This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
A lot of words to say nothing. The vaccine haters uniformly reject positive data and demand new data until they can twist something to fit their conspiracy. Get over it.
And yeah there is plenty for evidence that COVID infections drive much worse outcomes than vaccinations. But you don’t care… so why care about vaccines?
Let go of the bias. Embrace the rationality. You’ll be happier.
Are you saying the CDC hasn’t screwed up previous epidemics? That’s quite a charge. And wrong.
I don’t care about the Covid vaccines. How is that not obvious by now? I believe they were necessary for the elderly, obese, and diabetic, we knew that early, and everyone else should’ve had a choice. Even for those who refused and SHOULDN’T have, we still had treatments to mitigate worst outcomes that were fully ignored.
If people are dying of idiopathic heart disease some time on from being vaccinated, the “science” still isn’t settled.
These kind of data are poorly controlled and subject to lots of confounders. That’s why safety is assessed in trials or controlled observational studies. The downside is that these studies take time and money and effort to produce. The good news is that their are countless studies showing now sign of significantly serious adverse effects happening.
You seem to be demanding that scientists provide the data in a format that would allow an unsophisticated, error prone interpretation.
Do you have a degree or training in epidemiology that would allow you to properly assess such raw data? Do you understand the pitfalls of trying to do this math yourself if you’re not properly educated?
For those readers who are still willing to look at both sides of this debate, this is an example of a logical fallicy called a faulty syllogism... if the minor premise is true, then the major premise is also true. The classic example of a faulty syllogism is "All rats are rodents. Therefore, all rodents are rats." This is incorrect. (Squirrels are rodents, for example, but they are not also rats.)
In this case, the minor premise (fisky doesn't have the skills to interpret the data) does not support the major premise, which is "therefore, no one in the entire world except the CDC has the ability to interpret the data."
Interestingly, the implied major premise here (only the CDC or clinical trials can evaluate data) is also a logical fallacy called an Appeal to Authority.
Everyone who believes the vaccine is safe should be supporting my position to make the data available because if the vaccine is safe, then the data should disprove my concerns.
The dat are available in the form of many, many observational studies on vaccine safety. They just don’t say what you want them to… so you demand more data.
I’ve seen nobody with the skills I listed previously be as demanding for more data than you are — because they are aware the data is already out there.
It’s not a logical error, I’m trying to point out that you have some blind spots and very motivated reasoning here.
Are you saying the CDC hasn’t screwed up previous epidemics? That’s quite a charge. And wrong.
I don’t care about the Covid vaccines. How is that not obvious by now? I believe they were necessary for the elderly, obese, and diabetic, we knew that early, and everyone else should’ve had a choice. Even for those who refused and SHOULDN’T have, we still had treatments to mitigate worst outcomes that were fully ignored.
If people are dying of idiopathic heart disease some time on from being vaccinated, the “science” still isn’t settled.
But, yeah, “Be a goldfish” 2600bro.
Ignore the CDC entirely, both the positive and negative data, whatever.
There is plenty of other data from other orgs to work with. The fixation on a single agency seems like a stupid distraction.
I haven’t looked at any studies under discussion, but I don’t see how you arrived at this, Fisky. The poster asked if you have training in epidemiology. So it’s implied that such training is the baseline for one to properly interpret the data. That may or may not be correct, but given the large % of epidemiologists not actually in the employ of the CDC, the “therefore, no one in the entire world except the CDC has the ability …” strikes me as a gross misreading on your part. You even seem to tacitly acknowledge how limited that misreading is when you proceed a step a further along to “only the CDC and clinical trials can evaluate ….”
I haven’t seen enough to render much judgment one way or the other, but if you’re looking to bolster your case for others to have confidence in your own interpretation skills or in your ability to locate those adept at interpretation of epidemiological data, it doesn’t seem that this post is doing you any favors. Thanks for the logic lesson, though.
Ok, but, at the same time, I think what Fisky is saying and I agree with him, is that the CDC hasn’t produced or collated all the data, which should’ve been easy to do, even if it’s all muddled NOW, because we have reached population level immunity through either infection or vaccination or both. There really is no control group anymore, though I would argue that we, unvaccinated, and “somehow survived” without any ill effects whatsoever are the true control group. You cannot find what you are unwilling to look for.
What’s frustrating to me is there are lots of excess deaths in both Australia and the UK due to idiopathic cardiac episodes. This is from actuaries, not the government. I know three, very fit friends in their early 50s who all died suddenly in the last four months of “cardiac episodes.” All vaccinated. Every one of them. Ok, the counter argument is always, that’s anecdotal, that’s only an “n of 3,” Covid itself is way more responsible for cardiomyopathy than the vaccine (according to just a few published reports). But, it’s just plain weird. Couple that with stuff like, my bullet proof mother didn’t actually get Covid until after her fourth shot, and she still hasn’t recovered her former self, has some long Covid stuff. Of course, in my mind, there is very likely a correlation between the vaccines and long Covid, but nobody is looking for it, certainly not the CDC. Meanwhile, all of my unvaccinated friends and family have all fared the best. At some point, the anecdotes become too loud to ignore.
The CDC is not infallible. Perhaps very ironic and timely, once upon a time, they visited Incline Village, NV to investigate an epidemic of a new illness eventually called chronic fatigue syndrome. Almost clinically identical to long Covid. They basically punted and said “nothing to see here, psychological illness.” Investigative journalist Hillary Johnson dug into this and exposed all of it. Look it up.
So, you can’t blame people for being cynical. The way our public health experts handled this entire pandemic is going to undermine subsequent public health efforts for years. But I guess I have to worry about my own cardiomyopathy, autoimmune disease, and lack of robust protection against dementia due to being unvaccinated. Yawn. This thread really is boring, and nobody is convincing anyone else. Time for the BroJos to end it.
I rather enjoy massive arguments that boil down to “I have anecdotes that support what I stridently believe SHOULD be true”
