Interesting the “it is 15, soon to be zero” quote wasn’t included.
Jezcoe
62
It’s almost like this dumb graph shows the rate of vaccination moving from an older population who are more prone to dying from being old towards a population of younger people who just don’t die as often.
along with health care workers? pretty irrelevant. you asked who got it first. the first person to get it was a nurse.
interesting you avoid the context… well, not really interesting so much as expected
You don’t see a difference between the two metrics? One reports all deaths and the other is selective. Not very comparable unless you think that selection process is constant, which it isn’t.
Yes says me. Just as you say that there she is st least in part responsible for the fda delaying distribution.
they both take raw data which may or may not be relevant and attempt to attach relevancy. neither is “science” or good science anyway.
So he is just asking questions. Right.
That’s funny though.
Harris - don’t listen to trump make an informed decision - bad
Tucker - don’t listen to government make an informed decision - why is that bad.
the fda said why, to boost confidence. confidence she and every other democrat was deliberately undermining as part of their election strategy. denial doesn’t change a thing.
if she, and other democrats were more interested in saving lives instead of winning elections, they should have been bolstering support of any vaccine that came out before the election instead of pretending any that did couldn’t be trusted because… tds
One takes all deaths in the US. What isn’t science about that?
The other relies on voluntary reporting.
You don’t see a difference?
Yeah correlative hds. It’s ok though your tuckersplaining about just asking questions made your position clear. Old man and his sidekick bad.
not what harris said, nor what any other democrat said. of course you know that.
Jezcoe
73
You know full well that the first major group to get the vaccine was the elderly… most of them in some sort of assisted living situation.
will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about,"
Yeah that’s totally different from Tucker wanting all the information to be available…. Credible source of information - not cdc not the lists. Some other credible source. He is just asking questions man
tuckersplaining?
thats hilarious. i don’t even like him. IMO he’s whiny and obnoxious. he’s wrong as often as not. i don’t see anything wrong with telling people to educate themselves and make an informed decision. is he a bit negative on it? yes he is. i would respect it much more if in context he also included the positive aspects to counter. an informed decision does imply that you have ALL of the information.
It’s not about liking him.
An informed decision does imply that you have all the information not just information coming from the president….
and you know full well that health care workers were right there in line with them. they were both in tier 1a and equally prioritized.
Jezcoe
78
I get that you are trying to point away from the major group of people that got vaccinated and likely makes up the majority of the deaths that have been reported to VEARS.
“likely” and “did” are not the same thing.
however, i do agree that many would have died anyway due to age or other infirment. you will find nowhere that i have ever said anything different. i merely answered your question about who was in tier 1a, which you seem to want to limit to one group. the one that supports your narrative. odd however that just as many covid “deaths” were not actually covid deaths in the height of the pandemic yet as i recall. you were on the other side of that.
1 Like
Yes, excess mortality was the club that Democrats used to attack President Trump’s response to Hurricane Maria:
Hurricane Maria’s official death toll is 46 times higher than it was almost a year ago. Here’s why | PBS NewsHour
Until hurricane Maria, the typical way to account for deaths from hurricanes was to only count deaths that are an immediate result of the weather. That would include things like a falling a tree hitting someone or someone drowning from flooding immediately after the storm.
For Maria, the problem was that decrepit infrastructure collapsed so there was no electric power and poor road conditions for months after the storm. These problems increased the overall death rate from lack of air-conditioning and refrigeration and other problems.
Or course by the logic of a excess morality, a typical winter kills tens of thousand of people in the US. Where is global warming when you need it?
I suspect a similar thing is going on with vaccinations. The CDC typcially only counts deaths that quickly occur from rare conditions that are known to be tied to vaccinations. Examples would include someone dying within minutes from allergic reaction, or people who died from a rare neurological reaction to the 1976 swine flu vaccine.
My understanding is that the CDC normally do not calculate excess deaths based on the death rate after vaccination compared to expect deaths. As with hurricanes, excess deaths could be many times higher than the direct deaths normally recorded.
Are excess deaths a better way to look at vaccine safety?
Or should that method only apply to hurricanes?
