GlockSpock

Please do tell?

I don’t support anyone that does not want it to be forced to get it. This extends all the way to being against “creating a 2nd class citizen” too. I just want to ask the right questions when it comes to data.

What if addition Kung-fu (or in this case, an extra column on your excel spreadsheet that you posted) showed that vaccinated people were 10x less likely to die? I pulled that number out of nowhere, but if the data showed that would that change anything?

This post caught my attention for quite a few reasons. As anyone with half a brain knows, you can sorta tell anything with a set of numbers if you know how to point them the right direction. I set out to do some simple math to show why it was that I thought the chart actually really supported the idea of vaccination but I was actually surprised at how the numbers came out. Now, the numbers could sway based solely upon the fact I pulled the estimated population off Wikipedia for Israel. If it is lower or higher for the official calculations shown in your graph, that would slightly alter what I'm about to say. I picked the percentages and cases from the very bottom (total and average for each). I think the general analysis that I did would hold up to any of the age groups though. I will simply summarize my calculations. If you have a population, lets say 1,000 people. Lets say that 95% of them are vaccinated. That means 950 vaccinated and 50 were not. Lets say for arguments sake you have 50 cases in the vaccinated and 25 cases in the vaccinated. Does that mean vaccinated people are twice as likely to catch COVID? Of course not! What it really means is that 50 people out of 950 vaccinated caught COVID, or 5.2%. It also means 25 people out of 50 vaccinated caught COVID, or 50%. So by those numbers, it would essentially reduce your chances of catching COVID to 1/10th of what it would be unvaccinated. Now, my numbers were much less drastic, ending at a whopping .01% difference. This is assuming that the data was correct and I calculated the things correctly, by all means I'm open to correction if someone spots an error. But what concerns me about the data, if it were posted by someone (not you, whomever originally created it) attempting to prove that vaccines are ineffective, is that it does not show anything at all about hospitalizations, deaths, and long term injuries. What if adding that data into columns skews the "meaning" of the original post? The other piece of the missing puzzle is that .21% or so seems extremely low, what if without the vaccinated 84.4% that total cases were actually 1-2% or even higher (5-10x .21%). In other words, what if the people shown in that graph that caught COVID were extremely susceptible with immune issues and would generally have caught COVID whether or not they received the vaccine. @MacGyver You are a huge data person, any thoughts?

This is about to get interesting if it turns out to be true. Wonder if it will stand.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04374019?term=Ivermectin&cntry=US&draw=3&rank=14 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04482686?term=Ivermectin&cntry=US&draw=3&rank=17 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04510194?term=Ivermectin&cntry=US&draw=4&rank=26 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885530?term=Ivermectin&cntry=US&draw=4&rank=29

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04729140?term=Ivermectin&cntry=US&draw=2&rank=9

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=Ivermectin&cntry=US&state=&city=&dist=

Here is the thing about "did it work". On a case by case basis, it is hard to determine efficiency. Many people I know that had COVID didn't even know they had it. Guess what? That fact means nothing to the 30 year olds in ICU right now and are fighting for their life. I say that to simply say that on a case by case basis, you never know how someone (an individual) would have fared without "treatment". If you give Ivermectin to a single person with COVID and they die, does that mean Ivermectin does not work? Does that mean it is fatal itself? If you give water to someone with COVID and they feel better the next day, does that mean the water cured them? What if you give an abundance of water to a single person with COVID and they die of water poisoning, does that mean water should be withheld from COVID patients? There are so many different variables to "did it work". Dosage amount, length of treatment, unlimited variables of individual health, etc. This is why studies are important. Taking a double blind study of 1,000 people and then analyzing the results will provide a more accurate answer to "did it work".

I will put this in plainer terms. Some of the people that are calling people sheep/sheeple for taking a vaccine are then they themselves taking medication sold for livestock.

I won't pretend to know the ins, outs, and rules of such a thing, but I did find this as an opposing viewpoint to the article you pasted and linked to: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/08/26/vaccine-conspiracy-theorists-become-even-more-desperate-after-full-fda-authorization/ I believe that you are right that if rules were bypassed it will end up in the courts somewhere.

Pfizer received full FDA approval I believe 08/23. It is still allowed to be used under it's EUA for ages 12-15 as the full FDA approval was only for those 16 and older.

Not so much that but more-so just acknowledging a lot of the precedence that has been set for a very long time. Not that it couldn't change but if it does change I do not expect it to swing in the direction of the individual/employee. https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court While many states allow for exceptions (some do not), most if not all school systems require vaccinations of some sort. Between international travel and also military service, mandatory vaccination has been a general thing for a while in various terms. Although the methodology was different (inoculation vs vaccination), Washington required it against Smallpox for his troops. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/08/29/george-washington-smallpox-inoculation-army/

Look, I'm all for someone sticking up for what they believe in. I just think a lot of people are going to be severely disappointing when they find out that the law/courts are not on their side after being terminated for refusing a vaccine. I'd like to find out that I'm wrong.

Look, I am against mandatory vaccinations being forced upon anyone, but at the same time I recognize why companies want their employees vaccinated. Discrimination? Does that mean I can get a job without a driver's license or drive a commercial vehicle without a CDL? Violation of Hippa laws? Don't believe that one, either. https://www.nytimes.com/article/hipaa-law.html I never saw Philadelphia. I guess what I am saying though is that generally the courts have supported both employers and states mandating vaccines.

Sue them for what exactly?

Yeah, TGO is the only "social media" I can handle, but maybe that's just because I ban anyone I don't agree with. Well, joking aside, I simply wish people could reasonably discuss things like this, because they are important topics.

No, neither do I a mask. I was simply pointing out the line of equivalent thinking. Something can be helpful but not foolproof. If used correctly something can help keep you safe. A hardhat doesn't protect you if you get hit on the head by a 10 ton boulder. A seat-belt doesn't help you if you get squished between two 18-wheelers. A gun doesn't protect you if you get caught-up in a missile strike. Is it possible that a mask helps slow the spread of viruses? Pointing to two people you know and saying "they wore masks but still got COVID" does not mean that masks do not work at all.

That's not science. What if every single one of those people touched a dirty doorknob then licked their fingers while eating a cheeseburger? Or maybe they stood close to someone who coughed in their eyeball because they were sick and not wearing a mask? I bet you could find evidence of people dying while wearing a bullet-proof vest. Does that mean they are ineffective and shouldn't be worn?

However, something else I've been thinking about regarding the numbers. Sure, it is easy to point out that hospitals are seeing something like a 97% un-vaccinated rate when looking at hospitalizations and/or deaths, etc etc. However, if instead of separating people into groups of vaccinated or un-vaccinated we separate them into groups of those that take the virus seriously or those that do not take the virus seriously, consider how that may shape the numbers. For the people that take the virus seriously, a larger percent of them probably took the vaccine early. They are also more likely to exercise things such as social distancing, mask wearing, etc. For those that do not take the virus seriously, they are more likely to not get vaccinated, not social distance, and not wear a mask, and thus for all of those reasons combined be more likely to get COVID. It's just extremely interesting to me to look at every statistic in a correlation/causation standpoint.

More importantly, consider this. If 5% of a given population is generally expected to develop a disease, and then we give 1,000 people a drug trial. If after being given that drug, 50 of them develop over the next few years, does that mean the drug causes that disease? It depends. It certainly is interesting. But my point simply being that just because a person's conditions worsen after receiving a drug, that does not mean the drug itself is in any way responsible. It could be, or it could be that the person would have developed it anyway. Of course, that's the opposite end of the same argument many are using for COVID (died of COVID or died with COVID). Now, if in that same population 400 of them (40%) develop the disease instead of the usual 5%, then that's definitely worth looking at.

I hate that anyone in the US is being forced to take this or risk their job, etc. I also hate that people distrust any and all authority/government/science to the point that they don’t want to take it.

When we were dating my Wife got shingles on her shoulder when she was 18 . Pretty much everyone told her at the time that getting it at such a young age was extremely rare. That didn't do much to help her situation. My understanding is that you can only get shingles if you have had the chicken pox, is that correct? I had the chicken pox vaccine as a child and she attended a chicken pox party. As far as I know, I cannot get shingles (based on the aforementioned understanding). I hope I don't jinx that one.

I got mine yesterday at Walgreens and I’m not sure I even felt it. If it wasn’t for the soreness in that arm today I might could convince myself she faked it.