Higher Death, Hospitalization Rates Among Vaccinated Individuals: UK COVID-19 Data

Yeah, well, care to say where this mRNA tech would be right now if it weren't for Covid? No matter how much you want to spin it, this technology would have been many years away if not for Covid. They rushed it, plain and simple.

 

Where it would be anyway. This was the opening Pharma dreamed of. Push a biotech that never passed trials.

Even now Pfizer has to continue trials for 5 more years for their Covid vaccine according to the FDA.

Some researchers in the field think this biotech needs another 25 years before it is viable.

 

Facebook is focused on presenting only their view point by labeling anything not relevant to their opinion/political as misinformation. . Just saying....don't be a lemming and blindly follow a bias site.

 

I have noticed on both sides of the aisle ever since Covid that Republicans have turned into the left and Democrats have turned into the right. It's getting confusing. In this example, we have Democrats cheering Big Pharma and doing everything they can to help Big Pharma. They are the country's true heroes and patriots. Who wooda ever thunk?

 

Don't forget Democrats wanting unemployment benefits to be denied to workers because they didn't follow the questionable and invasive orders of their employers, really a form of workplace exploitation with totalitarian demands to put something into their body.

Also now we know the "my body my choice" slogan was just a bunch of empty rhetoric in the Abortion debate.

 

Yes, there are many examples. Another one is the left openly discriminating against blacks and illegals with vaccine mandates and passports, being totally fine with denying them entrance to grocery stores to buy food for their families.

 

But requiring ID cards to vote is racist.

 

What exactly do you gain from ALWAYS spreading vaccine misinformation?
Are you happy that some people may believe the garbage you post and end up dead?

See another one here:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-anti-mask-freedom-rally-045722778.html

 

That's how it looks to me.

 

You're so close-minded you automatically assume any information that seems to disagree with the narrative is misinformation.

Do you not believe people can be trusted with the facts? Someone else has to interpret the facts and then decide what information is best for everyone to be given?

Notice that your side has already made up their mind and is now refusing to let any opposing facts be considered.
If that's not the definition of stubbornness I don't know what is. You've created a mental bubble.

My point in the OP wasn't that you're more likely to die if you take the vaccine, but rather that the level of protection it provides may be much lower than people think.

 

No, the bulk of your posting is always to talk against the vaccines.
That's what close-mindedness is.
For you, vaccines = BAD!
That, if you actually believe in it, rather than just fulfilling some twisted sadistic need to see people declining the vaccine and getting in trouble.
Yes, people can be trusted with the facts. The facts are: these vaccines are MUCH SAFFER than the virus itself. They do have risks (something I never denied if you followed my State of the Vaccines thread where I intensely addressed the emerging evidence of risks) but the benefits still vastly outweigh the risks.
"My side" is the side of science. Your side is the side of junk science and conspiracy theories. It's interesting to realize, like someone else posted here, that the bulk of anti-vaxxing misinformation posted on Facebook comes from only 12 individuals, most of them linked to "alternative" for profit treatments. Big scam. Talk against the vaccines, peddle something else, or just hope that your posts on Facebook and YouTube go viral and you profit from ads. Or pay allegiance to Russian bots.
So, sorry, I'll stick with "my side."
It's strange that you berate me as not interested in facts or not presenting the facts to people, me, the very poster here who started the State of the Vaccines thread and for MONTHS brought to readers here, the facts surrounding the vaccines, INCLUDING discussing risks such as transverse myelitis, antibody dependent enhancement, original antigenic sin, central venous sinus thrombosis, myocarditis, etc. Sure, the vaccines have risks. The virus has more.

 

@kazenatsu look at this tragedy:

https://www.insideedition.com/flori...ovid-19-to-find-husband-dead-from-the-disease

I couldn't locate it now but in another piece of news I read about this same woman, she said they didn't take the vaccine because they thought it wasn't safe. Poor woman. There was also a recent case of a 30-year-old mother of a baby. She also thought the vaccine wasn't safe. Died of Covid. Passed it on to her baby. The baby also died of Covid.

That's the result your (and that of others like you) relentless anti-vaxxing campaign achieves.

But I'm sure these stories won't shock you. They seem to be result YOU aim at achieving. I pity you.

 

Um, you do realize that the point of my OP was that these vaccines might be less likely to offer protection against death than people like you believe?

You keep saying "Look at the numbers, look at the numbers", and then when I do, you just accuse me of damaging misinformation.

 

I do know that a lot of these patients clamoring to try to get into the hospital do not actually need to be there. They just became totally panic-stricken and frantic after they tested positive and started to have some trouble breathing.

There's also another separate virus, called Respiratory Syncytial Virus, that is going around in many parts of the South now, which is contributing to some hospitals being overwhelmed.

 

First, THIS thread is not your ONLY anti-vaxxer thread. It's relentless. You've posted dozens and dozens of anti-vaxxer threads and posts. We know what you stand for. Who do you think you're fooling? I'm not a spring chicken. Actually I have 41 years of experience in this field, so don't for a moment think you can fool me.

And are you so worried about people being misled? Why do you post misleading info, then? You never responded to the OBVIOUS objection in post #6:

"ITT: a nutter site uses percentages to make 527 (unvaccinated hospitalizations) look like fewer than 84 (vaccinated hospitalizations), and 34 (unvaccinated deaths) look like fewer than 26 (vaccinated deaths). Never has the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" adage been more apt."

You also don't take into account the OVERALL numbers. Yes, you can find some clusters of hospitalized people (or even dead people) who were fully vaccinated... but you always fail to consider that you have to plot that against the 189.9 MILLION people who got vaccinated, which then makes the breakthrough cases a TINY minority.

You go and say (a recent post of yours) OH MY GOD OF 6 PEOPLE WHO CAUGHT COVID IN A CRUISE SHIP, FOUR WERE VACCINATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Useless vaccines, right?

Have you ever stopped to think that this could be a cluster of unusual circumstances? Like a group of 4 cruisers very old and infirm that had low immunogenicity from the vaccines and behaved unreasonably during the cruise, going unmasked to crowded bars speaking loudly and close to other cruisers faces?

Have you ever stopped to think that yes, we've seen some 153,000 cases of breakthrough infection among the vaccinated and that's a lot of people who are able to be exploited by bombastic journalists (and by posters like you) to keep quoting situation after situation in which it seems like the vaccines are useless.

Without ever saying that it's 153,000 out of 189,9 million people as of now... That's 0.08%.

So, look at the numbers indeed... but present them in a fair, contextual, and complete manner, rather than the misleading info you posted in your OP.

 

Oh please, I haven't posted "dozens".
I doubt I've even gone over 12 of them.

In any case, the threads have mostly been about separate things. It's not like I'm trying to hound the same exact topic over and over again.
Your problem is simply just that I'm posting information and reasoning to support an idea that you believe is wrong.

 

Oh come on. I'm a physician in a hospital. We use a trivalent test for Covid-19, Influenza, and RSV. No, the VAST majority of people who come to us in respiratory trouble are Covid-19 cases. Is that your latest BS now? That oh no, it's not Covid (in the middle of a freaking Covid pandemic), it's RSV??? Sorry, but it's Covid that is overwhelming hospitals, not RSV. If just RSV was going around and Covid didn't exist, we wouldn't be overwhelmed.

You guys go to all sorts of trouble to deny stuff, huh? Sure, sure, buddy, Covid-19 is just a little flu, just a little RSV, it's not what is overwhelming hospitals. Right.

As for indication of hospitalization, it's pretty clear. We indicate hospitalization for people who desaturate to 93 of pulse ox or lower.

Sure, there are more visits by people who are in panic, but if they clock 94-95% and higher, we send them home (unless it's a high risk patient in which case we use monoclonal antibody infusions). When stats show hospitals filling to capacity and respiratory ICUs filling to capacity, that's with REAL Covid-19 cases that are in trouble and in need for hospital care. Patients may panic but we the doctors don't panic and admit mild cases that don't need to be there (given that we must conserve resources for those who really need them). So ERs and walk-in urgent care centers get busier but upstairs the cases that get admitted are the ones that need it.

 

Do you honestly believe that person's reasoning is valid?

I'm happy to talk about it.

Apparently at the time this study was done, there were fewer vaccinated people than vaccinated in the UK.

Assuming of course these numbers were taken from random groups and fairly selected, 527 out of 35,521 is a lower rate than 84 out of 4,087.
Maybe that person commenting on my post just had totally no proficiency at math or statistics?

 

Yes, dozens and dozens of anti-vaxxer posts. I didn't mean just threads but posts too (and said so). And no, my problem is NOT that. When someone like @557 posts a valid discussion about something like myocarditis or ADE from vaccines, I discuss it frankly with him. But that's not what YOU do. You peddle misinformation and junk science. Big difference.

 

Huh, what??? So the sample was that small and you're getting sweeping conclusions from it???

What do you make of the FULL stats now that we have 189.9 million vaccinated people? Care to say what the rates look like, now, big guy?

 

You seem to believe that other person's argument is logical when it obviously isn't.

 

Okay, care to explain how this is junk science?

 

No context of the full set of vaccinated people. So, biased way to present the information.

 

I read it too fast and didn't realize your sample was that small. It's even worse than I thought. Who knows what kind of population was that of 4,000 and some people? The ultra-geriatric ward or the nursing homes with grandpas and grandmas older than 85 and with 5 co-morbidities each??? Didn't the Brits started by vaccinating the ultra-old? I think the first lady who took their first shot was like 90. So you are posting NOW, months later, stats of the first 4,000 some people? Wow!

Again, look at the stats for all the 189.9 million vaccinated people in the US and the 48 million in the UK, then we can talk. But OF COURSE you wouldn't go for that angle, right? Because then, it wouldn't look like the sky is falling.

 

@kazenatsu

OK, now I read the freaking thing in more detail... so, again, you are talking about the SUBSET of people fully vaccinated who got the breakthrough infection and fared poorly... conveniently forgetting to mention that these are out of 48 freaking MILLION people. So, 4,087 of these caught Delta... most likely, the subset for whom the vaccines didn't catch given a weak immune system (old age, co-morbidities). And their numbers were still smaller because the vaccinated people ARE less likely to catch it.

So, it's a higher proportion of deaths for this PRE-SELECTED population by virtue of them being the ones who FAILED the vaccination (which then supposes more fragility, weaker immune system), while the group of non-vaccinated individuals are likely your run-of-the-mill folks, not the few exceptions that are more frail, among 48 million vaccinated people.

Have you ever stopped to think of THAT, big guy?

Do you understand now why it's junk science?

Here is what REAL science would have done:

Pair EACH individual being scrutinized, with a SIMILAR individual in age, gender, ethnic background, body mass index, number and nature of co-morbidities, etc.

Get two groups of similar size, paired like this to eliminate striking differences in intervening factors. Make of the ONLY difference between the groups, being vaccinated or not.

So that if one group has old and infirm people, the other group must ALSO have the same proportion of old and infirm people, etc.

THEN compare the outcomes.

Do it properly like this (that is, do real science instead of junk science), and I guarantee that the vaccinated group will fare better.

Got it now?

4,087 out of 48 million is 0.0085%.

Oh wow, now suddenly the stats don't look as damaging for the vaccinated group, huh?