[native_samples]

Seatbelts do work yet the data on vaccines is - in the very few countries that publish the needed data - by now very clear. Only six months after vaccination the vaccinated are actually much more likely to get COVID than the unvaccinated. Yes this sounds wrong but the data is unambiguous. The UK breaks out cases by age and status. For over 30s case rates are now double or higher. Check my comment history for links.

[detaro]

And according to the same UK data, the unvaccinated are much more likely to end up hospitalized or dead. Seems useful.

[native_samples]

Of COVID, yes. There are potential problems with these stats too, but the problem I'm trying to tackle here is that people are mis-stating what seems to really be happening with actual infection rates and making invalid comparisons to things like seatbelts.

For the analogy to hold true seatbelts would have to double your chances of actually crashing your car, and also sometimes randomly kill people who hadn't crashed at all (vaccine injuries are a real thing and excess death is now elevated for non-COVID reasons). Clearly the tradeoffs involved here are quite different and statistics need to be used very carefully to assess them.

[bsaul]

i've been trying to find precise good data about excessive deaths ( or abnormal increase of peculiar diseases) due to vaccination but so far i haven't. Either the source isn't reliable or the graphs don't really show anything if you're in good faith. And yet there are a large number of people giving personnal testimonies of very bad side effects with relatives (although it could be just people paying more attention)

Do you have any good source ?

[native_samples]

Well, what exactly are you looking for?

There are no sources showing an increase in excess death due to vaccination because the medical and media establishment categorically deny that this could possibly be happening. As far as they're concerned more or less nobody ever dies of the COVID vaccine, period, end of story and any claim to the contrary is misinformation. This attitude is sometimes summed up as "Vaccines are amongst the leading causes of coincidences".

The US VAERS database of course tracks peculiar diseases/symptoms/deaths that follow vaccination. At this point it has more records of adverse events for COVID vaccines than all other vaccines combined since the tracking programme began, but the vast majority of problems never make it to VAERS or similar databases, so the absolute numbers aren't that useful. So the best people can do is inference. There appears to be a sharp increase in deaths due to heart attacks and strokes/other clotting disorders this year. The media are occasionally reporting on this but either claiming it's some inexplicable mystery or coming up with some absurd alternative explanation. Examples:

"Health experts have been left baffled by a big rise [25%] in a common and potentially fatal type of heart attack in the west of Scotland": https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mystery-rise-in-heart-att...

"Why are heart attacks becoming common amongst seemingly fit people?" - their answer is a sudden epidemic of too much exercise: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitnes...

The UK has very good public health data compared to most countries. It breaks out heart related deaths for both with and without COVID. There has been a large rise in non-COVID heart deaths in 2021. Some of this may be/must be due to the (not really admitted) collapse of the UK healthcare system due to lockdown triggered overload. However there is also a correlation with the vaccine rollout (it's graphed):

https://dailysceptic.org/2021/08/31/why-has-there-been-a-ris...

It's a 12x increase. That's either lockdowns or vaccines but whichever it is, that's not a natural cause, it's caused by government policy.

From a quick bit of Googling there seems to be similar data from Israel but I have not checked this tweet in any depth - the tables seem legit but the summarization of it looks backwards to me:

https://twitter.com/RanIsraeli/status/1425002893116166144

Anecdotally there seem to be a noticeably larger number of athletes having heart attacks whilst playing. Example montages of these stories are here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l34v01crsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZAPxYouf-c

I have a friend who is investigating this phenomenon in more depth. He found a research paper from the early 2000s that counted news reports about sudden on-field medical emergencies amongst young sports players, then compared that rate to some big lists of news stories in 2021 about it he compiled. He's still working on this project and hasn't written anything up publicly but so far it seems the rate is 6x higher than normal. Obviously this sort of investigation is limited by several factors, but as public health agencies refuse to investigate or report on this stuff, there's a limit to how far random members of the public can go.

[bellyfullofbac]

Ah yeah, links to some random blogs... seems legit. A bit like all the "proof" of Democrats stealing 2020, I just don't have time to debunk them all and I'm just going to assume they're fudging the numbers.

But well, I've spotted something: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-..., ages 40-49: the vaxxed are getting sick at twice the rate of unvaxxed ones.

But this image https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/7A0B/production/... from https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833 says more than 75% of 40-49 have had 1 dosage.

Imagine if 100% of a population has been vaccinated. We know breakthrough cases are possible. Everyone that gets Covid after that will be breakthrough! And this graph would have 0 cases of the unvaxxed, and a non-zero bar for the vaxxed, and you're going to interpret that as "The vaccination gives you Covid!". The quoted emails try to explain why this graph is bad and liable to misinterpration, but the Substack author is misleading you by telling you there's dodgy stuff going on.

If the vaccine efficacy drops down after 6 months, then, boosters should be prescribed and even made mandatory. But boohoo, more crying from the other side.

[native_samples]

There are two problems in your understanding.

1. The problem appears when comparing rates. Your counter-argument is assuming we're comparing absolute numbers which is false.

2. The argument about "data fudging" is the other way around. The raw data shows sharply negative effectiveness against symptomatic disease, and the UK HSA then "fudges" the data into showing the opposite using a statistical technique called TNCC - the validity of which is currently under debate, as it relies on an assumption that doesn't seem to be true.

But these mis-understandings aren't really surprising given that you admit you haven't actually bothered to read the links, and instead decided that you already know the answers because of some unrelated discussion to do with US politics. None of the people I've cited are Americans or in the USA so whatever you think did or did not happen in the 2020 election is quite irrelevant.