Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[pig]

59 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

Although the greatest acceptance of vaccines is among those with masters degrees. Those with high school credentials only tend to be very sceptical. 

The PhD levels are unusually high, but thereay be other reasons for it among this small group. 

The most startling split is between red and blue states - I wonder if theres any correlation between red/blue and educational level.

[anonguest]

34 minutes ago, pig said:

The most startling split is between red and blue states - I wonder if theres any correlation between red/blue and educational level.

Hardly startling.  People in the so called red states have a tendency to value the 'sovereignty' of the individual as taking precedence, to varying degrees, over the dictats of 'The State'.  Whereas those in blue states tend to be of the mindset that The State is full of experts and knows best, only ever has the individuals best interests in mind and, frequently, takes the view that it is a sign of 'ignorance' to question The State and/or the individual is dependent on it and does as they are told with de facto no resistance.

I would wager that this split will be seen the world over.

Edited September 7, 2021 by anonguest

[pig]

10 minutes ago, anonguest said:

Hardly startling.  People in the so called red states will have a tendency to value the 'sovereignty' of the individual, to varying degrees, as taking precedence over the dictats of 'The State'.  Whereas those in blue states tend to be of the mindset that The State is full of experts and knows best and, in general, takes the view that it is a sign of ignorance to question it or the individual is dependent on it and does as they are told.

I would wager that this split will be seen the world over.

Thats certainly how the ignorant and uncritical would try to describe it lol.

Firstly its about personal convenience over social responsibility - can't change won't change so denialism is much easier. Lets start with the virus doesn't exist

Then its about weird people over there calling themselves experts and god knows what they're on about but if its not the way the uncritical want it then its toys out of pram time.

Then a kind of dim social awareness kicks in and a need to disparage people with critical brains who've adapted to the virus as  'doing as they are told [by reality]'. 

Maybe there is a connection to educational level after all

 

 

[satsuma]

2 hours ago, anonguest said:

Far from entirely the case, apparently.  As discussed, in a few posts a week or so back here, polls from the U.S revealed that an almost equally large percentage of vaccine 'hesitants' appeared to be in the other end of the IQ/educational spectrum (those with PhD's).  Haven't seen any similar survey results from UK/EU or elsewhere, but see no fundamental reason to conclude that significantly different results would be seen ion the same demographic here.

nonsense 

[dances with sheeple]

26 minutes ago, pig said:

Thats certainly how the ignorant and uncritical would try to describe it lol.

Firstly its about personal convenience over social responsibility - can't change won't change so denialism is much easier. Lets start with the virus doesn't exist

Then its about weird people over there calling themselves experts and god knows what they're on about but if its not the way the uncritical want it then its toys out of pram time.

Then a kind of dim social awareness kicks in and a need to disparage people with critical brains who've adapted to the virus as  'doing as they are told [by reality]'. 

Maybe there is a connection to educational level after all

 

 

"Expert" on Bloomberg today saying "The unvaccinated are spreading it", not the vaccinated thinking they are superhuman now and taking more risks, not because nightclubs are open, Nah, couldn`t be anything to do with that...LOL..must be the "Unvaccinated are spreading it" because that fits the daft narrative that the MSM have painted themselves into a corner with, no wonder more and more thinking people are just ignoring the dross they spout?

[anonguest]

17 minutes ago, satsuma said:

nonsense 

Which bit?

The poll/survey results?  or, the assertion that there is no immediately obvious reason to assume a significant difference in results would be seen among PhD's in other countries?

Edited September 7, 2021 by anonguest

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, satsuma said:

I note the moderators chose to remove the reference I made to long covid research in nature.  Again, I would say to people go and read the nature articles for yourself.  Clearly the nutjob agenda is encouraged.  

AKA "go and do my research for me, read my references and agree with me so I don't have to make my argument myself."

[pig]

7 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

"Expert" on Bloomberg today saying "The unvaccinated are spreading it", not the vaccinated thinking they are superhuman now and taking more risks, not because nightclubs are open, Nah, couldn`t be anything to do with that...LOL..must be the "Unvaccinated are spreading it" because that fits the daft narrative that the MSM have painted themselves into a corner with, no wonder more and more thinking people are just ignoring the dross they spout?

Yes technically the unvaccinated are more likely to spread it.

 

[pig]

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

AKA "go and do my research for me, read my references and agree with me so I don't have to make my argument myself."

No need to agree, but it would simply enrich the debate. Bonehead denialism gets a little tedious after a while

[winkie]

Can't tell from someone's health or vaccinations who is a carrier ....... we are all potential carriers, the fear is not the carrier it is for those that are more vulnerable that are not as protected, any vaccines have had or another has had is no guarantee of complete protection......nature is a tough cookie to handle.....stay healthy, stay safe.

[Arpeggio]

6 hours ago, satsuma said:

Well they would be the low IQ ones anyway, hopefully they dont get too sick, I do worry about our knuckle draggers in these times.  

According to the CDC you are not considered fully vaccinated until 14 days after 2nd injection (or 14 days after 1st for single shot versions).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

In general, people are considered fully vaccinated:

• 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or
• 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine

Of the deaths that appear of VAERS, most occur 3-4 days after injection.

It will be no surprise if people who have a 3rd booster shot are also not classed as "vaccinated" immediately after receiving injection, and that there will be a period of time before they are.

This is the obvious question; If someone takes the initiative to become vaccinated due to their high IQ, then within 14 days becomes hospitalized, injured or dies (including, perhaps in particular, if after a PCR positive test to find they have Covid19).

Do you class this person as a low IQ knuckle dragger due to them being unvaccinated?....or do you have knowledge of how many of these were actually injected within 14 days? (if you do please let us know) and therefore able to distinguish between unvaccinated and someone who has not received a vaccine?

[Riedquat]

28 minutes ago, pig said:

No need to agree, but it would simply enrich the debate. Bonehead denialism gets a little tedious after a while

Yes, doesn't it...

I've said a few times before any post needs to stand on its own, and pointing at articles and videos and so on is there for further information, or as a reference for whatever material is in the post. One that requires going and looking to see the point that the poster wants to make is a post that I'll ignore.

[pig]

31 minutes ago, winkie said:

Can't tell from someone's health or vaccinations who is a carrier ....... we are all potential carriers, the fear is not the carrier it is for those that are more vulnerable that are not as protected, any vaccines have had or another has had is no guarantee of complete protection......nature is a tough cookie to handle.....stay healthy, stay safe.

 

Like anything else, just get the best information you can and do your best with it. And as Tom Petty might advise:

 

Well, the good ol' days may not return
And the rocks might melt and the sea may burn

I'm learning to fly (learning to fly) but I ain't got wings (learning to fly)
Coming down (learning to fly) is the hardest thing (learning to fly)

Well, some say life will beat you down
Break your heart, steal your crown
So I've started out for God-knows-where
I guess I'll know when I get there

 

 

[Ah-so]

1 hour ago, Arpeggio said:

Of the deaths that appear of VAERS, most occur 3-4 days after injection.

It will be no surprise if people who have a 3rd booster shot are also not classed as "vaccinated" immediately after receiving injection, and that there will be a period of time before they are.

This is the obvious question; If someone takes the initiative to become vaccinated due to their high IQ, then within 14 days becomes hospitalized, injured or dies (including, perhaps in particular, if after a PCR positive test to find they have Covid19).

Do you class this person as a low IQ knuckle dragger due to them being unvaccinated?....or do you have knowledge of how many of these were actually injected within 14 days? (if you do please let us know) and therefore able to distinguish between unvaccinated and someone who has not received a vaccine?

I was wondering where you go this graph from? It doesn't list the collection period, so it is a bit challenging to independently verify. However, I think that if more than half of deaths within 28 days of a vaccine happen in the first few days, it is statistically significant, so it really should be reported more widely.

As you know, I have often noted that a number of people will die statistically anyway within 28 days of a vaccination, but if these were condensed into a few days, it does more clearly show a causal link.

Edit: found it: https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality

 The fact that the data comes from the CDC can give VAERS an air of legitimacy, said Kolina Koltai, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for an Informed Public (CIP) at the University of Washington. 

The OpenVAERS Project is “misinformation 101,” Koltai said. “It's decontextualization. I literally show examples like that in classes that I teach. You take a bit of information and you remove all the other context from it. That's common with almost any misinformation you can see.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpmp7/anti-vaxxers-misuse-federal-data-to-falsely-claim-covid-vaccines-are-dangerous

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Ah-so

[winkie]

 

[FallingAwake]

Yeah, it's pretty clear from the data, from reading individual VAERS reports and from anecdotal evidence, that the vaccine is killing or injuring some people, and this isn't widely publicised because they don't want to scare people off.

Coronavirus itself is also killing or injuring some people, so I have no problem if people choose to take a vaccine that reduces their risk of dying or getting seriously ill.

However, the case for kids is different, as the JCVI pointed out. The risk factor is a lot different, and so I presume the high IQ parents who've all taken the vaccine will be factoring this in very carefully, weighing up the evidence.

Innit.

Edited September 7, 2021 by FallingAwake
adults -> parents

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, FallingAwake said:

Yeah, it's pretty clear from the data, from reading individual VAERS reports and from anecdotal evidence, that the vaccine is killing or injuring some people, and this isn't widely publicised because they don't want to scare people off.

Yes, some. But "some" is a very small proportion. Unfortunately people have a terrible tendency to get scared by very low risks, particularly ones they're not actively facing regularly (and thus get used to). It's not hard to use this to get people to accept all sorts of nonsense (you don't have to look far to see plenty of evidence of that in this utterly absurd modern world, both with some of the reactions to Covid as well as other matters) but it's also pretty easy to get people scared off accepting what are quite frankly risks they simply shouldn't be bothered about, like the ones from having a Covid vaccination. Lottery-winning odds would be too risky for many.

[Ah-so]

7 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

Yeah, it's pretty clear from the data, from reading individual VAERS reports and from anecdotal evidence, that the vaccine is killing or injuring some people, and this isn't widely publicised because they don't want to scare people off.

Coronavirus itself is also killing or injuring some people, so I have no problem if people choose to take a vaccine that reduces their risk of dying or getting seriously ill.

However, the case for kids is different, as the JCVI pointed out. The risk factor is a lot different, and so I presume the high IQ parents who've all taken the vaccine will be factoring this in very carefully, weighing up the evidence.

Innit.

I don't think bit is necessarily clear - I would need to feel more comfortable with the data that Openvaers publishes and there are question marks over the data. Even the way it presents that graph is rather amateurish with no link to the underlying data. 

The data I have seen so far on deaths following vaccination seems pretty consistent with normal death rates, although there are a small number of deaths which appear to be attributable to the vaccine. 

[scottbeard]

15 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

Yeah, it's pretty clear from the data, from reading individual VAERS reports and from anecdotal evidence, that the vaccine is killing or injuring some people, and this isn't widely publicised because they don't want to scare people off.

Coronavirus itself is also killing or injuring some people, so I have no problem if people choose to take a vaccine that reduces their risk of dying or getting seriously ill.

However, the case for kids is different, as the JCVI pointed out. The risk factor is a lot different, and so I presume the high IQ parents who've all taken the vaccine will be factoring this in very carefully, weighing up the evidence.

(1) The two groups of "some people" are not necessarily very similar at all - several million people have died from COVID whilst only handfuls have from the vaccines.

(2) I don't think parents, high IQ or otherwise, are well placed to weigh up scientific evidence, which is exactly why we need organisations like the JCVI to help ensure the public understand what the best course of action is for them and their children (whether that's a vaccine or no vaccine).  We shouldn't hang children's health on parents using a gut feel combined with a bit of Googling. 

[Bruce Banner]

16 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

(1) The two groups of "some people" are not necessarily very similar at all - several million people have died from COVID whilst only handfuls have from the vaccines.

(2) I don't think parents, high IQ or otherwise, are well placed to weigh up scientific evidence, which is exactly why we need organisations like the JCVI to help ensure the public understand what the best course of action is for them and their children (whether that's a vaccine or no vaccine).  We shouldn't hang children's health on parents using a gut feel combined with a bit of Googling. 

Are you suggesting that the decision should be taken out of the hands of the parents?

[dances with sheeple]

2 hours ago, pig said:

Yes technically the unvaccinated are more likely to spread it.

 

Can you give me a link to the reasons for that?

[scottbeard]

8 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Are you suggesting that the decision should be taken out of the hands of the parents?

Not at all, I'm saying - for clarity - that parents are not well placed to work out a risk analysis of vaccines from base data, and hence I would expect the JCVI and their individual GPs to be making recommendations as to whether children should or shouldn't be given one.

Parents should make the decision.

Exactly as it works for over 18s - I go to the doctor, he recommends some medicine, I decide if I take it.

[Arpeggio]

1 hour ago, FallingAwake said:

Yeah, it's pretty clear from the data, from reading individual VAERS reports and from anecdotal evidence, that the vaccine is killing or injuring some people, and this isn't widely publicised because they don't want to scare people off.

Coronavirus itself is also killing or injuring some people, so I have no problem if people choose to take a vaccine that reduces their risk of dying or getting seriously ill.

However, the case for kids is different, as the JCVI pointed out. The risk factor is a lot different, and so I presume the high IQ parents who've all taken the vaccine will be factoring this in very carefully, weighing up the evidence.

Innit.

VAERS and other reporting systems have been known to under report for a long time.

https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

The above report will be the one the VICE article refers to (or doesn't refer to) in this part:

"This is a common talking point—that VAERS data only shows 1% of actual adverse events—and it’s as false as it is oft-repeated. It also doesn’t really make sense, as Paul Offit, an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the director of CHOP's Vaccine Education Center, pointed out to VICE News: “How would they know that?"

Paul Offit once said "babies can tolerate 10,000 vaccines at once" but so far, as an adult is yet to inject himself 10,000 times.

Another different one: https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00002018-200629050-00003

The WHO's own version is:  http://vigiaccess.org/ which currently has 1.9 million adverse reactions for "covid-19 vaccine". The age distribution shows up very differently to what happened in trials in which people over the age of 65 accounted for more than 17% of the total.

The EU version is EudraVigilance.

 

Or if you prefer, just look at the VICE media group for all your information, Dating, Skateboarding tips and the latest hip music.

One of the worlds least moral people just got an Ice cream machine.

Apparently Paris Hilton, is like, a chef now.

A bit disappointed they don't seem to have covered the withdrawal of mayor Cuomo's Emmy award for Covid19.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/cuomos-international-emmy-for-daily-covid-briefings-rescinded-following-scandal/3238464/

A large proportion of all US C19 deaths were in New York for a while, he deserves it.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Arpeggio

[Bruce Banner]

15 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Not at all, I'm saying - for clarity - that parents are not well placed to work out a risk analysis of vaccines from base data, and hence I would expect the JCVI and their individual GPs to be making recommendations as to whether children should or shouldn't be given one.

Parents should make the decision.

Exactly as it works for over 18s - I go to the doctor, he recommends some medicine, I decide if I take it.

Ah, good, I thought that was the case.

[satsuma]

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

AKA "go and do my research for me, read my references and agree with me so I don't have to make my argument myself."

Not really, there’s nothing to argue, anyone with eyes and a computer can look up nature long covid in young adults.