Reading the “discussion “ section is essential.
Reading the “discussion “ section is essential.
welch (December 2nd, 2021)
Last edited by dneal; December 2nd, 2021 at 01:57 PM.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
@dneal, are you familiar with reading a scientific article?
welch (December 2nd, 2021)
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
We both know you haven't finished the question: "What would you do (about ________?)
But I'll take your question as a free pass: I propose that Autocrat Joe, who claimed to graduate in the top half of his law school class when he was actually 76th out of 85, be questioned by someone with the skills of Trey Gowdy regarding the interplay of the presidential oath, the Constitutional separation of powers, and Biden's theory of ruling by edict.
Sorry wrong topic.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
@ welch
You "thanked" Chuck's post #106, which is time-stamped after my post #105. Perhaps you missed it, so I'll ask again:
Is your claim that the article asserts that zero deaths resulted from the COVID vaccine?
You know what? I'll make it even easier for you since you are so well versed on the article.
What did the article conclude the mortality rate of covid-19 vaccination to be?
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
We should also note that the 8.2 per 1M death rate is primarily driven by the deaths among 85+ year olds in assisted care residences with several co-morbidities, and in an early time period when the vaccine was only available to the very old and the most vulnerable of the rest of the population.
A better figure would be found by doing this kind of study, again, and looking at a truer cross-section of the age-and health-demographics of the country. We might find that the vaccine "death rate" is actually much lower in the general population, especially now that we are vaccinating everyone, including the healthy, all the way down to 5 years old. I would hope that someone is re-looking at this. Data is important to have for future decisions.
I have no problem with challenging the precise number, and I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't 8.2 per million. The abstract also lists the vaccination mortality rate in long-term facilities as 53.4 per million. The particular number isn't important, as long as it is one or greater. If it is zero, a fundamental premise is false and the conclusion is false. Waiting on welch for that one...
The point of the is thread is simply a questioning of the "vaccine mandate" argument, what it's based on, and what the consequences would be.
In particular, it confronts the "you want people to die" side of the argument with the same rhetoric. Many of those people are unable to reconcile their compassion with the fact that a true mandate would indeed cause the death of some. It would likely be fewer than those whose death was caused by the virus. Those same compassionate folks seem unable to simply say: "yes, that (causing the death of some, to save the lives of others) is acceptable to me".
"Leaping" to Utilitarianism, this is the ethical theory that the argument falls under. It is a flaw of Utilitarian theory. Kantian theory is also flawed, and so is every other ethical theory. It's just the way it is, and why ethical dilemmas exist.
As an aside, the "mandate" argument also fails in light of the fact that the vaccine is not a perfect solution. It doesn't prevent you from contracting. It doesn't prevent you from transmitting, and it doesn't prevent you from dying. It does appear to reduce the probabilities.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Your article's contention is not that the Covid vaccines killed anyone. The researchers do not find that the vaccines "are responsible for any deaths". You still haven't read anything but the abstract, and you mis-read that. Read the data. Then show us how the data shows more than that some people died after being vaccinated. That's all. The only diagnoses the researchers mention are the comorbidities from which the very old people suffered.
Are you sure you know what they mean by "mortality rate"? You seem to believe that you can extrapolate from this "mortality rate" to arrive at 8 deaths per million people vaccinated. Since the researchers never claim that the vaccine caused people to die, are you so certain? Against your certainty, all I can say is that I have casually read that some researchers think that there might be some risky side effects to some women with particular conditions, but that the researchers aren't sure, and that the bad reaction has happened to just a few women. I haven't read of a death to anyone anywhere caused by the vaccines.
As best I understand the article: it suggests that people who got the vaccine died, from whatever causes, at a lower rate than did people of the same ages a year or two earlier. That is, in 2019. That's why the researchers suggest that Norway made a mistake by with-holding the vaccine from the frail elderly. That is in their discussion.
Last edited by welch; December 2nd, 2021 at 08:23 PM.
Semantics. What's the mortality rate of covid vaccination? Should be an easy answer, since you studied the article so thoroughly.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
dneal, you extrapolated from a sentence you picked out of the abstract without pausing to consider the possibility that the details, meaning the study itself, might say something different than your understanding. Yet you assume that this study demonstrates that the vaccines kill people. Why, then, don't the researchers say so? That would be a shock. It would bring attention to them. Why, then, do they bother talking about decisions in Norway?
You assert, without evidence, that vaccine mandates are applied utilitarianism. How do you know? Might they simply be the way that public health people try to limit the spread of a virus that has killed about 5 million people world-wide? A virus that is on its third or fourth mutation?
If you really want to discuss utilitarianism, why not just raise that?
Like trying to nail jello to a tree.
What’s the mortality rate of Covid vaccination, per the study?
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Article may not be accessible to everyone, so here is the entire discussion quoted.
Discussion
COVID-19 vaccine is safe in younger groups. The majority of the reported deaths were in people aged 85 and older and vaccinated at long-term care facilities; these patients are frail older people with serious underlying health conditions such as dementia, hypertension, heart failure, COPD, diabetes, anemia, and fall. In addition, these vulnerable patients are polypharmacy users. Certain vaccine-disease and vaccine-drug interactions might have contributed to or have worsened health outcomes of those already vulnerable populations. It is essential to monitor the allergic reactions following the vaccination that mainly occur within a short period of time for preventable risks (5). However, the mortality rate of 53.4 per million following COVID-19 vaccination among long-term care facility residents during the study period was much lower compared to the 2019 monthly all-cause mortality rate of 0.3% among adults aged 65 years or older (6), or the 30-day all-cause mortality rate of 21.5% among US nursing home residents with COVID-19 (7). Therefore, our data suggest that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh the potential risks in older frail populations (e.g., long-term care facilities), and our findings do not support actions to exclude older adults from being vaccinated as the Norwegian government did. Continued monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination among the older population, particularly those with comorbidities and medications reported in this study, however, is warranted.
Here are some points to consider.
- In the abstract and the results section the researchers talk about a mortality rate of 8.2 per million among those who were vaccinated as part of this trial.
- In the abstract, results and discussion sections the researchers talk about a mortality rate or 53.4 per million (during the trial period) among those in long-term care (not in this study) who were vaccinated
- In neither of the above statements do the researchers attribute deaths directly to the vaccination.
- The researchers note that the patients had one or more co-morbidities (which significantly raise odds of dying) and/or were taking more than one type of medicine (polypharmacy = multiple drugs, another significant raiser of odds of dying).*
- The researchers acknowledge that the vaccines 'might have contributed to or have worsened health outcomes of those already vulnerable populations', and that close monitoring is recommended.
When considering the mortality rates reported by this particular study, it should be noted that monthly all-cause mortality rate among adults over 65 years is 0.3%, and the mortality rate among the vaccinated patients in long term-care during the period of but not specifically in the study is 0.005%.
Essentially, as I understand it, while vaccination in this population retains a significantly lower mortality rate than all other causes of death, it is should not be taken in isolation. My interpretation is that vaccinating this population increases the mortality rate by 0.005%, not necessarily by direct cause (that has yet to be established) but by contributing to already existing poor health states.
Hopefully that helps some in clearing up confusions. Taking number by themselves tends to lead to loss of meaning.
*Note about point 4 above. You will have to go to other literature to find supporting evidence that co-morbidities and polypharmacy raises odds of death. Plenty of stuff out there. Or you could accept it as written.
Last edited by Empty_of_Clouds; December 2nd, 2021 at 10:01 PM.
welch (January 6th, 2022)
There is no confusion. There's a lot of weaseling. There is a complete ignoring of the plain language in the abstract.
A recent study demonstrated that peanut allergy mortality of x% is not due to peanuts, but the anaphylaxis... Another study demonstrated that the mortality rate from drowning was not from the water, but that hemoglobin ceased to transport oxygen. Guns don't kill people, death results because of all the blood loss. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop.
That's how silly the line of arguing is, made a little more obvious.
From the abstract:
1. EUA for COVID vaccines brought concerns
2. We aimed to estimate the mortality rate of COVID vaccination
3. Data on deaths following COVID vaccination were obtained from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
4. the mortality rate of COVID vaccination was 8.2 per million population
But some would argue that if we dig a little deeper in the paper, then we would discover that the deaths resulted from the comorbidities, and the vaccine or vaccination had absolutely nothing to do with it. Right? It was the dementia. It was the hypertension. It was the COPD. It was certainly not the perfectly harmless and safe and not potentially mortal vaccine, that we'll continue to monitor because it's warranted for some reason... I wonder why they didn't just say that in the abstract, and particularly the "results" portion of it.
Dear god the levels of disingenuity has reached heights I never thought possible. Even more scary is that some of you might truly believe the nonsense you're peddling.
Last edited by dneal; December 3rd, 2021 at 05:07 AM. Reason: Had to include "it's not the fall that kills you..." ;)
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Bookmarks