Is there a risk of death from the covid vaccine?

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well, just this morning the following article was published...

Antibody levels induced by mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are much higher than those induced by natural infection and confer cross-reactivity that could be effective against new variants, a new study from the University of California, Irvine, found.

It seems that the vaccine is stronger in some ways and natural immunity is stronger in others. I haven't found the other article yet. I'll keep looking but am out of time for this morning!
Well there is that. But it seems very convenient. Like the studies that show masks work, that came out just in time to combat the charts showing that some masked and unmasked populations seemed to be affected similarly. And then more complete papers came out and data was finalized for charts that showed masks, if they help, is negligible for the illness and pretty bad for society.

Same with asymptomatic spread - "I have no symptoms"... "It doesn't matter you GRANDMA MURDERER, this timely study proves this time it's different!". And then the data came in that showed this illness spread pretty much like any other that didn't have asymptomatic spread which left questions about how the paper was so sure.

So if there is anything this pandemic settled, was that I can't trust a paper without other supporting independent evidence from a different vector. So often convenient papers about masks, or social distancing, or lockdowns actually didn't say what was reported about them. And that just makes things worse.

All that being said, when you find that other paper it will get more complicated quickly. I've been looking for a paper that says natural immunity is better than a vaccine, and I can't find anything related to COVID, so I'm hoping you can find it.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Temp Banned
Well there is that. But it seems very convenient. Like the studies that show masks work, that came out just in time to combat the charts showing that some masked and unmasked populations seemed to be affected similarly.
I do not follow the reasoning here. A chart that shows that mask and unmasked populations are affected similarly shows nothing unless everything else is equal. People on this site have repeatedly attempted to distort by posting charts like this - they show a chart that shows that infections stayed the same, or even went up, after mask-wearing was initiated. This is an attempt to dupe the unsophisticated reader who does not understand that all sorts of other factors can cause infections to increase even if masks are acting to lessen the degree of increase.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I do not follow the reasoning here. A chart that shows that mask and unmasked populations are affected similarly shows nothing unless everything else is equal. People on this site have repeatedly attempted to distort by posting charts like this - they show a chart that shows that infections stayed the same, or even went up, after mask-wearing was initiated. This is an attempt to dupe the unsophisticated reader who does not understand that all sorts of other factors can cause infections to increase even if masks are acting to lessen the degree of increase.
We weren't sure about mask effectiveness until more data came in. And it's in now. After other factors are taken into account, not only are masks negligibly effective in the spread of COVID, but they cause other problems related to keeping a dirty cloth on you face all day and restriction in breathing.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Temp Banned
A new variant arising, public health restrictions other than masks, massive religious festivals (I think this was a factor in India), seasonality (people spend more time indoors in winter).

All these factors also play a role in determining the level of infection.

To show a plot that shows that infections stayed the same, or even went up, after mask-wearing started and to claim this shows that masks do not work is extremely shoddy thinking.
 

expos4ever

Well-known member
Temp Banned
Such effect seems negligible, considering that other places that do not enforce mask wearing have very similar charts.
Not sure exactly what you are saying. To demonstrate the efficacy, or lack thereof, of masks, based on rates of covid in the population, requires carefully accounting for other factors like the ones I have mentioned.
 

marke

Well-known member
Lots of leading politicians, educators, science professionals, and news sources have parrotted Fauci's every lying word without question, which is inexcusable. I liken that to the millions of misguided professionals who have devoted billions of hours of research designed to support and propagate the evolution lie without question.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
A new variant arising,

In two different regions simultaneously?

public health restrictions other than masks,

Such as?

massive religious festivals (I think this was a factor in India), seasonality (people spend more time indoors in winter).

Again, the charts generally show negligible difference between enforced mask use areas and no enforced use areas, except that the latter generally end up having the lower numbers while the former's numbers continue to rise.

All these factors also play a role in determining the level of infection.

To show a plot that shows that infections stayed the same, or even went up, after mask-wearing started and to claim this shows that masks do not work is extremely shoddy thinking.

@way 2 go
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Well there is that. But it seems very convenient. Like the studies that show masks work, that came out just in time to combat the charts showing that some masked and unmasked populations seemed to be affected similarly. And then more complete papers came out and data was finalized for charts that showed masks, if they help, is negligible for the illness and pretty bad for society.
I don't recall any studies that said that masks work. They do not exist on the CDC's website anywhere that I can find.

Same with asymptomatic spread - "I have no symptoms"... "It doesn't matter you GRANDMA MURDERER, this timely study proves this time it's different!". And then the data came in that showed this illness spread pretty much like any other that didn't have asymptomatic spread which left questions about how the paper was so sure.
Again, I can find no such actual study. The press lies.

So if there is anything this pandemic settled, was that I can't trust a paper without other supporting independent evidence from a different vector. So often convenient papers about masks, or social distancing, or lockdowns actually didn't say what was reported about them. And that just makes things worse.
I completely agree that you cannot trust what you read in press releases! Until you find and read the actual study, it's good to assume you're being lied to.

All that being said, when you find that other paper it will get more complicated quickly. I've been looking for a paper that says natural immunity is better than a vaccine, and I can't find anything related to COVID, so I'm hoping you can find it.
I'll try to find it this weekend. This is the busy part of the year for my work and I'm working on starting my own business so I've been busier than a farmer with one hoe and two rattlesnakes.
 

marke

Well-known member
A new variant arising, public health restrictions other than masks, massive religious festivals (I think this was a factor in India), seasonality (people spend more time indoors in winter).

All these factors also play a role in determining the level of infection.

To show a plot that shows that infections stayed the same, or even went up, after mask-wearing started and to claim this shows that masks do not work is extremely shoddy thinking.
Masks don't work no matter how the rates of infections change. People have been getting sick and dying in the US in spite of widespread mask usage. The science measures the ability or lack of ability of masks to stop the transmission of covid particles. Science has demonstrated masks are ineffective at stopping the flow of covid particles. It does not matter about the level of the popular usage of masks.
 

marke

Well-known member
Well there is that. But it seems very convenient. Like the studies that show masks work, that came out just in time to combat the charts showing that some masked and unmasked populations seemed to be affected similarly. And then more complete papers came out and data was finalized for charts that showed masks, if they help, is negligible for the illness and pretty bad for society.

Same with asymptomatic spread - "I have no symptoms"... "It doesn't matter you GRANDMA MURDERER, this timely study proves this time it's different!". And then the data came in that showed this illness spread pretty much like any other that didn't have asymptomatic spread which left questions about how the paper was so sure.

So if there is anything this pandemic settled, was that I can't trust a paper without other supporting independent evidence from a different vector. So often convenient papers about masks, or social distancing, or lockdowns actually didn't say what was reported about them. And that just makes things worse.

All that being said, when you find that other paper it will get more complicated quickly. I've been looking for a paper that says natural immunity is better than a vaccine, and I can't find anything related to COVID, so I'm hoping you can find it.
Do not claim refusing to wear masks makes people "GRANDMA MURDERERS." That is stupid. Masks don't stop the transmission of covid particles no matter how many mask supporters claim they do. Covid particles are too fine for cloth weaves to prevent passage.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Do not claim refusing to wear masks makes people "GRANDMA MURDERERS." That is stupid. Masks don't stop the transmission of covid particles no matter how many mask supporters claim they do. Covid particles are too fine for cloth weaves to prevent passage.
The most effective way I've found to communicate this fact is to tell people that the same water "droplets" that carry the stuff in the air that you can smell also carry viruses. If you can smell your hot food through your mask, you can catch COVID19 through it too

If you can't smell your hot food through your mask, you need to go get tested to see if you already have COVID19.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
The most effective way I've found to communicate this fact is to tell people that the same water "droplets" that carry the stuff in the air that you can smell also carry viruses. If you can smell your hot food through your mask, you can catch COVID19 through it too

If you can't smell your hot food through your mask, you need to go get tested to see if you already have COVID19.
What if you can smell grandma through your mask? 🤔
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Well there is that. But it seems very convenient. Like the studies that show masks work, that came out just in time to combat the charts showing that some masked and unmasked populations seemed to be affected similarly. And then more complete papers came out and data was finalized for charts that showed masks, if they help, is negligible for the illness and pretty bad for society.

Same with asymptomatic spread - "I have no symptoms"... "It doesn't matter you GRANDMA MURDERER, this timely study proves this time it's different!". And then the data came in that showed this illness spread pretty much like any other that didn't have asymptomatic spread which left questions about how the paper was so sure.

So if there is anything this pandemic settled, was that I can't trust a paper without other supporting independent evidence from a different vector. So often convenient papers about masks, or social distancing, or lockdowns actually didn't say what was reported about them. And that just makes things worse.

All that being said, when you find that other paper it will get more complicated quickly. I've been looking for a paper that says natural immunity is better than a vaccine, and I can't find anything related to COVID, so I'm hoping you can find it.
So, I'm starting to think that there is no such study!

I've found the following study that says that people who've had COVID19 don't need to get the vaccine....

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

Summary: Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.​
Notice, however, that its talking about people who have had COVID19 recently. The study only lasted five months and so this study, which is the basis for all the news stories for the last several days, doesn't have any bearing on someone who had COVID a year ago. I personally find some of the comments made in the published study to be unfounded and even irresponsible in that they are comments that go well beyond what the study data itself can reasonably support. In short the writers of the study seem to want to suggest that natural immunity lasts forever and that just is not the case. Take the following sentence from the study as an example...

Conclusions. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.​

The most recent study (that I know of) indicates that natural immunity lasts for up to eight months. I've heard people on the radio and television say ten months but I can't find any study that supports that number, although it may exist. In any case, the study that everyone's been talking about this week simply should not be taken as an excuse to avoid getting the vaccine if they were symptomatic this time last year or even earlier. Therefore, the "Conclusions" statement should be modified to say...

Conclusions. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection in the last 6 - 8 months are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been recently infected.​

As for a study that says that natural immunity is superior to that from the vaccine. I can't find it anywhere and the people who published the study discussed above suggest that the immunity gain for both sources are similar in strength and duration although I don't see how the science done in this study could be used to make such an assertion.

What I have found suggests just the opposite!

Substantial Differences in SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination

That link is to the actual study. Here's a link to an article that explains what the study found...

Which is better for developing immunity: COVID-19 vaccine or natural infection?

"The mRNA vaccines eclipsed natural infection at one very specific task: recognizing the precise piece of the virus’ spike protein that binds to — and infects — healthy cells. The spike protein is big, Felgner said. And in natural infections, the virus manages to hide this vital receptor so the immune system doesn’t see it. And if the immune system doesn’t see it, it can’t develop antibodies to it.​
“When a person gets infected they develop an immune response, but it’s not against this most important part,” Felgner said. “So the virus can evade the immune response that we develop, and that’s really favorable for the virus. It means it can go on out and propagate in the world, mutate itself more, make more variants.” But that doesn’t happen with mRNA vaccines. The mRNA instructs the body to manufacture the piece of the spike protein with this otherwise-hidden receptor — which allows the body to produce antibodies to it.​
Since vaccination induces a more robust immune response than natural exposure alone, those who’ve recovered from COVID may benefit from getting vaccinated, the paper found."​


Clete
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
Since mRNA vaccines are so new, relatively speaking, and since covid vaccines using this technology have not had long time periods for testing, it may be wise to slow down a bit and listen to what the experts are saying.

GEERT BOSSHE URGES WORLD-STOP CV VAX CATASTOPHE
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Since mRNA vaccines are so new, relatively speaking, and since covid vaccines using this technology have not had long time periods for testing, it may be wise to slow down a bit and listen to what the experts are saying.

GEERT BOSSHE URGES WORLD-STOP CV VAX CATASTOPHE
Yes, by all means, let's slow down the ending of this pandemic because we're way more scared of the treatment than we are the disease!
 
Top