Harvard Research Confirms What We've Been Saying for MonthsThere is not evidentiary correlation between cases and vaccination rates

Substack ^ | 13 October 2021 | Justin Hart

[lightman]

Amen.

These past 18 months have shown me that deep down I am much more libertarian than GOP platform “conservative”.

[Nateman]

India has figured out the solution but the RATs don’t want solutions. They want the excuse for Mail In Voting to continue so they can keep on stealing elections.

[lightman]

Yes.

[walkingdead]

Thank you for your support. Americans must ban together on this and not let those who wish to rule us, drive a wedge between us.

[datura]

If you remember from the start of the plandemic, most “cases” are mild, with a survival rate over 99%.

You - or anyone else for that matter - cannot empirically prove that this “vaccine” has changed the trajectory of this disease by one iota.

Let’s see you do that.

[Political Junkie Too]

To be clear, you have posted an article that definitely states that the vaccine prevents serious illness. So remind me again, why you think the vaccine is bad?

Are you that dense, or being purposely obtuse?

What you posted as the "money quote" is not the money quote.

This is:

the vaccines have not stopped and likely will not stop the pandemic.

The author is not implying that the vaccines are bad. The author is saying the part of the quote that you dishonestly left out: "what is the argument for mandates?"

-PJ

[semimojo]

"what is the argument for mandates?"

Its the same argument made for seat belts. There's a cost to society when people get sick, injured or die unnecessarily. It's public health 101.

I'm not saying the trade off with personal liberty is always worth it but the argument is clearly rational one.

[Political Junkie Too]

Cases mean nothing, one must look at deaths. You also have to break it down by age or demographics.

The four charts are broken down by age group. The headings are cropped in the article. You have to open each chart from within the tweet to see the full chart.

To make it easier for you, I did so. Here are the headings:

• Upper Left Chart: 75+ years old.
• Upper Right Chart: 65-74 years old.
• Lower Left Chart: 50-64 years old.
• Lower Right Chart: 40-49 years old.

If we accept your premise that one must look at deaths, can we assume that "deaths" is a much smaller subset of "cases?"

If so, what do you make of the inference of the article that the number of cases/deaths plateaus at about a 20% vaccination rate, and diminishes marginally after that?

How would an age breakout show something different when the overall rates are already low and the higher ages would naturally have the most vaccinated people?

You do recall that the earliest people who were vaccinated were the elderly? Is it safe to assume that once we reached the 20% vaccinated level that it was the elderly that was mostly vaccinated and that the remaining people getting vaxxed were under 60 years old?

If that's the case that the elderly were the first to be vaccinated and that vaccinating the rest of the population had marginal effect on reducing future cases, does this justify ruining a nation over a vaccination mandate?

This appears to be the Pareto Rule (the 20/80 rule). In fact, look at the change in total cases between the 20% point and where the upper part of the curve starts to bend. What is the change in cases between these two points? I'll tell you: it's marginal compared to the early part of the chart.

So, what does this tell you about the need for mandates?

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Seat belts are not an invasive mandate. You might as well mandate wearing raincoats in the rain, because old wives tell you that you'll catch cold and fill up the hospitals with coughing people.

See my post #28.

-PJ

[ifinnegan]

Thanks. I will try to take a look.

“So, what does this tell you about the need for mandates?”

I don’t need this to know mandates are wrong.

[Political Junkie Too]

On this, I can agree with you 100%.

-PJ

[metmom]

There is a lot to learn from this graph, but most obviously, the COVID vax does not stop infection. The vax provides a private benefit (protection vs. severe disease), but limited public benefit (protection vs. disease spread)

And I would even question this claim simply because it’s been made by the same people who stand to benefit financially the most from the sale of the vaxxes

That’s too much a conflict of interest for me to blindly accept their claims.

[semimojo]

You might as well mandate wearing raincoats in the rain, because old wives tell you that you'll catch cold and fill up the hospitals with coughing people.

If we had the evidence that raincoats were very effective in preventing severe disease and death we may well consider mandates.

[ransomnote]

The money quote of the article. To be clear, you have posted an article that definitely states that the vaccine prevents serious illness. So remind me again, why you think the vaccine is bad?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because it’s killing and maiming people at unprecedented rates and the CDC’s algorithm is designed to let it do so even if it kills EVERYONE vaccinated?

Because the damage done by the vaccine is far worse than Covid-19 and is more likely to occur than hospitalization/death from Covid-19?

The Fact that Fauci and Biden demand we have it, as they destroy our country on behalf of China is kind of a give away.

The fact that the FDA panel heard solid data it could not refute demonstrating the the Covid ‘vaccine’ kills 2 people for any one person they claim it protects. Then Welensky overrode the decision the advisory panel came to - not to have a booster - with a demand for booster.

Because science doesn’t matter as long as the Covid Plandemic controls the country. Remdesivir and Intubation kill but they are preferred treatments to medicaitons saving entire nations around the world (HCQ, Ivermectin).

Because science has been redefined as “Biden Approved Science” or “Fauci’s Latest Lies = Science” and the expertise of researchers and doctors outside the biowarfare effort is deemed ‘not science’?

There are so many reasons, but you ignore them all so I’ll stop here.

Please continue to pretend no one has every proven all that they have proven, over and over again, because that’s how Fauci/China want this biowarfare effort to be conducted.

[Political Junkie Too]

Go for it.

And who is this "we" that you speak of?

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

If we can mandate that people must wear a raincoat, what if we had the evidence that certain "unclean" members of the population who were mandated to wear yellow stars was very effective in preventing severe disease and death?

Where is the line between which mandates "we" can consider and which ones we cannot?

-PJ

[semimojo]

If we can mandate that people must wear a raincoat, what if we had the evidence that certain "unclean" members of the population who were mandated to wear yellow stars was very effective in preventing severe disease and death?

Ignoring the hysterical NAZI allusion, if somehow identifying certain people would save lives there would of course be a public health justification.

Again, whether the benefit to society is worth the stigma is a political and philosophical question but the mandate would clearly be rational.

[Political Junkie Too]

Never forget.

if somehow identifying certain people would save lives there would of course be a public health justification.

The unvaccinated are not unhealthy. They are not sick. They are not contagious.

But you support treating them as if they were.

We used to quarantine the truly sick who showed the symptoms. You want to quarantine the unvaccinated from society for not being sick, but for simply be unvaccinated.

You want to mandate that the unvaccinated become vaccinated, when the unvaccinated are not sick, or showing signs of being sick.

They are, to you, an undesirable.

Undesirables are dehumanized by:

• first prejudicing the rest against them (Biden: “The vast majority of Americans are doing the right thing... This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”),
• then they are made the scapegoats for whatever goes wrong (Biden: "The unvaccinated overcrowd our hospitals or overrun the emergency rooms and intensive care units, leaving no room for someone with a heart attack or pancreatitis or cancer."),
• then they are discriminated against (can't fly, can't dine out, can't go to shows, can't get surgeries),
• then they are persecuted.

Never forget.

-PJ

[NetAddicted]

PERUSE LATER.

[Golden Eagle]

Double-Vaxxed Contracted Covid at Higher Rates than Unvaccinated, UK Data Shows

https://www.infowars.com/posts/alarming-double-vaxxed-contracted-covid-at-higher-rates-than-unvaccinated-uk-data-shows/