Covid 19 conspiracies dump

[Irreligious Atheist]

I'm looking through the VAERS, and here's what I  found when looking for the side effects and how serious they are:

And here's the criteria I used:

Note that by 12/31/21, the date cited on the report form I got, the US had administered 513.19 million doses of the vaccine.

And doing the math, this means: 715857/513190000=0.1394916112941% showed side effects notable enough to get into the VAERS database.
And for these effects to be considered serious by the VAERS, 63588/513190000=0.01239073248%.

Odds of getting a side effect notable enough to get into the VAERS database: 1 in 716.
Odds of getting a side effect serious enough to be registered as serious in the VAERS database: 1 in 8070.

Which is a pretty good reason why people should not be compelled to take these risky vaccines. 715,000 people are basically irrelevant to you and should just be handwaved away? Again, in my personal opinion, the vaccines seem to be reasonably safe, but 715,000 is no small number.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well, this just confirms what we all figured. You are an irrational knob

---

I'm looking through the VAERS, and here's what I  found when looking for the side effects and how serious they are:

And here's the criteria I used:

Note that by 12/31/21, the date cited on the report form I got, the US had administered 513.19 million doses of the vaccine.

And doing the math, this means: 715857/513190000=0.1394916112941% showed side effects notable enough to get into the VAERS database.
And for these effects to be considered serious by the VAERS, 63588/513190000=0.01239073248%.

Odds of getting a side effect notable enough to get into the VAERS database: 1 in 716.
Odds of getting a side effect serious enough to be registered as serious in the VAERS database: 1 in 8070.

Well looks like I was proven right. IA responded exactly how I predicted he would 

[Rev. Rye]

Also, I just looked into the thing about Fauci demanding a Fox News host be fired on the spot: it was less because he said people should ask Fauci questions, and more the way he phrased it: “Now you go in with the kill shot - deadly. Because, with an ambush, he doesn’t see it coming" and saying that this would lead to Fauci being "dead."

On the one hand, in context, it's pretty obviously a metaphor and not literally calling for violence. On the other hand, he's using this extended metaphor in one of the most volatile times in American history, among an audience that's already primed to hate Fauci, and, since that speech happened at a Turning Point USA event, this little Q&A from one of their other recent events is relevant.




And before you dismiss that as just cherry-picking and irrelevant, well, the thing is, as Mike Figuredo points out, the rhetoric of the far right is so extreme (and also factually wrong) that violence against people like Fauci is its logical conclusion.



And these are the people Jesse Waters was speaking to. Hell, he's working for Fox News, which played a pivotal role in convincing many that Biden's election win in 2020 was illegitimate, and literally all the points that guy in the video was citing as reasons to "use the guns" are being validated by Fox News.

[Jackalope]

Someone needs to go fellate Joe Rogan some more.

[Rev. Rye]

Which is a pretty good reason why people should not be compelled to take these risky vaccines. 715,000 people are basically irrelevant to you and should just be handwaved away? Again, in my personal opinion, the vaccines seem to be reasonably safe, but 715,000 is no small number.

When the vast majority of the side effects mentioned in that 0.14% of cases who get them are things like headaches, muscle soreness, and fevers that come and go in a day or two (which tend to be normal side effects for vaccines anyway), forgive me if my reaction is:




Remember that there's a reason that when I used VAERS like you told me to, I decided to sort by severity of symptoms. Not all illnesses are equal, and you, who just came out of a case of COVID, should fucking know this.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Millions of people have taken the vaccines and their have been a shitload of potential adverse health effects after taking the vaccines. Look at VAERS and the huge spike in reported potential adverse health effects after taking the vaccines. You are completely ignoring this and being anti-science. These things need to be looked into. Why is the establishment resisting this, pray tell? The default position by the mainstream is that we have to assume that these adverse health effects were just coincidental. You can not say they are just all coincidental when you haven't done further study into this.

You are strawmanning me and I never posted that I expect vaccines to be 100 percent safe. Read before you post, please. How are you just going to jump into a discussion without reading what's been posted in the argument? Quit being lazy and actually read and try to understand the argument the other side is making. I decided it was safe enough for me to take, and I literally said the vaccines are reasonably safe, but I think it would be extremely immoral for me to make that risk assessment and decision for other adults, as the government seems to want to do.

You don't seem to understand the Copernicus point either. Right over your head. Quit being so emotional and actually read the other persons' argument. You have taken the blue pill and you have put your complete trust in the government and governmental agencies. I, on the other hand, took the red pill more than a decade ago, and I see that the NHS and WHO and etc are all corrupt to the core. I don't blindly trust like you do. I'm not religious like you are. You worship the government and the priest class like people did back in the days of Copernicus. You see these scientists speaking up today as heathens like you, someone who worships the priest class, would have seen Copernicus back in the day. You would have wanted him silenced for offending the state and for thinking outside of the box. He certainly was not in line with scientific consensus. You say there is scientific consensus about the vaccines, but scientific consensus in a developing situation means a lot less than scientific consensus in hindsight, obviously, and scientific consensus has been wrong over and over throughout history. That's how science advances.

This video below beautifully explains how you are just like those who called for the punishment of Galileo. I have a deep appreciation and love for the scientific method, while you worship governmental agencies. You should be ashamed, placing your worship of the priest class above the scientific method. Please watch this video and educate yourself, and quit with the strawmanning.

---

I'm looking through the VAERS, and here's what I  found when looking for the side effects and how serious they are:

And here's the criteria I used:

Note that by 12/31/21, the date cited on the report form I got, the US had administered 513.19 million doses of the vaccine.

And doing the math, this means: 715857/513190000=0.1394916112941% showed side effects notable enough to get into the VAERS database.
And for these effects to be considered serious by the VAERS, 63588/513190000=0.01239073248%.

Odds of getting a side effect notable enough to get into the VAERS database: 1 in 716.
Odds of getting a side effect serious enough to be registered as serious in the VAERS database: 1 in 8070.

And hell even the graph you cite makes it clear it didn't prove the Vaccine was the cause 

Kim Iverson does an excellent job laying out her position about Galileo, and no she is not just talking shite. The point is, both you and I would have supported the censoring of scientists who were correct back then, because odds are we would have been pretty religious and would have been offended by their ideas, and we would have been pretty ignorant about the world. Let's not make the same mistake today by worshiping the priest class. I won't make that same mistake, at least. Do you seriously not understand how scientific consensus during a rapidly developing situation is very, very different from scientific consensus years down the line, in hindsight? Galileo never lived to see his ideas become accepted. Scientific consensus formed during the first year of a situation is not always correct, or to be trusted, and history has shown this to be true over and over again. Challenging the consensus is how science advances, is it not? This is what makes you anti-scientific. I have no doubt that you and most people here were very pro-science before the pandemic came along, but emotion has changed that. People are throwing their own scientific values out of the window because of emotion over death tolls. I do not look at things emotionally like that. Science always has to come before emotion. Like Richard Dawkins says, he cares more about he truth of the matter than how that truth might impact society. I am the same way. The truth comes first, and the scientific process comes first. Other people seem to place the potential harm done to society as more important than the scientific method itself (which is why you see so many here shockingly calling for the censorship of scientists because apparently they're "causing deaths" with supposed misinformation), and I guess I can see how they would do that, since it does suck to see all of this death, but death tolls and emotion can never trump science and the scientific method, or a person is not thinking rationally enough.

---

Well, this just confirms what we all figured. You are an irrational knob

---

I'm looking through the VAERS, and here's what I  found when looking for the side effects and how serious they are:

And here's the criteria I used:

Note that by 12/31/21, the date cited on the report form I got, the US had administered 513.19 million doses of the vaccine.

And doing the math, this means: 715857/513190000=0.1394916112941% showed side effects notable enough to get into the VAERS database.
And for these effects to be considered serious by the VAERS, 63588/513190000=0.01239073248%.

Odds of getting a side effect notable enough to get into the VAERS database: 1 in 716.
Odds of getting a side effect serious enough to be registered as serious in the VAERS database: 1 in 8070.

Well looks like I was proven right. IA responded exactly how I predicted he would 

Percentages only mean so much. I have a better than 99.9 percent chance of surviving covid, but that doesn't mean that covid is still not 'dangerous'.

[Rev. Rye]

Percentages only mean so much. I have a better than 99.9 percent chance of surviving covid, but that doesn't mean that covid is still not 'dangerous'.

And that 1 in 1000 chance of dying is eight times higher than the 1 in 8070 case of getting a serious side effect after the vaccine.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Also, I just looked into the thing about Fauci demanding a Fox News host be fired on the spot: it was less because he said people should ask Fauci questions, and more the way he phrased it:  “Now you go in with the kill shot - deadly. Because, with an ambush, he doesn’t see it coming" and saying that this would lead to Fauci being "dead."

On the one hand, in context, it's pretty obviously a metaphor and not literally calling for violence. On the other hand, he's using this extended metaphor in one of the most volatile times in American history, among an audience that's already primed to hate Fauci, and, since that speech happened at a Turning Point USA event, this little Q&A from one of their other recent events is relevant.




And before you dismiss that as just cherry-picking and irrelevant, well, the thing is, as Mike Figuredo points out, the rhetoric of the far right is so extreme (and also factually wrong) that violence against people like Fauci is its logical conclusion.



And these are the people Jesse Waters was speaking to. Hell, he's working for Fox News, which played a pivotal role in convincing many that Biden's election win in 2020 was illegitimate, and literally all the points that guy in the video was citing as reasons to "use the guns" are being validated by Fox News.

Sounds to me like you are basically doing everything you can to defend someone who is anti-freedom of the press, which makes me question your motive here. Are you also against freedom of the press? You say it was clearly a metaphor, but then go on to defend Fauci anyways? Just admit that the man was wrong, for once.

---

Percentages only mean so much. I have a better than 99.9 percent chance of surviving covid, but that doesn't mean that covid is still not 'dangerous'.

And that 1 in 1000 chance of dying is eight times higher than the 1 in 8070 case of getting a serious side effect after the vaccine.

Is that 1 in 1000 number actually accurate though? What is the real number? Does a 35 year old really have a 1 in 1000 chance of dying after catching covid, and especially Omicron which is pretty darn weak and usually more like the common cold? We have 8 year olds here in Canada being forced to take the vaccine if they want to remain on a little league team. It's disgusting. What's an 8 year olds chance of dying of covid? 1 in 500,000? 1 in a million? And that's with the children usually being obese or having a bunch of other things wrong with their health. We also know nothing of the long term effects of taking these vaccines, so that is another unknown that is still up in the air. I know you're going to entirely disagree with that point, and that's fine, but I take people like Dr. Robert Malone, who is one of the inventors of the MRNA technology, and many other doctors and scientists talking about this, seriously. That doesn't mean that I believe there are going to be terrible effects of the vaccines years down the line, but these highly credentialed people seem to think that this is entirely possible, so as a layperson, I'm going to at least consider what these highly credentialed scientists are saying rather than just handwaving it all away because they disagree with government agencies, who's job is literally to prevent the government from looking bad and to put things in the best light possible, and to push for a one size fits all solution, which is vaccines for all.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Barraging me with crap doesn't make you look any less insane......

[Rev. Rye]

I'm saying that Watters' and Fox News' callous disregard of optics alone is dangerous. I know it's a metaphor, but if the event he's saying those words at attracts the sort of people who seriously wonder when their leaders are going to sanction armed violence, there's probably a good chance that they either won't notice or won't give a shit. And if there's a good chance that his intended audience is going to take it literally, I can see why someone would think that that's fucking dangerous.