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

Now we have spike mutations and variants like Democrats (always some new disaster about to strike). That last could stir my worry-o-meter more than any virus ever has. Actually, my worry-o-meter quit ticking altogether, long ago. I don't think it works anymore.

It’s the mark of the JW! Don’t take it!

🙏Praying to God for merciful magnitude of Holy Healing in all life domains for many, many, many people: heart (emotional), mind (mental), soul (social), strength (physical), & worship (spiritual) 🙏

State of Illinois Department of Public Health Vaccine Breakthrough data through 9 Feb 2022 shows 3,147 Deaths being 0.039% of Fully Vaccinated Population (in three months, sadly noticed breakthrough death percentage increase of 300 % that also happened in Minnesota).

Breakthrough death rates update: 0.0302% in South Carolina (782 dead as of 8 Feb 2022), 0.045% in Minnesota (1,601 dead as of 15 Jan 2022), 0.04% (2,032 dead as of 5 Feb 2022)

The COVID-19 Mortality Risk report published by CDC on 29 Oct 2021 includes a box "COVID-19 vaccines are safe" A study of 11 million people found no increased risk of death among COVID-19 vaccine recipients.

Another correlated item is Life Insurance payout in 2021 being significantly higher than 2020: (Life Insurance companies had anticipated safe & effective COVID-19 vaccine reducing death rate in 2021, but actual death rate increased significantly)

Observation is mainstream media Reuters.com web site having world sections: nine geographic areas with "The Great Reboot" & "Reuters Next"

My human speculation wonders if our spiritual adversary is hiding "The Great Reboot" (Great Reset of global depopulation) in plain sight.

The word "vaccine" comes from Latin ("from cows"). Milk maids who got sick from cow pox had natural immunity against small pox. Wikipedia => Vaccine includes History. Real world health data evidence simply shows the COVID experimental mRNA therapy is NOT an effective vaccine.

The United States population on February 12, 2022 was 332,496,568 (decrease of 418,577 since November 10, 2021)

On 14 Feb 2022, one birth is every 9 seconds and one death is every 10 seconds. Sadly suspect birth & death rates are showing vaccination effects.

Sadly more tears 😭 for me (followed by more 🙏 Prayers for Holy God Healing) as vaccination is harming U.S military:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;

Enjoying one moment at a time;

Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;

Taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it;

Trusting that You will make all things right if I surrender to Your Will;

That I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely joyful with You Forever in the next. Amen.

🙏Praying fervently (crying out load) for merciful magnitude of Holy God healing in all life domains for multitude of people in this world 🙏❤️ Thankful for Holy God choosing who, what, when, & where to heal. Immensely Thankful for Holy God's Loving Presence 🙏❤️

Keep Smiling 😊

AN ADDITIONAL LINK:

According to THIS PAGE on the SAME site to which you linked in your most recent post, in the month of January, at least, "almost 90% currently hospitalized with COVID-19 are unvaccinated." That's another 90/10 percentage split in which the 90% are the unvaccinated. So again I ask you: Do you consider this 90/10 split to report a statistically significant difference between the health outcomes related to COVID-19 for the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations in the state of Illinois, or do you rather consider the split to reflect basically a coin flip, that in Illinois, the vaccinated are as likely to be hospitalized for COVID as are the unvaccinated?

It's astounding that there's ANY debate about this.

Here's a chart from the CDC reporting the COVID-related hospitalization rate throughout the year 2021 for persons age 18+....

The same CDC webpage summarizes the effect of vaccinations on hospitalization in the month of December 2021 this way....

There is NO debate about this.

Yes, a risk of death that is 9.1x greater among the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated IS significant. If for the next project you took on in life you were offered two (and only two) options - the two options pursuing the identical outcome - and you were told that one option had a 9.1x greater chance of complete failure than the other, would that information figure into your decision as to which option you chose?

The CDC's 11.3x number reflected THE NATION in November 2021; the Illinois data reflected ONE STATE as of February 2022. Hence, the two numbers are not directly comparable.

See the chart I posted above. Hospitalization-related risk rates are currently available on the CDC site.

Without data to back it up - which you can't provide because it doesn't exist - your claim of "optimistic propaganda" is itself propaganda.

• 67.4% of ALL ICU patients in the state, NOT specifically of COVID-related ICU patients, so that percentage has little utility in this discussion
• I'm surprised by the 53.7% number. As the CDC's data reports, Iowa's experience is not like the rest of the nation's. I agree with the message the Iowa website provides just beneath the 53.7% figure, however: "Getting vaccinated is the most important step in reducing the risk of becoming ill or hospitalized from COVID-19."

I hope ALL states soon become like Iowa and then improve from there! But until your "human speculation" has data to back it up, I will stick with the data, which say the nation as a whole is NOT like Iowa.

It means, as if often the case with vaccines, that over time the COVID vaccines lose SOME of their effectiveness, but ALSO that the vaccinated remain FAR better protected against serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID than the unvaccinated. That's what the DATA show, not my "human speculation."

VAIDS is a baseless conspiracy theory; there is NO SUCH THING. As one expert quoted in the AP story declares, "if such a thing as VAIDS existed, we would have detected it by now."

Or the question can be put this way: Do we base our COVID-related views and actions on science and data, or on "human speculation" and baseless conspiracy theories. I choose science and data.

I think we all hope for declining numbers throughout this year.

Just as one cold or hot day in one part of the U.S. doesn't prove anything about global climate change, so does one set of numbers from one 31 day period in one state's experience of the pandemic prove anything about the efficacy of vaccines writ large. (Though make sure you click the various other dates available on the S.C. website. You'll find that throughout 2021, unvaccinated persons made up 2/3-3/4 of all deaths, the farther back you go, the higher the percentage trended.)

You made no comment about the CDC chart on hospitalizations with which I began my previous post. Perhaps because that chart demonstrated without doubt that vaccines + boosters profoundly reduce the incidence of serious illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID?

I accept the California data as accurate, just as I accept the South Carolina and Iowa data as accurate. Do you?

The numbers in certain specific locations seem to vary from the trend nationwide, but in total, there is no doubt that vaccines + boosters improve outcomes for their recipients. Again I call your attention to the CDC hospitalization chart about which you chose not to make any comment.

EDIT: I forgot to ask you to address the question I raised in my previous post regarding the significance of a 9.1x increase in the likelihood of death: If for the next project you took on in life you were offered two (and only two) options - the two options pursuing the identical outcome - and you were told that one option had a 9.1x greater chance of complete failure than the other, would that information figure into your decision as to which option you chose?

At least you had a good reason for not commenting on the chart I presented.

The evidence is abundant, clear, and convincing that the COVID vaccines are safe (as well as effective... see the chart on which I hope you will now comment).

A lot of people died from COVID in 2021, in large part due to the rise of a more transmissible variant. As the article to which you linked states, "The increase in claims was largely down to the emergence of the Delta variant, twice as transmissible, and more likely to cause hospitalisation than the original coronavirus strain." Insurance companies create business models and set aside assets to deal with such circumstances, but their models weren't sufficient for the way COVID evolved.

Of course, at issue in our current discussion is not how many people died of COVID in any given time period, as sad a subject as that is. At issue in our discussion is whether people who are vaccinated are more, less, or as at risk to die from COVID as are people who are not vaccinated. According to the data, the answer to that question, WITHOUT DOUBT OR RESERVATION, is that the vaccinated are SIGNIFICANTLY LESS at risk to die from COVID then are the unvaccinated.

Now, please comment on the chart with which I began THIS POST.

There is no evidence - NONE - that the COVID vaccines pose anything close to a meaningful risk of death among their recipients.

BTW, "correlation" IS different from "causation."

The success of COVID vaccines is all the evidence one needs to conclude that COVID-19 and the global response to it have little if anything in common with the response to H1N1 more than 50 years ago.

The evidence of the vaccines' safety and effectiveness is widely available (e.g. in the chart with which I began THIS POST).

In addition to that chart, I ask (again) that you respond to this question about the significance of a 9.1x greater chance of death: If for the next project you took on in life you were offered two (and only two) options - the two options pursuing the identical outcome - and you were told that one option had a 9.1x greater chance of complete failure than the other, would that information figure into your decision as to which option you chose?

And finally, so that we can bring clarity to your point of view on these matters, I ask for you direct answers to the following questions:

1) Here's a table from the CDC reporting COVID case- and death totals and rates for fully vaccinated and unvaccinated persons in 25 jurisdictions over an eight month period in year 2021:

Do the rates of infection and death among the vaccinated and unvaccinated persons presented in that table report that the unvaccinated are more, less, or as likely to contract COVID are are the vaccinated? Do the rates report that the unvaccinated are more, less, or as likely to die from COVID as are the vaccinated? If your answers to those questions are either "more" or "less" likely, please characterize how MUCH more or less likely they are to contract or die from COVID: A "little" more/less likely? "Moderately" more/less likely"? "Significantly" more/less likely?

And here's a chart reflecting the COVID death rate in the U.S. per 100,000 people over a 2-1/2 month period in the second half of last year among the vaccinated (both fully and fully+a booster) and the unvaccinated:

What conclusion do you draw from this chart about the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated compared to the death rate among the vaccinated in the U.S. over those 19 weeks? Was the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated higher, lower, or about the same as the COVID death rate among the vaccinated? If your answer was "higher" or "lower," please characterize how MUCH higher or lower the death rate among the unvaccinated was than the death rate among the vaccinated: A "little" higher/lower"? "Moderately" higher/lower? "Significantly" higher/lower?

Do you have ANY official data that in any substantive manner dispute the findings of the two charts and one table I've now presented to you in this thread?

This is simple math. As the percentage of a state's residents who have been fully vaccinated rises, the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths in that state who are fully vaccinated is also going rise because the vaccinated make up a higher and higher percentage of the population.

• In Illinois, 75% of citizens age 12+ are fully vaccinated (87.3% of persons age 65+, who are among the more vulnerable). The vaccinated outnumber the unvaccinated by 3-to-1.
• In Pennsylvania, 66% are fully vaccinated. There, the difference is 2-to-1.
• In Iowa it's 60.8%. 3-to-2.
• In South Carolina it's 55%

It's not at all surprising that the vaccinated make up increasing percentages of COVID cases. What matters for comparisons are the RATES of death and hospitalization, not the absolute numbers. One example: In Illinois, the vaccinated make up 75% of the population, but accounted for 60% of the one week's new hospitalizations to which your post referred. While the unvaccinated make up 25% of the population yet accounted for 40% of that week's hospitalizations.

So what is the "prudent action" for an unvaccinated resident of Illinois to take? To stay unvaccinated and hence remain part of a group that accounts for a 60% greater share of hospitalizations than its share of the total population would suggest (40% rather than 25%)? Or get vaccinated and become part of the group that accounts for a 20% smaller share of hospitalizations than its share of the total population would suggest (60% rather than 75%)?

Notice that the vaccinated's percentage of hospitalizations in PA is a bit lower than in IL. That makes sense. The unvaccinated's percentage is higher in PA than in IL.

Notice also that the two percentages are lower still in IA and SC, again quite expectedly because the vaccination percentages in IA and SC are lower still.

Higher rates of vaccination mean there are lower percentages of unvaccinated persons, which quite naturally result in higher percentages of cases coming from the vaccinated. Vaccines don't prevent 100% of cases, hospitalizations, or deaths; they reduce them considerably, but do not eliminate them.

NONE of that changes the realities described by the table and two charts I offered in my previous posts.

According to the CDC, its COVID surveillance area, "comprises 99 counties in the 14 states participating in the Emerging Infections Program (EIP) and the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IHSP). Participating states include: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Utah. COVID-NET covers approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population. The counties covered are located in all 10 Health and Human Services (HHS) regionsexternal icon. The designated COVID-NET surveillance area is generally similar to the U.S. population by demographics; however, the information might not be generalizable to the entire country."

Is there any evidence that the surveillance area was chosen in response to the Biden administration's agenda? No, and you're not likely to find any because the EIP, from which the surveillance area is constructed, was formed in 1995, 13+ years before the Obama-Biden administrations and 25+ years before the Biden administration. In addition, the EIP is selected to be, "roughly representative of the U.S. population on the basis of demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, and urban residence, as well as health indicators such as population density and percent at or below the poverty level."

That distraction out of the way, I ask YET AGAIN for your comments about the CONTENT of the chart I presented in THIS POST (which can be found HERE; sorry for the bad link previously provided). What conclusions do you draw from that chart about the rates (NOT absolute numbers!) of COVID-related hospitalizations among the vaccinated and unvaccinated in 2021? Were the unvaccinated more, less, or about as likely as the vaccinated to be hospitalized with COVID?

Please quote from the CDC document where it verifies the vaccination causes myocarditis. I see a correlation demonstrated (via VAERS reports, we must note), but I don't see confirmation or verification. Please quote from the document.

To my calculation, the document counts 2,459 total reported cases of mycarditis among vaccinated persons (either one dose, two doses, or an unknown number of doses), and reports a total of 366,062,239 administered doses, or a myocarditis case percentage of 0.0000671%. If you knew that you had a 99.999933% chance of winning the lottery next week, would you play it? The chances of getting struck by lightning sometime in your life is 0.000654%, about 10 times GREATER than the chances of contracting myocarditis from a COVID vaccine. Does that mean the "prudent action" is for us never to go outside when there are clouds in the sky?

And then there are the table and the other chart I presented in my previous post, to neither of which did you offer even a mention. So YET AGAIN for your direct responses to these questions:

1) About the table: Do the rates (not absolute number) of infection and death among the vaccinated and unvaccinated persons presented in that table report that the unvaccinated are more, less, or as likely to contract COVID as are the vaccinated? Do the rates report that the unvaccinated are more, less, or as likely to die from COVID as are the vaccinated? If your answers to those questions are either "more" or "less" likely, please characterize how MUCH more or less likely they are to contract or die from COVID: A "little" more/less likely? "Moderately" more/less likely"? "Significantly" more/less likely?

2) And about the chart: What conclusion do you draw from that chart about the COVID death rate (not absolute number) among the unvaccinated compared to the death rate among the vaccinated in the U.S. over those 19 weeks? Was the COVID death rate among the unvaccinated higher, lower, or about the same as the COVID death rate among the vaccinated? If your answer was "higher" or "lower," please characterize how MUCH higher or lower the death rate among the unvaccinated was than the death rate among the vaccinated: A "little" higher/lower"? "Moderately" higher/lower? "Significantly" higher/lower?

Do you have ANY official data that in any substantive manner dispute the findings of the two charts and one table I've presented to you in this thread?

It's simply not possible for me to have a productive exchange of views with you on this or any other issue when you refuse to address my questions directly:

• I asked you about the chart found at the top of THIS POST in THIS POST, THIS POST, AND THIS POST, each time receiving no response from you.
• I asked you about the table and chart found in THIS POST a second time in THIS POST, also without your response.
• And in my post before this one I asked you to quote from the CDC document that you claimed declared a causal connection between COVID vaccinations and myocarditis, again without response from you.

So I am backing away from this exchange with you. If there comes a time when you're willing to address my questions and to do so directly, please say so in a post and I will return to the exchange, at least for long enough to determine whether you're actually willing to address my questions.

The "unvaccinated" obviously cannot be "split" into people who "avoid" the vaccine and those who receive the vaccine because, by definition, those who receive the vaccine are no longer "unvaccinated."

If the purported "adverse" reactions post-vaccination to which you refer are those reported in the VAERS database, which is co-managed by the CDC and the FDA, then there is no mixing of unvaccinated with the vaccinated. As the VAERS website reports,

"Established in 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of adverse events (possible side effects) after a person has received a vaccination. Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS. Healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention."

The only mixing of data in such a system would arise were unvaccinated persons (or on their behalf, those who cared for them) to report adverse reactions to vaccines they hadn't received. If you have another source of data mixing in mind, please provide a link to it.

As for the conclusion of your response, I didn't ask whether you had reservations about the chart, or whether it reflected or failed to reflect "hidden" data. I asked, according to the chart, were the unvaccinated more, less, or about as likely as the vaccinated to be hospitalized with COVID? I ask that question YET AGAIN.

Then there were the questions I asked about the table and chart in THIS POST, questions to which your latest post provides no response whatsoever.

And for good measure, in THIS POST and its successor I asked you to quote from the CDC document that you claimed declared a causal connection between COVID vaccinations and myocarditis. I now make that request YET AGAIN.

Where does your "four months" quoted reference come from? Please provide a link.

Boosters strengthen and prolong recipients' capacity to avoid serious illness, hospitalization, and death. Such prolongation is clearly needed to lessen the impact of variants that develop months or years into a pandemic, as has been the case with COVID. Had there been no Delta or Omicron variant, chances are boosters would not have been needed.

It's immunology and virology 101 to say that the larger the number of people who don't get vaccinated, the more opportunities a virus has to spread. The more a virus spreads, the more chances it has to mutate (i.e. to create variants). The more variants are created, the longer vaccines are usually needed. And the longer vaccines are needed, the more likely boosters will be "helpful."

In data I've seen, the categories refer to the unvaccinated, the "fully vaccinated," and the fully vaccinated who have received a booster.