Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.

[PointOfViewGun]

You've just made a liar out of yourself. There are over 1300 pages of reports with an average of 8 to 10 entries per page.
You didn't look at anything.

Nope. I'm not really interested in your link. It's not the primary source. The link I provided where you can download the data is the primary source. It's the website for the VAERS data. You can easily download the dataset in Excel and check it yourself. I have. There are 6476 deaths from 2020 and 2021 in total, not 13k+.

[Heathen Hammer]

Shielding the most vulnerable is better than nothing. I found a study which supports the point you're making, concluding that "Even modest shielding ratios may translate into hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives saved during the multiyear course of the pandemic" (source). Unfortunately, another study suggested shielding isn't as effective as we'd like:

It would certainly be a less idiotic measure to undertake, then lockdown policies, which, as mortailty rates show, failed to tackle the virus but were an economic catastrophe for majority of population.

[B. W.]

Shielding the most vulnerable is better than nothing. I found a study which supports the point you're making, concluding that "Even modest shielding ratios may translate into hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives saved during the multiyear course of the pandemic" (source). Unfortunately, another study suggested shielding isn't as effective as we'd like:





It's good to do our own research into these kinds of things, isn't it?

Are they claiming that 13,000 deaths were caused by adverse reactions from Covid vaccines (as opposed to who had been vaccinated dying from Covid)?

The CDC says that:


Should I believe the CDC or Children's Health Defence? You mentioned that the Chldren's Health Defence numbers are based on VAERS reports:



Are VAERS numbers reliable?



Are Children's Health Defense a reliable source? This organisation was apparently founded by Robert F Kennedy. Scientific American reported that "For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality." (source). Children's Health Defense has been described as a source of "conspiracy theories and pseudoscience":

I often don't respond to multiple queries as it leads to confusion; getting people mixed up and I don't have unlimited time to devote to this forum. However, your query seems reasonable so I will respond briefly.

The VAERS reports are for you to interpret however you chose, but they are there for a purpose nonetheless.

Now, you are asking about trust. The CDC and the news media have widely proclaimed that the Pfizer "vaccine" has gotten FDA approval. Most people conclude they are talking about the vaccine currently being administered. But, in fact, the approval is for a vaccine that won't be widely available for several months; enough time for the stocks of the current vaccine to be distributed. This is being extraordinarily deceptive. With that in mind, would you trust them?

What is more alarming is the fact the vaccine they approved is based on the condition that the manufacturer will engage in studies that are normally conducted BEFORE FDA approval.

The fact that a left-winger founded the organization that posted the information is ironic, but not necessarily noteworthy since the people there are primarily concerned with juvenile care and not politics. It is what it is. If you want an example of just how dangerous some vaccines can be just take a look at what happened when Salk and Sabin released their Polio vaccines. Many children died or were paralyzed for life. And those vaccines weren't based on experimental procedures.

As to whether the VAERS reports are reliable that is a crap shoot, but they were requested by a government body for the purpose of analytical study so there is certainly something to be said for them. In other words, they can't be discounted altogether, but have to be considered in context. Take some time and read a few dozen. A lot of them feature the death of elderly people with pre-existing conditions, which begs the question of why they were given them in the first place on the advice of our current medical authorities.

Nope. I'm not really interested in your link. It's not the primary source. The link I provided where you can download the data is the primary source. It's the website for the VAERS data. You can easily download the dataset in Excel and check it yourself. I have. There are 6476 deaths from 2020 and 2021 in total, not 13k+.

Ha, ha, ha! The link I posted was just one of the source materials included in the original story; as was the VAERS link you are going on about. The number is quite clear.
We're done here. If you can't debate in honesty there's no point in going further.

[PointOfViewGun]

Ha, ha, ha! The link I posted was just one of the source materials included in the original story; as was the VAERS link you are going on about. The number is quite clear. Quit lying.
We're done here. If you can't debate in honesty there's no point in going further.

Indeed, it is, as demonstrated by anyone downloading the actual data from the actual VEARS website. I guess you did check the original and actual data and found that I was right. Thanks for that.

[Alwyn]

It would certainly be a less idiotic measure to undertake, then lockdown policies, which, as mortailty rates show, failed to tackle the virus but were an economic catastrophe for majority of population.

You say that mortality rates show that lockdowns failed to tackle the virus. Are you arguing this based on the fact that some countries with high mortality rates also had lockdowns? As I see it, the reason why this happened is simple - in some countries which were badly hit, the government did everything they could to reduce the rate of deaths. For example, as I showed previously, the death rate continued to rise in late 2020 in the UK, despite an attempt by the government to stop the increase using a less costly response (a regional tier system). The tier system failed, so a lockdown began in January 2021 - and the death rate fell, just as it had after the two previous lockdowns.

You previously said that "There is no evidence that lockdowns helped". In fact, a study published in Nature reported that "major non-pharmaceutical interventions - and lockdowns in particular have had a large effect on reducing transmission" (source).

I often don't respond to multiple queries as it leads to confusion; getting people mixed up and I don't have unlimited time to devote to this forum. However, your query seems reasonable so I will respond briefly.

The VAERS reports are for you to interpret however you chose, but they are there for a purpose nonetheless.

Now, you are asking about trust.

Thanks for responding. Yes, the issue with VAERS data is partly about trust; it's also about what this data can prove. As the disclaimer on the VAERS web site says, "reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness” (source). Your argument seems to be that we can use VAERS data to conclude that the vaccine caused people to be harmed. However, VAERS say that their data can't prove that.

The CDC and the news media have widely proclaimed that the Pfizer "vaccine" has gotten FDA approval. Most people conclude they are talking about the vaccine currently being administered. But, in fact, the approval is for a vaccine that won't be widely available for several months; enough time for the stocks of the current vaccine to be distributed. This is being extraordinarily deceptive. With that in mind, would you trust them?

The Pfizer vaccine got emergency use authorization in an emergency; it has now been fully approved. You seem to be arguing that the approval applies to a different vaccine - you said "the approval is for a vaccine that won't be widely available for several months". It seems that you believe that there are two Pfizer vaccines - one that got emergency use authorisation and one that got full approval. Do you believe that and, if so, do you have a source for that?

Did a different vaccine get full approval, or is it the same vaccine with a brand name? The FDA seem to be talking about one vaccine, not two:

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals. (source)

They say that the vaccine "has been known" under one name and that it will have a brand name. They say that the vaccine "continues to be available" - it sounds like they're talking about one vaccine, not two.

Reuters did a fact check about the full authorisation of the Pfizer vaccine, they found that:

The FDA state that Comirnaty has the same formulation as the EUA-approved (Emergency Use Authorization) Pfizer vaccine and is interchangeable (here). Their website says: “Providers can use doses distributed under EUA to administer the vaccination series as if the doses were the licensed vaccine. For purposes of administration, doses distributed under the EUA are interchangeable with the licensed dose.” (here).

The FDA letter approving the vaccine can be read (here) alongside the updated FDA vaccine information sheet (here).

It is therefore misleading to state that the media lied about the Pfizer vaccine’s status. The vaccine is FDA approved, will be marketed under a new name and – crucially- is interchangeable with the EUA-marketed vaccine.

(source)

The vaccine they've been using and the one with the brand name have the "same formulation". They talk about "the vaccine" (not a different vaccine) which is being "marketed under a new name" (which also indicates that this isn't a different one). It seems that we're talking about one Pfizer vaccine, not two. I don't agree with your argument that they were "extraordinarily deceptive." I wonder if you're doing your own research about the attacks on the vaccine, or if you're accepting the attacks without question.

The fact that a left-winger founded the organization that posted the information is ironic, but not necessarily noteworthy since the people there are primarily concerned with juvenile care and not politics. It is what it is.

The point is that "For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality." (source) and that the source you relied on - Children's Health Defense, which he founded - has been described as spreading "conspiracy theories and pseudoscience" (source). Your argument relies on a source with a history of deceptive behaviour.

If you want an example of just how dangerous some vaccines can be just take a look at what happened when Salk and Sabin released their Polio vaccines. Many children died or were paralyzed for life. And those vaccines weren't based on experimental procedures.

In that tragic incident, a failure to properly regulate led to disaster: "In the haste to rush the vaccine to the public, the federal government had not provided proper supervision of the major drug companies contracted by the March of Dimes to produce 9 million doses of vaccine for 1955." (source). This incident "led to the effective federal regulation of vaccines" (source). Polio continued to be dangerous in many countries with unvaccinated populations - "In 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) began, polio paralyzed >350,000 children across 125 countries" (source), which is why efforts to vaccinate people against polio continue (source). The incident you referred to is a warning to ensure that proper supervision continues.

You claim that the Pfizer vaccine is "based on experimental procedures." Reuters reported on a series of misleading claims about the vaccines which made it seem as they are experimental. They concluded that:

COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. and UK are not experimental and have all completed animal and clinical trials.  (source)

[Cope]

It's understandable that different governments responded in different ways and that Sweden chose the approach it did. A study estimated that a nine-week lockdown could have saved 2,000 lives in Sweden (source) - even so, the researchers said that because of the social costs of lockdown, they weren't taking a stand on whether Sweden should have had a lockdown. I can see where they're coming from. Sweden's state epidemiologist said in June:

This got me thinking - do we have to see this as a binary choice of 'lockdown or not', or is this a matter of degree? Is there room for middle ground? 'Lockdown' can mean different things - in March 2020 in the UK, it seemed as if everywhere not providing food, medicine or medical care closed; in the November 2020 UK lockdown, schools remained open (source).

You make a good point about the costs of lockdown. To continue with the UK example - in autumn 2020, the UK government tried a regional system of restrictions (a tier system), in which different areas had tier 1, 2 or 3 restrictions, depending on how bad the situation was there. A study of the tier system found that:

Unfortunately, the tier system didn't succeed, and the UK went into a lockdown in November. Deaths were falling 16 days after the November lockdown began (source), but they rose again after it ended, when the UK went back to a tier system. UK deaths per month rose from 4,546 in October, to 11,621 in November, 15,806 in December and 32,049 in January (source).

I wonder what you would have done, if you had been in charge of the UK pandemic response in January 2021, after the tier system failed, when new cases and deaths were rising quickly. On January 5, London's emergency field hospital was "repurposed to take patients without covid-19 who are recovering from operations and procedures, to help relieve the unprecedented demand for beds in the capital.", while "hospitals in London and the south east have come under significant pressure from high covid-19 infection rates, with one hospital trust forced to cancel some cancer operations and another now operating in “disaster medicine mode.” (source). On January 12, over 4,500 people in the UK were admitted to hospital with Covid, the highest number since the pandemic began (source). A study found that, in January, the UK's health service was "largely overwhelmed" and "a third of anaesthetists were redeployed to look after critically ill patients, leaving 42 per cent of operating theatres closed. This meant operations, including for cancer and emergency surgery patients, had to be cancelled." (source.)

What would you have done in January - would you have kept everything open, or would you have required some things to close - such as indoor events with hundreds or thousands of people, and maybe nightclubs and bars? If you'd have been willing to close some things to save lives, then it seems that we're not so much choosing between 'lockdown or not' as in a situation where reasonable people have different views on the level of restrictions that are needed.

Lockdowns prevent C19 deaths by reducing stress on medical infrastructure. They delay spread in the short-term; they do not provide a stable, long-term solution. If a country reaches a crisis point at which lockdown is the only viable option to prevent the collapse of medical infrastructure, that typically indicates prior failures in policy (e.g. failing to adequately screen international travelers or develop a testing system). As far as England is concerned, fearmongering about govt health services has been common for years.

[Alwyn]

Lockdowns prevent C19 deaths by reducing stress on medical infrastructure. They delay spread in the short-term; they do not provide a stable, long-term solution. If a country reaches a crisis point at which lockdown is the only viable option to prevent the collapse of medical infrastructure, that typically indicates prior failures in policy (e.g. failing to adequately screen international travelers or develop a testing system). As far as England is concerned, fearmongering about govt health services has been common for years.

I agree that lockdowns prevent Covid deaths by reducing stress on medical infrastructure. I'm not claiming that lockdowns provide a "stable, long-term solution".

Yes, screening international travellers properly and developing an effective testing system would have been very useful. I was talking about a crisis situation in the UK in January 2021, where those things hadn't been done successfully, and asking what you would have done.

[EmperorBatman999]

I doubt the effectiveness of lockdowns in even the short term. We can see how almost as soon as lockdowns are lifted, people go out in droves to restaurants, bars, clubs, and public events, which immediately restarts rapid spreading. It is merely human nature to want to immediately go out and experience life after being cooped up for months on end.

It also puts the public at risk for other dangers, as the phenomenon creates large public crowds. Some might remember that a terrorist in Vienna took advantage of the massive crowds going out onto the Schwedenplatz following the end of Austria's lockdown to get a target-rich environment for his shooting spree. That event hit me hard because I spent a lot of time at those bars with my friends when times were normal.

[B. W.]

You say that mortality rates show that lockdowns failed to tackle the virus. Are you arguing this based on the fact that some countries with high mortality rates also had lockdowns? As I see it, the reason why this happened is simple - in some countries which were badly hit, the government did everything they could to reduce the rate of deaths. For example, as I showed previously, the death rate continued to rise in late 2020 in the UK, despite an attempt by the government to stop the increase using a less costly response (a regional tier system). The tier system failed, so a lockdown began in January 2021 - and the death rate fell, just as it had after the two previous lockdowns.

You previously said that "There is no evidence that lockdowns helped". In fact, a study published in Nature reported that "major non-pharmaceutical interventions - and lockdowns in particular have had a large effect on reducing transmission" (source).



Thanks for responding. Yes, the issue with VAERS data is partly about trust; it's also about what this data can prove. As the disclaimer on the VAERS web site says, "reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness” (source). Your argument seems to be that we can use VAERS data to conclude that the vaccine caused people to be harmed. However, VAERS say that their data can't prove that.



The Pfizer vaccine got emergency use authorization in an emergency; it has now been fully approved. You seem to be arguing that the approval applies to a different vaccine - you said "the approval is for a vaccine that won't be widely available for several months". It seems that you believe that there are two Pfizer vaccines - one that got emergency use authorisation and one that got full approval. Do you believe that and, if so, do you have a source for that?

Did a different vaccine get full approval, or is it the same vaccine with a brand name? The FDA seem to be talking about one vaccine, not two:



They say that the vaccine "has been known" under one name and that it will have a brand name. They say that the vaccine "continues to be available" - it sounds like they're talking about one vaccine, not two.

Reuters did a fact check about the full authorisation of the Pfizer vaccine, they found that:



The vaccine they've been using and the one with the brand name have the "same formulation". They talk about "the vaccine" (not a different vaccine) which is being "marketed under a new name" (which also indicates that this isn't a different one). It seems that we're talking about one Pfizer vaccine, not two. I don't agree with your argument that they were "extraordinarily deceptive." I wonder if you're doing your own research about the attacks on the vaccine, or if you're accepting the attacks without question.



The point is that "For more than a decade, Kennedy has promoted anti-vaccine propaganda completely unconnected to reality." (source) and that the source you relied on - Children's Health Defense, which he founded - has been described as spreading "conspiracy theories and pseudoscience" (source). Your argument relies on a source with a history of deceptive behaviour.



In that tragic incident, a failure to properly regulate led to disaster: "In the haste to rush the vaccine to the public, the federal government had not provided proper supervision of the major drug companies contracted by the March of Dimes to produce 9 million doses of vaccine for 1955." (source). This incident "led to the effective federal regulation of vaccines" (source). Polio continued to be dangerous in many countries with unvaccinated populations - "In 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) began, polio paralyzed >350,000 children across 125 countries" (source), which is why efforts to vaccinate people against polio continue (source). The incident you referred to is a warning to ensure that proper supervision continues.

You claim that the Pfizer vaccine is "based on experimental procedures." Reuters reported on a series of misleading claims about the vaccines which made it seem as they are experimental. They concluded that:

Hmmm, the two Pfizer "vaccines" are legally distinct. If they are legally distinct that means they are not the same:

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...an_people.html

[Ludicus]

Holmes EC, Goldstein SA, Rasmussen AL, et al. The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review. Cell August 18, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017
---
Sold to China, "obviously".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cyclops]

I doubt the effectiveness of lockdowns in even the short term. We can see how almost as soon as lockdowns are lifted, people go out in droves to restaurants, bars, clubs, and public events, which immediately restarts rapid spreading. It is merely human nature to want to immediately go out and experience life after being cooped up for months on end.

It also puts the public at risk for other dangers, as the phenomenon creates large public crowds. Some might remember that a terrorist in Vienna took advantage of the massive crowds going out onto the Schwedenplatz following the end of Austria's lockdown to get a target-rich environment for his shooting spree. That event hit me hard because I spent a lot of time at those bars with my friends when times were normal.

Currently the "less locked down" state in Aus (New South Wales) is enjoying 1000+ infections daily and the health system is experiencing stress: they are also exporting cases to New Zealand and other Australian states. The "more locked down" state is experiencing 100+ infections daily.

Demographically speaking lockdowns lead to less infections, less direct deaths and less chance of the health system collapsing (incurring collateral deaths). Lockdowns do huge economic damage and mental health damage with increased suicides etc, but the current equation is on the side of lockdowns, at least in Australia.

As for the argument about crowds providing targets for shooters its a little weird. That reasoning would lead us to cancel sporting finals and Christmas.

[Alwyn]

Hmmm, the two Pfizer "vaccines" are legally distinct. If they are legally distinct that means they are not the same:

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...an_people.html

What do you think the "same formulation" means?

[Edit to add] The American Thinker article quotes the Children's Defense Fund - a source of "conspiracy theories and pseudoscience" (source). It also relies on VAERS numbers to claim that the vaccine is "unreasonably dangerous", even though "A disclaimer on the VAERS website says the “reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,” in part because they “may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.” (source).

[Heathen Hammer]

As Australian politicians double-down on authoritarianism, Australian truckers are blocking highways in protest. Seems like a smart move, can't really govern if your economic lifelines are blocked.
This is somewhat similar to events in USSR, shortly before the Soviet government fell, when there were nation-wide protests of mine workers. It seems that neoliberal government has lost touch with majority of population, kinda like Soviet government did by 1980s.

[B. W.]

What do you think the "same formulation" means?

[Edit to add] The American Thinker article quotes the Children's Defense Fund - a source of "conspiracy theories and pseudoscience" (source). It also relies on VAERS numbers to claim that the vaccine is "unreasonably dangerous", even though "A disclaimer on the VAERS website says the “reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,” in part because they “may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.” (source).

Hmmm, what do you think legally distinct means? Is there a difference between generic and non-generic drugs? We could go on and on, but the fact is that the provisional FDA approval is for a new version of the drug; hence it has a new name.

As far as your second reference, I've already commented on it. Why don't you go look at the VAERS reports and make your own conclusion as I suggested. Going further, if they are of no value, why does the government request them?

[Alwyn]

Hmmm, what do you think legally distinct means? Is there a difference between generic and non-generic drugs? We could go on and on, but the fact is that the provisional FDA approval is for a new version of the drug; hence it has a new name.

I don't know what legally distinct means. Based on this source, "generic versions will be the same as the branded medicine because they contain the same active ingredients", so the difference between generic and non-generic drugs is that non-generics have a brand name. You said that this is a "new version", however it has the "same formulation".

You said that they were "extraordinarily deceptive" because:

The CDC and the news media have widely proclaimed that the Pfizer "vaccine" has gotten FDA approval. Most people conclude they are talking about the vaccine currently being administered. But, in fact, the approval is for a vaccine that won't be widely available for several months; enough time for the stocks of the current vaccine to be distributed. This is being extraordinarily deceptive.

How is this deceptive when the vaccine that got full approval has the "same formulation" as the vaccine they've been using?

As far as your second reference, I've already commented on it. Why don't you go look at the VAERS reports and make your own conclusion as I suggested. Going further, if they are of no value, why does the government request them?

Would looking at VAERS reports change the fact that they can't be used to determine if a vaccine "caused or contributed" to an adverse event or illness? I'm not arguing that they're of "no value". I'm saying that they can't show what caused the adverse event/illness - and, when some people use VAERS numbers to claim that the vaccine causes harm, this is deceptive.

[B. W.]

I don't know what legally distinct means. Based on this source, "generic versions will be the same as the branded medicine because they contain the same active ingredients", so the difference between generic and non-generic drugs is that non-generics have a brand name. You said that this is a "new version", however it has the "same formulation".

You said that they were "extraordinarily deceptive" because:



How is this deceptive when the vaccine that got full approval has the "same formulation" as the vaccine they've been using?



Would looking at VAERS reports change the fact that they can't be used to determine if a vaccine "caused or contributed" to an adverse event or illness? I'm not arguing that they're of "no value". I'm saying that they can't show what caused the adverse event/illness - and, when some people use VAERS numbers to claim that the vaccine causes harm, this is deceptive.

Not even sure where to start with this. Generic drugs do not have the same quality control as non-generic. There are versions of tylenol that are generic and non-generic, but they are still called tylenol. The primary difference is the amount of drugs in each pill. Theoretically, a bottle of generic pills has the same amount of drug as a bottle of non-generic drugs, but the quantity in each pill may not be the same.

As far as the vaccine is concerned the only version that has FDA approval is the 'crimatary' (wrong spelling) version. That's a fact. You can make up all the diatribe you want, but it will not change that fact.

As far as the FDA is concerned there are some leaders there that are so upset at the politicization of it that they are resigning. That should tell you something is amiss.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...-vaccine-event

Of course they did, as the main point of right-wing politics is a pathological need to control others. Hence they cannot just let us get the vaccines.

[antaeus]

Wait, so generic brand drugs can't be trusted now? B.W. Do you work for Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson or something?

[Knight of Heaven]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...-vaccine-event

Of course they did, as the main point of right-wing politics is a pathological need to control others. Hence they cannot just let us get the vaccines.

That same pathology is found in left wing politics from what i seen. isn't left wing for green visas, and limiting the freedoms of individuals if they dont have it?

So yeah this goes both ways im afraid.

[Alwyn]

As far as the vaccine is concerned the only version that has FDA approval is the 'crimatary' (wrong spelling) version. That's a fact. You can make up all the diatribe you want, but it will not change that fact.

That's true, the vaccine with the brand name is the one that has approval; the same vaccine (without the brand name) has emergency use authorisation. This fact doesn't show that the people who make the vaccine deceived others about it. I've shown that there's evidence of deception by the sources you used.

You accused me of 'making up diatribe', however I provided sources to show that the Children's Defense Fund and the American Thinker are deceiving people about the vaccine.

As far as the FDA is concerned there are some leaders there that are so upset at the politicization of it that they are resigning. That should tell you something is amiss.

Yes, something is amiss. Some people are trying to deceive the public into not getting the vaccine. As Coughdrop addict showed, some anti-vaccine protestors are harassing health staff at vaccine drives in the US - and there are reports of similar behaviour in the UK.