Recent comments in /f/jerseycity

lavidadida t1_j2ziyas wrote

Yes - and in May 2021, you would have said "Stop saying vaccine myocarditis happens - studies show it does not and the CDC says there is no causal link." You would have been wrong, and complaining about how no one knows anything about science.

Re: therapeutics - You either can't read or are deliberately misinterpreting me. I also mentioned processed grains and the USDA food pyramid - you think I was comparing a vaccine to a loaf of bread? It's about the regulatory process and the politics of US health advice.

0

Leanster2000 t1_j2zeo9s wrote

Comparing a vaccine to therapeutics is concrete proof you have no idea what you are talking about. You might as well compare vaccines to vitamins, lead paint, ball point pens.

If you understood statistics, how rare vaccine induced myocarditis is, the slightly modified stance over time makes sense. BECAUSE IT IS SO RARE IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO BUILD UP ENOUGH CASES TO BE STATSTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. If you were an intellectually honest person, you would also note that the odds of myocarditis are far higher, even in the young male cohort, from myocarditis from unvaccinated covid, and that vaccine induced myocarditis is far milder than "natural" covid myocarditis (10x less death rate). But let's not talk about that.

3

Leanster2000 t1_j2zddpi wrote

Even in the highest risk cohort it is orders of magnitude less than covid itself, that is a verifiable fact! Even if you get vaccine induced myocarditis, it is 10x less lethal than natural disease induced myocarditis, that is is a verifiable fact! Or do you think you can live in a world when you will never get covid? I guess if you get on the Enterprise with Spock...

3

Leanster2000 t1_j2zctup wrote

1)So when I provide you the citation you promise to crawl back under your rock? Do I have to embarrass you or do you realize google can be your friend?

2)You are the idiots claiming it is higher, where is your proof? Be aware, I am well versed on all the GBD BS and the sad cast of characters, the masters of misrepresentation. You have ZERO evidence. You have something you saw on TV, a frigging anecdote. You have to realize, to a scientist, you folks sound like complete and utter idiots. I don't expect laypeople to understand the intricacies of statistical analysis, but I do expect people who have no idea what they are talking about to STFU and let the adults speak.

The football deaths were as follows: "The most common causes of fatalities were cardiac failure (n = 100, 41.2%), brain injury (n = 62, 25.5%), heat illness (n = 38, 15.6%), SCT (n = 11, 4.5%), asthma and commotio cordis (n = 7 each, 2.9% each), embolism/blood clot (n = 5, 2.1%), cervical fracture (n = 4, 1.7%), and intra-abdominal injury, infection, and lightning (n = 3, 1.2% each)"

We haven't seen a NFL football on the field death since the 50's, so it seems odd and new, but the study show in college and high school, over 100 heart related deaths in the time span of the study. It happens all the time, you just don't notice it.

1

Leanster2000 t1_j2zas0z wrote

Ah, the intricate dance of the cherry picker. CDC never initially claimed transmission data because it is impossible to know before the vaccine is released - this is done in surveillance mode. And indeed, for the first 6 month or so, before the delta variant it did indeed prevent transmission. Concrete data in Israel, as case count dropped to 30 per day (same pop as NJ) despite only 60% of the residents getting the vaccine. This is when the vaccine greatly prevented cases + transmissions (the 90% number) communications were out. Then the delta variant and further variants came, eroding case and transmission effectiveness, but hospitalization and death prevention remained high. But all of this will slide off you like water, and you can go back to your ignorant, foolish and conspiratorial ways.

2