Naval aviators cardiac failures up 900%
12-26-2023, 08:21 AM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,258
One 90+ in a nursing home (covid 1.0, pre-vaccine)
Three middle-age working adults, back home in a very red state where vaccination isn't popular (Delta variant, vaccine available).
Don't know anyone who had health issues from vaccines. One friend's spouse had serious health complications shortyly after covid followed by vaccine. They're not sure which caused it, maybe both.
Personal observations and anecdotes have no statistical significance, but when people toss out anecdotes about the vaccines hurting a lot of people it doesn't make any sense to me in the context of my personal experience.
12-26-2023, 08:27 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,356
This thread proves pilots aren't special. I flew with a guy who was against the COVID shot one trip. I asked why and he said vaccines are unsafe. I then asked if he had ever gotten a flu shot and he said, "Well yeah, that's just a shot. A vaccine is different."
Then a few months later we flew again and he had gotten the vaccine. I asked him what changed his mind and he said it was because he realized he wasn't going to have any more kids so he didn't care if it made him sterile. I asked the obvious follow up and he said, "They don't want pregnant women to take it, so that means it must make them sterile."
At that point, I decided to give Fauci and the CDC some slack. If a relatively smart and somewhat informed person in a technical field can be so misinformed, how the heck are they supposed to communicate effectively to the general public? If they give us too much information, we get confused and if they don't tell us enough, we don't trust them.
Then a few months later we flew again and he had gotten the vaccine. I asked him what changed his mind and he said it was because he realized he wasn't going to have any more kids so he didn't care if it made him sterile. I asked the obvious follow up and he said, "They don't want pregnant women to take it, so that means it must make them sterile."
At that point, I decided to give Fauci and the CDC some slack. If a relatively smart and somewhat informed person in a technical field can be so misinformed, how the heck are they supposed to communicate effectively to the general public? If they give us too much information, we get confused and if they don't tell us enough, we don't trust them.
12-27-2023, 07:14 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,117
The answer to your question is a resoiunding yes: individuals did get smallpox after vaccination. People died as a result of vaccination. And smallpox was consideralby more widespread, with far more fatalities, than covid. Smallpox was more contagious than Covid-19, killed more, and had a thirty-percent mortality rate.
By comparison, the Covid-19 corona virus had roughly a .7% mortality rate.
Why did you use this as an example when you had no clue what you were talking about. Thus far, your own example has defeated you at every turn.
You're attempting to compare different types of virus, in defferent eras and ages of technology. Smallpox is not a corona virus.
Smallpox has been a significant threat to society, globally, since the times of ancient egypt, and likely well before that. Egyptican mummies have been examined which bear evidence that the person died of smallpox, and it wiped out the new world as it was being discovered by the old. Even the fledgling continental army in the US lost a battle as a result of smallpox racing through the ranks, and it wasn't until 1980 that it was declared eradicated, despite vaccination efforts in various forms for over several hundred years. With up to fifteen million catching the disease annually and five million of those dying, smallpox was not a minor concern; during the periods of the first and second world war, more died of smallpox than from the war. Smallpox is the single biggest killer in the recorded history of the world, estimated at over four hundred million deaths (some estimates as high as five hunded million) attributed to the disease in a 3,000 year period. Go figure.
Smallpox had no zoological harbor: its host was people. Numerous other poxes were transmissible between humans and animals, including cowpox, which gave rise to the intial successful vaccine efforts, but smallpox did not exist in animals and wasn't transmissible via animals, meaning eradication was possible by working within the human population. The same is not true of the SARS virus of Covid19, which is transmissible via animal hosts, and given the inability to vaccinate the entire animal kingdom in the wild, means that eradication will be nearly extremely unlikely, or impossible.
Vaccines do not provide 100% protection. This should not surprise you. You are attempting to compare radically different diseases, as well as vaccines, as well as the methodology and means of vaccination. It should be noted that smallpox vaccine was a live-virus vaccine, applied with two needles dipped in the vaccine; the reaction was topical, on the skin, and had to be covered. The vaccine itself, and the resulting skin reaction and scab from thke vaccination, was contagious, and could spread small pox or inect others, and it did. This was not possible with any of the Covid vaccinations, despite wild ideas to the contrary. Smallpox vaccination proved up to 95% successful in preventing transmission to the vaccinated, and reduced infection severity for those who had become infected at the time of vaccination. Two variants of the smallpox vaccine were largely responsible for nearly all deaths over a three thousand year period, whereas numerous mutations were possible due to the type of virus involved with the SARS covid 19. Smallox variation amounted to a major and minor, with the major causing the most deaths. Deaths from Covid were entirely different, with many of the deaths being immunoresponses to the virus, but not the direct result of the Virus. One might think of smallpox deaths as the bullet fired from a gun; one might think of covid-related deaths in which the virus served as a primer, but often not the bullet itself. Covid set in motion numerous mechanisms that ultimately lead to long term effects, death, and complications such as lung scarring, etc.
What you do not seem to understand (in addition to nearly everything else you've attempted to present, which clearly you do not understand) is that the efficacy of a vaccine is not an absolute value. A vaccine with 93% efficacy does not mean that 7% will be infected, and does not mean that 93% will not, when exposed to the pathogen. Efficacy is a measure of risk, rather than a hard number; thus, an efficacy of 93% suggests a 93% lower risk of becoming infected.
It's well to note that particualrly in the case of Covid, given that much of the signs and symptoms were not universal and were largely a function of individual immunoresponse, as well as underlying comorbidity, and other complications (pneumonia being common among them), the reaction was not universal. One infected person might die, while another infected person might exhibit little or no symptom. In many cases, vaccination played a large role in reducing the signs and symptoms of an infection, such that one might "get" the disease, but suffer considerably less as a result, over a shorter duration, and be less transmissible. By any measure, that is a success.
You seem to want to boil complex issues into simplistic third-grade chatter. Most certainly there have been numerous studies establishing the efficacy of the myriad vaccines for Covid; you're dismissive, as the extreme right deniers seem to be. Indeed, the mantra is always the same: deny, dismiss, diminish, and brand any evidence to the contrary as "fake news." The ultimate success of the smallpox drive, among many reasons, was due to the scale at which vaccination took place, down to the last recorded case, as opposed to the widespread denier-culture that severely hampered the vaccination effort of Covid.
By comparison, the Covid-19 corona virus had roughly a .7% mortality rate.
Why did you use this as an example when you had no clue what you were talking about. Thus far, your own example has defeated you at every turn.
You're attempting to compare different types of virus, in defferent eras and ages of technology. Smallpox is not a corona virus.
Smallpox has been a significant threat to society, globally, since the times of ancient egypt, and likely well before that. Egyptican mummies have been examined which bear evidence that the person died of smallpox, and it wiped out the new world as it was being discovered by the old. Even the fledgling continental army in the US lost a battle as a result of smallpox racing through the ranks, and it wasn't until 1980 that it was declared eradicated, despite vaccination efforts in various forms for over several hundred years. With up to fifteen million catching the disease annually and five million of those dying, smallpox was not a minor concern; during the periods of the first and second world war, more died of smallpox than from the war. Smallpox is the single biggest killer in the recorded history of the world, estimated at over four hundred million deaths (some estimates as high as five hunded million) attributed to the disease in a 3,000 year period. Go figure.
Smallpox had no zoological harbor: its host was people. Numerous other poxes were transmissible between humans and animals, including cowpox, which gave rise to the intial successful vaccine efforts, but smallpox did not exist in animals and wasn't transmissible via animals, meaning eradication was possible by working within the human population. The same is not true of the SARS virus of Covid19, which is transmissible via animal hosts, and given the inability to vaccinate the entire animal kingdom in the wild, means that eradication will be nearly extremely unlikely, or impossible.
Vaccines do not provide 100% protection. This should not surprise you. You are attempting to compare radically different diseases, as well as vaccines, as well as the methodology and means of vaccination. It should be noted that smallpox vaccine was a live-virus vaccine, applied with two needles dipped in the vaccine; the reaction was topical, on the skin, and had to be covered. The vaccine itself, and the resulting skin reaction and scab from thke vaccination, was contagious, and could spread small pox or inect others, and it did. This was not possible with any of the Covid vaccinations, despite wild ideas to the contrary. Smallpox vaccination proved up to 95% successful in preventing transmission to the vaccinated, and reduced infection severity for those who had become infected at the time of vaccination. Two variants of the smallpox vaccine were largely responsible for nearly all deaths over a three thousand year period, whereas numerous mutations were possible due to the type of virus involved with the SARS covid 19. Smallox variation amounted to a major and minor, with the major causing the most deaths. Deaths from Covid were entirely different, with many of the deaths being immunoresponses to the virus, but not the direct result of the Virus. One might think of smallpox deaths as the bullet fired from a gun; one might think of covid-related deaths in which the virus served as a primer, but often not the bullet itself. Covid set in motion numerous mechanisms that ultimately lead to long term effects, death, and complications such as lung scarring, etc.
What you do not seem to understand (in addition to nearly everything else you've attempted to present, which clearly you do not understand) is that the efficacy of a vaccine is not an absolute value. A vaccine with 93% efficacy does not mean that 7% will be infected, and does not mean that 93% will not, when exposed to the pathogen. Efficacy is a measure of risk, rather than a hard number; thus, an efficacy of 93% suggests a 93% lower risk of becoming infected.
It's well to note that particualrly in the case of Covid, given that much of the signs and symptoms were not universal and were largely a function of individual immunoresponse, as well as underlying comorbidity, and other complications (pneumonia being common among them), the reaction was not universal. One infected person might die, while another infected person might exhibit little or no symptom. In many cases, vaccination played a large role in reducing the signs and symptoms of an infection, such that one might "get" the disease, but suffer considerably less as a result, over a shorter duration, and be less transmissible. By any measure, that is a success.
You seem to want to boil complex issues into simplistic third-grade chatter. Most certainly there have been numerous studies establishing the efficacy of the myriad vaccines for Covid; you're dismissive, as the extreme right deniers seem to be. Indeed, the mantra is always the same: deny, dismiss, diminish, and brand any evidence to the contrary as "fake news." The ultimate success of the smallpox drive, among many reasons, was due to the scale at which vaccination took place, down to the last recorded case, as opposed to the widespread denier-culture that severely hampered the vaccination effort of Covid.
I understand Covid and smallpox are different kinds of viruses. The point I was making was the earlier poster saying we would have eliminated Covid had everyone gotten vaccinated. No one believes that. Dr. Fauci doesn't even believe that. Smallpox vaccines were effective. Covid vaccines are not. You can't be vaccinated for whatever virus, then be infected at a higher rate than the unvaccinated, and then expect to eradicate said virus through vaccination. That doesn't make any sense. Again, I don't care about the chemical make-up, or the specific details about the virus. All I care about is math and numbers. How deadly is said virus. Then, how safe and effective is the treatment. If the numbers of the treatment are better than the numbers for the virus... I'll take the treatment. But to this day, you can not provide ANY data that supports Covid vaccination that doesn't have limitations created by the equivalent of a 6th grade biology class or data that is funded by Pfizer. Astonishing how the studies with no limitations don't support vaccination, yet, you still trust Pfizer like they're Mother Theresa. There are tons of doctors that supported vaccination in 2021 that now don't support it at all. I've never heard of even one doctor who has flipped the other way.
I also know the difference between effective and efficacy. The fact that you still believe the efficacy was 93% is proof youre still living in 2021 and haven't been caught up. Even Pfizer's own data (that they didn't want published for 75 years) from their own documents show that the real efficacy was between 40-50% when the vaccine was first rolled out and only for about 3 months. Then it went downhill from there. Again, thats PFIZER's data. Not Alex Jones. Not Tucker Carlson. PFIZER. Maybe Pfizer's CEO has been watching too much newsmax. And now we know after 6 months youre more likely to be infected if vaccinated. Why does almost every single European country not recommend vaccination for anyone under 60? Some countries its 65. Yet, in the U.S. we want you to be vaccinated down to 6 months? Our medical system isn't any better than Europe. You think the vaccine is so great, yet you can't provide any data that shows you are less likely to die of covid if youre vaccinated. After 3 years, that data does not exist. Well, unless you use studies that have ridiculous limitations such as counting a vaccinated death as an unvaccinated death. There are tons of those. Pfizer is so confident in their vaccine that they refuse to run a study without limitations.
Let's say, by some miracle, you can find a study without limitations that shows vaccinated is more beneficial. What is your explanation for the total excess deaths that far exceed covid deaths? What is your explanation for a 10-20% excess death overall depending on country and 35% increase in 18-44 year olds in the U.S.? Most of these deaths are heart related. There are now numerous studies that show heart problems are worse in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. When this data was presented to Moderna's CEO in congress he had no comment. What is your explanation? By your earlier response, obviously you think climate change is as silly of an excuse as I do. So what is your explanation?
It's mind boggling that the people who haven't been able to provide any data for 3 years and who have been proven wrong time and time again... will say that actual data and numbers come from right wing conspiracy theorists. Only a delusional madman would still think that 3 years later.
It's basically two questions for you
1. Prove with actual data your argument instead of claiming math and logic are the work of Qanon
2. What is your explanation for all the excess death that is still ongoing?
Basic Logic and Math: 2 + 2 = 4
JohnBurke: "U WaTcH 2 MuUUuch TucKEr CArlSon. Dam U aLEx JoNeS!!!"
01-03-2024, 05:47 AM
#25
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,200
The way the vaccine program was implemented…
... continues to have long term consequences.
Look, I said early on that FOR THOSE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK the wisest move was to get immunized as soon as the vaccine was available. It was a NOVEL pathogen and despite a significant cross immunity from exposure to the four other coronaviruses that commonly cause little more than colds, COVID 19 was killing a lot of older people and immune suppressed people. Even for the upper end of the military population, the benefit of COVID-19 immunization outweighed the risk. But even early on in the epidemic, it was obvious that the risk wasn't much for younger healthy groups, including the vast majority of the military age population. For the younger cohort of the military population the big immunization push - backed up by punitive action - was quasi justified on the basis of a supposed herd immunity effect for the population as a whole that was obviously futile from the start, since the implementation time for even the military immunization programs was too long to have the desired effect of lowering overall infection levels to the point the epidemic could be contained by immunization, even if the immunization had actually stopped people from getting COVID and transmitting it rather than merely slowing it down. By the time the last few percentage of people were getting the immunizations, the first ones were already getting COVID and not (just) because there were new strains but because immunity from infection had already waned in those first vaccinated. Yes, their cases were likely milder than they Woukd have been, but the same coukd be said of everyone on their second case of COVID (which was also already happening by then).
Not everyone benefits equally from immunizations. Those at little risk from the disease benefit little - why we don't give everybody rabies immunizations and now give almost nobody but a few lab workers smallpox immunizations.
we basically shoved this down the throats of many people whose risk really didn't warrant it, either because of their age or the fact they'd already had and recovered from COVID, and even in the military - damn sure the American military - that can't be done with impunity. It has left a lasting mark
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/ove...source=epochHG
We will, I fear, be paying for the
Look, I said early on that FOR THOSE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK the wisest move was to get immunized as soon as the vaccine was available. It was a NOVEL pathogen and despite a significant cross immunity from exposure to the four other coronaviruses that commonly cause little more than colds, COVID 19 was killing a lot of older people and immune suppressed people. Even for the upper end of the military population, the benefit of COVID-19 immunization outweighed the risk. But even early on in the epidemic, it was obvious that the risk wasn't much for younger healthy groups, including the vast majority of the military age population. For the younger cohort of the military population the big immunization push - backed up by punitive action - was quasi justified on the basis of a supposed herd immunity effect for the population as a whole that was obviously futile from the start, since the implementation time for even the military immunization programs was too long to have the desired effect of lowering overall infection levels to the point the epidemic could be contained by immunization, even if the immunization had actually stopped people from getting COVID and transmitting it rather than merely slowing it down. By the time the last few percentage of people were getting the immunizations, the first ones were already getting COVID and not (just) because there were new strains but because immunity from infection had already waned in those first vaccinated. Yes, their cases were likely milder than they Woukd have been, but the same coukd be said of everyone on their second case of COVID (which was also already happening by then).
Not everyone benefits equally from immunizations. Those at little risk from the disease benefit little - why we don't give everybody rabies immunizations and now give almost nobody but a few lab workers smallpox immunizations.
we basically shoved this down the throats of many people whose risk really didn't warrant it, either because of their age or the fact they'd already had and recovered from COVID, and even in the military - damn sure the American military - that can't be done with impunity. It has left a lasting mark
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/ove...source=epochHG
We will, I fear, be paying for the
01-03-2024, 05:54 AM
#26
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,258
As I've said before tge urgency to vaccinate all mil was not based on the danger to junior, younger members. It was based on the operational and training disruption caused by covid sweeping through high-density work and living facilities.
I don't think mil leadership knew that vaccination was going to become a political and religious hot button at the time.
I don't think mil leadership knew that vaccination was going to become a political and religious hot button at the time.
01-03-2024, 07:44 AM
#27
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,200
As I've said before tge urgency to vaccinate all mil was not based on the danger to junior, younger members. It was based on the operational and training disruption caused by covid sweeping through high-density work and living facilities.
I don't think mil leadership knew that vaccination was going to become a political and religious hot button at the time.
I don't think mil leadership knew that vaccination was going to become a political and religious hot button at the time.
The military deadlines for vaccination were far later.
The Air Force has set deadlines for personnel to receive the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine.
Unless seeking an exemption, active-duty personnel are expected to be “fully vaccinated” by Nov. 2, 2021 while Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve members are to be fully vaccinated by Dec. 2, 2021 the Air Force said earlier this month.
Unless seeking an exemption, active-duty personnel are expected to be “fully vaccinated” by Nov. 2, 2021 while Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve members are to be fully vaccinated by Dec. 2, 2021 the Air Force said earlier this month.
The NAVADMIN set firm deadlines for vaccination: Sailors on active duty were required to be vaccinated by 28 November 2021, while reservists were required to be compliant by 28 December 2021. The Navy’s definition of “fully vaccinated” required service members to be at least two weeks past their second shot (or two weeks past their vaccine date for a single-dose vaccine like Johnson & Johnson) by the deadline to be compliant with the NAVADMIN.
Active duty Army units are expected to be fully vaccinated by December 15, 2021.
Reserve and National Guard units are expected to be fully vaccinated by June 30, 2022.
Reserve and National Guard units are expected to be fully vaccinated by June 30, 2022.
1. The horse had already left the barn before the deadline. The vast majority of those vaccinated were likely already at reduced risk through acquired immunity from previous infection.
2. It was already known by that time that the immunization did not in fact either prevent infection or transmission, albeit that it may have shortened the duration of illness.
SARS-CoV-2 infection52% relative VE among adults age 18-49 ≥14 days after bivalent booster dose compared with those who received 2-3 monovalent doses only, BA.5-related sublineages
43% relative VE among adults age 50-64 ≥14 days after bivalent booster dose compared with those who received 2-4 monovalent doses only, BA.5-related sublineages
37% relative VE among adults age ≥65 ≥14 days after bivalent booster dose compared with those who received 2-4 monovalent doses only, BA.5-related sublineagesAdults
43% relative VE among adults age 50-64 ≥14 days after bivalent booster dose compared with those who received 2-4 monovalent doses only, BA.5-related sublineages
37% relative VE among adults age ≥65 ≥14 days after bivalent booster dose compared with those who received 2-4 monovalent doses only, BA.5-related sublineagesAdults
3. And long before the deadline times the only real justification being given by most commanders was that if they now abandoned a legal order they would have difficulty getting the troops to follow future legal orders - which is likely true but irrelevant to the medical indications for COVID and ultimately simply served to undermine credibility if senior leadership with the rank and file.
4. And OF COURSE IT WAS POLITICAL. It was political from the very beginning. Sort of like DEI which the US military somehow managed to survive 200+ years without.
01-03-2024, 07:52 AM
#28
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,200
Addendum to above
LONG before the end of the military deadlines it was obvious that the immunizations provided little and only short term immunity to infection and transmission.
SARS-CoV-2 infection17.8% 14 days to 1 month since one dose of Janssen
8.4% 2 to 4 months since one dose of Janssen
27.9% two doses of Janssen, 14 days to 1 month since last dose
29.2% two doses of Janssen, 2 to 4 months since last dose of Janssen
61.3% Janssen/mRNA booster, 14 days to 1 month since last dose
45.3% Janssen/mRNA booster, 2 to 4 months since last dose
68.9% 3 mRNA doses, 14 days to 1 month since last dose
62.8% 3 mRNA doses, 2 to 4 months since last doseAdults
8.4% 2 to 4 months since one dose of Janssen
27.9% two doses of Janssen, 14 days to 1 month since last dose
29.2% two doses of Janssen, 2 to 4 months since last dose of Janssen
61.3% Janssen/mRNA booster, 14 days to 1 month since last dose
45.3% Janssen/mRNA booster, 2 to 4 months since last dose
68.9% 3 mRNA doses, 14 days to 1 month since last dose
62.8% 3 mRNA doses, 2 to 4 months since last doseAdults
01-03-2024, 05:49 PM
#29
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,258
Also there was the obvious political optics... NCA wasn't going to let the mil drop the vaccine while the gov was trying to get everybody else on board.
Covid started with irrational, cult-like fervor for masks and lockdowns on one side, and wound up with irrational, cult-like anti-vax fervor on the other. Maybe it all comes out in the wash? Extremists gonna extreme... just give 'em an excuse.
01-03-2024, 08:46 PM
#30
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,295
... continues to have long term consequences.
Not everyone benefits equally from immunizations. Those at little risk from the disease benefit little - why we don't give everybody rabies immunizations and now give almost nobody but a few lab workers smallpox immunizations.
[size=33px]
Not everyone benefits equally from immunizations. Those at little risk from the disease benefit little - why we don't give everybody rabies immunizations and now give almost nobody but a few lab workers smallpox immunizations.
[size=33px]
Smallpox was eradicated nearly 45 years ago. Vaccination provides a very substantial benefit for those who require it and receive it. It is not presently a pandemic. Vaccination was provided globally to stop the spread of smallpox, which killed hundreds of millions. That effort was successful. You're not comparing smallpox to the corona virus, are you?
The vaccinations for both diseases, rabies and smallpox, are highly beneficial. While one could suggest that those who are "at little risk" benefit little, it's a straw man argument. During the pandemic, quite literally everyone was at risk, due to the transmissability. One does not reasonably compare that to rabies, in which those at risk are only those bitten by infected animals, or smallpox, in which only those in labs are at risk. One might more reasonably compare covid vaccination, if a comparison is to be made with small pox, with the global vaccinations prior to eradication. In that event, there's no question of the benefit of vaccination, even to the hundres of millions who were never infected.[/size]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
