Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoodleBob

Here’s one study that says the vaccines do more than lessen severity:

Summary
Unvaccinated 12-34 year-olds in Washington are
• 3 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34 year-olds.
• 12 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 12-34
year-olds.
Unvaccinated 35-64 year-olds are
• 4 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64 year-olds.
• 18 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 35-64
year-olds.
Unvaccinated 65+ year-olds are
• 7 times more likely to get COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds.
• 13 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ yearolds.
• 15 times more likely to die of COVID-19 compared with fully vaccinated 65+ year-olds

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf


57 posted on 12/29/2021 4:40:01 PM PST by DugwayDuke (Most pick the expert who says the things they agree with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: DugwayDuke
I agree that in the short-run, the studies and available data show a relative reduction in hospitalization and, in some cases, fatality for those who've gotten shots. Again, I qualify these studies' results because the data collection etc isn't of clinical-strength (there are a lot of people suddenly dying suddenly...is it due to shots? Maybe...maybe not...if we had a legit clinical study with some duration maybe we wouldn't have these food fights).

For the sake of discussion, lets assume the shots really DO keep people out of the ER and morgue vs the control group. However, if the VE has decayed below the designated threshold (50%), I would STILL consider yanking the EUAs.

The reason is principle. The whole basis of approval was PREVENTION. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the shots themselves were DEVELOPED to PREVENT. If they don't prevent, then a) they're not performing to spec, and b) that basis of approval is gone. It doesn't matter if they do other wonderful things. Those wonderful things are happy accidents...they may even be hopeful occurrences. But that doesn't change the fact that the drugs are failing in their prime directive.

Am I being pedantic? You bet. Because drug approvals are one place where I want the rules to be followed. More broadly, these approvals have driven government and employer mandates that have caused massive employment dislocations, Constitutional issues about executive power AND "who's body is this?" and a fraying of the fabric of society.

So if these things don't work according to specifications, they should absolutely be yanked.

59 posted on 12/29/2021 6:37:10 PM PST by DoodleBob (Gravity's waiting period is about 9.8 m/s^2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson