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

NIH article included "vaccine" trial limitations

Suspect we are both interested in long-term safety and efficacy assessments. Caveat: if long-term assessment(s) would provide official reason(s) to not get "vaccinated", then sadly anticipate they would not be publicly released (in current cancel culture censorship).

Trial study of six months had low number of "vaccine" breakthrough cases, which is not holding true over longer term.

Curious if you have found credible information about VAERS underreporting factor ? (personally surprised by number of older articles before COVID about VAERS underreporting being less than 1%, which helps me appreciate censorship for all anti-vax information).

Curious about your opinion of breakthrough deaths per week in the State of Illinois:

28 Apr 2021 cumulative deaths 32 (breakthrough data does not show time spread)

26 May 2021 cumulative deaths 81 (four week average of 12.25 deaths per week)

30 Jun 2021 cumulative deaths 135 (five week average of 10.8 deaths per week)

28 Jul 2021 cumulative deaths 169 (four week average of 8.5 deaths per week)

25 Aug 2021 cumulative deaths 253 (four week average of 21 deaths per week) - first two weeks of August averaged 10 deaths per week)

29 Sep 2021 cumulative deaths 566 (five week average of 62.6 deaths per week) - first week of September had 25 deaths

27 Oct 2021 cumulative deaths 818 (four week average of 63 deaths per week)

3 Nov 2021 cumulative deaths 878 (one week has 60 deaths) - next update is Wed 10 Nov (sadly guessing 60+ breakthrough deaths)

New England Journal of Medicine Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months included Adverse events

Humanly not know cause of death for the five who died in the open-label period (so curious about all cause mortality after "vaccination"). Adverse events summarizes 20 "vaccinated" died compared to 14 in the placebo group. Open-label period was missing from figure 1 study summary.

Conspiracy observation: if investigators believe "vaccine" is safe, then investigators are unlikely to find "vaccine" cause for adverse event.

Keep Smiling 😊

All clinical trials have limitations. But none of the limitations cited in the portion you quoted suggests that the findings of the July 28 study are no longer valid.

I'm confident that we're both interested in long-term safety and efficacy assessments. Are we ALSO both interested in stopping the spread of a pandemic that has killed 750,000 Americans and more than five million people worldwide?

And if the government is holding a dozen Martian militia members in a secret underground facility in Utah, they might not have told us about that either.

Such statements as these create a conspiracy theorist's escape hatch. There's no reason to believe ANYTHING if it's possible that our conspiracy theories are correct but unproven because the government is concealing the evidence.

Compare the time frame of the study and the arrival in-force of the far more transmissible Delta variant. If the study included significant amounts of time BEFORE Delta, its predicted breakthrough case numbers in succeeding months would naturally be lower.

VAERS is subject to BOTH underreporting AND overreporting. Remember, VAERS does NOT demonstrate causality, only time correlation. "These symptoms occurred after I received my vaccine." So some percentage of VAERS incidents - I don't know what percentage - are not at all related to vaccines. An additional and unknown percentage of VAERS reports refer to known and expected vaccine side effects - soreness at injection site; fever; chills; etc. Those are all OVERreports. The bottom line is VAERS gets the reports it gets, and we consumers of its data must interpret them properly, given ALL influencing factors.

"Censorship for all anti-vax information"? Anything is possible for conspiracy theorists (CTs) because there doesn't need to be ANY evidence to sustain their suspicions. As long as it's within the realm of possibility - and what ISN'T within the realm of possibility when we believe the government will hide the evidence of whatever we fear? - conspiracy theorists won't let go of it. It's an endless rabbit hole from which there is no escape for CTs without a fundamental paradigm shift. Among the CTs who post in these forums, I see no evidence of such shifts.

In short, nothing to see there.

1. The death numbers are cumulative, meaning that to identify the number of breakthrough deaths in any given week, as you have done, one must subtract that week's total from the previous week's total.
2. With the passage of time, the number of Illinois residents who were fully vaccinated increased, meaning the breakthrough deaths reported in the November 3 report came from a larger vaccinated population. SO, to use three reporting dates...

• April 28: 32 deaths among a fully vaccinated population of about 8.2 million (base data found HERE; I can explain my calculations, if you ask) -- or about 0.0004% of the vaccinated population.
• August 25: 84 deaths among about 12.5 million fully vaccinated -- or about 0.0007% of the vaccinated population.
• November 3: 60 deaths among about 14.5 million fully vaccinated -- or about 0.0004% of the vaccinated population.

Not much change from April to November.

The quotation you posted includes this crucial finding:  "None of these deaths were considered to be related to BNT162b2 by the investigators." That is, nothing to see there either.

I can't decide whether it's good news or bad news that you're now acknowledging your investment in conspiracy theories. I applaud your candor, but must question your judgment. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, false. As long as you allow yourself to remain their captive, you will likely doubt everything save, perhaps, the worst possible outcomes. In my view, that's a dangerous and unnecessarily sad and skeptical connection to the truth.

So thankful the court shows some common sense.

So assuming an annual death toll at the upper end of that range, in a 20 month span equivalent to COVID's current lifespan in the U.S., a bit fewer than 90,000 would die. 90,000 from flu vs. 750,000 from COVID. Let's do away with the idiocy often distributed by COVID conspiracy theorists that COVID is no worse than the seasonal flu.

Flu is a virus that spreads by the same mechanisms as does COVID. The mitigation protocols we implemented for COVID - masks, social distancing, frequent hand washing, no large groups, et al - ALSO kept people with the flu virus at greater than usual distance from others, which reduced the spread of the virus and, therefore, produced fewer flu cases.

"Correlation does NOT prove causation" is an accurate statement.

No competent immunologist guarantees that ANY vaccine will provide 100% protection against the conditions it targets. That's why we have to examine macro statistics, which in the case of COVID make inarguably clear that vaccinations save lives and markedly reduce recipients' odds of experiencing serious illness or hospitalization. There is NO debate about the numbers. None. Zero. Nada.

My advice: Tell your mother to follow the science. Not the rumors or conspiracy theories, but the science. Boosters are called for and are not surprising against a virus that has killed five million people.

Booster shots are called for, as the study about Israel to which you linked makes clear. That study ALSO pointed out that the decline in vaccine efficacy against "symptomatic infection" was from 96% to 84%. Do you remember when the Trump administration hoped for a vaccine that would be 75% effective? That was a fair and sensible hope! These vaccines' effectiveness rates have to fall another nine points before they will reach the 75% level.

Instead of just wondering about it, you could always Google the issue. Were you to do so you would find that the Delta variant produces as much viral load in the nasal pharynx of vaccinated persons as it does in unvaccinated persons, which was NOT true for earlier COVID variants. Increased viral loads mean increased risk of transmission. YET, as the CDC makes clear, the risks are STILL significantly less for vaccinated persons, as are their risks of transmission (which are greater, but not as much greater as they would be were they not vaccinated). From THIS DOCUMENT:

---

Nothing in the declarations of that paragraph contradicts anything public health experts are saying: Vaccinated persons face significantly fewer, BUT NOT NO, risks compared with unvaccinated persons.

Again, don't wonder! Read the article to which you linked. The science of COVID hasn't changed in Ireland (emphasis added):

And then read the data from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Colorado to which you linked, ALL of which support the same basic conclusion: COVID vaccines save lives.

You "wonder" and speculate too much! Read the science and the data, NOT the conspiracy theories and the anecdotes. There is ONE truth about COVID and its vaccines and it is that they work. EVERY claim to the contrary is false and a potential threat to the health and well-being of people around the world.

Given the contentiousness of some of our exchanges, I'm not certain as to the intent your comment. But in case you intend it as something resembling a compliment, I'll tell you that the three years I spent on my high school's debate team affected me deeply and, apparently, permanently, given that 46 years later I'm still passionate about our team's coach's directive: If you're going to make a claim, you'd better be able to back it up. And if you can't back it up, you'd better not make it. In a sense, then, every Google search I conduct as I build my CD posts is a tribute to a teacher named Mr. Haag.

TMI, I'm sure, but I enjoyed the brief saunter down Memory Lane.

Numerous athletes recently have suffered cardiac arrest, myocarditis, blood clots, etc and needed to be hospitalized after "COVID vaccine" Injections

Also, data from the U.K. Office of National Statistics reveal that people who have been double injected against COVID-19 are dying from various causes at a rate six times higher than people who are unvaccinated

You know Bill real well?

There is no data-based reason to include vaccines as a consequential, let alone a co-equal, contributor to the 750,000 person COVID death toll. There are conspiracy theory-based reasons to include them as such, but NOT data-based reasons.

"Many people" is not a statistically meaningful reference. Breakthrough infection rates ARE statistically meaningful. In Minnesota, for example, cumulative as of October 3, 2021:

• 2.015% of all vaccinated persons experienced a breakthrough case (meaning 97.085% of vaccinated persons did NOT experience a breakthrough case)
• 0.092% of all vaccinated persons were hospitalized for their breakthrough cases (meaning 99.008% of breakthrough cases did NOT result in hospitalization)
• 0.015% of all vaccinated persons died from their breakthrough cases (meaning 99.085% of breakthrough cases did NOT result in death)

Remember that even the early variants of COVID were more transmissible and dangerous than the seasonal flu. The Delta variant has been more transmissible and dangerous yet. Hence, the low flu rates in these times of ongoing COVID mitigation efforts is not at all surprising.

According to the CDC, as of September of this year, the COVID death rate per 100,000 population in the U.S. among unvaccinated persons was more than 12 times greater than the death rate among vaccinated persons (9.14/100K vs. 0.74/100K). It's safe to say that MANY, MANY, MANY more unvaccinated persons have died from COVID than have vaccinated persons.

There is no rational, fact-based reason to doubt the accuracy of the COVID case-, hospitalization-, and death rates. There ARE conspiracy theory-based reasons to doubt them, but not rational, fact-based ones. From our exchanges about COVID, I'm coming to conclusion that I can lead you to facts, but I can't lead you away from conspiracy theories.

HERE'S A CDC STUDY that reports COVID and non-COVID mortality rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.

Exercise care in the way you interpret those numbers.

• 0.225283% of the entire U.S. population has died from COVID, a percentage that does NOT distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.
• 0.0197% of fully vaccinated people in South Carolina have died, NOT of the entire population of that state. According to the state's health department, there have been 471 breakthrough cases that resulted in death, or 0.009% of the state's 5.2 million total population.

Percentages of entire populations and of fully vaccinated persons are not directly comparable statistics.

Simply not true.

There is NO rational, fact-based reason to make these claims. There are conspiracy theory reasons to make them, but not fact-based ones.

We've had enough exchanges about COVID now for me to conclude that you won't be swayed from your baseless- and conspiracy theorist perspectives on COVID. In my link- and data filled posts, I've given you countless off-ramps from the fact-free zone you inhabit, but you've chosen not to take them. You have every right not to do so, of course, but I won't invest more time debunking the falsehoods you've chosen to embrace. I wish you grace and peace as you navigate the grim and scary world those falsehoods create for you.

And this is why I engage your COVID falsehoods only occasionally, Wolfgang: I can't disprove the existence of a reality ONLY YOU can see.

If I tell you that 2+2=57, and the reason you don't know that is because governments and media monopolists hide it from you, you can't prove me wrong. Oh, you might paste annotated number lines into your posts, or link to proofs from math textbooks and papers from academic "mathematicians," but none of your efforts will diminish the certainty with which I claim 2+2=57 because my claim depends solely on the reality I see; that you can't or don't want to see my reality is not my concern.

Such is the Sysyphusian task I face with you and your COVID falsehoods. It doesn't matter how much data I present, how many charts and tables I paste, or how many public health experts I quote, your response is always the same: You see COVID for what it "really" is because you aren't fooled by global conglomerates or government cover-ups. In the terminology of your latest post, you don't wear "official regime blinders." As a result, that you never substantiate your claims - that your COVID conspiracy theories rely completely on a hodge podge of single sentence assertions and (often) unsubstantiated or misinterpreted anecdotes - and that you NEVER disprove ANY of the statistically rigorous data I present in support of my claims simply doesn't matter because your falsehoods are "true" in a reality only YOU can see, a reality forever shielded from my or others' attempts to debunk it.

Just so I'm clear, in my "reality," your COVID falsehoods are and will remain false.

When someone all of a sudden and without any other indicators but a recent inkection experiences ill effects or in some cases dies, the matter is rather clear .... and that data is available in various sources .... except that data is not found in official health institute government reports where the case shows up as "illness / death" but no mention is made of the most likely cause.

Your above example is missing the point .... perhaps I did not communicate sufficiently clear.

Yes, the framework I employed to explain why I engage only rarely with Wolfgang on COVID matters IS an apt description of the Christology discussions these forums host (I doubt the existence of "perfect" ones, at least of my creation), but I think your two sentence, 27 word indictment here accuses the wrong parties.

In discussions with you and other Trinity defenders, WOLFGANG AND I are the ones who cite evidence to "prove" our case. We detail the "reality" we see through multiple references to biblical texts and specific, direct engagement with the arguments/texts, if any, presented by those with whom we disagree. Notice how that approach differs fundamentally from Wolfgang's approach to my COVID posts. He never mentions, let alone engages, the data or the arguments I present. But in response to the arguments and texts raised by Trinity advocates, he and I respond directly and substantively. That is, we most certainly acknowledge the "reality" Trinity advocates propose, and then engage it directly as we explain and defend the "reality" we see.

But what about you? How have you responded to my engagements with the "reality" about Jesus that you've advanced? How have you responded to the textual "evidence" I cited to report my "reality" about Jesus? You've told me you don't want to talk about Scripture. You've sought to accuse and diminish me, the advocate, but you've explicitly said you don't want address Scripture, easily the most relevant and necessary "evidence" in the matter.

So between the two of us, who has been more the one who refused to engage the other's case, who refused to provide evidence to support his or her "reality"? Who has been more the one who rejected the "reality" seen by the other, but refused to back up his or her rejection? Clearly you. In the language of the framework I previously posted, it hasn't mattered how much Scripture I quoted, how consistent were the patterns I cited, or how cogently I disputed Trinitarian theology, you refused to talk about Scripture or my arguments, you refused to make a case of your own, and you chose instead to respond with personal disparagement, you chose to give life to the adage, "If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger."

So you're right! The framework I used to describe my COVID discussions with Wolfgang IS an apt description of our discussions of the deity of Jesus. But in this case, YOU'RE the indicted, not Wolfgang and I (I leave it to @BroRando to speak for himself on these matters, if he so desires).

My "rules" for my engagement with other posters are 1) I need to respond directly - no evasion or distraction - to the on-topic question(s) you ask and observation(s) you make about Bible texts; 2) I need to respond directly to the on-topic argument(s) you make in your posts, whether based on Scripture or not, or, at minimum, acknowledge those on-topic arguments and report the reason(s) I'm not engaging them. In all cases, the onus for direct - not evasive or distracting - response to the on-topic content of your posts is on me.

Those "rules," to which I hold myself accountable, I also apply to others. Which of them do you consider to be among the "tiny little boxes of rules that [I] seldom actually keep but insist others keep"?

I probably have at least one other "rule," which resides in an equally "tiny little box": In a discussion of the the deity of Jesus and some of the biblical texts germane to that subject, it is inappropriate to call @Wolfgang "blind," @BroRando "poor blind and deaf," and @C Mc "Cream Puff Waffle" (I'm giving you a pass on my being "legalistic," though that might be the most inaccurate characterization you offered in that post).

You're "sure" that I "may" be a nice person? With conviction like that, I may ask you for a character reference when after I retire from ministry I apply to be a greeter at Wal Mart. They'll hire me on the spot!

That my "rules" can be "inconsistent, "disingenuous," not "essential," AND "often helpful" is a credit to my three rules, I think. Helpful but inessential disingenuity is rare in these chaotic times.

If you could find a way to be as bold, direct, and judgmental when, in compliance with the CD expectation that you will "criticize ideas, not people," you responded to Bible texts in these threads as you are when, in violation of said CD expectation, you respond to other posters with critiques such as that one, I bet you and I could have productive exchanges about the deity of Jesus.

I have some facility with language and what you call "the putdown" (I don't know what a "fake-passive slam" is), which is why I'm quite specific and intentional about how I employ my skills. If you felt put down personally by my comments about your "judgmental, narrow, abrasive, agitating, divisive, unkind, and not personable" critique of me, I apologize. I intended those comments to be a put down of the critique, not you. [FWIW, I didn't feel put down by your critique; I simply believed it violated the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation of these forums.]

It's time for us to stop this silliness. And that's what these non-issue engagements are, silliness. If you want to talk about the deity of Jesus, I will gladly join you in the thread(s) of your choice. If you want to engage on any other issue in these forums, I may join you, but I can't know for sure. But this personal stuff has to stop - from both of us. If you wish to pursue the personal stuff, you have every freedom to do so. Just don't expect me to join in.