DeSantis calls for Florida grand jury to investigate coronavirus vaccine 'wrongdoing'

[ozimoron]

Paradoxically, the botched vaccine strategy and subsequent lockout benefitted Oz greatly, if unwittingly. The early virus types were very deadly but relatively much less infectious. Strict enforcement of isolation, masks etc meant that any outbreaks quickly died out. The sad for me was that I had to leave Thailand because of the risk of being locked out without medical insurance meant that I was forced to return to Australia for 18 months. In the end, Thailand also did not suffer from the early varieties because of similar strict policies. Ultimately I could have gotten a vaccination in Thailand at the same time as I could get one in Australia. Sooner if we're talking Pfizer or Moderna.

[dotcalm]

43 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You can't compare rates off covid before and after and say it's due to vaccines. Strict lockdowns eased in October 2021 in Melbourne and at different times in different cities and covid did take off in December 2021. Lockdowns were necessary before the vaccines were reasonably rolled out. The authorities knew cases would take off but the vaccines now meant the rates of serious illness and death would mean hospitals would not be overwhelmed. 

I don't have to say nothing except point at the graph attached above showing vaccinated/boosted dying at 4 X's the rate of unvaccinated and the NSW data verifies it. 

[candide]

31 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

To those of you who object to going after the manufacturers of these "vaccines": Do you not think it is a crime to claim that your "vaccine" prevents the spread of COVID - and then to later admit that you never even tested whether the "vaccines" had the ability to prevent the spread of COVID - because you were "working at the speed of science" - and then to make tens of billions of dollars based on these false claims? Are you all really OK with that - just because the person going after these companies is from the "other" political party? Have you totally lost your ability to distinguish right from wrong - or to care about it?

 

If this is how you think, then all I can say is that I hope you're fully "vaccinated" and "boosted".

MAGA fake news, as usual!

"The misleading posts imply that national restrictions such as vaccine passports were based on a promise of vaccines blocking virus spread that neither the companies nor EU regulators made before the vaccines were marketed."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-pfizer-vaccine-transmission-idUSL1N31F20E

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

I don't have to say nothing except point at the graph attached above showing vaccinated/boosted dying at 4 X's the rate of unvaccinated and the NSW data verifies it. 

It's funny. I clicked the link you posted from the govt and didn't see it in that report. I clicked on the link to a page created by some unspecified person and saw that graph there. I clicked on this link in this person's https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiODQ4NTg4OGUtNWU5ZS00MjQ3LWJmODgtNzI1N2RmOWY3N2Y3IiwidCI6IjZmMGU5YzQyLTk2Y2UtNDU1MS05NzAxLWJhMzFkMGQ2ZDE5ZSJ9&pageName=ReportSection1c3fdc161d4008c845a6&fbclid=IwAR0PvbWRAYcGM0fnEtBLg8SJBDParO4wjhSjyFcojiqg84k1YwIYwoQyzok

and it seems clear that the graph you have featured was created by them. Why should I believe a graph from an anonymous party?

[ozimoron]

25 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

I don't have to say nothing except point at the graph attached above showing vaccinated/boosted dying at 4 X's the rate of unvaccinated and the NSW data verifies it. 

And the data also says the number of vaccinated people was many times higher than that. It's also been pointed out to you the ratio fo deaths for vaccinated vs unvaccinated people is much lower. Your math is terrible.

[dotcalm]

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your math is terrible

My math is good to go, your arithmetic is suspect though.

Vaxed/boosted deaths are 20.8/M, unvaxxinated deaths are a fraction of that at 5.1/M.

Go get a cheap calculator to help you.

[candide]

1 hour ago, pomchop said:

Trying to convince a MAGA that vaccines reduced severity of illness and saved countless lives is like trying to convince a ..................................................fill in the blank.

They are so stupid that they died from it! The new Darwinism: survival of the smartest!

 

More Republicans than Democrats died after COVID-19 vaccines were available

https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/more-republicans-than-democrats-died-after-covid-19-vaccines-were-available

[candide]

16 minutes ago, dotcalm said:

My math is good to go, your arithmetic is suspect though.

Vaxed/boosted deaths are 20.8/M, unvaxxinated deaths are a fraction of that at 5.1/M.

Go get a cheap calculator to help you.

I haven't analysed the OZ case, which seems to be particular. However, the WAPO article you proudly linked shows the death rate in the USA was around three times higher for the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated ones.

Edited December 15, 2022 by candide

[edwardandtubs]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

The Lancet study shows 58% infection induced to Feb 2022 agreed.

 

The preprint you linked to shows data to to Nov 2022 however includes also vaccine induced immunity, you know the one you said I should remember about:

 

"Design, setting, participants: Bayesian evidence synthesis of reported COVID-19 data (diagnoses, hospitalizations), vaccinations, and waning patterns for vaccine- and infection-acquired immunity, using a mathematical model of COVID-19 natural history."

 

So its mute as well as not being peer reviewed

From the abstract:

 

Quote

Results: By November 9, 2022, 94% (95% CrI, 79%-99%) of the US population were estimated to have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 at least once. Combined with vaccination, 97% (95%-99%) were estimated to have some prior immunological exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

So yes they looked at both but they also separated them and found 94% to have been infected at least once and 97% to have immunity from either infection or vaccination (or both).

 

As for it not being peer reviewed, this process takes many months so of course such recent research hasn't been peer reviewed yet.

 

The CDC has reported:

 

Quote

During December 2021–February 2022, overall U.S. seroprevalence increased from 33.5% (95% CI = 33.1–34.0) to 57.7% (95% CI = 57.1–58.3).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm

 

This is for infection-induced antibodies, so does not include vaccine-induced antibodies. So if two months of the first wave of omicron increased the percentage of Americans who had been infected from 33.5% to 57.7%, what do you think you think several other waves over another 10-month period would have done? 90+% seems reasonable doesn't it?

[scorecard]

"In Florida, it is against the law to mislead and to misrepresent, particularly when you're talking about the efficacy of a drug," DeSantis said. "

 

So let's have a commmitte to list all the times DeSantis, mtg, the rifle woman, and every other politician, all flavours, and charge them.

 

Let's go.

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

From the abstract:

 

So yes they looked at both but they also separated them and found 94% to have been infected at least once and 97% to have immunity from either infection or vaccination (or both).

 

As for it not being peer reviewed, this process takes many months so of course such recent research hasn't been peer reviewed yet.

 

The CDC has reported:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7117e3.htm

 

This is for infection-induced antibodies, so does not include vaccine-induced antibodies. So if two months of the first wave of omicron increased the percentage of Americans who had been infected from 33.5% to 57.7%, what do you think you think several other waves over another 10-month period would have done? 90+% seems reasonable doesn't it?

When or if that study get peer reviewed, not all do by a long way, then I will be happy to take onboard its contents along with other peer reviewed studies

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, scorecard said:

"In Florida, it is against the law to mislead and to misrepresent, particularly when you're talking about the efficacy of a drug," DeSantis said. "

 

So let's have a commmitte to list all the times DeSantis, mtg, the rifle woman, and every other politician, all flavours, and charge them.

 

Let's go.

Clearly he should start with Joseph Ladapo, the person he appointed to be Surgeon General of Florida:

 

Let’s all be honest about hydroxychloroquine: Evidence is more positive than many in the medical community admit

By Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo and Dr. Harvey A. Risch

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-lets-all-be-honest-about-hydroxychloroquine-20201013-5j5q4i23qvfuzos4jh7ztc3usa-story.html

[Lacessit]

On 12/14/2022 at 7:30 AM, EVENKEEL said:

The next POTUS. Common sense still prevails.

You really are a funny guy. But but but - Trump is calling him Ron Desanctimonious. So whose campaign fund are you going to donate to?

[placnx]

8 hours ago, pomchop said:

ain't gonna happen....tons of republicans still wearing white sheets to vote for a black man for potus....just talk to try and convince black voters that they are really not the party that tries time after time to reduce black voting....

Maybe he mixed up with Rick Scott, the Florida senator.

[EVENKEEL]

43 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You really are a funny guy. But but but - Trump is calling him Ron Desanctimonious. So whose campaign fund are you going to donate to?

I only take care of me and mine. Trump has become a liability.

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

"In Florida, it is against the law to mislead and to misrepresent, particularly when you're talking about the efficacy of a drug," DeSantis said. "

 

So let's have a commmitte to list all the times DeSantis, mtg, the rifle woman, and every other politician, all flavours, and charge them.

 

Let's go.

Sorry, sorry, sorry, I forgot to add trump to the list, the most hightly 'qulified' liar of all time. My sincere apologies. 

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I only take care of me and mine. Trump has become a liability.

Sensible on both counts.

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies reported and removed. 

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, dotcalm said:

My math is good to go, your arithmetic is suspect though.

Vaxed/boosted deaths are 20.8/M, unvaxxinated deaths are a fraction of that at 5.1/M.

Go get a cheap calculator to help you.

"Those who were unvaccinated made up only 4.6 per cent of COVID-19 cases, but 22.8 per cent of deaths were among people who had not received any doses. The unvaccinated are grossly over-represented in terms of deaths."   https://www.smh.com.au/national/people-are-still-dying-from-covid-but-who-and-are-they-vaccinated-20220314-p5a4d6.html

[rattlesnake]

14 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Are you calling me a liar? You might want to check the forum rules on that.

 

Pfizer caused many people side effects. I was one of them. Your BS-detector appears to be off. Might want to check it the same time you check that immaturity problem, son. 

I find it utterly disgusting that some users actually post a laughing emoticon when you say you've suffered an adverse effect.

 

I hope you're feeling better.

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I find it utterly disgusting that some users actually post a laughing emoticon when you say you've suffered an adverse effect.

 

I hope you're feeling better.

Side effects such as but not limited to headaches, sore arm, fever, etc are very common and well documented side effects of covid vaccines. They are rarely a cause for concern. The side effects are documented in a handout prior to anyone receiving the vaccine.

 

Making these side effects out to be serious for political purpose is quite risible and it's consequently very understandable that people might laugh at such a post. It's quite risible. The poster did not indicate that these side effects were either serious or permanent. He did not claim to be hospitalised or even mention that he had to see a doctor about them. He did not even elaborate as to what those side effects were that I saw. They certainly didn't cause death.

 

I don't use the laughing emoji except in response to an intended joke but I will suggest that your disgust is misplaced.

Edited December 15, 2022 by ozimoron

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Hang on, lets get this straight. You're accusing me of not reading widely enough. I'll bet London to a brick that you never read MSM science articles. I gave you a sound reason for rejecting the pseudoscience sites. I trust expert opinion, nothing else is even remotely logical. And I mean consensus opinions, not just any one person's opinion.

 

As I said, I'm not equipped to critique scientific and medical research and neither are you.

Ah, but then you miss out on doing your own research on sites like Rumble, which can lead you straight into the rabbit hole to amazing truths!

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Ah, but then you miss out on doing your own research on sites like Rumble, which can lead you straight into the rabbit hole to amazing truths!

I'll ask again. On what basis do you think you're equipped to critique scientific and medical research? When the majority of experts disdain these sites, should I not sit up and take notice? What makes you think these sites are telling you the truth?

Edited December 16, 2022 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Just tell me how am I going to know that it isn't? Or you for that matter?

 

All I see is many, many (did I mention many?) experts who claim these sites are nothing but pseudoscience looking for a niche market of fools to donate to them.

In themselves, self-reported data isn't pseudo-science. But drawing conclusions based on them certainly is. This kind of massive ignorance and bias explains why, in the USA, members of one main political persuasion experienced a far greater mortality rate from Covid than those of the other main persuasion.

[rattlesnake]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Just tell me how am I going to know that it isn't? Or you for that matter?

 

All I see is many, many (did I mention many?) experts who claim these sites are nothing but pseudoscience looking for a niche market of fools to donate to them.

You're not ready to see the truth yet but you will be one day.

[placeholder]

Just now, rattlesnake said:

Spare me your BS please, most people around me now regret taking that stuff. Wake up.

Thank you for your reasoned and informative response. And if anything shows your ignorance of basic statistical principles, it's the fact that you cite as evidence the regret of most people around you. 

[placeholder]

Just now, rattlesnake said:

You're not ready to see the truth yet but you will be one day.

In other words, you've got nothing.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

You're not ready to see the truth yet but you will be one day.

Why are you refusing to say how you are equipped to make those decisions based ion non peer reviewed science?

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

In themselves, self-reported data isn't pseudo-science. But drawing conclusions based on them certainly is. This kind of massive ignorance and bias explains why, in the USA, members of one main political persuasion experienced a far greater mortality rate from Covid than those of the other main persuasion.

I'm accusing those sites of manufactured science since that seems to be the expert consensus. If the science isn't peer reviewed and published in MSM and reputable medical journals then you can guarantee it's manufactured science.

[candide]

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Right. So there is nothing to see and it's all laughable. Duly noted.

Exactly.