COVID

[Troubles Trees]

I have no doubt that the vaccine has probably killed some people. I also have no doubt that it is far far less people than covid itself has liked.

Gosh I try to stay out of this stuff but always seem to get sucked in. This comes off as snarky but it’s only intended to help inform.

Do you know how they counted Covid deaths? Anyone that tested positive and died, that includes murder-suicides.
No I don’t count the Grand Gazette as a trusted source, but since mainstream media outlets ignored this there is limited sources to pull from. Mainstream media ignoring this should have been a bigger red flag than it was.

County Coroner takes inaccurate COVID death reporting to Governor - Grand Gazette

Grand County Coroner Brenda Bock continues in her efforts to see a correction in the way the State of Colorado reports COVID-19 deaths, hoping to remove deaths by accident or homicide from the official county count provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).

grandgazette.net

The science before Covid said in order to release a "safe" vaccine on the public it must be tested side effects, proved effective and minimal long term effects and the testing lasted roughly 8-10 years to quantify specifically the long term effects and long term efficacy. The fastest vaccine created (in US history) and implemented was 4 years for the Mumps vaccine in the 1960's. Mumps wasn't novel, and there were many vaccines attempted in the 50 years before they found one that worked so there was lots of data to work with.

The people selling the vaccines were the ones that sold it to the public as stopping transmission through making you immune to getting Covid. That was a lie, flat out lie, even their own data from their trials didn't suggest there was ANY effectiveness on stopping transmission. We couldn't see the data, we had to sue for it and still only got bits and pieces. How they got so many people on board with blindly believing these people put safety and efficacy in front of profit is beyond me.

Here is a couple of reminders of the people we trusted to produce a safe product:
2009- https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...gest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

2013- https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/john...ion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations

Yes they hold the record for largest "criminal fine in US history", #1 & #2 highest. You don't have to believe me, look it up, these aren't the type of people that are trustworthy when people say "trust the science" because they are the science. The science was settled on masks vs. virus transmission until Covid, go digging for studies pre Covid and you will see it "was" settled and most of them used N-95 masks as the standard to study, not a handkerchief.

 

[omicron1792]

Gosh I try to stay out of this stuff but always seem to get sucked in. This comes off as snarky but it’s only intended to help inform.

Do you know how they counted Covid deaths? Anyone that tested positive and died, that includes murder-suicides.
No I don’t count the Grand Gazette as a trusted source, but since mainstream media outlets ignored this there is limited sources to pull from. Mainstream media ignoring this should have been a bigger red flag than it was.

County Coroner takes inaccurate COVID death reporting to Governor - Grand Gazette

Grand County Coroner Brenda Bock continues in her efforts to see a correction in the way the State of Colorado reports COVID-19 deaths, hoping to remove deaths by accident or homicide from the official county count provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE).

grandgazette.net

The science before Covid said in order to release a "safe" vaccine on the public it must be tested side effects, proved effective and minimal long term effects and the testing lasted roughly 8-10 years to quantify specifically the long term effects and long term efficacy. The fastest vaccine created (in US history) and implemented was 4 years for the Mumps vaccine in the 1960's. Mumps wasn't novel, and there were many vaccines attempted in the 50 years before they found one that worked so there was lots of data to work with.

The people selling the vaccines were the ones that sold it to the public as stopping transmission through making you immune to getting Covid. That was a lie, flat out lie, even their own data from their trials didn't suggest there was ANY effectiveness on stopping transmission. We couldn't see the data, we had to sue for it and still only got bits and pieces. How they got so many people on board with blindly believing these people put safety and efficacy in front of profit is beyond me.

Here is a couple of reminders of the people we trusted to produce a safe product:
2009- https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...gest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

2013- https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/john...ion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations

Yes they hold the record for largest "criminal fine in US history", #1 & #2 highest. You don't have to believe me, look it up, these aren't the type of people that are trustworthy when people say "trust the science" because they are the science. The science was settled on masks vs. virus transmission until Covid, go digging for studies pre Covid and you will see it "was" settled and most of them used N-95 masks as the standard to study, not a handkerchief.

All good points my man.

 

[yoderjac]

All good points my man.

I agree. Good points, but there are a few other things to consider.

First, the long lead time for vaccine approval was driven by more factors than longitudinal studies. They generally not required before approval of a vaccine. You are correct, because of the slow process there was more data on longer-term side effects, but only a few years. The long time to approval had more to do with investment and production. The old way to produce vaccines (chicken egg incubation) is a slow production process. Companies want to evaluate the return on investment before putting money into that.

The COVID vaccines did go through the normal process. The BIG difference was that they were granted "interim approval" because of the pandemic, as soon as the FDA assessed that the benefits outweigh the risks. Once can disagree with that judgement but the approval was only interim at that point. The big speed up in the process had nothing to do with testing the drug. It had to do with finance. Kudos to the Trump administration on this one. They threw money at the drug companies guaranteeing orders, whether the drug eventually got interim or final approval. Zero risk for the drug companies, so they could step on the throttle for production. A big multiplier on that was they had just developed the mRNA approach which does not require chicken eggs for incubation. This was a dramatic improvement in production speed. It will also allow drug companies with that technology to pivot much more quickly modifying the vaccine as variants emerge.

Eventually, the major COVID vaccines got final approval and that was the same standard as all other vaccines with the same data required.

It is completely understandable how folks saw the change in speed in the process and assumed the vaccine had less scrutiny than others in the past. Then you add the government push and suspicion is very understandable.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[omicron1792]

People confuse what the government put out (some good, a lot bad), and what the scientific studies said.

Everything I’ve said about covid and the vaccine was backed up by the data.

 

[Buckly]

Dr Fauci and others flip flopped and made so many false statements that I have no trust in the government data.

Everyone should have consulted a doctor they trusted. Evaluations should have been made on the individual’s health and exposure as well as all others in the household.
We surely didn’t need some 20 year old with no health care experience who works for the county giving advice.

Our County health people followed the State/ Government mandates and policies to the fullest, unfortunately and didn’t put up resistance, Or even alternatives. They have now been replaced. Quite the sight to see their reaction to the news. LOL. After telling certain parts of the population it was either get vaxed or be unemployed they couldn’t handle their own unemployment with the same regard.

 

[swat1018]

I think it was pushed so hard because of the broad societal benefit versus the individual benefit. Keeping the hospital system from overloading like it did in India with people dying in the streets had a lot to do with the push. I also think you are exactly right. The push itself was used by politicians advance their positions and many people like you resisted the push, just because of the push itself.

One reason I think the push was so hard was because of our demographics. Only about 14% of the population lives in rural areas. Clearly there is a different risk/reward ratio for two folks, otherwise identical, once living in a rural environment and the other living in an apartment taking public transportation to work in a city. The push was very broad and did not take into account differences in lifestyle.

Thaks,

Jack

You should say, "the broad perceived societal benefit."

 

[Bill Loser]

The confirmation bias runs deep in some. Lol

 

[yoderjac]

You should say, "the broad perceived societal benefit."

No. Maybe I should have said "broad social health benefit". I could have been more specific there. The broad social health benefit from the vaccination program is the significant reduction in deaths from COVID that would have occurred had our medical system been overloaded as it was in India. By slowing both the spread and the severity of illness our hospitals were able to treat those that needed it. It wasn't just the vaccine, but it played a significant role. It was also the precautions many folks took.

There is no doubt that some individuals had worse outcomes than they would have had without these methods being employed. However, the broad society had better outcomes as a result.

There is not doubt in my mind that folks living in urban centers with a much higher human contact density benefited much more than folks in more rural areas where human contact density is much lower.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

The confirmation bias runs deep in some. Lol

Bill,

Actually it runs deep in most everyone. It is part of the human condition. There are a number of other decision making errors that we are all prone to as well. We, as humans don't evaluate risk logically. One great example is the uproar over guns by parents so worried about their child being shot in high school. They are often the same parents that let their kids drive to school each day. When you look at the statistics, the likely hood of a kid being injured by a school shooter are very small compared to driving to school.

So, even when we have good data, we have to work to fight our nature and look at and act on the data rather than our gut.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

Just a quick update on my case:

I spent about 3 hours working out side today. I dug a pit (with my mini-excavator), collected up wood debris from my recent barn overhang installation, and burned the debris. I worked about 3 hours at full bore (or at least as much full bore as I have at my age) with no issues.

I still have some of the sinus infection symptoms slowly resolving, but all the COVID symptoms are gone except the slight metallic taste in my mouth.

Thanks, again for all the support!

 

[OakSeeds]

Here are the major pioneers of decision making heuristics and biases...... like the confirmation bias
journal article
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (couple of Israeli psychologists.)

Science
New Series, Vol. 185, No. 4157 (Sep. 27, 1974), pp. 1124-1131 (8 pages)
Published By: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Kahneman and Tversky researched the science of error and ...​

https://slate.com › technology › 2016/12 › kahneman-a...------------------------ GREAT read if you have time on your hands!
Dec 21, 2016 — Kahneman and Tversky went on to show that mistakes in human judgment are not exceptions but the rule, resulting from a host of mental shortcuts ...


Jack's example ... " One great example is the uproar over guns by parents so worried about their child being shot in high school. They are often the same parents that let their kids drive to school each day."
has to do with ignoring base line data (a heuristic) and locking in on things that are salient (another heuristic .... mass shootings including those at schools (including a 6-yr old shooter).

 

[yoderjac]

Here are the major pioneers of decision making heuristics and biases...... like the confirmation bias
journal article
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (couple of Israeli psychologists.)

Science
New Series, Vol. 185, No. 4157 (Sep. 27, 1974), pp. 1124-1131 (8 pages)
Published By: American Association for the Advancement of Science

View attachment 49091

Kahneman and Tversky researched the science of error and ...​

https://slate.com › technology › 2016/12 › kahneman-a...
Dec 21, 2016 — Kahneman and Tversky went on to show that mistakes in human judgment are not exceptions but the rule, resulting from a host of mental shortcuts ...


Jack's example ... " One great example is the uproar over guns by parents so worried about their child being shot in high school. They are often the same parents that let their kids drive to school each day."
has to do with ignoring base line data (a heuristic) and locking in on things that are salient (another heuristic .... mass shootings including those at schools (including a 6-yr old shooter).

Yep, that gave me a new, more reflective, perspective in my own decision making. While that bias in in all of us, knowing we have it can help us pause and rethink. The sad side of this, like any research, it can be used for good an bad. These are exploited by marketers and super marketers (politicians) to sell their goods or narratives.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Troubles Trees]

I agree. Good points, but there are a few other things to consider.

First, the long lead time for vaccine approval was driven by more factors than longitudinal studies. They generally not required before approval of a vaccine. You are correct, because of the slow process there was more data on longer-term side effects, but only a few years. The long time to approval had more to do with investment and production. The old way to produce vaccines (chicken egg incubation) is a slow production process. Companies want to evaluate the return on investment before putting money into that.

The COVID vaccines did go through the normal process. The BIG difference was that they were granted "interim approval" because of the pandemic, as soon as the FDA assessed that the benefits outweigh the risks. Once can disagree with that judgement but the approval was only interim at that point. The big speed up in the process had nothing to do with testing the drug. It had to do with finance. Kudos to the Trump administration on this one. They threw money at the drug companies guaranteeing orders, whether the drug eventually got interim or final approval. Zero risk for the drug companies, so they could step on the throttle for production. A big multiplier on that was they had just developed the mRNA approach which does not require chicken eggs for incubation. This was a dramatic improvement in production speed. It will also allow drug companies with that technology to pivot much more quickly modifying the vaccine as variants emerge.

Eventually, the major COVID vaccines got final approval and that was the same standard as all other vaccines with the same data required.

It is completely understandable how folks saw the change in speed in the process and assumed the vaccine had less scrutiny than others in the past. Then you add the government push and suspicion is very understandable.

Thanks,

Jack

God bless you my friend, you still feel the government isn't self serving and has our best interest at heart.

Glad to hear you are feeling better bud!

 

[Bill Loser]

Yep, that gave me a new, more reflective, perspective in my own decision making. While that bias in in all of us, knowing we have it can help us pause and rethink. The sad side of this, like any research, it can be used for good an bad. These are exploited by marketers and super marketers (politicians) to sell their goods or narratives.

Thanks,

Jack

The problem as i see it when it comes to confirmation bias in this instance is that only the "provaxxers" (not my term but its what everyone uses) that use it. If you disagree or see discrepancies or point out huge issues (like 1500 athletes dying in a year up from 29) on people on the other side anti-vaxxers (again not my term) are told they have confirmation bias. You never stop to think, "maybe it's me?"

 

[yoderjac]

The problem as i see it when it comes to confirmation bias in this instance is that only the "provaxxers" (not my term but its what everyone uses) that use it. If you disagree or see discrepancies or point out huge issues (like 1500 athletes dying in a year up from 29) on people on the other side anti-vaxxers (again not my term) are told they have confirmation bias. You never stop to think, "maybe it's me?"

Nope, confirmation bias is universal. Both sides. It is part of the human condition.

 

[Bill Loser]

Nope, confirmation bias is universal. Both sides. It is part of the human condition.

Oh I am well aware. My point is that only people on my end of the spectrum are said to be faulty of it. It's like the default position from you guys. If we point something out, your response 9 out of 10 times is confirmation bias while backing it up with your own, only yours is "fact".

 

[jsasker007]

They had people wearing masks that did little to no good. Someone came up with the magic 6' spacing. They locked covid positive patients in nursing homes with the most vulnerable group in society. They refused to use things that were safe and affordable and effective. I will hear what "the science" says and take it from there.

 

[4wanderingeyes]

You can credit the vaccine for the less deaths from covid, but you have to remember, "they" even said as the strain mutates, it becomes weaker, and as people get covid a second, third, forth time, their immune systems have built a defense against it, making the chance of serious illness much less likely. So assuming the vaccine was the cure, I think is very exaggerated.

 

[yoderjac]

God bless you my friend, you still feel the government isn't self serving and has our best interest at heart.

Glad to hear you are feeling better bud!

I don't think I would say the government isn't self serving. It clearly is. Butt...

I believe we still live in an democratic federal republic. That means we are a self-governing people. I believe that most folks in the country, as diverse as it is, really want the best for the country as a whole. They have widely different views as to what is best for the country.

Our political system divides us into special interest groups and the two parties try to figure out how to cut the interest group cake in their favor. In the end, we vote (or don't vote) for them and put them in office. Once in office, they want to keep that power and act in self-interest to do that.

If they piss off enough of the people, they get voted out and a new group gets voted in. So, their self-interest is to keep enough voters happy to keep them in office.

From the pandemic perspective, I believe both administrations wanted to stay in office and tried to handle the crisis in a way that would keep them their. They both did some good thing and some bad ones. It was really a tight-rope to walk.

I have low trust in politicians individually. I have high trust in the people of this country to have the best interest at heart but with very different ideas of what is best for the country.

Thanks,

Jack

Oh I am well aware. My point is that only people on my end of the spectrum are said to be faulty of it. It's like the default position from you guys. If we point something out, your response 9 out of 10 times is confirmation bias while backing it up with your own, only yours is "fact".

Most of that is in the political argument space with folks spinning everything to their advantage. If you talk to any of the scientists involved, they freely admit human bias and that is why the scientific method employs safeguards to remove that from the data. Like every group, scientists are people and there are good ones, bad ones, and those who have bad intent. There are times when the process fails and bad or bias data gets into the system. Over time, it is discovered and rooted out.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Bill Loser]

You totally miss the point and prove my point all at the same time