Pandemic threat? Anyone else concerned?

Rob2020 said:
This is going to get some attention both positive and negative.

The role of social circle COVID-19 illness and vaccination experiences in COVID-19 vaccination decisions: an online survey of the United States population

  • Published: 24 January 2023


Abstract
Background
Around the world, policymakers have clearly communicated that COVID-19 vaccination programs need to be accepted by a large proportion of the population to allow life return to normal. However, according to the Center for Disease Control, about 31% of the United States population had not completed the primary vaccination series as of November 2022.
Aims
The primary aim of this work is to identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19. In addition, the proportion of fatal events from COVID-19 vaccinations was estimated and compared with the data in the VAERS database.
Methods
An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.
Results
A total of 2840 participants completed the survey between December 18 and 23, 2021. 51% (1383 of 2840) of the participants were female and the mean age was 47 (95% CI 46.36–47.64) years. Those who knew someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 were more likely to be vaccinated (OR: 1.309, 95% CI 1.094–1.566), while those who knew someone who experienced a health problem following vaccination were less likely to be vaccinated (OR: 0.567, 95% CI 0.461–0.698). 34% (959 of 2840) reported that they knew at least one person who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness. Similarly, 22% (612 of 2840) of respondents indicated that they knew at least one person who had experienced a severe health problem following COVID-19 vaccination. With these survey data, the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95% CI 217,330–332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.
Conclusion
Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated. The large difference in the possible number of fatalities due to COVID-19 vaccination that emerges from this survey and the available governmental data should be further investigated.

bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com

RETRACTED ARTICLE: The role of social circle COVID-19 illness and vaccination experiences in COVID-19 vaccination decisions: an online survey of the United States population - BMC Infectious Diseases

Background Around the world, policymakers have clearly communicated that COVID-19 vaccination programs need to be accepted by a large proportion of the population to allow life return to normal. However, according to the Center for Disease Control, about 31% of the United States population had...
bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com
Click to expand...
Let's face it. It's now 2023. Covid, for the most part, was just a farce. We know it. They know it. The main proof was the flu cases magically went away during that period. The vax didn't save anyone or anything, even though they keep saying they saved millions of lives. The covid flu had a 99% chance of survivability to begin with, with or without the vax. So many deaths that were attributed to "covid", were mostly caused by other conditions, it just the fact that hospitals got government money if covid was marked on the death certificate as the leading cause. Who at the hospital is going to do a second autopsy, just to prove that the cause of death wasn't covid, but other causes? Tell me. Who?

The numbers have been so grossly exaggerated, that any government supplied data taken from the past 3 years to create a study isn't worth the ink that was used to print it on paper. Covid is gone. Done with. The people that got the Vax are now dropping like flies, and will continue to do so the next 2 to 3 years. That is a sad fact. The real truth sucks, but it is what it is. I hope the historians are documenting this farce for what it really is and future generations don't bow down to the fear mongering and repeat history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David L, gwminor48, bigredfish and 2 others
  • Like
Reactions: David L, Ssayer, samplenhold and 2 others
Yet another wild conspiracy theory…… turns out true.

A shadowy Army unit secretly spied on British citizens who criticised the Government's Covid lockdown policies, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
www.dailymail.co.uk

Army spied on lockdown critics: Sceptics suspected they being watched

Military operatives in the UK's 'information warfare' brigade were part of a operation that targeted politicians and high-profile journalists who raised doubts about the official pandemic response.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
  • Like
  • Angry
  • Haha
Reactions: David L, garycrist, gwminor48 and 2 others
A few are starting to get it…..

"It's Time For The Scientific Community To Admit We Were Wrong About COVID & It Cost Lives"

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com


Real "mea culpa", ongoing and rapid revision of history, or further narrative management with regard 'amnesty' over what "the others" did to those who thought for themselves over the last few years...



You decide...


In no lesser liberal rag that Newsweek, Kevin Bass (MS MD/PHD Student, Medical School) has penned a quite surprising (and 'brave') op-ed saying that "it's time for the scientific community to admit we were wrong about COVID and it cost lives..."

[ZH: emphasis ours]

As a medical student and researcher, I staunchly supported the efforts of the public health authorities when it came to COVID-19.
I believed that the authorities responded to the largest public health crisis of our lives with compassion, diligence, and scientific expertise. I was with them when they called for lockdowns, vaccines, and boosters.
I was wrong. We in the scientific community were wrong. And it cost lives.

I can see now that the scientific community from the CDC to the WHO to the FDA and their representatives, repeatedly overstated the evidence and misled the public about its own views and policies, including on natural vs. artificial immunity, school closures and disease transmission, aerosol spread, mask mandates, and vaccine effectiveness and safety, especially among the young. All of these were scientific mistakes at the time, not in hindsight. Amazingly, some of these obfuscations continue to the present day.
But perhaps more important than any individual error was how inherently flawed the overall approach of the scientific community was, and continues to be. It was flawed in a way that undermined its efficacy and resulted in thousands if not millions of preventable deaths.

What we did not properly appreciate is that preferences determine how scientific expertise is used, and that our preferences might be—indeed, our preferences were—very different from many of the people that we serve. We created policy based on our preferences, then justified it using data. And then we portrayed those opposing our efforts as misguided, ignorant, selfish, and evil.

We made science a team sport, and in so doing, we made it no longer science. It became us versus them, and "they" responded the only way anyone might expect them to: by resisting.

We excluded important parts of the population from policy development and castigated critics, which meant that we deployed a monolithic response across an exceptionally diverse nation, forged a society more fractured than ever, and exacerbated longstanding heath and economic disparities.

Our emotional response and ingrained partisanship prevented us from seeing the full impact of our actions on the people we are supposed to serve. We systematically minimized the downsides of the interventions we imposed—imposed without the input, consent, and recognition of those forced to live with them. In so doing, we violated the autonomy of those who would be most negatively impacted by our policies: the poor, the working class, small business owners, Blacks and Latinos, and children. These populations were overlooked because they were made invisible to us by their systematic exclusion from the dominant, corporatized media machine that presumed omniscience.

Most of us did not speak up in support of alternative views, and many of us tried to suppress them. When strong scientific voices like world-renowned Stanford professors John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Scott Atlas, or University of California San Francisco professors Vinay Prasad and Monica Gandhi, sounded the alarm on behalf of vulnerable communities, they faced severe censure by relentless mobs of critics and detractors in the scientific community—often not on the basis of fact but solely on the basis of differences in scientific opinion.

When former President Trump pointed out the downsides of intervention, he was dismissed publicly as a buffoon. And when Dr. Antony Fauci opposed Trump and became the hero of the public health community, we gave him our support to do and say what he wanted, even when he was wrong.

Trump was not remotely perfect, nor were the academic critics of consensus policy. But the scorn that we laid on them was a disaster for public trust in the pandemic response. Our approach alienated large segments of the population from what should have been a national, collaborative project.
And we paid the price. The rage of the those marginalized by the expert class exploded onto and dominated social media. Lacking the scientific lexicon to express their disagreement, many dissidents turned to conspiracy theories and a cottage industry of scientific contortionists to make their case against the expert class consensus that dominated the pandemic mainstream. Labeling this speech "misinformation" and blaming it on "scientific illiteracy" and "ignorance," the government conspired with Big Tech to aggressively suppress it, erasing the valid political concerns of the government's opponents.

And this despite the fact that pandemic policy was created by a razor-thin sliver of American society who anointed themselves to preside over the working class—members of academia, government, medicine, journalism, tech, and public health, who are highly educated and privileged. From the comfort of their privilege, this elite prizes paternalism, as opposed to average Americans who laud self-reliance and whose daily lives routinely demand that they reckon with risk. That many of our leaders neglected to consider the lived experience of those across the class divide is unconscionable.

Incomprehensible to us due to this class divide, we severely judged lockdown critics as lazy, backwards, even evil. We dismissed as "grifters" those who represented their interests. We believed "misinformation" energized the ignorant, and we refused to accept that such people simply had a different, valid point of view.

We crafted policy for the people without consulting them. If our public health officials had led with less hubris, the course of the pandemic in the United States might have had a very different outcome, with far fewer lost lives.

Instead, we have witnessed a massive and ongoing loss of life in America due to distrust of vaccines and the healthcare system; a massive concentration in wealth by already wealthy elites; a rise in suicides and gun violence especially among the poor; a near-doubling of the rate of depression and anxiety disorders especially among the young; a catastrophic loss of educational attainment among already disadvantaged children; and among those most vulnerable, a massive loss of trust in healthcare, science, scientific authorities, and political leaders more broadly.

My motivation for writing this is simple:
It's clear to me that for public trust to be restored in science, scientists should publicly discuss what went right and what went wrong during the pandemic, and where we could have done better.

It's OK to be wrong and admit where one was wrong and what one learned. That's a central part of the way science works. Yet I fear that many are too entrenched in groupthink—and too afraid to publicly take responsibility—to do this.

Solving these problems in the long term requires a greater commitment to pluralism and tolerance in our institutions, including the inclusion of critical if unpopular voices.
Intellectual elitism, credentialism, and classism must end. Restoring trust in public health—and our democracy—depends on it.

The problem was not people's ignorance of the facts, it was the organized antagonism and censorship against anyone presenting data that was contradictory to the mandate agenda. This is setting aside proclamations like those from the LA Times, which argued that mocking the deaths of "anti-vaxxers" might be necessary and justified. After two years of this type of arrogant nonsense it's hard to imagine people will be willing to pretend as if all is well.

The active effort to shut down any opposing data is the root crime, though, and no, it can never be forgotten or forgiven.

People are still livid...

One cannot help but notice that the timing of the Atlantic's appeal for passive forgetfulness and now this op-ed mea culpa coincides with the swiftly approaching end of the COVID emergency declarations, amid a growing political backlash to the last two years of meaningless lockdowns and mandates, and Democrats were instrumental in the implementation of both. A large swath of the population sees one party as the cause of much of their covid era strife.


Perhaps the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that they may have to face some payback for their covid zealotry? “We didn't know! We were just following orders!” It all sounds rather familiar.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: David L, gwminor48, mat200 and 3 others
Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide
www.globalresearch.ca

Pfizer's "Secret" Report on the Covid "Vaccine". Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide - Global Research

Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing Worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.
www.globalresearch.ca www.globalresearch.ca
 
  • Like
Reactions: David L, gwminor48, Parley and 1 other person
Parley said:
Like I said before, I am more scared of the government and the so called "cure" than I am of covid.
Click to expand...

Yes .. iirc the Founding Fathers of the United States were also more scared of the Government .. smart group of people who put it together .. and this was in a time when diseases could kill 30-90% of the population .. ( native american's in some cases hit 90% when exposed to small pox and the like .. )
 
  • Like
Reactions: David L, JNDATHP, rolibr24 and 3 others
  • Sad
Reactions: mat200, gwminor48, bigredfish and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom