What is all the fuss about Covid?

[Big Boy]

Yes, that is the theory.

[Dannie Boy]

I don’t think there’s any point in trying to “understand it”, the Government will make rules and the police will enforce them - sometimes as intended, sometimes less stringently and sometimes more stringently, when and why will often be completely discriminatory and I doubt that Thais will always know the reasons why, so farangs will always struggle.

[hhinner]

Don't worry, any time now that nice Mr Prayuth is going to reform the police just like he promised over 7 years ago.

[GroveHillWanderer]

You missed out this bit. The reports are actually reviewed and verified. Doctors that have reported them say they get a telephone call back. And it is a lengthy process to fill in a report with a lot of specific details needed including vaccine batch numbers and patient medical records.

VAERS reports are reviewed (mainly to find any troublesome patterns or trends) but I don't know what you mean by verified. As the VAERS website points out, reports of adverse events can be submitted by anyone and many are incomplete and lacking in details, meaning no real verification can be done.

Those submitted by doctors can presumably by verified but not all VAERS reports come from doctors. Also, they are only reviewed and (if possible) verified after being submitted. So the raw data in VAERS has not been verified, since it contains only the original reports, which have not been checked before submission.

For instance, if you just look at the number of deaths or serious adverse events to be found in VAERS you are not learning anything about whether those events are linked to vaccines since, as clearly stated on the VAERS website:

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging the cause or seriousness of the event.

VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but it is good at detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting that might indicate possible safety problems that need a closer look.
[...]
Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

[GroveHillWanderer]

What is all the fuss about Covid? Despite all the precautions, Deaths: 5,504,015. Without precautions ?
Antivaxers : Multiple choice question:

A. Stupid
B. Selfish
C. Ignorant
D. All of the above.

And even that figure of 5.5 million is shown by just about every competent analysis to be a vast under-estimate as it only includes officially-counted cases and in many, many countries official recording procedures for illness and death are notably lacking.

According to the WHO, the true figure (using excess mortality numbers) is over 10 million and as per an analysis done by the Economist in November last year:

The number of people who have died from covid-19 is likely to be close to 17m.
The official tally of 5m is a huge undercount.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... ose-to-17m

[nil]

From https://factnest.com/activism/rcmp-offi ... 19-letter/

At the end of 2020 I became convinced we were all being force fed a giant load of absolute bullshit. Don’t believe me? Look at world population statistics. Here’s a sample.

At the end of 2018, the world population was 7,631,091,040 and that year 57,625,149 people died. This showed an overall death rate of .76%. I know some of you are shocked by this, but yes, 57 million people died of all types of causes in 2018. When you reach the end of your life, you die.
At the end of 2019, the world population was 7,713,468,100 and 58,394,378 died. Naturally, because we had more people reaching the end of their lives, more people died. The death rate that year was .76%.
Now let’s see what 2020 brought us. The year of the pandemic.

At the end of 2020, the world population was 7,794,798,739 and 59,230,795 died. The death rate was .76%. Yes. That’s right. In the year of the deadly pandemic the world’s population grew by 81,330,639 people and the death rate did not change by even a hundredth of a percent. The media never once pulled back the lens to show this, they continued to show the narrow focus of case counts and Covid deaths. Even going so far as to change causes of death so that someone who died “with” Covid in their system was counted as someone who died “of” Covid. The Western world shut down over a disease about as deadly as the common flu. And our rights were shut down along with it.
Despite this disease having a non existant effect on the overall death rate of the world’s population the call came out for a mass vaccination.

[nil]

It’s laughable how you lot are trying to dismiss this as nothing to see by quoting some disclaimer from the CDC.

A9350A92-43DE-48FF-BDDE-96CA356DDF11.jpeg

(108.77 KiB) Downloaded 530 times

[hhinner]

^^

So the global death rate is stuck at 0.76% from all causes yet you're making a big deal about a few deaths (unverified as to cause of death) as a small percentage of people vaccinated? And then just supposing there had been no mass vaccinations and other pandemic mitigations would the global death rate have still been the same or might it have been higher? Or maybe lower? And did the mitigations have any affect on influenza deaths?

We're not going to convince you that you're wrong, and you're not going to convince us that you're not wrong.

[nil]

The VAERS data is under reported. It could be as low as 1% reporting of adverse events. This is just the deaths. There are many more injuries being caused by these vaccines. They are the most dangerous that have ever been given to the general population. There is no ethical reason they should be given to absolutely everyone, especially children. Only those that are at risk should be considered.

[nil]

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky acknowledged that over 75% of COVID deaths were people “who had at least four comorbidities” and were “unwell to begin with.”

[dtaai-maai]

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky acknowledged that over 75% of COVID deaths were people “who had at least four comorbidities” and were “unwell to begin with.”

Interesting. Does this mean we should write off anyone who has pre-existing conditions or is "unwell to begin with" when they become infected with Covid? I don't think there has ever been any doubt, certainly not in my mind, that many people die 'with' rather than 'of' Covid and that it is more dangerous to those whose systems have been weakened by illness or old age.

Speaking as someone who is quite "unwell" at the moment... [at this point I'll save the mods a job and delete a string of obscenities aimed at nil and all those with similar views].

[nil]

When did I say anyone with pre-existing conditions should be written off? In fact above I said the vaccines should be considered for those at risk.
But do you think that healthy children should be vaccinated with these?

[HHTel]

It’s laughable how you lot are trying to dismiss this as nothing to see by quoting some disclaimer from the CDC.

A9350A92-43DE-48FF-BDDE-96CA356DDF11.jpeg

'Disclaimer'! So why is it a disclaimer and not a 'fact check'. The answer's simple. The CDC are in charge of the VAERS. They publish a disclaimer simply to point out that there own data is unreliable so as not to be taken as fact. A disclaimer from the CDC is a disclaimer from the VAERS, you muppet!

[nil]

It’s an early warning system. Does that chart not look like an alarm to you. And you’re buying the “data is unreliable” even though the European Eudravigilance and UK yellow card data is showing the same. Really?

[HHTel]

"The data is unreliable" comes from the VAERS/CDC who produce the damn reports in the first place. It's not other people that say it's unreliable, it's themselves. Agreed that it can act as an early warning system but it's far from factual.

From their own website:

Limitations of VAERS:

It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event
Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contains errors
Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events
Numbers of reports may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness
VAERS data cannot be used to determine rates of adverse events

Are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines?

No. Some adverse events might be caused by vaccination and others might be coincidental and not related to vaccination. Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event.

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging the cause or seriousness of the event. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but it is good at detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting that might indicate possible safety problems that need a closer look.

It should be treated as a tool and not as fact.