What was your COVID Twilight Zone moment?

I think that in the long term the vaccines will do more damage than vivid itself.
 
Greco_Wiz said:
Define what long term is. 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Why did you choose that amount of time? Is there any precedent, epidemiological evidence, or biological basis for waiting years?
Now compare that to the known risks of the virus at the time. Vaccination was clearly the right choice.
Click to expand...
The median clinical development period (meaning from a Phase I trial to approval) is just over 8 years, including a median FDA review period of about a year.

it's just the FDA approval.

no one knows what's going to happen, and it's FAR TOO early to say it was clearly the right choice. remember, these companies have been sued before for faulty medicines.

0 long term safety data. does not prevent spread/transmission. 100% safe and effective, NOT.

goodluck brother
 
N13 said:
The data is coming out now and it doesn't look so good.

Humans that got the vaccine were the test subjects. Those who didn't are the control group.

These statistics should emerge this year.
Click to expand...
The data are clear and overwhelming. The vaccines are safe and effective by any reasonable definition.
Here’s another study published just today, showing clearly why even children and adolescents should have been vaccinated.


During the Delta period, the estimated effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was 98.4% (95% CI, 98.1% to 98.7%) against documented infection among adolescents, with no statistically significant waning after receipt of the first dose. An analysis of cardiac complications did not suggest a statistically significant difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. During the Omicron period, the effectiveness against documented infection among children was estimated to be 74.3% (CI, 72.2% to 76.2%). Higher levels of effectiveness were seen against moderate or severe COVID-19 (75.5% [CI, 69.0% to 81.0%]) and ICU admission with COVID-19 (84.9% [CI, 64.8% to 93.5%]). Among adolescents, the effectiveness against documented Omicron infection was 85.5% (CI, 83.8% to 87.1%), with 84.8% (CI, 77.3% to 89.9%) against moderate or severe COVID-19, and 91.5% (CI, 69.5% to 97.6%) against ICU admission with COVID-19. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against the Omicron variant declined 4 months after the first dose and then stabilized. The analysis showed a lower risk for cardiac complications in the vaccinated group during the Omicron variant period.
 
Killer Kadoogan said:
the IFR for most age groups was in the .0002s.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that improvement.

I'm noticing a big difference in the Psychology of the vaxxed and unvaxxed. Very interesting.

For those who have been vaxxed and boosted, they already have that shit in their bodies. Then they hear that something is fucked up with the vaccines. Denial is first, then anger.
 
Greco_Wiz said:
The data are clear and overwhelming. The vaccines are safe and effective by any reasonable definition.
Here’s another study published just today, showing clearly why even children and adolescents should have been vaccinated.


During the Delta period, the estimated effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was 98.4% (95% CI, 98.1% to 98.7%) against documented infection among adolescents, with no statistically significant waning after receipt of the first dose. An analysis of cardiac complications did not suggest a statistically significant difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. During the Omicron period, the effectiveness against documented infection among children was estimated to be 74.3% (CI, 72.2% to 76.2%). Higher levels of effectiveness were seen against moderate or severe COVID-19 (75.5% [CI, 69.0% to 81.0%]) and ICU admission with COVID-19 (84.9% [CI, 64.8% to 93.5%]). Among adolescents, the effectiveness against documented Omicron infection was 85.5% (CI, 83.8% to 87.1%), with 84.8% (CI, 77.3% to 89.9%) against moderate or severe COVID-19, and 91.5% (CI, 69.5% to 97.6%) against ICU admission with COVID-19. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine against the Omicron variant declined 4 months after the first dose and then stabilized. The analysis showed a lower risk for cardiac complications in the vaccinated group during the Omicron variant period.
Click to expand...
How many vaccines and boosters did you get?
 
N13 said:
Thanks for that improvement.

I'm noticing a big difference in the Psychology of the vaxxed and unvaxxed. Very interesting.

For those who have been vaxxed and boosted, they already have that shit in their bodies. Then they hear that something is fucked up with the vaccines. Denial is first, then anger.
Click to expand...
they will never ever admit it. i have never heard of so many people at the same time, complain about mysterious brain fog, ever. and now, they are constantly sick, over and over.
 
Greco_Wiz said:
The overall IFR was roughly 0.4 - 0.8% for the ancestral virus, which was more benign than alpha and Delta.
Click to expand...
The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years, 0.011% at 30–39 years. Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025–0.032% for 0–59 years and 0.063–0.082% for 0–69 years. which is all a funny way of saying 99.9% survival rate.
 
Killer Kadoogan said:
they will never ever admit it. i have never heard of so many people at the same time, complain about mysterious brain fog, ever. and now, they are constantly sick, over and over.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the excess death statistics?

Corps that sell life insurance need to know those numbers so they can conduct their business. Life expectancy is down.
 
Killer Kadoogan said:
The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years, 0.011% at 30–39 years. Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025–0.032% for 0–59 years and 0.063–0.082% for 0–69 years. which is all a funny way of saying 99.9% survival rate.
Click to expand...
So why would someone need a vaccine given those numbers?

To make big pharma super rich?
 
N13 said:
Have you seen the excess death statistics?

Corps that sell life insurance need to know those numbers so they can conduct their business. Life expectancy is down.
Click to expand...
yes have seen those too. excess mortality up, cancers up too. pfizer just purchased seagen too, to help battle cancer for some reason. but these are all just coincidences.
 
N13 said:
So why would someone need a vaccine given those numbers?

To make big pharma super rich?
Click to expand...
well, to make sure you are not a racist or bigot. or a hateful person in general. plus you need it so you can watch the foo fighters and rage against the machine. just ignore the drummer dying.
 
Killer Kadoogan said:
The median IFR was 0.0003% at 0–19 years, 0.002% at 20–29 years, 0.011% at 30–39 years. Including data from another 9 countries with imputed age distribution of COVID-19 deaths yielded median IFR of 0.025–0.032% for 0–59 years and 0.063–0.082% for 0–69 years. which is all a funny way of saying 99.9% survival rate.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. You’re likely referring to the Ioannidis study, which is one of the poorest meta analyses I’ve ever seen. His estimates differed considerably from other publications, including these:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates - PubMed

Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until July 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53%-0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents a completely unbiased point...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 
Greco_Wiz said:
Incorrect. You’re likely referring to the Ioannidis study, which is one of the poorest meta analyses I’ve ever seen. His estimates differed considerably from other publications, including these:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates - PubMed

Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until July 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53%-0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents a completely unbiased point...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Click to expand...
incorrect. that study was published 2020. mines from 2022. therefore, i win. 0 longterm studies. low IFR. 99.9% survival rate for all age groups.

 
Killer Kadoogan said:
incorrect. that study was published 2020. mines from 2022. therefore, i win. 0 longterm studies. low IFR. 99.9% survival rate for all age groups.

Click to expand...
Oh look, you cited the author and study I predicted you would. Almost like I’ve been through this and am familiar with the literature.

I cited you two meta analyses, which are both much higher quality. Here’s another, which is consistent with the Lancet study.

link.springer.com

Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications - European Journal of Epidemiology

Determine age-specific infection fatality rates for COVID-19 to inform public health policies and communications that help protect vulnerable age groups. Studies of COVID-19 prevalence were collected by conducting an online search of published articles, preprints, and government reports that...
link.springer.com link.springer.com

You now have three meta analyses, all a magnitude higher than what you’re claiming.
 
Greco_Wiz said:
Oh look, you cited the author and study I predicted you would. Almost like I’ve been through this and am familiar with the literature.

I cited you two meta analyses, which are both much higher quality. Here’s another, which is consistent with the Lancet study.

link.springer.com

Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications - European Journal of Epidemiology

Determine age-specific infection fatality rates for COVID-19 to inform public health policies and communications that help protect vulnerable age groups. Studies of COVID-19 prevalence were collected by conducting an online search of published articles, preprints, and government reports that...
link.springer.com link.springer.com

You now have three meta analyses, all a magnitude higher than what you’re claiming.
Click to expand...
yes oh wise one, the guy who despite knowing all of this, still got the mystery juice with 0 longterm safety data.

we are arguing over a 99% survival rate, no matter which study you want to back. are we not?

0 longterm safety data. 99% survival rate despite the older or more recent study.

covid vaxx doesn't even meet the FDA standard of every other vaccine made before.
 
It should be a requirement of this thread to state your vaccination status.

N13: no vaccines or boosters.

Did not get covid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Davidjacksonjones
What was your favorite moment in the UFC for 2023?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Cajun
Cajun

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,113
Messages
55,468,147
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top