Poll of the Day > Annual Covid vaccine

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zangulus posted...

I didnt say he was defending them, I said he was helping. Because thats what he was doing. Erroneously legitimizing anti vax rhetoric out of his desire for pendency.

Because anti vaxxers try to use VAERS to show problems with the vaccine. And that study didnt even show what I asked for: Deaths.

Again, I dont think that was his intention, though He had believed there was a difference between sites, and made a mistake.

And we all already know the site didnt show what you were looking for. Like I said earlier, captpackrat showed that it didnt even support that persons claim. Even if adjl defended the site as it was, it still wouldnt be helping the people making the claim as it had nothing to do with the claim

When I posted, the post about deaths didn't even exist and the discussion had pivoted to talking about myocarditis, which somebody else had already pointed out is both less likely and less severe than death. The only thing I tried to comment on was your idea that anything based on VAERS should be ignored, which very obviously just isn't true. So obviously, in fact, that being so wrong legitimizes anti-vaxx rhetoric because the dingledorks will see that as pro-vaxxers ignoring science that doesn't agree with them.

If you want to educate people that are wrong, you need to understand and acknowledge why and how they're wrong. In this case, that means not shooting down VAERS reports of myocarditis just because it's VAERS, and instead pointing out why VAERS alone doesn't mean much, acknowledging subsequent research that has found the connection to be conclusive (which exists in spades regardless of how credible VAERS is), and outlining how that risk is less than that posed by Covid infections.

You forget that these are very stupid people, too stupid to even recognize the possibility that they're very stupid. You've gotta spell this out for them and stroke their ego a bit. Just saying "what you said is stupid" tends to result in them getting defensive and assuming that you're just ignoring facts you don't like.

captpackrat posted...

Descriptive study of reports of myocarditis to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that occurred after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine administration between December 2020 and August 2021 in 192 405 448 individuals older than 12 years of age in the US

1626 of these reports met the case definition of myocarditis

1626 / 192405448 = 0.00000845 = 0.000845%

As of Feb 23, 2023, the mortality risk of COVID in the US is 1.08% (https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid). You are 1,278 times more likely to die from COVID than to be afflicted by a serious but non-fatal illness.

I don't know if you can claim that. For example, your risk of dying to COVID is extremely unlikely in the event you are young and healthy. Let's take a look here:

https://data.cdc.gov/widgets/9bhg-hcku?mobile_redirect=true

You can see that, if you died of some disease (let's just assume that all data is accurate and methodology correct), there was a 3% chance it was COVID if you're 18-29 and 2.% if you're 15-24. These stats don't control for overall health, but I don't know how we would do that and I don't really feel like doing that much research.

A better question is to ask this: what is the probability that a healthy (no smoking, BMI in a normal range, etc.), young adult will die of COVID vs the same but for Myocarditis following the vaccine?

I may have said this elsewhere, but death rate isn't necessarily a valuable statistic when it comes to disease. You have to account for the amount of life lost - if you're 70 and die, 5 years of life were lost, but if you're 20 then over 50 years were lost.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The least you could do is critique the information instead of attacking the source. I don't have a stake in this game, I just don't like it when people only care about supportive information.

Fingerpuppet posted...

A better question is to ask this: what is the probability that a healthy (no smoking, BMI in a normal range, etc.), young adult will die of COVID vs the same but for Myocarditis following the vaccine?

Well, given that there have been zero documented deaths from vaccine-related myocarditis, I think you'll find the comparison still overwhelmingly favours the vaccine.

Fingerpuppet posted...

The least you could do is critique the information instead of attacking the source. I don't have a stake in this game, I just don't like it when people only care about supportive information.

Why critique info from a questionable source?

adjl posted...

Well, given that there have been zero documented deaths from vaccine-related myocarditis, I think you'll find the comparison still overwhelmingly favours the vaccine.

That's a bold claim. How do you know that?

Jen0125 posted...

Why critique info from a questionable source?

I'm not sure what you mean, but it's probably a typo so I'll expand. If I provide a source to justify my position, and you see that it's from an outlet that has a bias, then you can't simply point out the bias to defeat my argument. I could just as easily say that you can't trust CDC information because it's run by the government and you can't trust the US government because they act in their own self-interest.

So when should you attack the source? The best example from the top of my head is the guy who wrote an article claiming the US was behind the Nord Stream Pipeline attack. He is very anti-US, but that alone is not enough to discredit his claim. However, his information comes from a single anonymous source with no other verifying information. In this case, you can point out his bias and lack of corroborating evidence to dismiss the claim that the US was behind the attack. He has a vested interest in making the US look bad and his information essentially boils down to "trust me bro".

So, if you want to attack what I cited (and be intellectually honest), you need to find a flaw in the methodology of information gather, assessment, or what have you. It's not enough to say "they're biased", because that doesn't mean they're wrong.

Yes it was a typo, thank you. I meant why NOT critique data from a questionable source?

Fingerpuppet posted...

If I provide a source to justify my position, and you see that it's from an outlet that has a bias, then you can't simply point out the bias to defeat my argument

Yes we can. It's very easy. If you use sources that have severe bias there's almost no reason to trust their reporting. Even if they are factual, you should verify with a reliable source. If someone is getting all their info from questionable sources there's little reason to actually address their comment.

Jen0125 posted...

Yes it was a typo, thank you. I meant why NOT critique data from a questionable source?

Yes we can. It's very easy. If you use sources that have severe bias there's almost no reason to trust their reporting. Even if they are factual, you should verify with a reliable source. If someone is getting all their info from questionable sources there's little reason to actually address their comment.

You have entirely missed the point. You are not addressing the argument, nor are you addressing the information presented, by attacking the source instead of the content of the source. Dismissing information just because you do not like it is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


This is probably going to come as a surprise to you, but I don't value your opinion on what sources should and should not be used. I don't even have a stake in the game, but the fact that you've not addressed anything I've written tells me all I need to know about how you arrived at your position.

It's like you're deliberately missing the point so that you can keep huffing your own farts.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Did you even read my previous post? Are you keeping track of the usernames here? Go back and take a look because something isn't adding up.

Fingerpuppet posted...

You have entirely missed the point. You are not addressing the argument, nor are you addressing the information presented, by attacking the source instead of the content of the source. Dismissing information just because you do not like it is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Yeah, there's no point in arguing with anti-vaxxers using junk science. So, I don't.

Fingerpuppet posted...

You have entirely missed the point. You are not addressing the argument, nor are you addressing the information presented, by attacking the source instead of the content of the source. Dismissing information just because you do not like it is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

But if the source is bad, then you cant trust the content of the source

Jen0125 posted...

Yeah, there's no point in arguing with anti-vaxxers using junk science. So, I don't.

How do you know if it's junk science if you're dismissing things that you don't like? That's the entire point that I'm making: it is unscientific to reject claims just because you don't like where they're coming from.

LinkPizza posted...

But if the source is bad, then you cant trust the content of the source

Again, this does not address the issue. The information is right in front of you in the paper, and if you'd read any of my posts, you'd grasp the point that I'm making. You cannot say "lol bad argument, gg nerd I win" and expect to get anywhere because you're not actually addressing whatever argument is being made, nor are you actually discrediting the information because you're not even bothering to read the study or information provided.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Okay, so you don't actually understand how science works. Got it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You don't even know what my position is, so I don't know what you think you're doing here.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Why are you so angry whenever someone says something you don't grasp?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Hoes mad, as the kids say. I'd expect nothing less.

I think it's really funny that you're this bent out of shape over someone looking at you and telling you no.

You keep saying it's being ignored because we don't like what it says. It's being informed because you can't trust what it says because of a shitty source. It has nothing to do with liking anything. If a shitty source says something I like I don't just believe it.

Jen0125 posted...

If a shitty source says something I like I don't just believe it.

So you dismiss things you don't like without any evidence?

Fingerpuppet posted...

That's a bold claim. How do you know that?

Because every effort I've made to find documentation of deaths from vaccine-related myocarditis has come up empty. Sure, that's not *proof* that none have happened, since it's logically impossible to prove a negative like that, but I've exercised sufficient rigour to be comfortable concluding that the comparison overwhelmingly favours the vaccine, at least until somebody is able to credibly demonstrate otherwise.

Are you able to credibly demonstrate that deaths *have* occurred from vaccine-related myocarditis in sufficient quantities to consider them more dangerous than Covid itself? Or are you contenting yourself with briefly googling, finding nothing that proves they haven't, and hiding behind a disingenuous "well it could have happened" as though that's anything more than idle speculation?

Fingerpuppet posted...

If I provide a source to justify my position, and you see that it's from an outlet that has a bias, then you can't simply point out the bias to defeat my argument.

But the issue with VAERS isn't that it's biased. The issue with VAERS is in its fundamental design: it's data collected from laypeople with zero qualified oversight and no consideration of the plausibility of causal relationships between the apparent correlated variables. It's a valuable tool for vaccine research, since it helps researchers to identify apparent correlations that are worth investigating further, but if anyone else wants to draw any actual conclusions, they need to look at that further research and critically evaluate that instead of just the information in VAERS. It's not that VAERS isn't a valid source of information regarding vaccine side effects, it's that any conclusions based solely on VAERS are not valid because they have not been substantiated beyond unverified anecdotes.

Again, I could go into VAERS and say that the Covid vaccine turned my penis into a goose. Is that evidence that the Covid vaccine turns penises into geese? No. It's just evidence of a possible link, which can be explored further if somebody suspects that there may be something worth digging into (suspicion that would, in turn, be informed by considerations like how many reports of honkydonk there were, the mechanistic plausibility of a causal link, outside statistics showing an increase in the incidence of such events that roughly lined up with an increase in vaccinations...).

Now, as it happens, while the source you linked was not enough to infer a causal link on its own (it basically just summarized VAERS to say "hey this report is coming up pretty often, maybe it's worth investigating further"), subsequent research inspired by those findings has found a probable causal link between mRNA vaccines and elevated risk of myocarditis. You chose a poor source, but ended up at the same conclusion that has been accepted to probably be true. Don't mistake that for VAERS being a better source than people are giving it credit for. That was either luck or a matter of working backwards from the common knowledge you already had and trying to find a source to corroborate that.

Of course, all of this is entirely ancillary to the fact that you responded to a request for evidence of widespread vaccine fatalities with evidence (however tenuous) of a non-fatal side effect. We can argue over the validity of your conclusion all you want, but it's never going to actually relate to the question at hand and therefore amounts quite unambiguously to a strawman argument.

adjl posted...

Again, I could go into VAERS and say that the Covid vaccine turned my penis into a goose. Is that evidence that the Covid vaccine turns penises into geese? No. It's just evidence of a possible link, which can be explored further if somebody suspects that there may be something worth digging into

ok but if anyone does find a vaccine that turns your penis into a goose please pm me

That's all I wanted, thank you.

sheesh....
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/hard-evidence-in-new-study-brain-heart-damage-caused-by-mrna-vaccine_5074383.html
and the paper the article references.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651

inb5 banned for being "offensive" for linking to news and german research. no context.

tonicpalin posted...

and the paper the article references.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651

this is a case report. lmao

tonicpalin posted...

sheesh....
https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/hard-evidence-in-new-study-brain-heart-damage-caused-by-mrna-vaccine_5074383.html
and the paper the article references.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651

inb5 banned for being "offensive" for linking to news and german research. no context.

N=1 isn't exactly useful for identifying a risk factor, especially in the context of 10 billion other doses, but that may qualify as an example of a documented death from vaccine-related myocarditis, which would make my statement of zero incorrect. That's a pretty big "may," though. The findings aren't exactly conclusive, the article reporting on them is very obviously heavily biased against covid vaccination (looking at the language used and some of the other articles the outlet has published), most of the quotes in the article come from somebody unrelated to the case commenting on it in his youtube video... All in all, not exactly a definitive causal link.

horse to water. anti-mandate is not anti-vaccine.also google "bill gates oral polio vaccine". blah blah blah . yadda yadda.

You are quite possibly the most annoying 40 year old terminally online "person" I have ever met.

adjl posted...

But the issue with VAERS isn't that it's biased. The issue with VAERS is in its fundamental design: it's data collected from laypeople with zero qualified oversight and no consideration of the plausibility of causal relationships between the apparent correlated variables.

If you've never looked at VAERS, it has some of the stupidest "symptoms" I've ever seen.

For the COVID vaccine, here's a small sampling of some of the dumber ones:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/0/2/AAQwHjAAEN5e.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/0/3/AAQwHjAAEN5f.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/0/4/AAQwHjAAEN5g.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/0/5/AAQwHjAAEN5h.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/7/AAQwHjAAEN5t.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/8/AAQwHjAAEN5u.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/9/AAQwHjAAEN5v.png

tonicpalin posted...

horse to water. anti-mandate is not anti-vaccine.also google "bill gates oral polio vaccine". blah blah blah . yadda yadda.

Do you not understand that n=1 is utterly useless for identifying broader trends? Even if the case study in question was able to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that the covid vaccine was responsible for that patient's death (which this one wasn't), it's still only one patient. There are innumerable variables that may have made that one patient exceptionally vulnerable to dying of the vaccine that mean that outcome can't be generalized without further study. At best, that case suggests that 70-year-old men with Parkinson's and a documented history of adverse reactions to Covid vaccines might be better off skipping further ones, and that's neither conclusive nor applicable to most of the world. As it happens, I would be inclined to agree that somebody that reacted poorly to one shot probably shouldn't get subsequent ones, something which most agree with and is already baked into most vaccine requirements in the form of medical exemptions.

If you have a point, try making it instead of dropping vague hints at what you mean. I know you feel validated when nobody can prove you wrong, but when that's because you haven't actually said anything to which people can respond, you haven't actually accomplished anything.

captpackrat posted...

If you've never looked at VAERS, it has some of the stupidest "symptoms" I've ever seen.

For the COVID vaccine, here's a small sampling of some of the dumber ones:

Yep. As much as my example was obviously exaggerated to make a point, there's no shortage of similarly absurd claims actually on there. There are also plenty of legitimate claims that warrant further study (because, again, VAERS just says "there might be a correlation here," not "there is a correlation" or "there's a causal link"), but there's a desperate need to curate the data before trying to do anything with them.

chelsea___wtf posted...

ok but if anyone does find a vaccine that turns your penis into a goose please pm me

Will do.

Oof those results.

tonicpalin posted...

horse to water. anti-mandate is not anti-vaccine.also google "bill gates oral polio vaccine". blah blah blah . yadda yadda.

it aligns with it quite nicely. there may be minor discrepancies between those positions, but they still align in how the present in the media. I also haven't heard a rational argument against mandates that don't rely on anti-vaccine dogma.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You literally did nothing but whine, bitch, and complain when I tried to explain to you that claiming a source is bad is not an argument. I don't know how else to explain it to you, but you're not nearly as smart as your online career leads you to believe.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Your belief is that if you don't like where something comes from, then the information must be wrong. I don't know how else to explain this to you, but the only way someone would hold this position is if they were terminally online and nothing going on in their lives but the internet.