The Spectrum of Vaccine Bad Outcomes

Let me preface this by saying I am NOT against the COVID vaccines, strictly speaking. I have friends and family that have taken the vaccine, and when discussing it with them, I've taken the same position I take here, or in any other setting, which is, we all have to do what we believe is in our/our family's best interest. That's it. Not a shocking statement of belief by any stretch. Whether that cost/benefit analysis involves taking the jab or not taking it, it should, it MUST be a personal decision for all of us.

However, it seems like there is ever-growing hostility, MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED no less, towards those that, in having made the aforementioned calculus about what is best for them , decided that they don't wish to take the vaccine at this particular time, FOR WHATEVER REASON. Perhaps they have health restrictions that prevent them from doing so. Maybe they've already dealt with COVID and didn't have a particularly bad go of things. Maybe they know someone that took the vaccine and DID have a bad go of things. For those under 18 years of age, and for their parents/guardians, well, no explanation needed really.

So in reading the tea leaves, and looking at the terrain, I'm getting the feeling that the pressure to take the vaccine is mounting from all quarters. Once again, for the umpteeth time, instead of remaining objective and assuming the position of the mediator/moderator of the debate on the question of "To Jab or Not To Jab", the MSM has elected to pick sides, and again, as it always seems to, it has come down on the side of authoritarianism, the establishment (Big Government/Big Pharma), and the entrenched political interests of the Democratic party (the Biden administration in this case).

For a few days, I've been thinking about the respective arguments of "for" and "against" in choosing to become vaccinated, and something occurred to me. It's apparent to me that, whenever portraying any potential negative consequence of taking the vaccine, MSM seems to trivialize the potential for "bad outcomes". It does this by focusing in on just one particular "bad outcome", and using subjective language ("rare", "unusual", "unexpected",) to downplay or dismiss concerns. Often statistics are trotted out, but there is a trust problem, particularly when it comes to the CDC. It's already been mentioned here numerous times that the CDC, through its CDC Foundation arm, receives significant funding from the same party (BigPharma) that is ostensibly holding accountable. It also doesn't help matters when the CDC has been caught in the act of creative book keeping when it comes to compiling data on COVID vaccine performance. To be blunt, I don't trust the CDC to make a best effort attempt at dispassionately and objectively representing the complete picture when it comes to risk/reward evaluation of taking the vaccine.. Their industry partners (and funders!) have a vested interest in the vaccine being used as much as possible, and the CDC has already shown a willingness to fudge numbers.

So the motivation of this post is to suggest a standard, a benchmark, a decision point for evaluating the risk factor in taking the vaccine. In a better world, the MSM would be out in front and doing their job of advocating for the health and well-being of the ENTIRE public, but has been exhaustively shown to be not so.

I think that there is a spectrum of unfavorable/bad outcomes related to taking the vaccine, and that an honest decision in whether or not to become vaccinated would COMBINE the risk/percentages of this spectrum in its entirety, not just on the basis of each individual bad outcome.

What do I mean by that?

So, rather than thinking about each bad outcome in an isolated fashion, you combine the percentages of each of them into a single probability of experiencing any of, say, 3 bad outcomes...

% of those taking the vaccine that had adverse reactions
+
% of those taking the vaccine who had a symptomatic breakthrough case
+
% of those who, from contact tracing, are shown to be an asymptomatic spreaders
--------------
TOTAL % of "Bad Outcomes"

For an even more statistically relevant evaluation, the above probabilities really ought to be broken apart into age demographics, based on total % "bad outcomes" as standard deviations of both median/mean ages of those taking the vaccine.

If you try to formulate your own picture, statistically, of this combined bad outcome %, you'll find that access to the data is incomplete, and it's hard to get solid numbers to calculate this.

Ironically enough, I did find that on the CDC's website, they (as you'd expect) have the raw numbers to form a holistic picture like this, in terms of the total vaccinated population and their respective treatment outcomes, But as you can see, the numbers "dead end" at April of this year, and as linked above, the CDC curiously stopped tracking "breakthrough" cases that didn't result in hospitalization (but still could be considered symptomatic!). Again, trust issues.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

It's not just a U.S. problem. Governments around the world were quick to start pushing the vaccines on their people. If there is something afoot, they are all likely in on it together.

Other countries are tracking all of the breakthrough cases and that is the way to see that the vaccines aren't going to stop the pandemic. Vaccinated can still catch delta and most likely spread it even if they don't get sick. That means there will be chances for mutations even if every last one of us were vaccinated. That's why the masks came back. The CDC says they are not tracking less severe cases, but the truth is more likely that they are and just not reporting them accurately. Otherwise more folks would notice the vaccines weren't necessarily going to stop the pandemic and that would get in the way of getting more people to comply.

a reply to: tamusan

Cypher : You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious...

once you take the vaccine, your eating their steak.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Most don't trust the FDA to begin with, even before the 'vax'.

And the FDA won't even issue a general approval for...the 'vax'.

That right there should SCREAM volumes to people!

Let that sink in for a moment!

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Our government in the pursue of shoving an untested vaccine into us, are now turning fascist, this not what America is base on, we have laws and we have rights, having the agencies now telling that if we do not take the darn crap it will be consequences is ground for questioning and is ground for speculation as to what they are really trying to do to us.

US is not far behind from atrocities committed against its own citizens is just that people have forgotten.

When a government become fascist and get away with unlawful tactics it opens a door for dangerous consequences.

Then the media is complicit to all this, we have lost our ways to get people to question the motives of all this, we can not longer question our elected government and we can not longer complain.

Research history is not first time we have fallen under this type of tyranny before by our own elected officials and their many agencies.

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

It's not just a U.S. problem. Governments around the world were quick to start pushing the vaccines on their people. If there is something afoot, they are all likely in on it together.

Other countries are tracking all of the breakthrough cases and that is the way to see that the vaccines aren't going to stop the pandemic. Vaccinated can still catch delta and most likely spread it even if they don't get sick. That means there will be chances for mutations even if every last one of us were vaccinated. That's why the masks came back. The CDC says they are not tracking less severe cases, but the truth is more likely that they are and just not reporting them accurately. Otherwise more folks would notice the vaccines weren't necessarily going to stop the pandemic and that would get in the way of getting more people to comply.

You have no idea of what you’re talking about. You think your idea makes sense but it doesn’t because you don’t understand the mathematics of pandemic growth.

A vaccine doesn’t need to be 100% effective in order to make a pandemic go away. The combination of immunity derived from vaccination plus the immunity derived from having been infected simply needs to be large enough to make R(t) less than 1. For COVID19, it’s estimated that the total immunity (vaccinated + infected) needs to be around 80%. We’re not there yet, but we’re getting close in some parts of the country. R(t) is the basic reproduction number; it’s the average number of other people in the population an infected person would transmit the virus to. When R(t) drops below 1, the infection rate will decay exponentially and COVID19 will become endemic in the population, like the seasonal flu.

Seasonal flu vaccines are far from 100% effective, but the degree of immunity they give every season plus the number of people who have some immunity from having had the flu in a previous year is enough to keep influenza from blowing up into a pandemic every year.

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

It's not just a U.S. problem. Governments around the world were quick to start pushing the vaccines on their people. If there is something afoot, they are all likely in on it together.

And the governments that didn't had their leaders executed. Odd.

a reply to: 1947boomer
You don't know what you are talking about for this virus and vaccines. And where was I talking about pandemic growth? I was talking about mutations.

The vaccines are keeping the vast majority of people from getting sick enough for the hospital. That's really all. It's not stopping all of us from catching it. Every time a vaccinated person catches it there is a chance for it to mutate to better breakthrough.

Do you really think they are bringing masks back to save the unvaccinated?

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: 1947boomer
You don't know what you are talking about for this virus and vaccines. And where was I talking about pandemic growth? I was talking about mutations.

The vaccines are keeping the vast majority of people from getting sick enough for the hospital. That's really all. It's not stopping all of us from catching it. Every time a vaccinated person catches it there is a chance for it to mutate to better breakthrough.

Do you really think they are bringing masks back to save the unvaccinated?

Vaccinated are much less likely to produce a variant. So says the info anyway.

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: 1947boomer

Do you really think they are bringing masks back to save the unvaccinated?

I like to think so.

a reply to: vonclod

Viruses mutate all the time. If you have a vaccine that doesn't block infection from the virus, it can mutate to evade the immune response within that person. It's thought that this is happening with other viruses. I'm not stating a frequency that it can happen, yet. Just that it could happen. An example is a virus that costs the chicken industry more than $2 billion a year might be evolving in response to its vaccine. (Marek's disease)

You wouldn't believe if I just told you that my opinion is a professional one. So, I found some links with other professionals saying that a vaccine could mutate in a vaccinated individual.

NPR vaccines-could-drive-the-evolution-of-more-covid-19-mutants

RICHARD HARRIS, BYLINE: You may have heard that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics and, in a worst-case scenario, render the drugs useless. Something similar can also happen with vaccines, though, with less serious consequences. This worry has arisen mostly in the debate over whether to delay a second vaccine shot so more people can get the first shot quickly. Paul Bieniasz, a Howard Hughes investigator at the Rockefeller University, says that gap would leave people with only partial immunity for longer than necessary.

PAUL BIENIASZ: They might serve as sort of a breeding ground for the virus to acquire new mutations.

HARRIS: That's because the virus is always mutating. And if one happens to produce a mutation that makes it less vulnerable to the vaccine, that virus could simply multiply in a vaccinated individual. But even if that happens, that's only one step in the process.

BIENIASZ: What's really unclear and really quite important for the virus to evolve is whether those people let - having been vaccinated and infected, whether they have sufficient levels of virus replication to pass the virus on to other people.

Recent studies have shown that viral loads, in the nose of the vaccinated infected with delta, can be as high as what is seen in the unvaccinated. I don't have time to dig this up right now. I have to work. I will try to remember to do it later.

Imperfect vaccination can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens

There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (“hotter”) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so “hot” that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves. Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease. The future challenge is to identify whether there are other types of vaccines used in animals and humans that might also generate these evolutionary risks.

Our sars2 vaccines are quite leaky with delta.

a reply to: igloo
I'd like to think so, too.

We all know the VAERS has its limitations, but when you look at its reports on just deaths, permanent disability and hospitalizations. When you use these query categories


Query Criteria:
Event Category: Death; Life Threatening; Permanent Disability; Congenital Anomaly / Birth Defect *; Hospitalized
State / Territory: The United States/Territories/Unknown
Vaccine Products: COVID19 VACCINE (COVID19)

For Covid vaccines, the results are for 33,896 total adverse events that allegedly lead to Death, Life being threatened, Permanent disability, or hospitalization

For All vaccines including the COVID vaccines the results are for 87,182 total events. Meaning over a third of all of these serious categories of adverse events is associated with COVID vaccines. That's one-third of the total in less than 6 months of COVID vaccine use. All other totals from all the other vaccines have been accrued since 1990.

I could understand 15-20 percent but over 33% are COVID-related "events" in less than 6 months?

Actual deaths reports are an even higher percentage, all deaths all vaccines since 1990 6,374, all deaths COVID vaccines only this year 4,457.

a reply to: marg6043

Then the media is complicit to all this

The same media that pushed H1N1 vax its ironic how quickly they forgotten.