So give me a good reason why I need a jab for a common cold that has 0 to 0.1 percent death rate?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

5% of the number reported actually died from COVID.

Used to be 6%. But yes, a relative few die as a direct result of the disease. But something caused a hell of a lot more people to die in 2020 than in previous years. Maybe all of a sudden their time was up. Or maybe they wouldn't have died had it not been for COVID.

Maybe COVID had nothing to do with it. What do you reckon it might have been, last year, that caused such an increase in deaths?

A wide range of factors including suicide, homicide, substance abuse and neglected health complications. If this had been treated like a standard flu instead of being inflated to apocalyptic proportions, there might have been less mental health crisis and less hysteria driving those mortality figures.

a reply to: TzarChasm

A wide range of factors including suicide, homicide, substance abuse and neglected health complications.

Some, probably. But the numbers don't seem to reflect this. The death rate in 2020 was 15.9% higher than 2019.

If this had been treated like a standard flu instead of being inflated to apocalyptic proportions, there might have been less mental health crisis and less hysteria driving those mortality figures.

And perhaps the toll would have been greater still without those measures.

originally posted by: BrujaRebooted
You could add one more column for accuracy, labelled COVID 19 virus.

Wrong and Predictable:
It was predicted months ago that the MSM would flip the vaccine side effects onto Covid-19.

it's what they do, flip the world upside-down.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: humanResistance
Here in Ontario lately the virus has attenuated so much it is far weaker than seasonal flu. So why should I take a risky jab? A New Zealand woman just died yesterday after Pfizer.

news

You could be asymptomatic sprinkling little traces of virus all around the community and not even know it.

Then all those people will have immunity and a 99% survival rate. He is more likely to kill someone driving to the grocery store than killing them with COVID-19.

Do you think we should force all people with aids into confinement?

HIV isn't a respiratory virus.

And?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

5% of the number reported actually died from COVID.

Used to be 6%. But yes, a relative few die as a direct result of the disease. But something caused a hell of a lot more people to die in 2020 than in previous years. Maybe all of a sudden their time was up. Or maybe they wouldn't have died had it not been for COVID.

Maybe COVID had nothing to do with it. What do you reckon it might have been, last year, that caused such an increase in deaths?

Biden got 85 million votes

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TzarChasm

A wide range of factors including suicide, homicide, substance abuse and neglected health complications.

Some, probably. But the numbers don't seem to reflect this. The death rate in 2020 was 15.9% higher than 2019.

If this had been treated like a standard flu instead of being inflated to apocalyptic proportions, there might have been less mental health crisis and less hysteria driving those mortality figures.

And perhaps the toll would have been greater still without those measures.

If you were given a magical button that would grant human society immortality, but it cost 1 billion completely random lives to push the button, and the remaining 6ish billion people would live disease free for as many decades or centuries as they wish, would you push it?

Just a fun question that I like to experiment with.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

And you are assuming that 75 year olds are thick and can't think for themselves.

Also, your virtue signalling is pathetic. What happened to you?

What part is virtue signaling?

If a person says, hey I'm young/healthy so the virus is minimal to me, and because of that I do not need the vaccine no matter how safe or not it is, that is a good logical answer.

If a person says I'm not taking the vaccine, and they jump into hyperboles to explain why it isn't good then I wonder who are they trying to convince their decision is right, themselves or others....

The reality is if you are older you really do need the vaccine since that older group of 15% account for 85% of the deaths and serious illnesses. You can disagree here but it is pretty much the reality.

Now if you are 75 and still say F it, I don't care and that is find, BUT you are not 99,97% OK not to have issues...lol

originally posted by: TzarChasm

If you were given a magical button that would grant human society immortality, but it cost 1 billion completely random lives to push the button, and the remaining 6ish billion people would live disease free for as many decades or centuries as they wish, would you push it?

Just a fun question that I like to experiment with.

I personnel would not care, I can assume some people would risk the 14% chance of dying to live forever. Now if you had a 14% change of dying to COVID or having long term illness would be get the Vaccine?

a reply to: TzarChasm

One hell of a red herring argument you've got there.

originally posted by: face23785

10s of thousands have died from it in the United States. I sincerely doubt that was the "first" person who died in NZ from it.

I heard millions have died in the US from the vaccine!!!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

And you are assuming that 75 year olds are thick and can't think for themselves.

Also, your virtue signalling is pathetic. What happened to you?

What part is virtue signaling?

If a person says, hey I'm young/healthy so the virus is minimal to me, and because of that I do not need the vaccine no matter how safe or not it is, that is a good logical answer.

If a person says I'm not taking the vaccine, and they jump into hyperboles to explain why it isn't good then I wonder who are they trying to convince their decision is right, themselves or others....

The reality is if you are older you really do need the vaccine since that older group of 15% account for 85% of the deaths and serious illnesses. You can disagree here but it is pretty much the reality.

Now if you are 75 and still say F it, I don't care and that is find, BUT you are not 99,97% OK not to have issues...lol

The virtue signalling on ATS is the 400 or so anti vax threads, signalling to thier own little bubble how smart and independent thinking they are..but terrible at math.

a reply to: vonclod

But what are the real figures, Indian News sources seem to suggest under-reporting of deaths and ICU beds being full in some states and oxygen running out.

originally posted by: vonclod

The virtue signalling on ATS is the 400 or so anti vax threads, signalling to thier own little bubble how smart and independent thinking they are..but terrible at math.

The frustrating part is none of us so called pro-vaxxers here are suggesting everyone needs to get it, force people against their will, fire people so on and so forth.


We all agree it a personal choice, but people need good information to make that decision. Look at the God Damn OP's title!

So give me a good reason why I need a jab for a common cold that has 0 to 0.1 percent death rate?

Where does that 75 year-old fit in that 0 to .1% when they have 230x greater chance to die than a 30 year-old?

a reply to: Xtrozero

What part is virtue signalling?

 so if a person 75 thinks they are 99.97% OK we are doing that person a disservice to actually make the correct decision for their situation.

All of that with a sprinkle of authoritarianism thrown in for good measure...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: vonclod

The virtue signalling on ATS is the 400 or so anti vax threads, signalling to thier own little bubble how smart and independent thinking they are..but terrible at math.

The frustrating part is none of us so called pro-vaxxers here are suggesting everyone needs to get it, force people against their will, fire people so on and so forth.


We all agree it a personal choice, but people need good information to make that decision. Look at the God Damn OP's title!

So give me a good reason why I need a jab for a common cold that has 0 to 0.1 percent death rate?

Where does that 75 year-old fit in that 0 to .1% when they have 230x greater chance to die than a 30 year-old?

Bruh, there is more than enough Covid propaganda flying around for people to digest. The MSM have the monopoly.
Sites like this are a fart in the wind for most folk.

Virtue signalling, still after I've already pointed it out.

Again, wtf?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: vonclod

The virtue signalling on ATS is the 400 or so anti vax threads, signalling to thier own little bubble how smart and independent thinking they are..but terrible at math.

The frustrating part is none of us so called pro-vaxxers here are suggesting everyone needs to get it, force people against their will, fire people so on and so forth.


We all agree it a personal choice, but people need good information to make that decision. Look at the God Damn OP's title!

So give me a good reason why I need a jab for a common cold that has 0 to 0.1 percent death rate?

Where does that 75 year-old fit in that 0 to .1% when they have 230x greater chance to die than a 30 year-old?

I agree, I have never supported any mandates, or forced anything, nor do I run around telling people they need to do anything..I just call out bovine scatology when I see it..lol

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

All of that with a sprinkle of authoritarianism thrown in for good measure...

So the OP's title is that people have 0 to .1% chance to die or maybe have a serious issue ,and that is not correct. If you are 18 it is most likely lower than .1% and if you are older it is much higher. a 75 year-old is 230x higher to die than a 30 year-old who is most likely that .1%.

Do you disagree that we should give people correct information so they can make the best decision, or should we try to persuade them one way or the other with bad information?

One of the problems is the anti-vaxxers have worked hard to turn the vaccine into something that will kill us all and that is just extremism doing no one good, so sorry if I do not like extremism in any form.

a reply to: vonclod

The difference is, you don't undermine an entire age group when say your thoughts.

Ageism is still a legitimate form of prejudice.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: vonclod

But what are the real figures, Indian News sources seem to suggest under-reporting of deaths and ICU beds being full in some states and oxygen running out.

My friend, I don't buy much of the crap from the far reaches of either end of this, I have doubts about plenty, I might even think this whole thing is being a bit oversold. But it is here, and some are vulnerable, most, not so much.

I do have to agree, the numbers are probably different, without mass antibody testing, hard to be 100% certain, but I don't think they are off by as much as suggested.

a reply to: humanResistance