> 2.5 billion people have had at least one vaccine.
Does that mean Lisa Shaw did not die? Or that we would still have known about the cause of her death if she were not well known?
Or, is the number of people who are vaccinated enough of a reason to ignore the concerns of people who got Covid19 and recovered?
How much of "long Covid19" due to horrendous treatment at hospitals of Covid19 patients with unnecessary intubations, severe isolation from friends and family, and the general medial establishment panic?
In the U.S., 95% of deaths with Covid19 are in people over 50. Covid19 accounts for 0.7% of deaths among people under 18.[1]
I am sure, the case surveillance data[2] has more interesting nuggets. So, given low risk to an otherwise well person who has not been living in complete isolation since March 2020 (there are a lot of them in the world), given the trend of increasing breakthrough infections and deaths, it is not obvious that averages are very meaningful to individual decision making.
> The clots are considered extremely rare - there have been 417 reported cases and 72 deaths - after 24.8 million first doses and 23.9 million second doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK.
That's 72 deaths among millions. You're trying to describe COVID as "given low risk to an otherwise well person", but you're still off by many orders of magnitude. Using this site[1] we see that he current 0-59 death rate is 0.2%. That would be nearly 100,000 dead to get a comparable rate.
I made a statement about the percentage of deaths among people over 50 (not death rate).
Computing an IFR (infection fatality rate) is difficult because so many infections are unrecorded. For example, consider this paper[1]:
> We found that these antibodies were present in 42.4% of the individuals tested and that the majority of these infections, which were generally mild, had not been previously detected.
It seems to me a ton of infections occur and go away without anyone recording them. We only see information about infections which result in worse outcomes.
Given the desire to avoid any negative information about vaccine efficacy and safety, it is also reasonable to assume that we are only seeing a smaller number of people who died after the injection.
Especially games played by agencies in how they count the vaccinated (if you die/get sick between your first shot and two weeks after the second shot, you are not counted among the vaccinated) do not instill confidence. The arbitrary insistence in certain areas of the U.S. that even people who've had Covid19 must get vaccinated before they can be allowed to live life breeds suspicion.
PS: Since the beginning, people all over the world suffered and are continuing to suffer under delusional policies implemented to support the fiction that "zero Covid19" is possible if you just "do as I say!" Now, the repeat is coming in the form of "90 - 100% vaccination" where fully vaccinated status seems like it is going to be a moving target. See https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1430186661556727808.html
In order for those numbers to align to such a point where vaccines are more deadly we'd need to either have 1000x more vaccine related deaths or 1000x more infections undetected. Which do you think it would be?
From the perspective of the person who's been OK since the beginning, those numbers don't really matter. What matters is that they are fine now, they've been fine for a while, and now they are being coerced into taking an action which they don't think will benefit them and might hurt them worse than whatever their experience has been.
Do not expect resistance to coercion to melt away when you dial up coercion.
Add to that the fact that very incompletely counted known deaths from Covid19 among those fully vaccinated against Covid19 just jumped 11% since Monday[1], one might ask why one is being coerced to take a discreet step to assume a new risk.
Nobody's being coerced to do anything. They have the completely free choice to take the shot, or not. Either way, they must accept the consequences of their choice. This is not coercion; nobody's holding any guns to anyone's heads or holding people down and forcing the shot on them. What's being dialed up is the severity of consequences of not taking the shot.
Let's say that an American municipality instituted a rule that people who profess Muslim beliefs are to be excluded from gathering in public establishments. No one would be physically forced to abandon their faith, and they would have the completely free choice to remain Islamic and accept the consequences.
Correct. It's not coercion. The fact that it's wrong to discriminate against someone due to their religious faith and to violate peoples' right to free assembly is orthogonal to the question of whether it's coercive or not. In other words, this is a false equivalence.
It means that, statistically, for purposes of determining the safety of the vaccine, her death counts for such a tiny amount that it's effectively zero evidence against the vaccine.
