The vaccine isn't some miracle that immediately slashed infection and death rates as soon as it was available. The initial vaccine rollout happened not long after the first major variants begin to spread, which were both more infectious and more deadly than the initial strain, so it's not surprising that there was an uptick in Covid deaths at the time. The other spikes in Dowd's graph don't actually even correlate very strongly with spikes in vaccine uptake, for example the largest spike is labelled "mandates" but that spike is in late '21 while vaccination rate had already begun to plateau by ~August.

But weren't they supposed to prevent death in at least 95% of cases?

At this point there isn't a lot of dispute IMO.

For a couple years the vaccines were moderately effective against severe death/disease, mostly among very elderly and immunocompromised, and mildly effective against spread. And there was rare acute side effects (as with any strong immune modulating therapy) and unknown medium to long term effects.

And as the virus mutated and most of the most vulnerable people became infected and either died or acquired superior natural immunity, the efficacy of the vaccine has diminished greatly in the last year or two.

My biggest problem is that for ideological (and likely ultimately financial) reasons the US medical community is not (and never has) behaving ethically in trying to determine just how effective the vaccines are, and what are the real medium/long term effects; and modulating vaccine use based on the known data.

Like I mentioned before, in European countries where the vaccines are not culture war issues and the financial stakes aren't as high, experts are actually following the known science and not currently recommending mRNA Covid vaccines for anyone but the most vulnerable, and are urging caution in their use until we understand better the medium/long term effects better.

And I think a lot of the Euro's posting in this thread are not acknowledging how far US "experts" are from the European medical community in continuing to push the vaccine to populations here (basically everyone) who are not even offered the vaccines where they live. And they dont realize in the American context their views would be decried as anti-vax by the American left.

The only people not offered the vaccine in the UK are children under 5. Anyone who is older than that is still recommended to get it though (although it's a tiny fraction who haven't and might consider it at this point) and seasonal boosters are actively pushed for elderly and otherwise vulnerable in the same way the flu shot is.

You've made some reasonable points about the different advice for vaccinating young children specifically but most of your other claims are dubious at best.

Only if you actually get vaccinated. Not everyone did. A lot of those people died and a few vaccinated people did (mostly immunocompromised and elderly, though not all).

The original vaccine, sure. It's still very, very good at preventing hospitalization and death. However, the biggest thing you leave out is that the vaccine is easily modified to target new variants. The bivalent booster did just that. This fall's booster is expected to target XBB1.5, also. This will be much more effective, for obvious reasons.

The rest of this post is basically just nonsense.

Africa was provided the vaccine for free, dunce yearn

Reconcile that

In before the Africans were experimented on unethically yadda yadda

You guys are stupid motherf*ckers, masquerading as slightly less stupid motherf*ckers

The vaccine was free here, too, and should've been the property of the state, but for idiots like you guys voting Republican

Know what wasn't free? A couple other products of the pharmaceutical industry that your kin were ready to pop on Rogan's recommendation. Invermectin and hydroxychloroquine

To be on a regimen of that dogshit, you'd certainly pay, while adversely effecting the supply for those who actually needed it lol

Why should the vaccine be free? A lot of people studied very hard and invested an insane amount of time and money to get where they are and know what they know. They also spent a lot of hours coming up with this particular vaccine. It seems insane to expect them to work for free. Other people invested a lot of money in these people and companies and deserve to be rewarded for the risk they took.

Have you thought about the long-term effects of what would happen if the government just took the vaccine without paying these people? Life expectance would start to go down as the pace of medical breakthroughs would drastically be cut down.

People working for free is absolute nonsense. It is greed that has given us nearly every single piece of innovation in the history of the world.

Africa being "provided" the vaccine, but no doctor recommending it for the young/healthy and almost no-one on the entire continent taking it (and yet Africa faring better health wise in response to the virus) is not the win you seem to be imaging it is.

You sleuth, half-assed gumshoe

Suck my fat, tangy slab

'No doctor ' eh.

Bro opt out of this discussion or life or both

Nothing is more worthless than your opinion

Are you sure about that claim? I am not seeing anything from the UK govt recommending primary vaccines or boosters for non at risk groups.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ok-chapter-14a

"JCVI advises that with the close of the autumn 2022 vaccination campaign, the offer of a pandemic booster dose (in place since 2021) for persons aged 16 to 49 years who are not in a clinical or other high risk group should close. From the end of the spring 2023 campaign, primary course COVID-19 vaccination will become a targeted offer only to those at higher risk of severe COVID-19. After that, the offer is expected to be limited to older adults and those in a clinical risk group (tables 3 and 4). The primary offer will only be available to eligible individuals during the planned seasonal booster campaigns."

That goes for all 3 of you science skeptic, neighbor skeptic, fear-polluted, diseased garbage

Bahbah asking the big questions

Because I said so, nga, that's why

Also, the Covid 19 definitely was not free. The govt borrowed billions of dollars to pay for it, and the American people are going to be paying for it for a long, long, long, long time.

I was looking at Spring programme as I thought it was the latest advice issued and I didn't see that update (I can't find anything that references this updated advice outside of that 50+ page document). There are some indications that it's at least in part for supply/cost reasons as opposed to being cautious about the vaccine side-effects but you're correct about the recommendation. It's basically being treated like the flu shot now, although with more emphasis on at-risk groups getting it out of specific seasonal time-frames.

Have you read Dowd's book? There are far more graphs and data than whichever one you are referring to. There are also numerous examples of young people, athletes etc dying after being vaccinated. The sheer number of those is quite remarkable.

LDO. Pay attention dude. We were discussing the rise in covid deaths correlated with the rise in vaccine uptake. If it was just unvaccinated dying that wouldn't happen.

I didn't say it was just unvaccinated dying, I said it was primarily unvacinnated dying, and yes it would. Why do you think it wouldn't? I legitimately don't think you understand what the numbers you are citing mean if you think they don't.

When a covid surge hits more people die than before that. Vaccination only curbs that by an amount influenced by how many people got vaccinated. It couldn't possibly eliminate that surge.
As an example, let's take a population of 100 people. Let's say 60 of them get fully vaccinated just in time for a covid surge. Let's say that surge kills 10 unvaccinated and 1 vaccinated person. That's 11 people that just died that wouldn't have without the surge. This will make two little correlated upticks on your graphs, one for the 60 people getting vaccinated and another one on the other graph for the surge of 11 new deaths. Capiche?

Also, I thought you said you were going to be showing us the Pfizer documents?

Cool, did he mention they also died after drinking water? Or getting dressed? Chronologically dying after being vaccinated isn't interesting or relevant. What matters is causailty. Did he discuss what actually caused any of those deaths? Did he show why the number is remarkable in any way? You realize athletes and/or young people have been dying forever, right?

The ACM numbers didn't go back down though. They kept going and are still elevated to this day. So that rules out your dumb surge hypothesis.

lol

a) it's not my "dumb surge hypothesis" you obtuse melon
b) show us this graph if you want to claim it as evidence. Every excess death graph I've seen has risen and fallen with the COVID surges, so show your work.

For example, in this graph, you can clearly see every time there was a surge, it came back down. Where is this surge you claim stayed elevated?


For giggles, let's just thrown in a hypothetical diagonal line from about when vaccinations started occurring until today where we are at about 70% vaccinated. I know it's not exact, but it will just give you an idea of how ridiculous it is to say there's a correlation at all. In fact, there's a pretty clear negative correlation.

I've not read Dowd's book but the graph I'm referring to is the one most prominently featured on his scaremongering website:



Just as correlation does not imply causation, the plural of anecdote is not data. There's a reason that both of these sayings exist and it's because they are two of the most common mistakes people make when naively looking at information. They are also two of the most common methods people use when trying to push misleading narratives in a convincing manner.

Umm... Not in the numbers that have been occurring over the last couple of years they haven't.

Well, there you go. You've made a positive claim that requires evidence to back up. The floor is all yours.

In other words [citation needed]. (ps, I really hope your evidence doesn't link to the Good Sciencing blog)