Despite Vaccinations....

[sp free]

That’s a ridiculously low estimate for people with antibodies. California is over 80%.

We had flights from hotspots entering the country for a year before the government pretended to do something about it.

We’re probably not as high as California, but after almost 2 years of Covid circulating we sure as hell are a lot higher that 2.6%.

Pure cheek from professional liars.

 

[PeteOsborne]

That’s a ridiculously low estimate for people with antibodies. California is over 80%.

We had flights from hotspots entering the country for a year before the government pretended to do something about it.

We’re probably not as high as California, but after almost 2 years of Covid circulating we sure as hell are a lot higher that 2.6%.

Pure cheek from professional liars.

California is at around 10%.
“Knowing that well upwards of 90% of the population doesn't have antibodies is going to make that a very difficult choice,” he said. Bendavid also urged those who have tested positive for antibodies to “keep following public health guidelines.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...ggests-coronavirus-may-be-far-more-widespread

 

[sp free]

Appalling.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1412538701436141570

 

[sp free]

California is at around 10%.
“Knowing that well upwards of 90% of the population doesn't have antibodies is going to make that a very difficult choice,” he said. Bendavid also urged those who have tested positive for antibodies to “keep following public health guidelines.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...ggests-coronavirus-may-be-far-more-widespread

Antibody study suggests coronavirus may be far more widespread than previously thought

Non-peer reviewed study from Stanford found virus may be 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicate

www.theguardian.com

 

[Malibuk]

Statscan just released their estimate of the number of canadians with antibodies (2.6% of canadians in early 2021) so they can likely take a crack at the IFR now too.

If the known cases are around 4% of the population, it doesn`t make sense to think that the infection rate is less than that.
Plus the number of unknown cases is most likely several times more.

Antibody stats are useless to determine the IFR.
First of all, the sample size is not sufficient, and there is no way to test everybody within a few months of infection, after which the test reliability is highly suspect.
Plus people can get infected any time after the test.

 

[idcloak]

Appalling.

Sure, absolutely appalling you kept posting garbage from twitter.

Do you understand that tweets are just random comments? It's not a news source, you know?

And ANYONE (mostly anti-vaxxers) who used VAERS to prove his/her points can be immediately dismissed, as that person has zero clue what VAERS means.
CDC has looked at all the deaths in VAERS and NONE of them is related to Covid vaccines.

 

[sp free]

I understand that you are a clown, that like most clowns, will stop at nothing to amplify every Covid case or death within a MONTH of a Covid case, but also go to equal lengths to minimize and deny all vaccine injuries and deaths.

“VAERS is co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).”

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

vaers.hhs.gov

It’s their own numbers. You are either a total liar, completely wrong, or both.

 

[sp free]

18 year old with multiple comorbidities dies within a month of a positive Covid test…iT’s tHE cOoF!!!

12 year old dies after vaccine….tHeRE iS No eViDEnCe!!!



You people are dangerous.

 

[squeezer]

I understand that you are a clown, that like most clowns, will stop at nothing to amplify every Covid case or death within a MONTH of a Covid case, but also go to equal lengths to minimize and deny all vaccine injuries and deaths.

“VAERS is co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).”

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

vaers.hhs.gov

It’s their own numbers. You are either a total liar, completely wrong, or both.

You better properly read and understand what you are reading before you spout off nonsense and bullshit. Reading comprehension afflicts you regardless of which handle you're spinning

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-vaers-color-office.pdf

 

[PeteOsborne]

Antibody study suggests coronavirus may be far more widespread than previously thought

Non-peer reviewed study from Stanford found virus may be 50 to 85 times more common than official figures indicate

www.theguardian.com

Thank you for the correction, my article says 10%, yours says 3%.
Still way lower than your original 80% claim.
" Even with the adjusted rate of infection as found by the study, only 3% of the population has coronavirus – that means 97% does not. To reach herd immunity a significant portion of the population would have to be infected and recovered from coronavirus."

 

[PeteOsborne]

Sure, absolutely appalling you kept posting garbage from twitter.

Do you understand that tweets are just random comments? It's not a news source, you know?

And ANYONE (mostly anti-vaxxers) who used VAERS to prove his/her points can be immediately dismissed, as that person has zero clue what VAERS means.
CDC has looked at all the deaths in VAERS and NONE of them is related to Covid vaccines.

Actually there were 3 tied to J&J.

 

[PeteOsborne]

I understand that you are a clown, that like most clowns, will stop at nothing to amplify every Covid case or death within a MONTH of a Covid case, but also go to equal lengths to minimize and deny all vaccine injuries and deaths.

“VAERS is co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).”

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

vaers.hhs.gov

It’s their own numbers. You are either a total liar, completely wrong, or both.

You have no idea what VAERS is, this may help, it is from the VAERS site" VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern."
And from the CDC VAERS site,
Strengths and Limitations of VAERS Data
When evaluating VAERS data, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations.

Strengths

• VAERS accepts reports from anyone. This also allows VAERS to act as an early warning system to detect rare adverse events.
• VAERS collects information about the vaccine, the person vaccinated, and the adverse event. Scientist obtain follow-up information on serious reports.
• All data (without identifying patient information) are publicly available.

Limitations

• VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected. Instead someone who had or is aware of an adverse event following vaccination must file a report.
• VAERS reports are submitted by anyone and sometimes lack details or contain errors.
• VAERS data alone cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event.
  
  This specific limitation has caused confusion about the publicly available data, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. In the past there have been instances where people misinterpreted reports of death following vaccination as death caused by the vaccines; that is a mistake.
  
  VAERS accepts all reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging whether the vaccine caused the adverse health event. Some reports to VAERS might represent true vaccine reactions, and others might be coincidental adverse health events not related to vaccination at all.
  
  Generally, a causal relationship cannot be established using information from VAERS reports alone.
• The number of reports submitted to VAERS may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness.
• It is not possible to use VAERS data to calculate how often an adverse event occurs in a population.

 

[sp free]

You have no idea what VAERS is, this may help, it is from the VAERS site" VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern."
And from the CDC VAERS site,
Strengths and Limitations of VAERS Data
When evaluating VAERS data, it is important to understand the strengths and limitations.

Strengths

• VAERS accepts reports from anyone. This also allows VAERS to act as an early warning system to detect rare adverse events.
• VAERS collects information about the vaccine, the person vaccinated, and the adverse event. Scientist obtain follow-up information on serious reports.
• All data (without identifying patient information) are publicly available.

Limitations

• VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected. Instead someone who had or is aware of an adverse event following vaccination must file a report.
• VAERS reports are submitted by anyone and sometimes lack details or contain errors.
• VAERS data alone cannot determine if the vaccine caused the reported adverse event.
  
  This specific limitation has caused confusion about the publicly available data, specifically regarding the number of reported deaths. In the past there have been instances where people misinterpreted reports of death following vaccination as death caused by the vaccines; that is a mistake.
  
  VAERS accepts all reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging whether the vaccine caused the adverse health event. Some reports to VAERS might represent true vaccine reactions, and others might be coincidental adverse health events not related to vaccination at all.
  
  Generally, a causal relationship cannot be established using information from VAERS reports alone.
• The number of reports submitted to VAERS may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness.
• It is not possible to use VAERS data to calculate how often an adverse event occurs in a population.

Seek counseling.

 

[canada-man]

Woman left unable to speak after receiving second dose of AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine

Woman claims reaction to Oxford vaccine left her unable to talk

A 43-year-old woman from Wisbech in Cambridgeshire claims that her reaction to her second dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has left her unable to speak.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Jenesis]

It is the equivalent of you and Jenesis double bagging it in an abundance of caution.

The oxygen we breathe in Ontario is different from the rest of North America Im told

You should double bag your head.

 

[PeteOsborne]

Seek counseling.

Nice to see you still have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

 

[Valcazar]

“VAERS is co-sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).”

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

vaers.hhs.gov

It’s their own numbers. You are either a total liar, completely wrong, or both.

No, we just understand what VAERS is, what it's limitations are, and how it is one part of a multi-pronged reporting and followup system.
Knowing and understanding this, we know anyone who cites VAERS and only VAERS doesn't know what they are talking about and if they cite it without context they are probably acting in bad faith.

Thank you for the correction, my article says 10%, yours says 3%.

His article is from over a year ago and was almost certainly wrong even then. (It didn't hold up well to scrutiny.)
It is possible he wasn't linking to it because it said 3% but because it said that the actual infection rate is "50-85 times higher than official figures indicate".

So by that logic, he thinks that the infection rate is 50-85 times higher than the ~3.6% of cases the official numbers show, and therefore 185-315 percent of the population has been infected.
You know... math.

 

[sp free]

Nice to see you still have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

Seek counseling.

 

[squeezer]

Seek counseling.

Once again a case of attempting to flip the script when to most common sense people it is clear you need lots and lots of counselling and help.

 

[sp free]

It’s perfectly safe.