Coronavirus COVID-19

[SDHornet]

Very good. Now, for the Gold Star: What percentage is this number of the total number of deaths for the same population indicated in your meme?

This isn't a meme. It's a graph of CDC data.

[SDHornet]

Just checked the CA DPH stats for the first time in maybe 6-8 weeks. Deaths are trending downwards even during this recent spike in "cases". Yawn.

76k deaths since Feb 2020.
Ages 65+ accounts for 71% of deaths.
Age 50-65 accounts for 21% of deaths.
Age 18-49 accounts for 8% of deaths.
Age 0-17 accounts for 0% of deaths.

[SeattleGriz]

FDA loses in court and judge requires them to release all documents provided to them by Pfizer for the vaccines approval.

The FDA was initially only going to release 500 pages per month over the course of 75 years. Now they must produce 55,000 per month.

[SDHornet]

Thank God Trump won in '16. Imagine Hildacunt picking those Justices instead. Huge bullet dodged there.

[AZGrizFan]

Thank God Trump won in '16. Imagine Hildacunt picking those Justices instead. Huge bullet dodged there.

lol. like they give two SHITS about actual facts to support their narrative.

[SeattleGriz]

Thank God Trump won in '16. Imagine Hildacunt picking those Justices instead. Huge bullet dodged there.

lol. like they give two SHITS about actual facts to support their narrative.

What does this say about our SC Justices? Woefully uninformed on the topic.

[AZGrizFan]

lol. like they give two SHITS about actual facts to support their narrative.

What does this say about our SC Justices? Woefully uninformed on the topic.

She's not SC judge material. She is a woke activist.

[GannonFan]

What does this say about our SC Justices? Woefully uninformed on the topic.

She's not SC judge material. She is a woke activist.

I agree. Her and Kavanaugh are my least favorite justices, so hard for both to leave their politics behind.

[SDHornet]

These people teach kids. Wow.

[SeattleGriz]

Lady is supposedly a teacher as well.

[JohnStOnge]

Another example of misusing data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Here is a quote from the guide on interpreting (VAERS) data at https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html:

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.

The COVID-19 pandemic is politically active thing so it makes sense that a bunch of people are reporting things. That's why the VAERS is active. But, so far, none of that has resulted in much in terms of actual evidence that the vaccines are causing adverse events. You can see what has actually been established at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html.

They had identified 19 deaths "causally associated" with COVID-19 vaccinations through December 20, 2021. All with the J&J.

This thing of misrepresenting what VAERS data indicate really needs to stop. It's one of the big things with the anti vax movement. And it's totally bogus.

[JohnStOnge]

Now for why I came here just now: It's the thing about people saying CDC Guidance on isolation is confusing. It is NOT confusing. See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... ation.html .

If that is confusing we have a problem with the average IQ of the US public. I'm sorry, but it is what it is. It may require you to have more than a 1 minute attention span to read it. But it is NOT confusing.

You can disagree with the balance struck between risk and benefit. But it's not confusing.

[SeattleGriz]

Another example of misusing data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Here is a quote from the guide on interpreting (VAERS) data at https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html:

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established.

The COVID-19 pandemic is politically active thing so it makes sense that a bunch of people are reporting things. That's why the VAERS is active. But, so far, none of that has resulted in much in terms of actual evidence that the vaccines are causing adverse events. You can see what has actually been established at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html.

They had identified 19 deaths "causally associated" with COVID-19 vaccinations through December 20, 2021. All with the J&J.

This thing of misrepresenting what VAERS data indicate really needs to stop. It's one of the big things with the anti vax movement. And it's totally bogus.

After all the statements that have wound up false coming from the CDC, and you still trust what they have to say?

Let's see the autopsy results and lab test results on these deaths.

All cause mortality might give us some truth and only now is gaining a little traction in the conversation.

[JohnStOnge]

Another example of misusing data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Here is a quote from the guide on interpreting (VAERS) data at https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html:



The COVID-19 pandemic is politically active thing so it makes sense that a bunch of people are reporting things. That's why the VAERS is active. But, so far, none of that has resulted in much in terms of actual evidence that the vaccines are causing adverse events. You can see what has actually been established at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... vents.html.

They had identified 19 deaths "causally associated" with COVID-19 vaccinations through December 20, 2021. All with the J&J.

This thing of misrepresenting what VAERS data indicate really needs to stop. It's one of the big things with the anti vax movement. And it's totally bogus.

After all the statements that have wound up false coming from the CDC, and you still trust what they have to say?

Let's see the autopsy results and lab test results on these deaths.

All cause mortality might give us some truth and only now is gaining a little traction in the conversation.

Give me some examples of what you consider to be false statements from the CDC. We are in a pandemic caused by a new pathogen. There was no previous experience with it. So I am sure you can find some mistakes they made. Like for instance I know that they started out recommending against masks. I can recall looking at their web page and seeing that they were concerned about masks giving people a false sense of security, thinking that the masks would protect them, and fail to take other precautions like distancing. But, at the same time, they said that people who were infected SHOULD wear masks to protect others.

Then it became clear that presymptomatic and asymptomatic people can transmit the disease so they recommended masks. That is consistent with the idea that infected people need to wear masks to protect others.

But, I assure you, they know how to determine whether there is an association suggesting causality between a vaccination and mortality. There isn't one.

And, yes, I do trust what they have to say. They are not trying to fool anybody. They are just trying to do their job and they are the foremost epidemiology institution in the world.

[CID1990]

After all the statements that have wound up false coming from the CDC, and you still trust what they have to say?

Let's see the autopsy results and lab test results on these deaths.

All cause mortality might give us some truth and only now is gaining a little traction in the conversation.

Give me some examples of what you consider to be false statements from the CDC. We are in a pandemic caused by a new pathogen. There was no previous experience with it. So I am sure you can find some mistakes they made. Like for instance I know that they started out recommending against masks. I can recall looking at their web page and seeing that they were concerned about masks giving people a false sense of security, thinking that the masks would protect them, and fail to take other precautions like distancing. But, at the same time, they said that people who were infected SHOULD wear masks to protect others.

Then it became clear that presymptomatic and asymptomatic people can transmit the disease so they recommended masks. That is consistent with the idea that infected people need to wear masks to protect others.

But, I assure you, they know how to determine whether there is an association suggesting causality between a vaccination and mortality. There isn't one.

And, yes, I do trust what they have to say. They are not trying to fool anybody. They are just trying to do their job and they are the foremost epidemiology institution in the world.

It has been established (and admitted to by Anthony Fauci) that the initial mask guidance was not a mistake. It was a “noble lie” perpetrated by the CDC to avoid a rush on N95 masks and PPD when hospitals needed them.

I can’t believe you are re-litigating something that is not true.

Nevermind… yes, I can


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobbythekidd]

LOL. Not even close to true. Find me a link that supports this and I'll gladly say I'm wrong. You can't just post horseshit and expect anyone to believe it.

[BDKJMU]

Thank God Trump won in '16. Imagine Hildacunt picking those Justices instead. Huge bullet dodged there.

Who’s a bigger idiot? Sotomayor or Bryer?

[AZGrizFan]

This is what happens when SC justices are 180 years old.

[Baldy]

This is what happens when SC justices are 180 years old.

But, Sotomayor is supposed to be the "Wise Latinx".

[CID1990]

If the Justices’ questions and comments were tweets, Twitter would have to suspend them for COVID misinformation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

This is what happens when SC justices are only worth 1 point in a Death Pool.

FIFY

[SeattleGriz]

That's how ya get 'em!

Approve their request to play and then when they show up, lock em up! Brilliant.

[Baldy]

[Baldy]

The gall. Dining with her political buddies while 100,000 children are on ventilators.

[SeattleGriz]

After all the statements that have wound up false coming from the CDC, and you still trust what they have to say?

Let's see the autopsy results and lab test results on these deaths.

All cause mortality might give us some truth and only now is gaining a little traction in the conversation.

Give me some examples of what you consider to be false statements from the CDC. We are in a pandemic caused by a new pathogen. There was no previous experience with it. So I am sure you can find some mistakes they made. Like for instance I know that they started out recommending against masks. I can recall looking at their web page and seeing that they were concerned about masks giving people a false sense of security, thinking that the masks would protect them, and fail to take other precautions like distancing. But, at the same time, they said that people who were infected SHOULD wear masks to protect others.

Then it became clear that presymptomatic and asymptomatic people can transmit the disease so they recommended masks. That is consistent with the idea that infected people need to wear masks to protect others.

But, I assure you, they know how to determine whether there is an association suggesting causality between a vaccination and mortality. There isn't one.

And, yes, I do trust what they have to say. They are not trying to fool anybody. They are just trying to do their job and they are the foremost epidemiology institution in the world.

C'mon. Really? From masks guidance flip flopping to the slow degradation of "get vaccinated, never catch Covid" to "at least you won't die", the CDC has shown they are more political than science.

They've had Sars1, past respiratory pandemics, influenza and cold surveillance data for years AND we researched Covid specifically, so please, don't use the "we didn't understand a respiratory virus line".

The fact they haven't addressed naturally aquired immunity and you can't get data out if them speaks volumes.