6 of 7 Recent COVID-19 Deaths Had Been "Vaccinated"--Aussie Gov Official

originally posted by: chr0naut
acquiring natural immunity is thousands of times more dangerous than the vaccines,

Nope. Not true, not even for those at most risk - as long as they are actually treated, and treated early, with the now well know efficacious treatments available.

and there is an enormous existing death toll that proves that not everyone who catches COVID-19 gets effective natural immunity. In that regard, natural immunity is a fail.

Nope. It is the medical system that is the massive fail. The one that forbids any treatment whatsoever - with the exception of the one massively expensive 'remdesivir' that is now know to be more dangerous than COVID.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
acquiring natural immunity is thousands of times more dangerous than the vaccines,

Nope. Not true, not even for those at most risk - as long as they are actually treated, and treated early, with the now well know efficacious treatments available.

and there is an enormous existing death toll that proves that not everyone who catches COVID-19 gets effective natural immunity. In that regard, natural immunity is a fail.

Nope. It is the medical system that is the massive fail. The one that forbids any treatment whatsoever - with the exception of the one massively expensive 'remdesivir' that is now know to be more dangerous than COVID.

We haven't had COVID-19 around for long and so several therapeutics are still under trial. This means that we really don't have the experience or data to say absolutely what is the best treatment. That is why Remdesivir, HQC, and Ivermectin were proposed. At least Remdesivir was an antiviral from the outset.

I think you will find that there is a preference for monoclonal antibodies (like the ones used on Donald Trump about the middle of last year), for treatment of COVID-19, these days due to better outcomes with fewer complications.

Remdesivir is a bit of a last resort and has always been controversial. The WHO advises against the use of Remdesivir for COVID-19 treatment.

a reply to: chr0naut

We haven't had COVID-19 around for long and so several therapeutics are still under trial. This means that we really don't have the experience or data to say absolutely what is the best treatment.

LMAO and in the same breath you relentlessly back the Vaccine that ALSO hasnt been out that long......

God youre so predictable


The fact is they are blatantly banning and stopping production of CHEAP,AFFORDABLE drugs, that have PROVEN to have a huge impact on covid , so much so it could make the vaccine not needed......

If this was about the peoples health they would NOT be forbidding doctors from perscribing things like Ivermectin and so many others....

This is about MONEY , and control........THATS IT

P.S Im a nurse in Washington state and have worked since day 1 in 2020 on the covid floor here at my hospital, im not just some idiot woman or armchair investigator in a basement......I know what im talking about and ive WATCHED as these treatments literally saved lives before they BANNED US from using them

a reply to: texasgirl

So sorry, Texas girl. It breaks my heart to hear this.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

My post was addressing natural immunity vs what the vaccine gives. Your post has literally nothing to do with that. I also addressed the risk of side effects vs the risk of death with covid. Again nothing to do with your reply. If you care to address what I said I am happy to discuss further.

a reply to: chr0naut

What stats back that up and how is that data collected (methods used to parse that data and what qualifies as what)? Also how do you quantify the risk of side effects when we keep hearing how hospital staff don't have the time to enter VAERS reports and patients aren't even told that they should either.

Personally I think you are pulling numbers out of your ass and trying to pass them off as actual data...but on the off chance you're not I would like to see your sources for such an assessment.

a reply to: chr0naut

You do realize people who have been vaccinated can still catch covid, and can also have light to not symptoms that would indicate they have covid. They can still however spread covid...would you agree that this is dangerous?

How do you justify someone needing to be vaccinated too protect those who are vaccinated from a disease they ought to be protected from by the vaccine they already took.

Either it works fine and you're safe or it doesn't and is pointless beyond making its creators rich.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Seems to me, you're cherry-picking data.

I posted a link to more complete data.

Could you post it again? Please, I'd like a chance to mine that data.

And, speaking of 'data mining'; did you know that 1.5% of all Covid19 vaxxes have died, and, 1.6% of all covid19 cases die. Based on VAERS data. Anyway, I'd like a chance to look at your data too.

Also, I'm presuming that you are not a Data Scientist, or Engineer; but, clusters like those in the OP, can absolutely KILL you statistics...pray there aren't more.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Seems to me, you're cherry-picking data.

I posted a link to more complete data.

Could you post it again? Please, I'd like a chance to mine that data.

And, speaking of 'data mining'; did you know that 1.5% of all Covid19 vaxxes have died, and, 1.6% of all covid19 cases die. Based on VAERS data. Anyway, I'd like a chance to look at your data too.

Also, I'm presuming that you are not a Data Scientist, or Engineer; but, clusters like those in the OP, can absolutely KILL you statistics...pray there aren't more.

Since you are going on about data, how about the data that says 1.5% of vaxxed have died..please do provide this tidbit.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Seems to me, you're cherry-picking data.

I posted a link to more complete data.

Could you post it again? Please, I'd like a chance to mine that data.

And, speaking of 'data mining'; did you know that 1.5% of all Covid19 vaxxes have died, and, 1.6% of all covid19 cases die. Based on VAERS data. Anyway, I'd like a chance to look at your data too.

Also, I'm presuming that you are not a Data Scientist, or Engineer; but, clusters like those in the OP, can absolutely KILL you statistics...pray there aren't more.

Since you are going on about data, how about the data that says 1.5% of vaxxed have died..please do provide this tidbit.

Sure...

Executing this query on the VAERS DataSet:
SELECT dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].VAERS_ID, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].RECVDATE, dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAX_TYPE, dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAX_MANU, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].STATE, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].AGE_YRS,
dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].SEX, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DIED, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DATEDIED, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].HOSPITAL, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].ER_VISIT, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DISABLE,
dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].SYMPTOM_TEXT, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM1, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM2, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM3, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM4,
dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM5
FROM dbo.['2021VAERSData$'] INNER JOIN
dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'] ON dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].VAERS_ID = dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].VAERS_ID INNER JOIN
dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'] ON dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].VAERS_ID = dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAERS_ID
WHERE vax_type='covid19' and died is not null

The result is 11880 records. there are 780498 records in the current VAERS dataset. Doing the math works out to 1.5221%

As for a 'tidbit'; slightly over 50% of adverse events are caused by the Pfizer vax. (and it's the one approved)

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Seems to me, you're cherry-picking data.

I posted a link to more complete data.

Could you post it again? Please, I'd like a chance to mine that data.

And, speaking of 'data mining'; did you know that 1.5% of all Covid19 vaxxes have died, and, 1.6% of all covid19 cases die. Based on VAERS data. Anyway, I'd like a chance to look at your data too.

Also, I'm presuming that you are not a Data Scientist, or Engineer; but, clusters like those in the OP, can absolutely KILL you statistics...pray there aren't more.

Since you are going on about data, how about the data that says 1.5% of vaxxed have died..please do provide this tidbit.

Sure...

Executing this query on the VAERS DataSet:
SELECT dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].VAERS_ID, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].RECVDATE, dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAX_TYPE, dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAX_MANU, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].STATE, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].AGE_YRS,
dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].SEX, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DIED, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DATEDIED, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].HOSPITAL, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].ER_VISIT, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DISABLE,
dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].SYMPTOM_TEXT, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM1, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM2, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM3, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM4,
dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM5
FROM dbo.['2021VAERSData$'] INNER JOIN
dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'] ON dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].VAERS_ID = dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].VAERS_ID INNER JOIN
dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'] ON dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].VAERS_ID = dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAERS_ID
WHERE vax_type='covid19' and died is not null

The result is 11880 records. there are 780498 records in the current VAERS dataset. Doing the math works out to 1.5221%

As for a 'tidbit'; slightly over 50% of adverse events are caused by the Pfizer vax. (and it's the one approved)

The VAERS database only has adverse events in it. What you mean there is that in VAERS, of those that had adverse events, 1.5% died.

Since VAERS is a database of voluntarily submitted adverse reaction data, it probably does not even record all the deaths of people post vaccination.

In this paper, although it is not the latest data, it records the mortality rate of the vaccines as 8.5 per million. As a percentage that is 0.00085%:

Mortality Rate and Characteristics of Deaths Following COVID-19 Vaccination

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Seems to me, you're cherry-picking data.

I posted a link to more complete data.

Could you post it again? Please, I'd like a chance to mine that data.

And, speaking of 'data mining'; did you know that 1.5% of all Covid19 vaxxes have died, and, 1.6% of all covid19 cases die. Based on VAERS data. Anyway, I'd like a chance to look at your data too.

Also, I'm presuming that you are not a Data Scientist, or Engineer; but, clusters like those in the OP, can absolutely KILL you statistics...pray there aren't more.

Since you are going on about data, how about the data that says 1.5% of vaxxed have died..please do provide this tidbit.

Sure...

Executing this query on the VAERS DataSet:
SELECT dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].VAERS_ID, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].RECVDATE, dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAX_TYPE, dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAX_MANU, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].STATE, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].AGE_YRS,
dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].SEX, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DIED, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DATEDIED, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].HOSPITAL, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].ER_VISIT, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DISABLE,
dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].SYMPTOM_TEXT, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM1, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM2, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM3, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM4,
dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM5
FROM dbo.['2021VAERSData$'] INNER JOIN
dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'] ON dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].VAERS_ID = dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].VAERS_ID INNER JOIN
dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'] ON dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].VAERS_ID = dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAERS_ID
WHERE vax_type='covid19' and died is not null

The result is 11880 records. there are 780498 records in the current VAERS dataset. Doing the math works out to 1.5221%

As for a 'tidbit'; slightly over 50% of adverse events are caused by the Pfizer vax. (and it's the one approved)

The VAERS database only has adverse events in it. What you mean there is that in VAERS, of those that had adverse events, 1.5% died.

Since VAERS is a database of voluntarily submitted adverse reaction data, it probably does not even record all the deaths of people post vaccination.

In this paper, although it is not the latest data, it records the mortality rate of the vaccines as 8.5 per million. As a percentage that is 0.00085%:

Mortality Rate and Characteristics of Deaths Following COVID-19 Vaccination

No, it's not the latest data, in fact, it could almost be called irrelevant. You are siting 28 days of data, and trying to compare that to 273 days (9 full months vs 4 weeks). And Yes, VAERS is vastly under-reported, some say this data may be only 1%, though I don't think it is that small, but still vastly understated.

So...until we have better data, I think this should be the standard. My experience has shown me that 'trends' like this retain relevance even in vastly larger datasets.

ETA: I checked on the 2020 - Jan2021 records in VAERS. Your wee meta-analysis uses 82 total records, vs my 11880. my 'view' seems a bit more developed; just sayin'

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

Seems to me, you're cherry-picking data.

I posted a link to more complete data.

Could you post it again? Please, I'd like a chance to mine that data.

And, speaking of 'data mining'; did you know that 1.5% of all Covid19 vaxxes have died, and, 1.6% of all covid19 cases die. Based on VAERS data. Anyway, I'd like a chance to look at your data too.

Also, I'm presuming that you are not a Data Scientist, or Engineer; but, clusters like those in the OP, can absolutely KILL you statistics...pray there aren't more.

Since you are going on about data, how about the data that says 1.5% of vaxxed have died..please do provide this tidbit.

Sure...

Executing this query on the VAERS DataSet:
SELECT dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].VAERS_ID, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].RECVDATE, dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAX_TYPE, dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAX_MANU, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].STATE, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].AGE_YRS,
dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].SEX, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DIED, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DATEDIED, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].HOSPITAL, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].ER_VISIT, dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].DISABLE,
dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].SYMPTOM_TEXT, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM1, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM2, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM3, dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM4,
dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].SYMPTOM5
FROM dbo.['2021VAERSData$'] INNER JOIN
dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'] ON dbo.['2021VAERSData$'].VAERS_ID = dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].VAERS_ID INNER JOIN
dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'] ON dbo.['2021VAERSSYMPTOMS$'].VAERS_ID = dbo.['2021VAERSVAX$'].VAERS_ID
WHERE vax_type='covid19' and died is not null

The result is 11880 records. there are 780498 records in the current VAERS dataset. Doing the math works out to 1.5221%

As for a 'tidbit'; slightly over 50% of adverse events are caused by the Pfizer vax. (and it's the one approved)

The VAERS database only has adverse events in it. What you mean there is that in VAERS, of those that had adverse events, 1.5% died.

Since VAERS is a database of voluntarily submitted adverse reaction data, it probably does not even record all the deaths of people post vaccination.

In this paper, although it is not the latest data, it records the mortality rate of the vaccines as 8.5 per million. As a percentage that is 0.00085%:

Mortality Rate and Characteristics of Deaths Following COVID-19 Vaccination

No, it's not the latest data, in fact, it could almost be called irrelevant. You are siting 28 days of data, and trying to compare that to 273 days (9 full months vs 4 weeks). And Yes, VAERS is vastly under-reported, some say this data may be only 1%, though I don't think it is that small, but still vastly understated.

So...until we have better data, I think this should be the standard. My experience has shown me that 'trends' like this retain relevance even in vastly larger datasets.

But VAERS does not record the numbers of people who are fully or partially vaccinated, only the adverse reactions.

If you want to figure out the rate of any particular adverse reaction to the vaccines, you need to divide the number of those experiencing that adverse reaction, by the total number of vaccinations.

To get the ratio as a percentage, you then multiply the answer by 100.

For instance there are 11880 records of deaths in VAERS (according to the number you supplied). At this moment, the Johns Hopkins site notes that there have been 6,262,616,839 doses administered. So, doing the sums on that, I get a dose-mortality figure of 0.000189697 %.

Of course the entry of data into VAERS is voluntary, so any number derived from it is rather 'rubbery'. Since the paper I posted was the higher of the two figures, I would probably assume it to be more representative of the truth.

a reply to: chr0naut

"And 'natural immunity' has failed fairly hard so far."

Thats not absolutely true. In india two out of three people have antibodies to covid-19. They have experienced 449K deaths from covid-19. To put that in perspective India experienced 616K deaths from Influenza in 2018. Although they only have a fully vaccinated rate of 15 percent they gave out care packages to the population that included [url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/coronavirus-all-adults-in-goa-to-be-given-ivermectin-drug/article34532312.ece]ivermectin[/url ] which drastically reduced death rates.

ivermectin is no longer patented so has been banned in places like australia to treat covid-19.

a reply to: chr0naut

Healthcare providers are required to report to VAERS the following adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination [under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)], and other adverse events if later revised by FDA:

Vaccine administration errors, whether or not associated with an adverse event (AE)
Serious AEs regardless of causality. Serious AEs per FDA are defined as:
Death
A life-threatening AE
Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization
A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions
A congenital anomaly/birth defect
An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above
Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death

Link

Seems it is actually required, though I've heard that many Health Care Providers don't actually know this, hence, vast under reporting.

You need to be far more careful in the 'numbers' you use, and 'where' you got them from. You are attempting to mix peaches and peppers here.

That said, in my opinion this dataset is representative of the whole.

originally posted by: chr0naut
We haven't had COVID-19 around for long and so several therapeutics are still under trial.

Well established therapeutics with long history of safety and use don't need 'trials' in order to try them if a Doctor wants to, and believes they could provide benefit.

You know... like Docs have been doing with HCQ, Ivermectin, Fluvoxamine, etc, since this thing started, and who have been having huge success using them (basically keeping virtually everyone out of the hospital that have been murdering people with ventilators since it started).

This means that we really don't have the experience or data to say absolutely what is the best treatment. That is why Remdesivir, HQC, and Ivermectin were proposed. At least Remdesivir was an antiviral from the outset.

Ivermectin has well established anti viral properties, among others.

Ivermectin, HCQ and the rest are cheap though - a dollar per dose or so - vs $3,000+ per dose for Remdesivir - and Remdesivir simpky DOES NOT WORK, as has also been well established as they used it to steal more cash and kill more what they refer to as useless eaters.

I think you will find that there is a preference for monoclonal antibodies (like the ones used on Donald Trump about the middle of last year), for treatment of COVID-19, these days due to better outcomes with fewer complications.

Pure unadulterated BS. They are expensive, have to be given in a hospital, while Ivermectin can be self administered, and works BETTER.

It is sad that people like you have fallen so far down the big pharma black hole of misery.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: RickyD

This is the exact opposite of what data from the UK shows. 1 in 5 of the population is unvaxxed, yet they make up 4 in 5 of all covid related deaths. Between January and July 2021 there were 38,000 covid related deaths of unvaxxed people, but only 640 deaths of double vaxxed people.

Where did you get this info from?
Can you provide a link please?

Yes, yes I can.

www.ons.gov.uk...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
We haven't had COVID-19 around for long and so several therapeutics are still under trial.

Well established therapeutics with long history of safety and use don't need 'trials' in order to try them if a Doctor wants to, and believes they could provide benefit.

You know... like Docs have been doing with HCQ, Ivermectin, Fluvoxamine, etc, since this thing started, and who have been having huge success using them (basically keeping virtually everyone out of the hospital that have been murdering people with ventilators since it started).

Actually, these older/existing therapeutics still need trials, in order to determine the effectiveness in a given circumstance. That said, sometimes people just need to accept/trust the data provided from such trials. That's as contrasted with rejecting data 'out-of-hand'. I find it somewhat interesting that TPTB have a very narrow path for this Covid thing, almost as if they had planned the whole thing, including recovery, and the process must go their way...period. Which is, of course, Horse S***.

My doctor prescribed Ivermectin 6 months ago (haven't been sick once), and while it is a solution that is much more inconvenient and costly (about $16 per dose, once a week), my Doctor tells me that it is more effective than the vax. The vax wears off, loses effectiveness over time, hence the "boosters" (when was the last time you had to take a Polio booster?). She was telling me that the "average effectiveness" of the vax was something like 35%, where as Ivermectin is on the order of 85%.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: chr0naut

They can still however spread covid...would you agree that this is dangerous?

They transmit it at a greatly reduced rate. An unvaxxed person has about a 1 in 4 chance of transmitting covid to somebody who they spend an extended period of time with. For a vaxxed person it's around 1 in 26. This is because with an unvaxxed person covid can exist deep inside the lungs, while with a vaxxed person it's usually limited to the nasal passages. So there is more covid being spread further.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Then why pray tell did this happen?
I have two friends who are avid sailors, one vaxxed the other not. They spent 4-5 hours one Saturday restoring their vintage Cal 20, elbow to elbow below deck even though the vaxxed one wasn't feeling right. The following Tuesday the vaxxed one calls the other and says he's been bedridden and tested positive for covid. What's worse he infected his wife and one of his two sons (all vaxxed). So 75% of his fully vaxxed family got sick. Meanwhile, my unvaxxed friend goes for testing and comes back negative.
So much for your greatly reduced rate.