FBI Says Covid-19 Most Likely A Leak From Lab

[Subduction Zone]

You know one reason why I'm not dead? Because I am not elderly and have no pre existing conditions. The death rate from COVID world wide was under 1 percent of the population. No one who I know - not one single person I know - who got COVID before or after the shots had it severely or had to be hospitalized. It was like the flu, or not even that bad.

I knew a person that got it and died. She was not elderly. She was in good health. She did smoke. She got it the same time that I did. We were coworkers and it was before vaccines were available.

But it should not be just about me or you. One of the main reasons that the death rate is only one in a hundred is because the vaccines work. There have been endless studies that show that. They do not work as you seem to think that they should. but no vaccine works that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I kind of doubt I'd be dead since 1) the virus has mutated and is now more contagious and less deadly, 2) I am not elderly and have no pre existing conditions, and 3) at the height of the illness, prior to any vaccines or shots, the death rate was less than 1 percent of the world's population, and well below 1 percent of the US population.

Also, do you realize that the definition for vaccine was changed a couple of years ago via both the CDC and various other sources? Prior to being changed, the definition everywhere said that a vaccine PREVENTED DISEASE.

The definition was not changed. It was clarified for the ignorant. Unfortunately that does not seem to have worked. That is not a change. What it takes to qualify as a vaccine is no different now than it was in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know about past 2020 but I do know that in 2020 a higher percentage of people died who were NOT seatbelted than seatbelted and that's the information I linked to. And you keep on saying, and I've already been clear about this, that a higher percentage of people die who are wearing seatbelts than those who aren't.

Here, I'll give you the link again - doubt that you read it the first time:

Seat Belts | NHTSA

Seatbelts significantly increases your chance of survival during a crash. Seatbelts are the safest choice drivers & passengers can make while driving.

www.nhtsa.gov

Yes, seatbelts are more effective at preventing death than the vaccines are. But not by all that much. Also my claim was true in 2019 according to your link. But you did not understand the argument. If a high enough percentage of people in cars wore seatbelts the percentage of people that died wearing seatbelts in accidents would be higher than the number of people that were unrestrained. Do you understand this?

You probably do not. Let's give some numbers and do the math. They are going to be made up, but the logic still works.

To start with lets say that one out of ten accidents ends in a death if a person is unrestrained in a serious traffic accident.. And let's say that seat belts double your chances of living. So in an accident one out of twenty people die when restrained.

Oh, and I almost forgot, we are going to have a ridiculously high one out of ten chances of being in a serious traffic accident a year.

And we will use populations of one million.

We start with a 50/50 mixture of seatbelt and not seat belt people. Out of the one million people 100,000 get into an accident. Since the percentage is the same for both that means 50,000 were wearing seatbelts and 2,500 died. 50,000 were not and of them 5,000 died. Seatbelts save lives! Fewer restrained people died.

Okay, what if 90% of the population wore seatbelts?

Out of our 1,000,000 population there would still be 100,000 accidents.. But of those 900,000 were wearing seatbelts so 90,000 accidents. Only 100,000 were not wearing seatbelts , so 10,000 accidents for them. Among the belted there would have been 4,500 dead, that is one twentieth of the 900,000 figure. Among the unbelted there would be 1,000 deaths. Wait! I thought that seatbelts saved lives? More people died wearing seatbelts. Of course that is because ten times as many people were wearing seatbles as those that do not..

In reality a shade over 90% of the people already wear seatbelts. That was according to the article that you gave me. And the numbers of the unbelted dying are almost equal. That means that seatbelts are not even as effective as the doubling your chances of survival that I gave. The vaccine works even better than that. It more than doubles your chance of not dying.

Statistics can be confusing if you do not use them correctly , The numbers that you cited in an argument against the vaccines actually supported the vaccines.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Every single person I know - every single person, and that's actually at least ten - who has had COVID in the past few months has been vaccinated and boosted. So forgive me if I am skeptical.

That's why it's important to acknowledge and accept our own personal experiences and anecdotes may not necessarily reflect or match larger trends.

 

[Kathryn]

That's why it's important to acknowledge and accept our own personal experiences and anecdotes may not necessarily reflect or match larger trends.

Hey, I've accepted that and even on this very thread, I've pointed out personal anecdotes, but I am certainly allowed to relay what has happened to me personally.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, seatbelts are more effective at preventing death than the vaccines are. But not by all that much. Also my claim was true in 2019 according to your link. But you did not understand the argument. If a high enough percentage of people in cars wore seatbelts the percentage of people that died wearing seatbelts in accidents would be higher than the number of people that were unrestrained. Do you understand this?

You probably do not. Let's give some numbers and do the math. They are going to be made up, but the logic still works.

To start with lets say that one out of ten accidents ends in a death if a person is unrestrained in a serious traffic accident.. And let's say that seat belts double your chances of living. So in an accident one out of twenty people die when restrained.

Oh, and I almost forgot, we are going to have a ridiculously high one out of ten chances of being in a serious traffic accident a year.

And we will use populations of one million.

We start with a 50/50 mixture of seatbelt and not seat belt people. Out of the one million people 100,000 get into an accident. Since the percentage is the same for both that means 50,000 were wearing seatbelts and 2,500 died. 50,000 were not and of them 5,000 died. Seatbelts save lives! Fewer restrained people died.

Okay, what if 90% of the population wore seatbelts?

Out of our 1,000,000 population there would still be 100,000 accidents.. But of those 900,000 were wearing seatbelts so 90,000 accidents. Only 100,000 were not wearing seatbelts , so 10,000 accidents for them. Among the belted there would have been 4,500 dead, that is one twentieth of the 900,000 figure. Among the unbelted there would be 1,000 deaths. Wait! I thought that seatbelts saved lives? More people died wearing seatbelts. Of course that is because ten times as many people were wearing seatbles as those that do not..

In reality a shade over 90% of the people already wear seatbelts. That was according to the article that you gave me. And the numbers of the unbelted dying are almost equal. That means that seatbelts are not even as effective as the doubling your chances of survival that I gave. The vaccine works even better than that. It more than doubles your chance of not dying.

Statistics can be confusing if you do not use them correctly , The numbers that you cited in an argument against the vaccines actually supported the vaccines.

Sorry, didn't read all this because I stopped when you said I did not understand the argument. I get what you're saying but I've been saying from the get go that in 2020 your assertion that more people were killed wearing seatbelts than not wearing seatbelts simply isn't true. It was a very close call for that matter in 2019. So please quit repeating the falsehood that more people are killed WEARING seatbelts than not wearing seatbelts - it's just not true.

 

[Kathryn]

The definition was not changed. It was clarified for the ignorant. Unfortunately that does not seem to have worked. That is not a change. What it takes to qualify as a vaccine is no different now than it was in the past.

It was changed from saying that vaccines prevented whatever illness in most people (I think that most people, including myself, knew that no vaccines are 100 percent effective) to say that vaccines are used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. That's a pretty big difference when it comes to a definition.

 

[Kathryn]

And do you also consider the influenza vaccine not a vaccine because it does about the same as the Covid vaccines?

And finally, what's your main message here? That the vaccines don't work? That that didn't prevent a slew of morbidity and mortality? That they shouldn't be called vaccines?

I don't know anyone who calls the flu shots a "vaccine." And my main message here is that I'm skeptical of a lot of things concerning the coronavirus. That's really it. Wow, you'd think I was talking smack about the president or something - LOL. I haven't even done that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know anyone who calls the flu shots a "vaccine."

The medical community does (and it calls flu influenza), as well as many others. What do you think a vaccine is? You seem to define it as what I would call a vaccine, but limit it to those that prevent illness. That's not a scientific definition. We would love to be able to prevent symptomatic Covid infection, but we can't with certain types of viruses. That makes them neither ineffective nor not a vaccine.

my main message here is that I'm skeptical of a lot of things concerning the coronavirus.

Me, too, although I think we use the word differently. I think you're saying more. I think you're saying that the vaccine doesn't work well enough to be called a vaccine despite it reducing the of incidence death, severe illness, long Covid (this is less well established, but likely), and the contagiousness (smaller viral load and for fewer days) of the infection in vaccinated individuals because it didn't prevent you from having a brief, flu-like illness for a few days.

Do you disagree with that summary, or is there anything that you think needs to be added, deleted, or modified?

Incidentally, the vaccine also reduced the number of medically bankrupt families and the number of children who lost caregivers, as well as making reopening the economy a viable option.

you'd think I was talking smack about the president or something

Why? This topic matters more. Misinformation about the president is important, especially to Americans, but misinformation about life-saving vaccines is a greater threat to individual well-being. It's a global threat.

There are people here on RF and elsewhere that are very concerned about the spread of misinformation in this area, which is why this topic was handled differently from most on RF, and I'm one of them. It doesn't make you a bad person, but your errors require correction, since if others assimilate them, they could be harmed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, didn't read all this because I stopped when you said I did not understand the argument. I get what you're saying but I've been saying from the get go that in 2020 your assertion that more people were killed wearing seatbelts than not wearing seatbelts simply isn't true. It was a very close call for that matter in 2019. So please quit repeating the falsehood that more people are killed WEARING seatbelts than not wearing seatbelts - it's just not true.

You are nit picking. It was true in 2019. It may have been true in 2022 or 2021. It does not really matter. Your previous post showed that you did not understand statistics. That was merely an attempt to show you how you were wrong. You instead showed a preference for ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was changed from saying that vaccines prevented whatever illness in most people (I think that most people, including myself, knew that no vaccines are 100 percent effective) to say that vaccines are used to stimulate the body's immune response against diseases. That's a pretty big difference when it comes to a definition.

Why is that a big difference? And that was just the definition for lay people. The technical definition has always been the same. The definition for lay people only was made more accurate. All vaccines have always worked that way.

And I forgot to tell you since you ignored my explanation of your error in statistics. The vaccines are more effective than seatbelts.

 

[Kathryn]

Why is that a big difference? And that was just the definition for lay people. The technical definition has always been the same. The definition for lay people only was made more accurate. All vaccines have always worked that way.

And I forgot to tell you since you ignored my explanation of your error in statistics. The vaccines are more effective than seatbelts.

Yes, you did forget to mention that, over and over again, while you were talking and talking, erroneously, about seatbelts. Post after post.

So you say that the technical definition for vaccine has "always been the same." Please provide some evidence to back up what you're claiming, as I've done. Thanks.

 

[Kathryn]

I think you're saying more. I think you're saying that the vaccine doesn't work well enough to be called a vaccine despite it reducing the of incidence death, severe illness, long Covid (this is less well established, but likely), and the contagiousness (smaller viral load and for fewer days) of the infection in vaccinated individuals because it didn't prevent you from having a brief, flu-like illness for a few days.

Do you disagree with that summary, or is there anything that you think needs to be added, deleted, or modified?

Incidentally, the vaccine also reduced the number of medically bankrupt families and the number of children who lost caregivers, as well as making reopening the economy a viable option.

Why? This topic matters more. Misinformation about the president is important, especially to Americans, but misinformation about life-saving vaccines is a greater threat to individual well-being. It's a global threat.

There are people here on RF and elsewhere that are very concerned about the spread of misinformation in this area, which is why this topic was handled differently from most on RF, and I'm one of them. It doesn't make you a bad person, but your errors require correction, since if others assimilate them, they could be harmed.

You know what I've said, over and over and over again? I have said I will not call it a vaccine, because I've known many, many people who have gotten coronavirus after being "vaccinated" and "boosted." The only person I have ever known who died from coronavirus had had four shots to prevent it, and still got it, and still died. That being said, her daughter and I had just been talking about her a few weeks before she got it and we had agreed that her health was so precarious that we didn't think she'd make it through 2023. And she didn't. But let's go back to the other people, those who didn't die. Every single person I know who has gotten it has been vaccinated and has received at least one booster shot. I think that's odd. That's the main reason why I don't PERSONALLY call it a vaccine and doubt that I ever will, though you and anyone else who wants to do so may, of course.

As I've stated also repeatedly, I was considerably more sick after receiving the booster shot than I was when I got COVID. In fact, I was so sick (and for days on end) that I didn't get the fourth shot, because I don't want to spend valuable PTO feeling so bad. I was totally not expecting that - I've never had a negative response to a shot in my life, other than a low grade fever for a few hours the day after I got the second COVID shot.

But I don't know if my case of COVID was mild because I had gotten three shots already (and neither do you) because BEFORE any shots were available to the general public, I knew many people who got COVID and their illnesses were also mild. I don't know a single person who died or was hospitalized, other than my friend's mom. I do know OF some people who died - and all had other conditions that were deadly. Was COVID the straw that broke the camel's back? Maybe, but it was going to break regardless (see above anecdotal story).

I've also been very clear that my anecdotes are just that - anecdotes. You do what you need to do, and I will too. I bet we are both fine in the end.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, you did forget to mention that, over and over again, while you were talking and talking, erroneously, about seatbelts. Post after post.

So you say that the technical definition for vaccine has "always been the same." Please provide some evidence to back up what you're claiming, as I've done. Thanks.

Here is a 2004 Wikipedia article on vaccines:

Vaccine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And no, my seatbelt example was not erroneous. You found a year where it did not apply.

 

[Kathryn]

And no, my seatbelt example was not erroneous. You found a year where it did not apply.

I didn't go looking for it - it was simply the most recent information I found on seatbelts and deaths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't go looking for it - it was simply the most recent information I found on seatbelts and deaths.

That does not change anything. It appears to have been an attempt to ignore the lesson.

 

[Kathryn]

I really, really do wish you'd quit talking down to me like I am some sort of idiot, Subduction Zone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really, really do wish you'd quit talking down to me like I am some sort of idiot, Subduction Zone.

You made an error and I tried to clear it up. You do not seem to like it when your errors are called out. There was no personal attack there.

And the seatbelt analogy still holds because the vaccines are more effective than seatbelts, at least for the elderly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hey, I've accepted that and even on this very thread, I've pointed out personal anecdotes, but I am certainly allowed to relay what has happened to me personally.

Seems more than just that with your refusal to call a vaccine a vaccine and claim they don't work that well at what they're supposed to do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have said I will not call it a vaccine, because I've known many, many people who have gotten coronavirus after being "vaccinated" and "boosted."

Yes, I know, and you have been told that that does not make it not a vaccine.

The only person I have ever known who died from coronavirus had had four shots to prevent it, and still got it, and still died. That being said, her daughter and I had just been talking about her a few weeks before she got it and we had agreed that her health was so precarious that we didn't think she'd make it through 2023.

That person was almost certainly immunocompromised. Death from coronavirus in the fully vaccinated has been rare. Vaccines do little or nothing for immune systems unable to mount a normal or near-normal response. The failure was not with the vaccine. We saw this with Colin Powell, who had a bone marrow disorder and died of Covid fully vaccinated.

Every single person I know who has gotten it has been vaccinated and has received at least one booster shot. I think that's odd.

What's odd is that you say you know no unvaccinated people who caught Covid.

As I've stated also repeatedly, I was considerably more sick after receiving the booster shot than I was when I got COVID. In fact, I was so sick (and for days on end) that I didn't get the fourth shot

That's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the science or the nomenclature, nor does it make you wrong for taking that booster.