- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fifteen bodies were examined (all died from 7 days to 6 months after vaccination
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:07 am to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:07 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Yeah. I’m no doctor but this lacks credibility at all.
Wait. You think that 15 unrelated deaths where 15 unrelated coroners didn’t think the vaccine was involved, but the group Doctors for COVID Ethics did their owns autopsies and confirmed that the vaccine is a danger to people anywhere from 3 weeks to 6 months out due to autoimmune cardiomyopathy has the potential for bias and doesn’t establish a clear link between death and vaccination.
0
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:12 am to BurntOrangeMan
Where’s the data source behind that graph? Just looking at the patterns of the data on the graph, my first reaction is that deaths per 1M on the Y-axis probably uses the entire population as the denominator, not separate populations for the vaccinated and unvaccinated. At the beginning almost no one was vaccinated, so most deaths were in the unvaccinated. Later in the year, most people were vaccinated so more vaccinated people died, but not as a percentage of vaccinated people. Let’s say that out of 10 million people, 7 million are vaccinated and 3 million are unvaccinated. If 210 vaccinated people died and 100 unvaccinated people died, that would be roughly equivalent to the right side of the graph. That is, around 21 people per million were deaths in vaccinated people and 10 people per million were deaths in unvaccinated people. In reality 30 per million vaccinated people died and 33.3 per million unvaccinated people died. Without the data, the graph is meaningless and most likely intentionally misleading.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:17 am to MikeTheTiger71
Also, the vaccine has been given to the elderly and sickly at a much higher rate than the young and healthy. The graph purports to include ages as low as 10. Of course they aren't going to die as often as the elderly.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:27 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Those are the basics of how I would make an argument, but no analysis I've read so far, and I feel I've read quite a few, has even broached the mechanism of cellular injury at all, which is exceedingly curious.
That's all great and all, but you responded to something other than the point of my post.
My point is that it's instructive that you (and many other MD-types on PT) fall all over themselves to nitpick the work/reports of the failings or dangers of the vaccines. I have no expertise to critique any of that, and am not one that is onboard with the "vaccines are deadly" narrative. But I can read, and 2+2 always equals 4 for me, so I do have the necessary expertise to wade through the utter bullshite your industry has thrust upon the whole f'n country over Covid. That's the point I'm making - I don't remember any of you jumping up and down and turning somersaults about the ridiculous "science" and "data" your industry has gifted gov't health and policymakers to essentially shut down normal life in America.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:35 am to David_DJS
quote:How many of the docs on here supported the shutdowns? How many support the mandates? From my recollection, few if any.
That's the point I'm making - I don't remember any of you jumping up and down and turning somersaults about the ridiculous "science" and "data" your industry has gifted gov't health and policymakers to essentially shut down normal life in America
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:39 am to MeatCleaverWeaver
quote:
It just means the jabs are doing their job.
Sure they are…for every person killed by the jab, it’s one less death or hospitalization from Covid!
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:48 am to Jake88
quote:
Also, the vaccine has been given to the elderly and sickly at a much higher rate than the young and healthy. The graph purports to include ages as low as 10. Of course they aren't going to die as often as the elderly.
The graph does purport to be 10-59, so it would exclude the elderly, but I agree that it is entirely too wide an age range to represent consistent vaccine uptake. The vaccinated in that age range undoubtedly skew more toward older ages with higher inherent death rates. Still, I’m confident the main issue with the graph is the improper denominator used for the Y-axis as I laid out.
This post was edited on 1/8/22 at 11:50 am
Posted on 1/8/22 at 11:54 am to David_DJS
quote:
I don't remember any of you jumping up and down and turning somersaults about the ridiculous "science" and "data" your industry has gifted gov't health and policymakers to essentially shut down normal life in America.
The second it was announced that there was a selective shutdown, I was extremely critical including several messages to my state’s board about using their position of perceived knowledge to be enforcers of political action and how that doesn’t fall in line with the idea of how medicine should be practiced. Just like we can’t force schizophrenics to take medication (and we shouldn’t, even though it’s best), we can’t force people to quit smoking (even though it’s best), we have no power to force people to stay home or to get vaccinated (where in a perfect world, it would have been best. I’m not suggesting it is the best method. Just extrapolating the argument. Even if it’s best, it’s unethical, at best, for the state board to not RIDICULE those powers that be for using limited observation in the name of emergency powers).
I could at least entertain a true totalitarian “shelter in place for one month starting in one month” type of scenario where we close all borders, stop all travel, get medical staff, plant guys, etc in place because there’s at least a theoretical argument that that could end the whole ordeal. I would still not exactly like to endorse that we do that (especially now, but early on when we were discussing the ethics behind shutdowns). The absolute second that they chose some places (hardware stores) to stay open and others (churches, mom and pop restaurants) to close, they lost any credibility in thinking it would actually reduce the spread.
Had the State Board said, “we strongly encourage you to stay home,” I’d be all for it. And it was, early on when we knew nothing, the smart thing for people to do in most circumstances. As soon as the government mandated it instead of asking politely, I became highly critical of my board for being passive.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 12:03 pm to David_DJS
quote:
That's the point I'm making - I don't remember any of you jumping up and down and turning somersaults about the ridiculous "science" and "data" your industry has gifted gov't health and policymakers to essentially shut down normal life in America.
I said a long-time ago that using lockdowns as a first-line strategy was bad. I've gotten no gifts from COVID, and there are notable aspects of COVID which have been made worse for medical professionals. I said early on in the pandemic that a vaccination strategy that was piecemeal was very bad. I've also said the messaging from public health professionals was utterly terrible, and it hasn't improved over the course of this. I don't think very many doctors here have supported every aspect of the public health response. But that doesn't mean that the inverse of that response is good by definition. There have been some remarkably poor arguments from all sides involved.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 12:25 pm to Jake88
quote:
How many of the docs on here supported the shutdowns? How many support the mandates? From my recollection, few if any.
And you missed the point again. Read my post. Words have meanings. I said MDs and other medical professionals allowed their industry to be used by gov't health and policymakers to lockdown, etc. It really doesn't matter if you're opposed to lockdowns if in the same breathe you are providing the ammunition for those locking shite down.
In other words, MDs and others in the industry should have been jumping up and down at the utter bullshite the CDC directed them to produce (I'm talking about the data, the Covid scoreboard) - and they didn't. A case in point - some have suspected all along and we now know it's certifiably true that "Covid hospitalization" as recorded/reported is utter nonsense. Why didn't we see thousands of MDs across the country loudly objecting to being used by politicians to produce fake data designed to scare the shite out of American, and into submission?
Posted on 1/8/22 at 12:27 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
Hopeful Doc
I don't remember every exchange I've participated in on this board and I'm sure there's more than you, but I have found our exchanges and the ones you've been involved in that I only read to be some of the most reasonable and well-thought out on this topic.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 12:33 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
I said early on in the pandemic that a vaccination strategy that was piecemeal was very bad. I've also said the messaging from public health professionals was utterly terrible,
I understand to varying degrees MDs and other medical professionals that frequent this board have objected to some aspect of Covid response.
My main point in this thread is this - it's my opinion that your industry utterly failed this country. Pre-Covid, literally nobody would be surprised that politicians would lie, cheat and steal to advance their agenda or personal/political situation. What has been a big eye opener for many is the medical industry, which I think is fair to suggest has always been held in high regard, is no different than the defense industry (as an example). You guys folded like a cheap suit to the CDC and other politicians, and you played a major role in convincing the American public a whole lot of shite about Covid that is simply untrue. That's a real broad brush, and clearly there are some that have been principled and spoken out, but the vast majority did not.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 12:40 pm to David_DJS
quote:
My main point in this thread is this
Your point is very clear and easy to understand. The people in this thread you are making it towards, with the possible exception of hopeful doc, are intentionally attempting to ignore, obfuscate, and change it because they have no logical retort other than admitting you’re correct.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 12:46 pm to David_DJS
quote:
What has been a big eye opener for many is the medical industry, which I think is fair to suggest has always been held in high regard, is no different than the defense industry (as an example)
That's certainly your right, but that people were surprised by the degree to which there is an extremely close relationship between pharma and public health institutions in this country is also surprising, as that was the first critique leveled at the CDC and the NIH during the AIDS crisis. In fact many of the criticisms of Fauci are extremely similar to criticisms of Fauci during the late 80s. We could undo this relationship and the public could lay claim to the profits of biotechnology innovations produced through NIH grants, but there is absolutely no political will to do this, unfortunately. We've decided that private profits built on publicly funded research (which is now paywalled and then resold to institutions in the form of databases) is the way we are going to design public health, despite the fact that we once had a robust public health service which was slowly dismantled over several administrations, specifically the state hospital system.
quote:
You guys folded like a cheap suit to the CDC and other politicians, and you played a major role in convincing the American public a whole lot of shite about Covid that is simply untrue. That's a real broad brush, and clearly there are some that have been principled and spoken out, but the vast majority did not.
In my view, the folding happened decades ago, and the public is just now seeing the effects. Nothing is going to be fixed or made better by this pandemic, unfortunately, and the poor response by public health institutions might as well be their swan-song, as it would be political suicide now to suggest these institutions can be fixed. The public health aspect is going to get so much worse in the next few decades.
This post was edited on 1/8/22 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 1/8/22 at 1:23 pm to MikeTheTiger71
It’s clearly scaled, equalized & stratified by status & per 1M.
The data is from the UK ONS (Office for National Statistics) & they have updated to breakdown the age range by 10 years grouping vs simply 10-59.
University of London professors created the graph from the ONS data.
The data is from the UK ONS (Office for National Statistics) & they have updated to breakdown the age range by 10 years grouping vs simply 10-59.
University of London professors created the graph from the ONS data.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 1:42 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
It’s clearly scaled, equalized & stratified by status & per 1M.
That’s not the point I am making. Is it per 1M total population or is it per 1M vaccinated people for vaccinated deaths and per 1M unvaccinated people for unvaccinated deaths? You should be able to point me to the underlying data and summary if it’s so straightforward.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 1:44 pm to MeatCleaverWeaver
quote:
It just means the jabs are doing their job.
Posted on 1/8/22 at 1:59 pm to loogaroo
All fake news!
See how that works?
See how that works?
Posted on 1/8/22 at 2:22 pm to MikeTheTiger71
quote:
by status & per 1M
We'll try this again. I know, graphs are tough.
quote:
You should be able to point me to the underlying data and summary if it’s so straightforward
We'll try this again as well..
UK ONS (Office for National Statistics)
Here, have another one:
Posted on 1/8/22 at 2:37 pm to Jake88
quote:
Also, the vaccine has been given to the elderly and sickly at a much higher rate than the young and healthy. The graph purports to include ages as low as 10. Of course they aren't going to die as often as the elderly.
So it appears this is in fact exactly the dynamic at play with this data. With the extra information provided by the poster on the data source I was able to track down an analysis of the conclusions drawn from the graph. There is substantial difference in the normal morality rate between 55-59 and 10-14 and the ages in between that explains the difference in observed mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated 10-59 based on the different vaccine uptake by age. Someone analyzed the expected difference in mortality rate based on the age distributions of the two cohorts and the.vaccinated population had a 2.4 times greater expected mortality. That’s greater than the observed difference of around 2.2. In other words, the vaccinated group actually had a relative improvement in mortality compared to the unvaccinated, the exact opposite of the conclusions the graph tries to imply.
LINK
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News