Tinnitus - did i dodge a bullet with the covid vaccine?
Seeing tons of posts about this on reddit. I stopped wearing ear buds years ago but didn't know the vaccine could cause this.
-
01
-
#1: Top-rated Training Shoe: Brooks Ghost 15 for $99Get a top 1%-rated shoe right now for $99 (30% off) -
Kokinho wrote:
Harambe wrote:
So is the risk of varicella and most other childhood diseases.
What if I told you most childhood vaccines also aren't vital but were pushed by big pharma.
Personally, I enjoy less dead and injured children. You may feel otherwise. All about the risk:reward and, to you, the risk of dead children... just isn't a big deal! Understood.
16 -
2600 bro wrote:
If the risk of severe adverse event from COVID was 1/10,000 and the risk of severe adverse event from COVID vaccination was 1/1,000,000... you can argue all you want but it's a mistake not to get vaccinated. For no population were these numbers closer than 2-3 orders of magnitude.
ITT: people disagreeing with basic math.
Gotta love antivaxxers.
26 -
In Control wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
I have never been against allowing people to make sub-optimal (i.e. risky) decisions.
Just don't be so sensitive when I call out those decision as sub-optimal. That's all.
What is the risk of adverse outcomes from Covid in my demographic?
I am not your doctor - seems hard for me to model that without your health info. Feel free to share if you want.
I can tell you the risk from COVID is much greater than the risk from the vaccine, so getting vaccinated makes sense barring some crazy time-cost to vaccination (you live on a homestead in the Yukon or something).
34 -
buecher wrote:
In Control wrote:
Are you in favor of mandating Covid shots as part of the childhood immunization plan? Why or why not?
Do you agree that some demographic groups had a minuscule rate of adverse outcomes from Covid? The risk reduction of my demographic is very, very small.
You incorrectly assume that I am against the Covid vaccine. I am not. In lots of demographic groups it is absolutely needed. I looked at the data and determined that the Covid risk for my group was minuscule.
At this point I don't think it makes sense to add the COVID vaccine to an immunization program for children. Is this something that is being considered by any agency?
Varicella has a mortality risk of 0.001% in children - probably similar to COVID - and we still vaccinate.
34 -
DanM wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
Again, on an individual level you are allowed to weigh risks and choose objectively riskier options.
On a population level this leads to large number of people getting quite sick that otherwise wouldnt, using resources, causing grief, etc. thus it should be recommended on a population level.
I am not sure what your point is.
Your population level premise conveniently omits the amount of medical resources devoted to administering "vaccines" and "boosters". You also leave out the ER visits due to serious reactions caused by injections of mRNA goop.
No, it does include those.
For someone that spams so many articles, it's shocking how poor you are at reading.There, I fixed my quote. Every one is happy.
21 -
2600 bro wrote:
In Control wrote:
What is the risk of adverse outcomes from Covid in my demographic?
I am not your doctor - seems hard for me to model that without your health info. Feel free to share if you want.
I can tell you the risk from COVID is much greater than the risk from the vaccine, so getting vaccinated makes sense barring some crazy time-cost to vaccination (you live on a homestead in the Yukon or something).
Sure. Here you go.
At the time that the vaccine was first available to me in my state:
16 y.o. Asian male
BMI: 17
No health issues (2x year physical)
Physical activity level: high
Everything is still the same today other than my age, obviously.
Tell me what my risk probability for contracting Covid AND having an adverse outcome. I happen to know the answer.
03 -
2600 bro wrote:
DanM wrote:
Your population level premise conveniently omits the amount of medical resources devoted to administering "vaccines" and "boosters". You also leave out the ER visits due to serious reactions caused by injections of mRNA goop.
No, it does include those.
For someone that spams so many articles, it's shocking how poor you are at reading.There, I fixed my quote. Every one is happy.
Technology is hard, eh boomer? Lol
12 -
Harambe wrote:
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Sweden is doing well. Natural immunity is the prototypically most efficient concept (except according to money hungry big pharma and sheep). They (sweden) didn't buy into the deceptive, media/big pharma (who pays/sponsors media) driven scheme and had a moral compass. Japan, which is morally astute, realized what a money/agenda driven scheme this was and started to admit the problems with the vaccines that were censored in other first world nations.
Dont you think when they have to threaten people's jobs and freedoms in order to coerce them to do something, that there are ulterior motives at play? Don't ignore the red flags. There's a litany of them. Use your detective mind and channel logic.
If they're doing well it's because of the vaccine.
Sweden had the worst result of their scandinavian neighbors.
The did the NY thing with their old people, and they had multiple times the deaths of Norway, with a similar dmographic. Sweden 10 million people, 24,000 deaths Norway 5 million people, 5000 deaths
This Sweden story is false. Has been since mid pandemic
The only positve is they have more people than Tennessee ( 7 million) and had less deaths - 29,000
But Tennessee has freedom, and they don't allow Drag Queens, or books.
12 -
In Control wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
I am not your doctor - seems hard for me to model that without your health info. Feel free to share if you want.
I can tell you the risk from COVID is much greater than the risk from the vaccine, so getting vaccinated makes sense barring some crazy time-cost to vaccination (you live on a homestead in the Yukon or something).
Sure. Here you go.
At the time that the vaccine was first available to me in my state:
16 y.o. Asian male
BMI: 17
No health issues (2x year physical)
Physical activity level: high
Everything is still the same today other than my age, obviously.
Tell me what my risk probability for contracting Covid AND having an adverse outcome. I happen to know the answer.
Something like ~0.5-1% of people under 18 have been hospitalized in the US with a COVID infection. Let's assume the majority of those are incidental tests and unrelated to hospitalization. Even if 0.1% of people under 18 have gotten severe COVID requiring hospitalization... that's far more than the risk of a serious adverse event.
Basic math - no need to get so butthurt.
14 -
Harambe wrote:
In Control wrote:
Sure. Here you go.
At the time that the vaccine was first available to me in my state:
16 y.o. Asian male
BMI: 17
No health issues (2x year physical)
Physical activity level: high
Everything is still the same today other than my age, obviously.
Tell me what my risk probability for contracting Covid AND having an adverse outcome. I happen to know the answer.
Something like ~0.5-1% of people under 18 have been hospitalized in the US with a COVID infection. Let's assume the majority of those are incidental tests and unrelated to hospitalization. Even if 0.1% of people under 18 have gotten severe COVID requiring hospitalization... that's far more than the risk of a serious adverse event.
Basic math - no need to get so butthurt.
You are way off. Perhaps you should work on that basic math. Lol
I’ll give you a little hint. Variables matter in statistics.
You can do better. I believe in you. Try again. I’ll be waiting patiently.
02 -
Harambe wrote:
In Control wrote:
Sure. Here you go.
At the time that the vaccine was first available to me in my state:
16 y.o. Asian male
BMI: 17
No health issues (2x year physical)
Physical activity level: high
Everything is still the same today other than my age, obviously.
Tell me what my risk probability for contracting Covid AND having an adverse outcome. I happen to know the answer.
Something like ~0.5-1% of people under 18 have been hospitalized in the US with a COVID infection. Let's assume the majority of those are incidental tests and unrelated to hospitalization. Even if 0.1% of people under 18 have gotten severe COVID requiring hospitalization... that's far more than the risk of a serious adverse event.
Basic math - no need to get so butthurt.
Disingenuous use of statistics at best. You know that not everybody has an equal probability of adverse reactions to covid or the vax. There's a difference between sample and population probability.
22 -
stupid science b1tch wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Something like ~0.5-1% of people under 18 have been hospitalized in the US with a COVID infection. Let's assume the majority of those are incidental tests and unrelated to hospitalization. Even if 0.1% of people under 18 have gotten severe COVID requiring hospitalization... that's far more than the risk of a serious adverse event.
Basic math - no need to get so butthurt.
Disingenuous use of statistics at best. You know that not everybody has an equal probability of adverse reactions to covid or the vax. There's a difference between sample and population probability.
Ok, then someone asking 'what's the chance that I -specifically- will get a serious COVID infection or vaccine adverse event' is BSing as well.
The population stats are still better than the null-string of evidence the other poster provided.
24 -
In Control wrote:
You are way off. Perhaps you should work on that basic math. Lol
I’ll give you a little hint. Variables matter in statistics.
You can do better. I believe in you. Try again. I’ll be waiting patiently.
I've provided far more evidence than you have. If you think my stats are confounded, feel free to make a counter argument. 'You're wrong' isn't the most compelling line of evidence.
23 -
Harambe wrote:
stupid science b1tch wrote:
Disingenuous use of statistics at best. You know that not everybody has an equal probability of adverse reactions to covid or the vax. There's a difference between sample and population probability.
Ok, then someone asking 'what's the chance that I -specifically- will get a serious COVID infection or vaccine adverse event' is BSing as well.
The population stats are still better than the null-string of evidence the other poster provided.
Don’t be so butthurt. C’mon. You can do better. I believe in you. 👍
12 -
Harambe wrote:
In Control wrote:
You are way off. Perhaps you should work on that basic math. Lol
I’ll give you a little hint. Variables matter in statistics.
You can do better. I believe in you. Try again. I’ll be waiting patiently.
I've provided far more evidence than you have. If you think my stats are confounded, feel free to make a counter argument. 'You're wrong' isn't the most compelling line of evidence.
Tell me you have no clue without telling me you have no clue.
01 -
In Control wrote:
Harambe wrote:
I've provided far more evidence than you have. If you think my stats are confounded, feel free to make a counter argument. 'You're wrong' isn't the most compelling line of evidence.
Tell me you have no clue without telling me you have no clue.
Standard antivaxxer tilting when asked to produce numbers to justify their babbling.
23 -
Harambe wrote:
In Control wrote:
Tell me you have no clue without telling me you have no clue.
Standard antivaxxer tilting when asked to produce numbers to justify their babbling.
Antivaxxer?
From Jan 2021 to June 2022 I interned at our state’s DPH. In addition to working with the team running statistical analysis and Covid prediction models, I worked with the marketing team to develop campaigns to target certain demos to get vaccinated. That’s why I know the data - especially for my demo. You just throwing out that 0.5%-1.0% of the 18U demo has had adverse outcomes is not only inaccurate, it is what we dove deeper into the analysis to create targeted campaigns. On one end you had a demo with attributes similar to mine at the near zero end. However, if you looked at AA/B with high BMI (yes, by Fall 2021 we had a good dataset of this attribute), low soc-e, or low SRactiv within that same age demo, the results were significantly different. On the order of hundreds to thousands of magnitude. Even though that single attribute (18U) was on the low end of risk compared to other age demos, within that same demo were select demos that were at the high risk range.
My state was at the forefront of Covid data collection. We had a robust data set to work with. As a result, we had high vaccination rates in demos where the adverse outcomes were high because we knew the specific groups that needed to be targeted. It made a difference.
So while you boomer-a$$ was sitting in your recliner watching Matlock re-runs, I was knee-deep in data analysis and assisting in developing targeted vaccination campaigns. I guess in your world that makes me an antivaxxer since your only retort is to insult or name-call.
01 -
In Control wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Standard antivaxxer tilting when asked to produce numbers to justify their babbling.
Antivaxxer?
From Jan 2021 to June 2022 I interned at our state’s DPH. In addition to working with the team running statistical analysis and Covid prediction models, I worked with the marketing team to develop campaigns to target certain demos to get vaccinated. That’s why I know the data - especially for my demo. You just throwing out that 0.5%-1.0% of the 18U demo has had adverse outcomes is not only inaccurate, it is what we dove deeper into the analysis to create targeted campaigns. On one end you had a demo with attributes similar to mine at the near zero end. However, if you looked at AA/B with high BMI (yes, by Fall 2021 we had a good dataset of this attribute), low soc-e, or low SRactiv within that same age demo, the results were significantly different. On the order of hundreds to thousands of magnitude. Even though that single attribute (18U) was on the low end of risk compared to other age demos, within that same demo were select demos that were at the high risk range.
My state was at the forefront of Covid data collection. We had a robust data set to work with. As a result, we had high vaccination rates in demos where the adverse outcomes were high because we knew the specific groups that needed to be targeted. It made a difference.
So while you boomer-a$ was sitting in your recliner watching Matlock re-runs, I was knee-deep in data analysis and assisting in developing targeted vaccination campaigns. I guess in your world that makes me an antivaxxer since your only retort is to insult or name-call.
A long post with no numbers. Whatever your internship was, you stayed far from the actual data (makes sense – marketing).
15 -
In Control wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Standard antivaxxer tilting when asked to produce numbers to justify their babbling.
Antivaxxer?
From Jan 2021 to June 2022 I interned at our state’s DPH. In addition to working with the team running statistical analysis and Covid prediction models, I worked with the marketing team to develop campaigns to target certain demos to get vaccinated. That’s why I know the data - especially for my demo. You just throwing out that 0.5%-1.0% of the 18U demo has had adverse outcomes is not only inaccurate, it is what we dove deeper into the analysis to create targeted campaigns. On one end you had a demo with attributes similar to mine at the near zero end. However, if you looked at AA/B with high BMI (yes, by Fall 2021 we had a good dataset of this attribute), low soc-e, or low SRactiv within that same age demo, the results were significantly different. On the order of hundreds to thousands of magnitude. Even though that single attribute (18U) was on the low end of risk compared to other age demos, within that same demo were select demos that were at the high risk range.
My state was at the forefront of Covid data collection. We had a robust data set to work with. As a result, we had high vaccination rates in demos where the adverse outcomes were high because we knew the specific groups that needed to be targeted. It made a difference.
So while you boomer-a$ was sitting in your recliner watching Matlock re-runs, I was knee-deep in data analysis and assisting in developing targeted vaccination campaigns. I guess in your world that makes me an antivaxxer since your only retort is to insult or name-call.
Harambe is a fake scientist. He picks up the latest research (“lit”) and regurgitates it as though he is the de facto authority. At best, this guy has a BS in computer information systems. Until he posts his CV that says otherwise, that’s who he is.
He also doesn’t do well with nuance. Especially not the kind you are proposing. We couldn’t possibly have taken a risk-adjusted, nuanced approach with vaccination. It was all or nothing.
He also can’t understand that just because most scientists take NIH funding (or funding from the Bill Gates foundation as the Iwasaki paper did) doesn’t mean that they can’t be conflicted. One of the reasons I stopped pursuing a PhD was because I could see just how difficult it was to get grant money and that most researchers at the top levels of science are still doing the bidding of 90% of their grantors. You do not bite the hand that feeds you. It made me very cynical and it’s why I’m skeptical of Big Pharma.
It’s amazing how quickly that Jordon Walker story went away and he was disappeared. Then one James O’Keefe of Project Veritas went on video and told the entire world that a certain Big Pharma company got to his board. Nah, couldn’t possibly be that level of corruption at these top pharma companies and their revolving doors with their oversight organizations, could there be?
So, as the CDC has quietly admitted, vaccines worked, natural immunity worked, and hybrid immunity worked. All about as good as one another. Mostly, we got a fairly innocuous strain of Omicron that forced endemicity and gave everyone a “boost.”
But, let’s be clear, a regurgitater of “the lit” is not a scientist. Everyone should call Harambe out on his bullsheet. He’s an amateur. But, hey, he’s a crypto millionaire! To think charlatans like this still want to push this crap on five year old kids. Just go shoot up a Christian school already.
31
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun