Covid 19 virus plus vaccine was meant to kill us.

[JLB]

Which are you referencing? You talk about an article but post no link to one. Not that it matters, since it is you simply do not understand the data, despite this having been dealt with many times, such as HERE. I've pointed out to you previously that this is the base rate fallacy--HERE, for instance--which I already mentioned earlier in THIS thread. You would do well to learn this once and for all.

What matters is the percentage of the population that were vaccinated versus those unvaccinated. I'm certain that the previous numbers I provided are still in the ballpark: the unvaxxed were 3-4 times more likely to die from COVID, more likely to get COVID, more likely to be hospitalized, and much more likely to be in the ICU.


This is all unsupported, baseless speculation.

This thread doesn’t allow attachments.

Why Do Vaccinated People Represent Most COVID-19 Deaths Right Now? | KFF

This post explores why the share of COVID-19 deaths among those who are vaccinated has risen, Factors include a rising share of the population that is vaccinated, waning immune protection and low uptake of boosters, and changes in immunity among the unvaccinated.

www.kff.org

 

[Corn Pop]

Did it protect people? Yes, it did. Was it as good as we expected, using data from similar viruses? No. But it saved lives. We know this because we can compare deaths in states with such distancing, compared to states that did not do it. Here's a pretty good summary:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/06/21/g-s1-5705/coronavirus-faw-if-youre-still-trying-to-stay-covid-safe-does-the-6-food-rule-matter

It also had another benefit. The rule were really effective against influenza virus, and deaths from influenza were dramatically down in the pandemic years.

Don't remember that, but those who avoided crowds were a lot less likely to die than those who attended crowd events. Each state did their own thing. How did that work out? (Barbarian checks)

Methods​

Using social distancing data from tracked mobile phones in all US counties, we estimated the relationship between social distancing (average proportion of mobile phone usage outside of home between March and May 2020) and COVID-19 mortality (when the state in which the county is located reported its first confirmed case of COVID-19 and up to May 31, 2020) with a mixed-effects negative binomial model while distinguishing COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes from total COVID-19 deaths and accounting for social distancing– and COVID-19–related factors (including the period between the report of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 and May 31, 2020; population density; social vulnerability; and hospital resource availability). Results from the mixed-effects negative binomial model were then used to generate marginal effects at the mean, which helped separate the influence of social distancing on COVID-19 deaths from other covariates while calculating COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people.

Results​

We observed that a 1% increase in average mobile phone usage outside of home between March and May 2020 led to a significant increase in COVID-19 mortality by a factor of 1.18 (P<.001), while every 1% increase in the average proportion of mobile phone usage outside of home in February 2020 was found to significantly decrease COVID-19 mortality by a factor of 0.90 (P<.001).

The Influence of Social Distancing on COVID-19 Mortality in US Counties: Cross-sectional Study - PMC

Previous studies on the impact of social distancing on COVID-19 mortality in the United States have predominantly examined this relationship at the national level and have not separated COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes from total COVID-19 deaths. ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

US State Restrictions and Excess COVID-19 Pandemic Deaths​

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(7):e242006. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2006

Findings This cross-sectional analysis including all 50 US states plus the District of Columbia found that if all states had imposed COVID-19 restrictions similar to those used in the 10 most (least) restrictive states, excess deaths would have been an estimated 10% to 21% lower (13%-17% higher) than the 1.18 million that actually occurred during the 2-year period analyzed. Behavior changes were associated with 49% to 79% of this overall difference.

Meaning These findings indicate that collectively, stringent COVID-19 restrictions were associated with substantial decreases in excess deaths during the pandemic.

That's up to 240,000 lives saved. Would that justify tighter restrictions on social interaction?

NZ had one the most harsh restricted lockdowns in the world not to overwhelm the health system, and the graph shows that the virus was contained and supressed.

Yet as soon as there was a 90% jab rate and started lifting restictions that is when there was massive spike in conformed covid cases.

The flat line in the graphs is from the very first confirmed case in the country and the sudden spike in cases and deaths is the time they had a 90% jab rate and started relaxing restrictions. The whole flat line deaths were in the single figures and cases were with the hundreds until restictions were lifted.

Sometimes supressing can lead to bigger outbreaks. It is only a county of 5 million. And that was confirmed cases so could probably double it.

New Zealand COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

New Zealand Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

 

[Barbarian]

NZ had one the most harsh restricted lockdowns in the world not to overwhelm the health system, and the graph shows that the virus was contained and supressed.

Yet as soon as there was a 90% jab rate and started lifting restictions that is when there was massive spike in conformed covid cases.

The flat line in the graphs is from the very first confirmed case in the country and the sudden spike in cases and deaths is the time they had a 90% jab rate and started relaxing restrictions. The whole flat line deaths were in the single figures and cases were with the hundreds until restictions were lifted.

Sometimes supressing can lead to bigger outbreaks. It is only a county of 5 million. And that was confirmed cases so could probably double it.

New Zealand COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

New Zealand Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.

www.worldometers.info

Yeah, stringent isolation works even better than vaccination. But that can't last forever. The United States had a death rate of 3,642/million, while New Zealand had a rate of 1,163/million. (check your website for the details) Because we didn't do as thorough a job of social isolation, our death rate was over three times that of New Zealand. New Zealand also had a slightly higher rate of vaccination, which also contributed to their much lower death rate.

 

[Corn Pop]

I know many people who were fully jab and got cov.

 

[Free]

I know many people who were fully jab and got cov.

Yes, that has been known since the vaccines came out. They were never a 100% preventative measure, especially with how quickly the virus mutated. But, being vaccinated gives a significantly better chance at less severe disease and significantly lower likelihood of hospitalization and death.

It’s worth noting that people vaxxed and unvaxxed have had COVID multiple times, despite many unvaxxed during the pandemic saying that getting COVID Is the best immunity. Aside from being the dumbest argument ever against not getting vaxxed, why is this something anti-vaxxers don’t bring up? Why is it only that “the vaccines failed”? Why no acknowledgement that getting COVID fails too?

 

[Corn Pop]

Those behind the scenes do not care about liberty they only see humans as mass test subjects. They try to play God.

 

[Corn Pop]

Yes, that has been known since the vaccines came out. They were never a 100% preventative measure, especially with how quickly the virus mutated. But, being vaccinated gives a significantly better chance at less severe disease and significantly lower likelihood of hospitalization and death.

It’s worth noting that people vaxxed and unvaxxed have had COVID multiple times, despite many unvaxxed during the pandemic saying that getting COVID Is the best immunity. Aside from being the dumbest argument ever against not getting vaxxed, why is this something anti-vaxxers don’t bring up? Why is it only that “the vaccines failed”? Why no acknowledgement that getting COVID fails too?

If the vax was effective to a point even it was rushed through so thats experimental, it would have helped the most vulnerable as the data showed 98% of people did not get hospitalised or worse, it was mainly those over middle aged or with specific underlying conditions a d different factors where someone was at a more vulnerable risk so the jab may have helped them when it come out. Myself personally I did not believe I was at a vulnerable risk level where taking it might have helped me. And I already got covid unjab and recovered before the jab was available and was fine. I don't think a jab when it come out was going to save my life and I needed it. And I just though it was a bit u fair how I was treated simply because I did not take it for my own reasons and my body my choice.

 

[Corn Pop]

Yeah, stringent isolation works even better than vaccination. But that can't last forever. The United States had a death rate of 3,642/million, while New Zealand had a rate of 1,163/million. (check your website for the details) Because we didn't do as thorough a job of social isolation, our death rate was over three times that of New Zealand. New Zealand also had a slightly higher rate of vaccination, which also contributed to their much lower death rate.

I don't think the rates are correct anyhow because it can only go on confirmed cases from testing. Like it says NZ had 2.6 million cases and has a population of about 5 million, but it might have been 5 million cases and not 2.4 million because many might have had cov and not got tested. Apparently 1 in 5 were asymptomatic so they probably did not get tested because they were not feeling sick, i dont think maybe randomly got tested if they were not feeing sick, maybe the afraid did, maybe not even sick just using up resources to get tested bevause they scared they might have cov, I meanthe mass majority of tests come back negative.

I'm not sure how it was recorded like if example the same person got cov multiple times over time through testing was that recorded in the overall stats like 5 of the cases was one person who tested possitive 5 times?. I dont know.

How can we really know the true stats?.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think the rates are correct anyhow because it can only go on confirmed cases from testing. Like it says NZ had 2.6 million cases and has a population of about 5 million, but it might have been 5 million cases and not 2.4 million because many might have had cov and not got tested.

Hard to fake death rates. It's pretty close to the finish when we hear "they are all lying!" When that's all they have left, the game is over.

 

[Barbarian]

This data shows a small sample from NY the age ranges but the gaps of age is huge like 20 years im 45-64 is a big difference I would guess most were 60+ and it shows those who had underlying conditions. 0f the 1% death rate over 90% of the 1% were 60+ and had underying conditions and the most over the age of life expetency. So thats who is most vulnerbale if a jab could maybe help them live past the age of life expetency.

It turns out that for every age group, death rates are higher for unvaccinated people than for vaccinated people. The data is there, if you want to see it.

 

[Corn Pop]

It turns out that for every age group, death rates are higher for unvaccinated people than for vaccinated people. The data is there, if you want to see it.

Depends on the data and how its recorded. I mean everyone who died cov related was unjabed before the jab was available or those who did take it over a time period so that cannot be added to the data because it would say the many died unjabed compaired to the jabed.

Many people had already had cov and recovered before the jab was available and then they got the jab after so someone could say the jab was saving all there lives when they had already had cov and recovered without the jab.

 

[Corn Pop]

I remember during the jab rollout and they started mentioning jab and unjab in the daily deaths in the media, and it was like example 10 deaths, 9 unjab, 1 jab, and then it was 10 deaths, 7 unjab, 3 jab, and then as the jab rates were increasing it was like 10 deaths, 5 unjab, 5 jab, and then they suddenly stopped reporting.