To Be Vaccinated or NOT To Be Vaccinated? That is the Question.

Not propaganda. Fact.

The side effects of the vaccines are well-known and have been widely publicized. After my second shot, for example, I experienced a night of unusual tiredness and chills, and combined after the two shots, I had noticeable muscle ache in the affected shoulder for a total of nearly three full days. My experience, though by no means universal, was not at all uncommon.

According to THIS SITE, "Between December 2020 and July 19th, 2021, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018% of doses) among people who got a vaccine, but this does not mean the vaccine caused these deaths. Doctors and safety monitors carefully review the details of each case to see if it might be linked to the vaccine. There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine. Since we now know how to correctly treat people who develop these blood clots, future deaths related to this very rare side effect can be prevented."

So, AT WORST, 99.9982% of vaccine recipients did not die from their COVID vaccination. I can't find an estimate of the percentage of those vaccinated who were hospitalized because of their shots, but there is no reason to believe that percentage isn't also very, very, very low.

Again I cite some of the other numbers you have so far - and unsurprisingly - refused to engage:

• The fully vaccinated have a 99.999% chance that they won't die from COVID, and a 99.995% chance that they won't have to be hospitalized due to the virus.
• In the month of June, 100% of COVID deaths in the U.S. state of Maryland were among the unvaccinated, and over the first six months of 2021, 99.5% of all COVID deaths in the U.S. were among the unvaccinated.

So please answer directly: What percentage of all COVID deaths would have to be among the unvaccinated before you would acknowledge that vaccinations significantly reduce the chances of dying from COVID? Obviously, 99.999% is not a high enough percentage. What percentage WOULD be high enough?

This paragraph about COVID, as are most of your paragraphs about COVID, is rooted in falsehoods. I have neither the time nor the temperament to debunk them.

I resumed my exchange with you about the subject for these few days, not because I believed I could persuade you to acknowledge the falsehood of your claims, but to remind you and other CD readers that your COVID-related posts are, in fact, filled with falsehoods.

I encourage other CD readers to review the data I cited in my posts to prove my assertions, and then compare the level and specificity of that data to the data Wolfgang cited in his posts to prove his assertions. [SPOILER ALERT: Wolfgang basically provided NO data to back up his assertions (because his assertions are false) and offered no substantive rebuttal to the data I provided (because my assertions are true).] And then compare the level of political commentary in Wolfgang's COVID posts (most recently, "I suppose concentration camps for unvaccinated is the next step ? and then follows 'the final solution'?" and "Fascism and tyranny has always worked that way") to the level of political commentary in my COVID posts (most recently and basically always, essentially none).

More to the point of these forums, I invite other CD readers to reflect on the fact that while I presented a Scripture-based argument in favor of vaccinations, Wolfgang did not. I asked him to! But he did not.... in my view, because he could not, because Scripture's command that we work for and serve the common good, not just our own good - that we act on behalf of others, even people we don't know - is clear and beyond refutation. There is no scriptural basis for refusing to get vaccinated, just as there are no data or science to support such a refusal.

COVID is real and deadly. The COVID vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary. SCIENCE and DATA back up those claims, not political commentary. Until you ground your assertions in science and data, Wolfgang, I will continue to engage you only occasionally, to remind you of the falsehood of your claims.

According to RKI, the official health statistics agency in Germany, the 2016-17 flu season produced 26 deaths per 100K of population in Berlin. According to THIS SITE, COVID has produced 110 deaths per 100K of population in Germany nationwide. Doing the simple math, in order for the nation as a whole to have had more deaths from the flu in 2016-17 than it has had from COVID, the influenza per capita death rate outside of Berlin had to have been more than 114 per 100K of population. It's not believable to me that the flu death rate in Berlin was less than 1/4 of what it was in the rest of the nation, especially since RKI called the 26/100K rate in Berlin reflective of a "severe" flu season.

This is political spin, not statistical data.

According to THIS SITE, Germany has experienced 3.8 million confirmed COVID cases to-date. Let's assume what's basically virologically impossible - that those 3.8 million cases represent only 1.9 million individuals, every one of whom contracted COVID twice. 1.9 million is about 2.3% of Germany's ~83 million population (using the same preposterous assumption that all COVID-positive people have caught the virus twice, COVID has infected 5.5% the U.S. population). The claim of "some official figures" that COVID has affected only ~0.02-0.04% of the German population is off by a factor of from 60-100.

As usual, the data do not support your claims, Wolfgang. The political spin does! But not the data. If it did support your claims, you'd post links to it, as I post links to the data that support my claims. But you don't... because you can't... because the data don't support your claims... because your claims are false.

Those Covid vaccinated folks possibly can throw their ideas of being "protected by vaccine" into the trash bin .... in Germany, the main media announced yesterday that it might well be necessary to have a 3rd shot still this year to "ensure" protection .... In addition, developing further covid variants will require "booster shots"

Same day announcement: "Biontec expects 16 billion € business this year ... stock holders happy about 500% increase in value". A rather profitable "business" ????

😉 Just remember ... nothing has anything to do with anything ... all noble charitable well meaning liberty oriented higher powers. 😉

those interested can use the translator of their choice to better understand what is said on this German poster:

No, it couldn't be true.

Indeed.

First, I read the CDC document to which the item to which you linked referred, or at least as much of it as I could handle. [Just curious: Did you read any significant portion of the CDC document itself, Wolfgang? Not asking whether you read the article to which you linked! Did you read the CDC document to which that article refers?] From the language of the CDC document, it was obvious that the article to which you linked misconstrued the meaning of the small bit of the document's content that it quoted, but, not being a lab scientist, I didn't know how. In addition, I knew enough about "pooled" COVID tests to know that the article to which you linked was badly in error about those.

A 30 second Google search then yielded fact check reports about this alleged conspiracy produced by media outlets whose reporters are not lab scientists either, so they contacted scientists who were. I invite you to read THIS, and THIS, and finally THIS. The upshot of those articles is that the process described in the CDC report is entirely normal. At the time of the PCR test's development, there was a lot not known about the virus, including how much of it were present in any given sample. From the second cited article:

And from the first article I cited, quoting an email sent to the media outlet from Heba Mostafa, an assistant professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine:

So as you said, Wolfgang, "Must of course be Wolfgang's fake news again ....😉"

Restrictions for what purpose ????

Covid vaccination .. new sacrament ?

In Stephen Cathedral in Vienna, Covid vaccinations are now administered ... even during mass

How far have ministers here gone in their eagerness for Covid vaccination?

And some would still trust the information put out by CDC ????? Have a look at what is suggested on their own website:

CDC is making plans for essentially concentration camps !! “High-risk” people should be moved to “green zone” camps where “they would have minimal contact with family members.”  Hmn ... anyone waking up to the "good will" of CDC?

The first people for such internment camps are elderly with co-morbidities ... or are the high risk folks in accordance with vaccine propaganda in reality more the"unvaccinated"?? Looks more like the latter will be involuntarily on a "special camp site"! Only the ones injected with the vaccine might leave camp again ?

Is this still Wolfgang's “conspiracy theory” or an actual CDC plan ?? 

The way you chose to summarize the CDC document about a so-called "shielding" approach to COVID-19 mitigation is another of Wolfgang's conspiracy theories in that your summary of it is profoundly (intentionally?) misleading and inaccurate.

I don't have the time, the patience, or the tolerance needed to debunk the latest tsunami of falsehoods you've posted, Wolfgang. If past is prologue, at some point in the next few months I'll collect sufficient amounts of those personal resources to spend a week or so reminding you and other CD readers that on matters of social and political policy, you post falsehood after falsehood after falsehood after falsehood after falsehood after falsehood - that basically every major assertion you ever make in your posts on such matters is false. But I'm not going to do that in this post or for the foreseeable future.

However, I will offer a few hints for those who are curious as to some (but not all) of the ways in which Wolfgang's description of the CDC's "shielding" document is misleading and inaccurate:

• Wolfgang claims the CDC's document says "CDC is making plans for essentially concentration camps!!" When you read the document in full, you'll discover that the CDC is NOT "making plans for essentially concentration camps."
• Wolfgang claims the CDC says "'High-risk' people should be moved to 'green zone' camps where “they would have minimal contact with family members.” When you read the document in full, you'll discover that the CDC is NOT saying "'High-risk' people should be moved to 'green zone' camps where “they would have minimal contact with family members.” 
• And finally, note the publication date of the CDC's document, and what the document says about the status of vaccine development as of that date. Then ask how that particular development status at that particular time in the COVID-19 pandemic's spread might have affected the perceived need for the document.

Higher vaccination ratio => higher number of new infections .... charts of 08/13/21 from RKI