what medicine works to relieve the symptoms, because I can breathe again.

They claim is that every mans beard has detectable feces in it. I just got out of the shower and I always shampoo my hair and beard twice. My wife (who has been in the field 30 years and has all her microbiology stuff up to date) assures me that the best testing is sensitive enough to find bacteria similar to feces bacteria, pretty much on every living thing. That does not mean I have crap in my beard.

Words on the news do not always represent what you think they do.

Do you have a reliable source for the claims the PCR has a 40% false positive rate and it can’t differentiate between viruses?

 

[Leo]

Do you have a reliable source for the claims the PCR has a 40% false positive rate and it can’t differentiate between viruses?

you do, start typing. And when you find that the 50% false test is no longer used and a newer test is 38% error, that does not change a single thing in real life.

 

[jsharmon7]

you do, start typing.

Just saying “no” would have been easier for you. Making stuff up doesn’t help anyone make informed choices.

 

[JettaKnight]

More like, hmmm, maybe we should wait until there's actual studies of the long term effects of new treatments to protect against serious illness.

I understand the concerns, but it's irrational to think the long term effects could be anywhere as close to the known effects of COVID.

 

[Leo]

Just saying “no” would have been easier for you. Making stuff up doesn’t help anyone make informed choices.

You did not just start thinking bout this. There have been reports about the testing failures since day one. There has been court testimony of swabs that never touched a human coming up positive. My wife's whole family are technical people in the business. I sure would not let someone cut of my leg based on a kit test.
But since you insist:

How Accurate Are Rapid COVID Tests? What Research Shows

The risk of getting a false positive result for COVID-19 is relatively low but false negatives are common. Still, a rapid test can be a useful preliminary test.

www.healthline.com

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Don't believe someone can be an asymptomatic carrier and spreader?

Umm, ahem, Typhoid Mary.

This isn't a new concept, folks.

 

[buckwacker]

Don't believe someone can be an asymptomatic carrier and spreader?

Umm, ahem, Typhoid Mary.

This isn't a new concept, folks.

In the covid era, they're know as the vaccinated.

 

[buckwacker]

I understand the concerns, but it's irrational to think the long term effects could be anywhere as close to the known effects of COVID.

Why?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You did not just start thinking bout this. There have been reports about the testing failures since day one. There has been court testimony of swabs that never touched a human coming up positive. My wife's whole family are technical people in the business.
But since you insist:

How Accurate Are Rapid COVID Tests? What Research Shows

The risk of getting a false positive result for COVID-19 is relatively low but false negatives are common. Still, a rapid test can be a useful preliminary test.

www.healthline.com

Did you read it? It's about RAPID tests... not PCR tests.

And, it's PCR that is by far the most common "go to the clinic/testing site or CVS/Walgreens" and get the results in a day or three.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You did not just start thinking bout this. There have been reports about the testing failures since day one. There has been court testimony of swabs that never touched a human coming up positive. My wife's whole family are technical people in the business. I sure would not let someone cut of my leg based on a kit test.
But since you insist:

How Accurate Are Rapid COVID Tests? What Research Shows

The risk of getting a false positive result for COVID-19 is relatively low but false negatives are common. Still, a rapid test can be a useful preliminary test.

www.healthline.com

I don't think that link says what you think it does. False negatives are quite high, false positives not so much. The worst test listed had 3% false positives, that was the worst.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

In the covid era, they're know as the vaccinated.

Right.... a phenomenon that's been known for over 150 years can only be occurring because of a COVID vaccine.

 

[Ingomike]

I understand the concerns, but it's irrational to think the long term effects could be anywhere as close to the known effects of COVID.

A disease so bad they had to change the definition of pandemic for this to even qualify...

 

[jsharmon7]

You did not just start thinking bout this. There have been reports about the testing failures since day one. There has been court testimony of swabs that never touched a human coming up positive. My wife's whole family are technical people in the business. I sure would not let someone cut of my leg based on a kit test.
But since you insist:

How Accurate Are Rapid COVID Tests? What Research Shows

The risk of getting a false positive result for COVID-19 is relatively low but false negatives are common. Still, a rapid test can be a useful preliminary test.

www.healthline.com

From your own source:

“In the March 2021 review of studies mentioned earlier, the researcher found that rapid tests correctly gave a positive COVID-19 result in 99.6 percent of people.”

Maybe you meant .4% inaccurate rather than 40%.

It also mentioned PCR tests being 97.2% accurate.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Did you read it? It's about RAPID tests... not PCR tests.

And, it's PCR that is by far the most common "go to the clinic/testing site or CVS/Walgreens" and get the results in a day or three.

@Leo

ETA: and the numbers you mis-quoted are for FALSE NEGATIVES! Even with the rapid test, false positives, what you alluded to as 40%, are rare... more like 0.4%:

Chances of a rapid test giving a false positive
Rapid tests rarely give a false positive result. A false positive is when you test positive for COVID-19 when you don’t actually have it.

In the March 2021 review of studies mentioned earlier, the researcher found that rapid tests correctly gave a positive COVID-19 result in 99.6 percent of people.

The above is from the article you linked.

 

[Leo]

I see that, false negatives, sorry about the switch. Further down are figures for people that are not already sick. You do notice that there are several different kinds of tests, and several manufacturers. Remember the news last spring that we were buying chinese made tests that were all showing positive?

I might have been thinking of this one.https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4941

The UK government’s plans for community testing for covid-19 received a further blow this week when early results from students testing at the University of Birmingham and universities in Scotland showed that tests had a sensitivity of just 3% and that 58% of positive test results were false.


I just know that we are drowning in this mess for a long time and there are more variables can be documented, but the agenda states it like everything is black and white