Pharmacist at Massachusetts stop & shop accused of giving covid vaccination cards to unvaccinated

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
287
Reaction score
196
"Lynn, Lynn, the city of sin, you'll never come out the way you went in."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Everyone laughs, but the data doesn't lie. Risk vs benefit, risk is too high vs benefit. People are concerned for their lives. This is excluding any lovely long-term post-surveillance findings.

VAERS Data:
340,522 reports made
4,427 (1.3%) deaths
All time COVID tracking
81.8M cases
996K (1.22%) deaths
Start - Dec 18, 2020 (first EUA)
17,567,878 cases
316,439 (1.8%) deaths
source: VAERSsource: JHUsource: JHU
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Everyone laughs, but the data doesn't lie. Risk vs benefit, risk is too high vs benefit. People are concerned for their lives. This is excluding any lovely long-term post-surveillance findings.

VAERS Data:
340,522 reports made
4,427 (1.3%) deaths
All time COVID tracking
81.8M cases
996K (1.22%) deaths
Start - Dec 18, 2020 (first EUA)
17,567,878 cases
316,439 (1.8%) deaths
source: VAERSsource: JHUsource: JHU

lol another wacky VAERS-citing tweedle dum

I got some essential oils for ya, too
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
You have no idea how VAERS works, do you?
"FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), even if its unclear whether the vaccine was the cause"

And COVID deaths recorded by institutions do not follow similarly loose reporting criteria? Get real.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
"FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), even if its unclear whether the vaccine was the cause"

And COVID deaths recorded by institutions do not follow similarly loose reporting criteria? Get real.
Your first paragraph is true but doesn't tell the whole story. Anyone can submit a VAERS report. You, me, my accountant, Nancy Pelosi, the puppeteer who controls Elmo, you get the idea. If a pattern emerges then the FDA (and anyone else who wants to) can investigate to see if there is anything to the reports. But using the raw data to make conclusions is almost certainly going to result in overestimating whatever negative thing you're going after.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
Everyone laughs, but the data doesn't lie. Risk vs benefit, risk is too high vs benefit. People are concerned for their lives. This is excluding any lovely long-term post-surveillance findings.

VAERS Data:
340,522 reports made
4,427 (1.3%) deaths
All time COVID tracking
81.8M cases
996K (1.22%) deaths
Start - Dec 18, 2020 (first EUA)
17,567,878 cases
316,439 (1.8%) deaths
source: VAERSsource: JHUsource: JHU
say you don't understand statistics and research without saying you don't understand statistics and research
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Your first paragraph is true but doesn't tell the whole story. Anyone can submit a VAERS report. You, me, my accountant, Nancy Pelosi, the puppeteer who controls Elmo, you get the idea. If a pattern emerges then the FDA (and anyone else who wants to) can investigate to see if there is anything to the reports. But using the raw data to make conclusions is almost certainly going to result in overestimating whatever negative thing you're going after.

say you don't understand statistics and research without saying you don't understand statistics and research

No doubt it's an overestimation, I understand that. However, so are reported COVID-19 deaths. You make the valid point that VAERS is subject to significantly more overestimation d/t it being open to anyone - so I'll disregard that as a valid argument. Death reports in VAERS are investigated, but the data isn't updated based on causal findings; which I originally thought was the case.

However, this does not change my stance on the shift of "risk vs benefit" decline:

Screenshot 2022-05-11 201428.png
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
No doubt it's an overestimation, I understand that. However, so are reported COVID-19 deaths. You make the valid point that VAERS is subject to significantly more overestimation d/t it being open to anyone - so I'll disregard that as a valid argument. Death reports in VAERS are investigated, but the data isn't updated based on causal findings; which I originally thought was the case.

However, this does not change my stance on the shift of "risk vs benefit" decline:

View attachment 354622
Are you familiar with base rate fallacy?

In short, in the US the majority of people are vaccinated. In many areas it is a very large majority. With that being the case (# of people who were vaccinated > # of people who aren't) then of course the percentage of deaths among the vaccinated will increase since their prevelance among the general population is higher.

The data that matters is looking at the daily hospital censuses and breaking that down by vaccination status.

I'll attach figures with those numbers from some of the larger hospitals in my state during the peak of the omicrom surge:

FJaMuyLXMAYDoKA.png


FJgzgb-UcAQQF-7.png


FJ5MZ1OXMAYJsm8.jpeg


Looks like the vaccine works pretty darned well to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
No doubt it's an overestimation, I understand that. However, so are reported COVID-19 deaths.

Covid-19 deaths are *not* overestimated, they are very much underestimated. "Extra" deaths above average, not attributed to COVID (or other cause like suicide, drug overdose, cancer, etc.) are like 250,000. Plus, the organ damage done from COVID kills many people months later, but that death isn't counted as a COVID death.

Seriously, I get (somewhat) uneducated people falling for the complete lies of anti-vaxxers and Covid minimizers/deniers, but how does someone trained in a healthcare model fall for these obvious lies? Cult mentality is strong. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Top